Should Companies Have to Rat Out Potential Employees Who Fail a Drug Test?

The state of Georgia is reportedly requiring companies to let them know when a potential employee fails to qualify for the job because of a failed drug test. This effectively disqualifies the candidate from collecting unemployment benefits.

According to a story on Pal-Item.com, the Georgia Department of Labor has found a unique way to avoid paying unemployment benefits to people who take drugs. Instead of requiring that they take a drug test in order to qualify, officials are asking businesses and the public to let them know when a potential employee fails a test.

Many employers require prospective employees to take a drug test. If they fail, rendering themselves unavailable for work, the state can then effectively stop paying them unemployment benefits. In order to qualify for unemployment benefits, recipients must be actively seeking work and make themselves available for any job. Failing a drug test, or refusing to take one, could be seen as a violation of the terms.

A study by the Society for Human Resource Management reportedly showed last year that about 57 percent of U.S. employees drug test prospective  candidates. This new procedure by the labor department saves the cash strapped state the expense of paying for drug tests and, at the same time, saves having to pay out unemployment benefits to people who abuse drugs.

So what do you think? Should these companies be required to rat out people who fail a test when applying for a job? And what do you think of the state's plan? Is it ingenious or a backdoor way to avoid having to go to the legislature to implement drug testing?

Alex June 04, 2012 at 02:30 PM
Oh, Karsten, YOU ARE PRECIOUS! First, it's "grammar." Second, your first paragraph is actually comprised of one run-on sentence replete with comma splices and another sentence that lacks a subject. Your second paragraph is riddled with misused punctuation. Your third paragraph is no less disastrous; for example, "And not necessary" is not a complete sentence. Your post is such a cacophony of horrid grammar, punctuation misuse, and bad organization that I would recommend that you keep your grammatical thoughts to yourself. Actually educated people will have a difficult time sorting out what you are trying to say.
Alex June 04, 2012 at 02:33 PM
Nice job, John. Journalistic weasel words are the death of actual news.
Robert Bliss June 04, 2012 at 04:08 PM
Getting back to the question at hand, "Should Companies Have to Rat Out Potential Employees Who Fail a Drug Test?", why should a prospective employer be responsible for the extra government paperwork and regulations of notifying the Department of Labor of their pre-employment drug screening results. Too much government! If the Department of Labor is going to eliminate unemployment payments to those recipients that using illegal drugs, they need to conduct their own drug test. After all, it should be their, (DOL), regulation to enforce! Furthermore, if the DOL screening results are made available to potential employers, it will speed up the employment process and reduce the expense businesses and/or applicants have to make. After all, businesses are paying for unemployment benefits already and should benefit from a single and thorough drug screening that DOL conducts and provides as a service to those that support and serve tax paying employers.
Karsten Torch June 05, 2012 at 02:34 PM
Wow. Tool. Sorry, had to be said. At least I wasn't condescending (and if I mis-spelled that one, tough....).
Alex June 05, 2012 at 08:29 PM
You weren't? I think you had everyone fooled. By the way, that was not properly four different sentences. I'll leave it to you to figure out, you miscreant.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »