Letter to the Editor
Too much entitlement
Published Thursday, May 22, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!May 17, 2008
To the editor:
A woman in the commentary here recently complained that she wasn’t getting unemployment insurance because the reason she quit her job was not considered sufficient.
Let me just say that if we can complain about not getting money for doing nothing, we must have it pretty well off to begin with. God Bless America.
Ed Paxson
Fairbanks
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Let's consider the folks who champion the unemployed......by bringing more on board they tend to insure their own jobs! Before you get an unemployment check, pass a drug test. Just like I do before I can get a job to support those who take from the system.
Hey McGrumpy,
what a great idea.
If you are on dope, then why should I pay for you to sit on the sofa?
Get off the weed! I did and I feel much better.
I have never collected unemployment, but I have washed dishes, changed flat tires, moved furniture, fix dumpsters......... the list goes on.......
I agree, what a great idea! Lets spend $125 on a pee pee test and see if it doesnt save the tax payers a ton of dough!
Personally, not against what any person does in the privacy of their own home but to ask for assistance so that you can pay for your dope habit well.... NO!
I agree McGrumpy! But don't stop there include welfare,ssi, and anything paid for by the working tax payers
Instead of taxing working people to pay for unemployment, why not tax dope instead? Seems that some good should come from the stuff.
The drug test is not a bad idea but I would rather see it applied to social security than unemployment. Baby Boomers continue to do more drugs than current college students.
I'm the woman in the commentary. I quit my job because the nonprofit was breaking the law by using grant money illegally. I reported it to the state and they are investigating thank you. I told the state that I did not want to be associated with anyone that was crooked.
I am not a drug addict even though I do take medications to keep myself alive since I am a diabetic.
Since I wrote the letter I have found employment and called the state to stop the proceedings. Since I have paid into the unemployment for over 30 years and never collected I don't see where I was wrong in asking for it when my family needed it. I was also actively looking for work and never asked for money that I wasn't entitled to.
My husband receives disability from VA, not because he hadn't done anything but because while active he was exposed to radiation while guarding a nuclear test facility.
So next time you judge someone maybe you will think. And like I was saying in my former letter we should have the option of having to pay unemployment and social security or taking the money ourself and putting it into a savings. So my husband and I don't take from the system as you say McGrumpy and I'm offended by the implication.
alaskastoryteller, i too am involved in similar situation (although not employed by them) with a nonprofit here in town and would love to see what leads you can provide to me so that I can enlighten the proper officals to the misdeeds that are ongoing. This one is going to make Mr Hayes look like choir boy. Do you have an e-mail I can contact you with?
MEL1776
One of the qualifiying disabilities for social security is drug addiction. Wouldnt be much help there when it is an approved reason
I can be contacted at alaskastoryteller@yahoo.com
I believe when people give to a nonprofit those funds or grants are given the funds should and suppose to be used as intended.
Do you think the individual didn't pay into the unemployment insurance? That's why it's there, for people who have previously paid into the system can withdrawl from it while searching for a job.......am I wrong?
I know social security is that way what we pay in now is for others down the line, but I always assumed (I know Assume can be a bad word) that unemployment was to be used by the individual who contributed and it was to be used while looking for a job. The only reason I asked for it was so that I had enough to eat and pay for my gas while looking.
Skagdog is right. UI is insurance. Are the above commentators saying if they pay for fire insurance they dont have the right to be reimbursed for a fire except maybe if they pass a drug test. Some people never got over the concept that the New Deal was needed and a good idea. Yet I know some of those same people feel the government should do something to preserve the value of the home that was purchased at the height of a housing boom. And of course, lower their interest rates.
I agree. It's there for people who once held a job in the first place and need some sort of financial support while transitioning to a new one. Implying that everyone who dips into it is just a bum is over the top. You'd be putting people who abuse welfare in the same boat as people who work for a living. And welfare and unemployment are two different things right?
I would be a full supporter of a drug test for any benefit from the state or federal govt.
I do feel that if we get back only what we pay for UI then it's ours to use how we wish, but if any state or fed money is used to supplement, then prove your worthy by taking the test.
If anyone is concerned on funding, figure out what one person on welfare, UI, etc., recieves every year. If one person fails the test, the amount what they would have recieved would fund many other tests. I feel the amount of people that would fail could fund the testing program forever, and help supplement the aid legitimate clients would get.
Would you believe that the government lists drug and alcohol abuse as a disability therefore they are allowed the assistance.
I actually wish we could go back to the bartering system but they won't let us. Was Al Capone wrong?
akstoryteller- sorry folks misunderstood your issue. UE is for us who pay into it and then need it...and alcohol & drug addiction can make you eligible for voc rehab, ssi, etc. - however you need to maintain sobriety while getting the services during and after. as soon as the addiction is no longer an impediment to employment and the person finds and keeps a job the "benefits" should then end. and non-profits are supposed to help people not launder the money and pay ED's & do nothing Director's absurd amounts of money...hope those at fault get what they deserve...In a perfect world...
January 2, 2008
All In A Day's Work: No Comp For Crack Dealer
Continually selling crack cocaine amounts to employment and thus is sufficient cause to terminate permanent total disability compensation, Ohio’s Supreme Court has ruled.
The high court’s decision December 21 in State ex rel. Lynch vs. Industrial Commission of Ohio upheld a March 1998 finding by Ohio’s Industrial Commission that Henry Lynch’s ongoing crack-cocaine enterprise constituted “sustained remunerative employment.”
The Industrial Commission terminated Lynch’s benefits, and an appeals court earlier this year upheld the termination of benefits.
Court records show that Lynch suffered an industrial accident injury in 1967. In 1997 he was indicted for possession, sale and distribution of crack that was earning him $300 to $500 per week, the court records state.
After pleading guilty, Lynch was incarcerated and Ohio’s Bureau of Workers’ Compensation moved to terminate his permanent total disability compensation. The case eventually reached the state Supreme Court, where Lynch argued, among other points, that his activities cannot be considered sustained employment because they are illegal.
The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed and found that Lynch “cannot use the illegality of his pursuits as a shield,” and he “exchanged labor for pay on a sustained basis.”
The ruling upheld an appeals court decision on the matter.
Filed by Roberto Ceniceros of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.
"One of the qualifiying disabilities for social security is drug addiction. Wouldnt be much help there when it is an approved reason"
I was told by a State DHSS worker who deals with disability claims that ANY disability, no matter how serious, can be disallowed by Social Security if it is determined that alcohol or drug addiction was a cause of the disability. How, then, could the addition itself be considered a disability? I suspect the above statement is incorrect.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.