They are also violating the current stay at home order as they are not essential. With no social distancing available to client. Again all about the money ands not the he as lth ands well being of clients who should not even be there as PTD offenders to begin with. Money before virus safety. Sad and disgusting.
J
Jay voorhies
9 years ago
I need to see long-term studies on how random testing influences alcohol/drug consumption post-probation because I doubt the data supports this system currently in place, at least not to a significant degree. Sounds like a profit-driven revenue scheme affecting a disproportionate amount of poor and minority peoples...
M
Michael weddington
10 years ago
This form of observed testing is invasive and inappropriate
V
Victor Daniel Rego
10 years ago
I will not be intimidated to participate in this program, and neither should anyone else.
A
Anonymous
10 years ago
this is just so wrong.
E
Eliseo Peña
10 years ago
This program is a rip-off. They should help people to turn their around their lives instead of making it harder.
A
Anthony Salinas
10 years ago
Featured
I live in Edinburg. It's very hard to randomly go to cameron county for a drug test especially when they are back to back I have to dish out 35 dollars. It will be very hard . I don't have a driver's license so I always have to find somebody to take me.
M
Maranda
10 years ago
I'm so poor as it is and the state wants my money I don't even have. I would be happy to go urine test everyday for free and take a breathalyzer in front of my p.o. I have no problem. Just every day and I've been "randomly selected" 3 days in a row. Not fair. I'm not on a ptd for dui or anything related.
T
Tad Hasse
10 years ago
I find this to be beyond silly and into the realm of police state in the hands of private contractors.
M
Maria Linda Gonzalez
10 years ago
I have already complained about my client having 3 tests in one week. The reason was that supposedly she did not call on a certain day. However, I did show proof that she did call in on that specific day.
S
Simran Singh
10 years ago
Featured
I understand that there is some burden placed onto PTD clients, however this issue about calling in everyday is nothing more than Avertest being lazy in attempting to correct their software issues and moving the burden to its client. Such a horrible company in my opinion. How hard is it to get a list of all the PTD clients and then having a piece of software select a person on any given day and automating a call/text/email to PTD client to come in for such test? As a software developer/coder myself, this is nothing more than the IT team on Avertest's end being lazy and simply telling their director "The fix is for clients to call in everyday." Nonsense!
E
Esteban Gonzales
10 years ago
Featured
I understand PTD clients are being given a tremendous opportunity to correct a wrong, but this passed/proposed policy if followed, might end up costing some of our clients their jobs!
A
Abigail Molina
10 years ago
This new condition (particularly when imposed after the signing of the PTD contract) is fundamentally unfair.
A
Anonymous
10 years ago
It is expensive and too time consuming. How about if the person on the ptd has no travel restrictions?
A
Abner Burnett
10 years ago
Bad idea.
R
Robert H. Mendoza
10 years ago
Support Fairness and Justice. Don't implement this proposed policy.
C
Christopher Phillippe
10 years ago
This new requirement is essentially an ex pro facto action in violation of the contract signed by participant and patently unconstitutional.
They are also violating the current stay at home order as they are not essential. With no social distancing available to client. Again all about the money ands not the he as lth ands well being of clients who should not even be there as PTD offenders to begin with. Money before virus safety. Sad and disgusting.
I need to see long-term studies on how random testing influences alcohol/drug consumption post-probation because I doubt the data supports this system currently in place, at least not to a significant degree. Sounds like a profit-driven revenue scheme affecting a disproportionate amount of poor and minority peoples...
This form of observed testing is invasive and inappropriate
I will not be intimidated to participate in this program, and neither should anyone else.
this is just so wrong.
This program is a rip-off. They should help people to turn their around their lives instead of making it harder.
I live in Edinburg. It's very hard to randomly go to cameron county for a drug test especially when they are back to back I have to dish out 35 dollars. It will be very hard . I don't have a driver's license so I always have to find somebody to take me.
I'm so poor as it is and the state wants my money I don't even have. I would be happy to go urine test everyday for free and take a breathalyzer in front of my p.o. I have no problem. Just every day and I've been "randomly selected" 3 days in a row. Not fair. I'm not on a ptd for dui or anything related.
I find this to be beyond silly and into the realm of police state in the hands of private contractors.
I have already complained about my client having 3 tests in one week. The reason was that supposedly she did not call on a certain day. However, I did show proof that she did call in on that specific day.
I understand that there is some burden placed onto PTD clients, however this issue about calling in everyday is nothing more than Avertest being lazy in attempting to correct their software issues and moving the burden to its client. Such a horrible company in my opinion. How hard is it to get a list of all the PTD clients and then having a piece of software select a person on any given day and automating a call/text/email to PTD client to come in for such test? As a software developer/coder myself, this is nothing more than the IT team on Avertest's end being lazy and simply telling their director "The fix is for clients to call in everyday." Nonsense!
I understand PTD clients are being given a tremendous opportunity to correct a wrong, but this passed/proposed policy if followed, might end up costing some of our clients their jobs!
This new condition (particularly when imposed after the signing of the PTD contract) is fundamentally unfair.
It is expensive and too time consuming. How about if the person on the ptd has no travel restrictions?
Bad idea.
Support Fairness and Justice. Don't implement this proposed policy.
This new requirement is essentially an ex pro facto action in violation of the contract signed by participant and patently unconstitutional.