English confirms drug tests for job seekers

[fixed_truth]

Will be interesting to see what the actual policy will entail.

National's pre-election policy document said beneficiaries who did not apply for a job because a prospective employer asked them to take a drug test would have their benefit cancelled.

If they took the drug test and failed it, they would also be sanctioned.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10816778

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Employers that have this prerogative already do screen and regularly test their employees. Where talking about drug testing unemployed people to be able to receive the unemployment benefit. How is this addressing 'an undue safety liability' not previously being addressed?

Are you serious? That's what everyone has been talking about. Do you understand why the government is doing this? I'll give you a clue: it's not to be big meanies.

Only if you're not concerned about the future of unemployed losers and not concerned what they'll get up to as a result of not having a means to live.

My preference is that they starve.

[TnT]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Employers that have this prerogative already do screen and regularly test their employees. Where talking about drug testing unemployed people to be able to receive the unemployment benefit. How is this addressing 'an undue safety liability' not previously being addressed?

From the link you've posted, that's not actually the case, they appear to be saying 'we're going to cut off your benefit if you apply for a job, an that job either gives you a drug test and you fail, or you refuse to take said drug test' which means as a beneficiary you are not doing everything you possibly can to obtain gainful employment.

Isn't one of the criteria of being on the unemployment benefit that you are obligated to seek a job, and not turn down work? By failing or refusing a drug test, are you not actually in breach of that obligation?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by CCS

Are you serious? That's what everyone has been talking about. Do you understand why the government is doing this? I'll give you a clue: it's not to be big meanies.

I was responding to your claim that: All they care about is satisfying themselves that their staff aren't an undue safety liability.

My point is that current company drug screening already ensues that they don't have staff that are an undue safety liability. The problem (which the Govt. is trying to address) is a worker supply one.

Originally Posted by TNT

Isn't one of the criteria of being on the unemployment benefit that you are obligated to seek a job, and not turn down work? By failing or refusing a drug test, are you not actually in breach of that obligation?

You'd have to ask cyc to what extent beneficiaries are obligated to accept private companies requests. But for arguments sake we'll say they are obligated. So if someone is unable to not use weed (or P, heroine etc) while they're looking for work then what is removing their means to live going to achieve in terms of making them more employable? Or their crime activity? etc etc. New Zealand has the highest percentage of cannabis use in the world and I'm not convinced that a zero-tolerance 'cut you off' approach here is going to achieve much.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I was responding to your claim that: All they care about is satisfying themselves that their staff aren't an undue safety liability.

My point is that current company drug screening already ensues that they don't have staff that are an undue safety liability. The problem (which the Govt. is trying to address) is a worker supply one.

THAT IS WHAT EVERYONE HERE HAS BEEN SAYING, YOU DUMB CUNT!

[GiBs]

I'm inclined to agree with CCS in this argument.

It needs to be harder to just get given money. I work for mine and so does the majority of people on here I'd imagine. And people take advantage of our tax payment. I can't work wasted/drunk/P'd up etc why should they get given money to do be able to do this.

If you're worried about what happens to these people when they get cut off perhaps the 'unemployable' could get made to work doing mundane tasks like weeding the side of the roads, gardens, help with building things, pick up glass at the beaches etc. Stuff thick people can do... so at least they earn the money in some way. Perhaps get given a card (like Winz use) that can only be spent on milk/bread/food etc.

Working in retail I also see what WINZ gives people. Said bum comes in with quote for a phone, they want a cellphone with camera, touchscreen etc worth say $200 when the cheapest cellphone is $30. They come back with money on a card now (so they cant presumably spend it on smokes/alcohol etc) and get the phone. How does this work? Same people get given money for clothes, shoes, decent appliances - not the cheapest ones available.. fucken rediculous.

[adonis]

The NZ drug foundation released a policy briefing back when the WWG put forward the idea of compulsory drug testing.

http://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/pol...-substance-use

It's quite long worth reading if you would like a more informed opinion on the subject.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by CCS

THAT IS WHAT EVERYONE HERE HAS BEEN SAYING, YOU DUMB CUNT!

What makes you think that a punitive approach will create a supply of reliable workers that won't relapse?

[fixed_truth]

lol @dim-post

I’m pretty sure National’s policy development process now consists of flashing ideas like this on a projector in front of a focus group of talk-back radio fans, and measuring how much drool and semen collects in a trough running beneath the chairs.

A few people there are stating that refusing to take any paying job without a legitimate reason is already grounds for sanctions. Would be interesting to know if this bill will add anything significant to caseworkers powers.

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/man...enefit-146.htm

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/man...enefit-151.htm

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

What makes you think that a punitive approach will create a supply of reliable workers that won't relapse?

Lol, you're whooshing? Wtf? You're the one who said "there's no consideration whether the degree of drug use even effects the employee at work". I've tried to explain why this does not even matter and you still don't get it. I'm not sure if you understand why the govt is looking to implement this policy. Do you think they want to drug test beneficiaries because drugs are bad?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by CCS

Lol, you're whooshing? Wtf? You're the one who said "there's no consideration whether the degree of drug use even effects the employee at work". I've tried to explain why this does not even matter and you still don't get it.

I agreed that the illegal status of weed makes the consideration of the type use inapplicable. I'm saying that it should be relevant; and hopefully this kind of public dialogue raises issues around decriminalisation.

Originally Posted by CCS

I'm not sure if you understand why the govt is looking to implement this policy. Do you think they want to drug test beneficiaries because drugs are bad?

Well they're claiming it's a way to get more workers into jobs that require drug testing as a prerequisite. I'm yet to see the argument/evidence on how this is going to work, or even if this legislation changes the current system around failed tests etc. Whats-more, the link adonis posted suggests that it won't work. Not that this settles the issue.

[verve_rat]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us...rug-tests.html

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.

And the testing did not have the effect some predicted. An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases.

If you want to make a moral claim about taxpayer money and drugs that's fine. But just be aware that this could cost more taxpayer money, just like the payment card thing for 16-17 year olds.

Seems odd that the Government would want to spend more money on making the welfare system more complex. One of the arguments I've heard against means testing super is that it would cost more to administer such a scheme than it would save.

If this was teamed up with referral into the health system I could see the point, treating drugs as a health problem rather than a criminal one seems to be the best way to deal with drug users. But as it stands, drug testing the unemployed (over and above the existing work seeker obligations) is a net loss.

I guess it boils down to the old pragmatic approach vs. mouth frothing moral panic problem.

[xor]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10817004

wat

[[WanG] Wandarah]

I tend to go with the Dimpost view on this one. Mostly though because it's funny.

[Spoon1]

I think it will be a waste of money and have a neglible impact on the youth unemployment rate.

[Cyberbob]

The thing I have my doubts about, is whether or not typical daily druggies will see this as a "clean up and go get a job" wakeup call, or a "shrug, guess i'll live at my mums and sell pot" call.