|
1st July 2012, 21:44 | #1 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
English confirms drug tests for job seekers
Quote:
|
|
1st July 2012, 21:57 | #2 |
|
I'm for it.
__________________
ɹǝʌo sᴉ ǝɯɐƃ ʎɥʇ |
1st July 2012, 22:08 | #3 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Why do you hate black people, Cyberbob?
|
1st July 2012, 22:08 | #4 |
|
questions
What happens if they fail a drug test? Will they be put into rehab programs? Will they be kicked off the benefit?
How does a drug test work with pot ie can it tell how long ago the drug was taken? Like drinking; I don't have a problem with people using it in their own time, as long as they're not under the influence at work.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. Last edited by fixed_truth : 1st July 2012 at 22:09. |
1st July 2012, 22:28 | #5 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
1st July 2012, 22:38 | #6 | |
|
Quote:
Pixie
__________________
Civilised is as civilised does and civilised people walk among us. Last edited by [Malks] Pixie : 1st July 2012 at 22:40. |
|
1st July 2012, 23:33 | #7 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
1st July 2012, 23:35 | #8 |
|
If they introduce alcohol/drug testing for parliamentarians while the house is sitting then I'm for it.
|
1st July 2012, 23:46 | #9 | |
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
|
2nd July 2012, 00:21 | #10 |
|
I think there's two issues here. Firstly because of the illegal status of weed there's no consideration whether the degree of drug use even effects the employee at work.
And secondly whether or not people are going to go cold-turkey because they know that they will be tested and will lose their benefit if they fail. Not to mention what it is going to achieve by removing the income of those with a drug addition and so can't just cut it out.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
2nd July 2012, 08:14 | #11 |
Love, Actuary
|
The positive here is that tax revenue can be directed towards more worthwhile activities i.e. not paying an unemployment type of benefit to a person who is not seeking employment in a meaningful way is a good thing.
The negative here is that some hobby group (invariably run by a religious organisation) will take such people and feed and house them when the alternative of leaving them cold, hungry and wet would be a much better idea in terms of helping most of them understand the consequences of their anti-social behavior. |
2nd July 2012, 10:15 | #12 | |
|
Quote:
There are obvious issues with drug impairment in certain industries - but note that this is not looking at impairment, this is looking at if someone uses a substance (which is illegal) outside of a workplace (with the assumption that someone who uses "drugs" outside the workplace will also come to work impaired). I've known my fair share of pot smokers and none of them would even consider coming to work stoned. Pixie
__________________
Civilised is as civilised does and civilised people walk among us. |
|
2nd July 2012, 12:23 | #13 |
|
If you've got enough spare cash to spend it on recreational drugs, then you obviously don't need financial assistance.
I'd love some recreational drugs, but you know, bills and rent, etc. If you're happy to spend your spare time getting high, rather than looking for work, then again, you obviously don't need financial assistance. Sidenote: I know far too many people that go to Big Day Out etc, and are on the dole. I'd love to go, but you know, day job, etc.
__________________
ɹǝʌo sᴉ ǝɯɐƃ ʎɥʇ Last edited by Cyberbob : 2nd July 2012 at 12:26. |
2nd July 2012, 12:39 | #14 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
2nd July 2012, 12:48 | #15 |
|
What's the false positive rate on these tests, are they completely infallible?
I don't really want to be a part of it if it meant some bureaucrat will end up removing a persons means of living by accident. The cost / benefit sounds pretty hand wavy to me too, I'd wonder if Bill has any commercial conflicts of interest that he should be declaring. Last edited by GM : 2nd July 2012 at 12:50. |
2nd July 2012, 12:49 | #16 |
|
Yeah look I'm not actually against the idea of keeping younger kids (under 25) who are unemployed off drugs (including alcohol) - which really seems to be the goal of this. It's dressing it up as an "employment" issue which annoys me - as I said employers have their own rules surrounding applicants (which they make clear to the applicants) which can often include drug tests and thus this just seems to be an appeasement of the masses type policy to me.
I can see both sides of the argument - it's just the rhetoric surrounding it which annoys me. Note: Most of my thoughts about this surround weed - I'm particularly anti-P and have no (or very little) sympathy for users of that particular substance. Pixie
__________________
Civilised is as civilised does and civilised people walk among us. |
2nd July 2012, 12:53 | #17 | |
|
It's pretty fail safe, the single test screens for most drugs (some, like lsd are only in your system for sfa (pretty much duration)). The longest lasting (in terms of withholding period) is MJ, which can be many months for ahhh.... connoisseurs
Quote:
|
|
2nd July 2012, 12:53 | #18 | ||
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
||
2nd July 2012, 13:00 | #19 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
2nd July 2012, 14:32 | #20 |
HENCE WHY FOREVER ALONE
|
This compulsory drug testing should also apply to people who receive the DPB, Working for Families credits, and public servants. They are all getting taxpayer money, so let's be consistent.
If you can afford to put 5 dollas on that weed, you don't need financial assistance!
__________________
Finger rolling rhythm, ride the horse one hand... |
2nd July 2012, 14:39 | #21 |
|
Why is it that everyone is assuming those who smoke pot are paying for it with tax payer dollars?
I was under the impression that it's pretty fucking easy to grow with free shit like sunlight, dirt and water. Using the argument "If you can afford to put 5 dollas on that weed, you don't need financial assistance!" is a bullshit one imo. |
2nd July 2012, 14:42 | #22 | |
talkative lurker
|
Quote:
__________________
Broke my addiction! Bye bye Eve, hello Minecraft. Wait... >_< |
|
2nd July 2012, 14:51 | #23 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
2nd July 2012, 15:10 | #24 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Pixie
__________________
Civilised is as civilised does and civilised people walk among us. |
||
2nd July 2012, 15:41 | #25 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
|
|
2nd July 2012, 16:01 | #26 | |
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
|
2nd July 2012, 16:18 | #27 |
|
This will now provide an incentive for people on the unemployment benefit to have children.
|
2nd July 2012, 16:26 | #28 |
Stunt Pants
|
Kill their babies. Seriously.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
2nd July 2012, 16:29 | #29 |
|
Should be a blanket rule to anyone receiving any type of benefit imo.
|
2nd July 2012, 16:30 | #30 | |
|
Quote:
Pixie
__________________
Civilised is as civilised does and civilised people walk among us. |
|
2nd July 2012, 16:47 | #31 | |
Stunt Pants
|
This post?
Quote:
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
|
2nd July 2012, 16:49 | #32 | |
|
Quote:
$10.2 BILLION dollars a year go to paying $300-$400 a week to everyone over 65 - poor or rich; tenant in a one-bedroom flat or owner of a dozen rental properties. That's almost 50% of MSD's total budget - it dwarfs the DBP (just under $2 billion), the unemployment benefit at ~$900 million and the sickness benefit at $800 million. Now, there will be plenty of elderly people depending on the state superannuation to get by, and it's great that it's there for them. But at the same time there are plenty of people over 65 either still earning a full-time income or sitting on significant assets -- is giving them a weekly handout really a sensible use of money? |
|
2nd July 2012, 16:57 | #33 | |
|
Quote:
You are correct - I failed at rule #1 ...though [and I get the sneaking feeling that I may just be digging myself a deeper hole here]... [backs away from the yawning abyss]. [edit] Plaz - I was being about serious as DrT (and I'm assuming he was being farcical) [/edit] Pixie
__________________
Civilised is as civilised does and civilised people walk among us. Last edited by [Malks] Pixie : 2nd July 2012 at 16:58. |
|
2nd July 2012, 17:10 | #34 |
Pornstar
|
i think its a waste of $$$
__________________
Its Business time |
2nd July 2012, 17:15 | #35 | |
|
Quote:
Last edited by GM : 2nd July 2012 at 17:16. |
|
2nd July 2012, 17:17 | #36 |
Stunt Pants
|
Yeah, in all likelihood though, they aren't.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
2nd July 2012, 17:25 | #37 | |
I have detailed files
|
Quote:
We are looking to introduce one, and a glaring issue I can see is that they are looking for a zero tolerance on alcohol (Well, they are looking to do random wee testing and use an electronic breathaliser to check for the youth level). The proposed policy includes such gems as "Cell phone based email systems should not be accessed if you have had a drink" which in some ways is a good habit to get into, but the extension is that any advice given under the influence is tainted - and potentially subject to disciplinary action. This will put paid to my habit of scrolling through email to clean out the chaff while having an ale of an early evening. Next logical step is that if you are contacted by the on-call person as the system expert, you can't solict a solution if you have been drinking. No matter how helpful you want to be. Pressure to provide good customer service conflicts with the policy to keep everyone safe. The tricky bit is if you have been drinking with the backup system expert... Advising all my staff to crack into a tinnie as soon as they get home may not go down well! So - what constraints do you chaps have - if any? |
|
2nd July 2012, 18:09 | #38 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
||
2nd July 2012, 18:26 | #39 | ||
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
||
2nd July 2012, 18:44 | #40 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
||