English confirms drug tests for job seekers

[Ab]

Finance Minister Bill English has confirmed the unemployed will face drug tests to get the benefit.

English has told TVNZ's Q + A programme that National made a commitment to the policy during last year's election campaign.

"We made a commitment to having a policy where people who are meant to be available for work should be in the position where they can pass a drug test, for instance, so they can get a job in the forestry industry."

English said in his Clutha-Southland electorate young people cannot be employed because they can't pass a drug test.

"In my electorate, a lot of the jobs available to younger people are in forestry and in the meat-processing industry. And I'm told by those employers they often can't employ our own locally unemployed young people because they can't pass a drug test."

He said the drug tests would apply only to beneficiaries who receive the new Jobseeker benefit.

http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/engl...eekers-4952164

[Cyberbob]

I'm for it.

[Ab]

Why do you hate black people, Cyberbob?

[fixed_truth]

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.

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

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.

Under my understanding pot stays in the fatty tissue for up to a month after taking it. Does that mean you're under the influence for a month?

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Jodi

Under my understanding pot stays in the fatty tissue for up to a month after taking it. Does that mean you're under the influence for a month?

No - but the "issue" isn't if you're "under the influence" but if you imbibe (untaxed) illegal drugs.

Pixie

[BadNova]

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

No - but the "issue" isn't if you're "under the influence" but if you imbibe (untaxed) illegal drugs.

Pixie

You're implying it's solely about the tax. I think it might also be at least a little about having some stoned teenagers swinging chainsaws about in the forest too? Nah, employers are probably just worried about all them tax-free drugs for the govt's sake.

[Bent]

If they introduce alcohol/drug testing for parliamentarians while the house is sitting then I'm for it.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

What happens if they fail a drug test? Will they be put into rehab programs? Will they be kicked off the benefit?

I don't think they'll be put into rehab programs. If it's just weed they're testing for (and I think mostly it is) I think they'd say it's up to the user to cut it out. And yeah, they'll probably be kicked off the benefit. One of the rules when you sign up for the unemployment benefit is that you have to be available to work. If a forestry or freezing works drug test would detect drugs in your system, they don't want you working for them. So it follows that if you smoke weed then you're making yourself unavailable for work and therefore you're in breach of your 'jobseeker's agreement'.

[fixed_truth]

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.

[Golden Teapot]

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.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by BadNova

You're implying it's solely about the tax. I think it might also be at least a little about having some stoned teenagers swinging chainsaws about in the forest too? Nah, employers are probably just worried about all them tax-free drugs for the govt's sake.

Nah I'm implying that it's ones of the many reasons - not the sole reason. Many employers in the forestry sector (to pick on your and Bills example) already have mandatory drug testing for all employee's (not just those coming off a benefit) so your point is kind of irrelevant. Many other sectors aslo have drug testing in place which would be applied to applicants (and employee's) - this is specifically targetted at those on a benefit. The implication from what I've read is that drug tests would take place prior to any job interview - if they failed it at Work and Income they simply would not be put forward for a job via Work and Income (and theres no mention of if it would disqualify those on a benefit from being put forward for jobs which don't require drug testing such as office based roles at say, a local retail store).

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

[Cyberbob]

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.

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

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.

Pretty much this.

[GM]

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.

[[Malks] Pixie]

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

[aR Que]

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

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

but you know, day job.

And you wonder why people don't want them

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

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.

I don't see why that's an issue. If an employer doesn't want an employee using dangerous machinery while they have thc in their system, surely it's their prerogative?

And secondly whether or not people are going to go cold-turkey

Not sure why that's an issue.

[GM]

Originally Posted by aR Que

It's pretty fail safe

'Close enough eh boys' and other words we love to hear engineers say.

[DrTiTus]

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!

[GM]

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.

[A Corpse]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

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!

Extend that to people who use public medical care, send their kids to public schools, drive on public roads, watch free-to-air TV and now we're getting somewhere.

[aR Que]

Originally Posted by GM

I was under the impression that it's pretty fucking easy to grow with free shit like sunlight, dirt and water.

Technically yes, but only once a year.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

This compulsory drug testing should also apply to people who receive the DPB, Working for Families credits, and public servants.

NZ Super recipients - the largest group of of society drawing a benefit if I'm not (and I may be) mistaken.

Originally Posted by GM

Why is it that everyone is assuming those who smoke pot are paying for it with tax payer dollars?

This. Pot smokers tend to be a sharing bunch :-P

Pixie

[Ab]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

This compulsory drug testing should also apply to people who receive the DPB, Working for Families credits, and public servants.

That would be worth doing just to watch the unions go mental.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by GM

Why is it that everyone is assuming those who smoke pot are paying for it with tax payer dollars?

No one is assuming that. I don't know where you get that idea. We're talking about people on the benefit here.

[xor]

This will now provide an incentive for people on the unemployment benefit to have children.

[CCS]

Kill their babies. Seriously.

[xor]

Should be a blanket rule to anyone receiving any type of benefit imo.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by CCS

No one is assuming that. I don't know where you get that idea. We're talking about people on the benefit here.

I'm pretty sure thats exactly what Cyberbob was raising earlier on in the thread - it is off the point but I'm pretty certain that was what he was implying.

Pixie

[CCS]

This post?

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

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.

Sounds to me that he is talking about people on the benefit spending government money on drugs. Not people gainfully employed using their disposable income to buy drugs.

[plaz0r]

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

NZ Super recipients - the largest group of of society drawing a benefit if I'm not (and I may be) mistaken.

This. And no party is going to tackle it because it'd be political suicide.

$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?

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by CCS

Sounds to me that he is talking about people on the benefit spending government money on drugs. Not people gainfully employed using their disposable income to buy drugs.

Rule #1 on NZG - Always carefully follow the context of CCS's post (or posts which CCS's is referencing) or you will regret it for an indeterminent amount of time.

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

[Waldo]

i think its a waste of $$$

[GM]

Originally Posted by CCS

No one is assuming that. I don't know where you get that idea. We're talking about people on the benefit here.

If you're on the benefit you can still grow marijuana - for free, ie. at no cost to the tax payer. I was pointing out the spurious assumption that people are paying for the grass they smoke with the financial assistance they receive, all I'm saying is they might not be.

[CCS]

Yeah, in all likelihood though, they aren't.

[StN]

Originally Posted by Ab

That would be worth doing just to watch the unions go mental.

Given that a lot of IT chaps are on IEAs I'd be interested in any D&A policies and implementations that you chaps may have in various IT shops.

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?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by CCS

I don't see why that's an issue. If an employer doesn't want an employee using dangerous machinery while they have thc in their system, surely it's their prerogative?

Because weed is illegal then yeah arguably it is their prerogative, though has it got anything to do with workplace safety? Afaik there's a world of difference between someone who has a smoke in the evening and plays some xbox and someone who wake n bakes. I guess an analogy could be the difference between someone who has a few beers after work and someone having a big night on the terps when they've got work at 6.

Originally Posted by CCS

Not sure why that's an issue.

If people can't or wont stop using weed then kicking them off the benefit with no support to get off drugs is solely a punitive approach and doesn't address the issue ie that they aren't very employable.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Because weed is illegal then yeah arguably it is their prerogative, though has it got anything to do with workplace safety? Afaik there's a world of difference between someone who has a smoke in the evening and plays some xbox and someone who wake n bakes.

I don't think employers give a good shit about the distinction, nor do I think they should. All they care about is satisfying themselves that their staff aren't an undue safety liability. Easiest way to do that is with a zero tolerance drug policy.

If people can't or wont stop using weed then kicking them off the benefit with no support to get off drugs is solely a punitive approach and doesn't address the issue ie that they aren't very employable.

Of course it addresses the issue! It takes the benefit away from them so the taxpayer no longer funds an unemployable loser. Addresses it perfectly imo.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by CCS

I don't think employers give a good shit about the distinction, nor do I think they should. All they care about is satisfying themselves that their staff aren't an undue safety liability. Easiest way to do that is with a zero tolerance drug policy.

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?

Originally Posted by CCS

Of course it addresses the issue! It takes the benefit away from them so the taxpayer no longer funds an unemployable loser. Addresses it perfectly imo.

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.