Drug Testing

July 2nd, 2012 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Beneficiaries who refuse or fail drug tests while applying for jobs will have their welfare cut from mid-2013 under the Government’s next round of welfare reforms.

The National-led Government says there are now no consequences for drug-takers who opted out of job applications when faced with a drug test.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett told the Herald the new Bill would have new requirements for drug testing, but the finer details were still being finalised.

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.

Mrs Bennett said the requirements would be introduced to Parliament later this year and were expected to be implemented in July 2013. She expected the rules to apply to anyone on the new Job Seekers benefit.

It will be interesting to see the final details of the policy. If it merely states that if you refuse to apply for a job because of a drug test, then that is fair enough. If all job seekers are expected to be tested regularly, then I’d say that could be pretty intrusive. I would be surprised if it is the latter.

Tags:

114 Responses to “Drug Testing”

  1. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    I’ll support this if Paula pees in a cup for me. ;)

    I’m one of her employers and I want to be sure my taxes aren’t going to pay for any drug habit she might have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    DPF,


    If it merely states that if you refuse to apply for a job because of a drug test, then that is fair enough. If all job seekers are expected to be tested regularly, then I’d say that could be pretty intrusive.

    So peeing in a cup once is fair, peeing in a cup multiple times is not fair. What is the exact number of times that one can reasonably be expected to pee into a cup for some stranger to have a look at? :)

    [DPF: You pee into a cup if you apply for a job at a company where it is unsafe not to be drug free.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. wreck1080 (3,999 comments) says:

    If you’re on drugs, you don’t get welfare full stop.

    If you have kids, and lose your welfare , then, you lose the kids too.

    Something has to break the cycle. Being nice doesn’t work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. graham (2,348 comments) says:

    This is the same article that mentions:

    The Government’s reforms also proposed cutting welfare to people on the run from police. Beneficiaries wanted by police would have seven days to turn themselves in and prove to Work and Income they had done so, or they would lose their benefit.

    As I mentioned on GD – this obviously means that currently, people who are on the run can still receive their benefit! How stupid is that? Sounds like a loophole long overdue for shutting down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. unaha-closp (1,067 comments) says:

    There should be a recipricol arrangement where the government refuses to tax anybody who fails a drugs test.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    wreck1080 (2,281) Says:
    July 2nd, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    If you’re on drugs, you don’t get welfare full stop.

    Except if that drug is alcohol or tobacco. FIFY. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Dave Mann (1,240 comments) says:

    If all job seekers are expected to be tested regularly, then I’d say that could be pretty intrusive. I would be surprised if it is the latter.

    Don’t be silly, DPF. Anything that inhibits people from working is JUST what your party wants, in order to grow the numbers of drones who are dependent on the state for a handout. They’ll invent an new name and a new kind of benefit especially. Having huge numbers of people prevented from getting a job would work perfectly for this present government, because they would then be able to blame the ‘drug problem’ for the failed economy, while at the same time no doubt spending huge chunks of money ‘researching’ the issue and providing ‘solutions’.

    Just as our police force have now become nothing but revenue gatherers, lots of lovely new anti-drug measures aimed at employed people would be a heaven-sent opportunity for the commissars to meddle while the country burns.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    It will be interesting to see the fully fleshed out policy. From what I’ve read so far it will only effect applicants for jobs where drug testing is mandatory for safety reasons eg forestry or fishing. It’s hardly likely to be applied to motel cleaners or telemarketers. If a beneficiary plays the system they’ll still end up unemployed & still untested for drug use.

    It also raises a point of what is considered a fail re a drug test. Marijuana can last up to 60 days in the system yet any effects that may compromise work safety would be gone within hours. Traces of alcohol can be present for days. If a zero limit is enforced being employed & staying employed will involve a very cloistered life.

    About fifteen years ago a couple of my mates worked on deep sea fishing boats operating out of Westport & Nelson. Basically if it was possible for the company to scrape the crew off the floor of the bar then off they sailed……understandably all pissing into cups was done a few days later when everyone was well out to sea & the alcohol & drug residues were well diluted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Interesting Dave Mann, that’s the first time I’ve heard anyone accuse National of wanting to increase drones dependent on the state. Normally that accusation is leveled at Labour because typically beneficiaries don’t vote for National. It would seem counter-intuitive. Do you have any sort of evidence to support your claim?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    “..[DPF: You pee into a cup if you apply for a job at a company where it is unsafe not to be drug free.]..”

    paper-cuts..?

    ..getting lost in the beehive corridors…?

    ..going on the nod during questiontime..?..(called ‘doing a banksie’..)

    ..pushing the wrong button..and sending client files to all and sundry…?

    ..burning yrslf with hot drinks..?

    ..getting the munchies in bellamys..?

    ..losing control of a paper-punch..?..(we all know how ugly that can get..)

    ..of course bennett should have to pee in a cup…

    ..all public servants..and then all those who profit from govt contracts..?

    ..(first they came for the unemployed..etc…and all planned over a ‘few drinks’…eh..?

    ..the stench of hypocrisy from this one is strong…

    phillip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. mikenmild (12,355 comments) says:

    The devil will of course be in the detail. Would it end up with a solo parent losing a benefit because of last month’s joint? The ‘sanctions’ need to be clear and reasonable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. jonnobanks (148 comments) says:

    Would be great if all those being paid by the state get drug tested, including politicians and govt. workers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    [DPF: You pee into a cup if you apply for a job at a company where it is unsafe not to be drug free.]

    Ahh, I didn’t quite read you properly. My bad. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Keeping Stock (9,380 comments) says:

    ..the stench of hypocrisy from this one is strong…

    But not as strong as the stench of cannabis, eh Phil..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    Oh no. I might lose my comparative advantage of sobriety over the WINZ crowd.

    Actually, no I have faith in the massive stupidity and impulse indulgence of that useless crowd. This will just weed out more of my competition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    this could be the job-creation miracle national have been looking/praying for…

    ..armies of drug-testers..(on minimum wage of course..they could do a tafe-course..?..’pee-collecting 101′..?.)..demanding id’s on the streets…and random testing most of the population..(with appropriate financial-penalties/instant-fines..)..think of the revenue raised…

    ..and pensioners..?..fuck them..!..if they dare to smoke a joint..take their pension off them…drive them into the gutter….old degenerates..!

    ..and of course..to set the example for the rest of the population…key and his cabinet all line up to pee first…eh..?

    ..followed by all the other mp’s/parliamentary-staff/contractors receiving govt monies…

    ..seems fair..eh..?

    phillip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. jaba (2,146 comments) says:

    this is what happens where I work:
    get offered a job, you are given a drug test
    come on site as a contractor, you are given a drug test
    we all all subject to random drug tests
    be involved in an incident/accident, you are given a drug test
    end of story .. don’t like it, don’t come here

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Dave Mann (1,240 comments) says:

    @RightNow

    The evidence is before your eyes. Since the election National has gone nothing to roll back the state’s intrusive meddling in citizens’ lives and they have not reformed a single aspect of the Labour-era anti-work pro-welfare and anti-business philosophy of borrow-and-hope-for-the-best.

    If they really wanted to achieve anything useful in this field, they would start by slashing all the myriad of regulations, the RMA, greenie and ecofuck meddling and free business and INDUSTRY to develop our country’s resources. Then they would successively reduce ALL benefits in a clearly signalled step approach until only genuine physical and mental cripples (the deserving and truly helpless), the aged (who have largely paid taxes all their lives) and the terminally ill receive any assistance.

    The above would drive the workforce into the jobs which would be created and the country would start to get back onto its feet again. Instead, we face a future of decline, welfarism and bureaucratically induced stagnation where the fucking state does nothing but interfere in our freedoms and prevent us from developing our own solutions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Viking2 (11,672 comments) says:

    but but, but, what about the workers.
    Yep approximately 80% of our population have or do indulge in smoking cannabis including plenty of pollies if they would admit it..

    Ain’t gunna work. They can stay off for a month or so and then continue as if nothing has happened.
    Then the boss sacks them for being incompetent (and after all sorts of drama.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. KH (695 comments) says:

    Bill English says it very simply.

    There are jobs available in his electorate which people on benefits avoid because it involves a drug test.
    So we pay those benefits. It’s probably big numbers

    I am personally aware of a person, on benefit, avoiding just that sort of job for that reason.

    It’s a problem. I don’t know of a slick solution and there probably isn’t one. But it needs approached. It should not be ignored

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    The elephant in the room is that there are a reasonably large number of workers in safety-sensitive environments where their recreational drug use does not inhibit their ability to competently, and safely, undertake their duties. Hence why many employers give a wink and a nod to employees to let them know about upcoming “random” drug tests. Just refer nasska’s anecdote. (And of course if the employer doesn’t like that particular employee then suddenly the employer forgets to warn the employee of the upcoming drug test.)

    I suppose part of the problem is how we determine what’s a “safety-sensitive” area of employment. As I understand it the workers who holds a “stop/go” sign at roadworks are in a “safety sensitive” role which is quite laughable. On the other hand there are those jobs which truly do have significant safety implications, such as a pilot or surgeon. But the prospect of a beneficiary applying for such a job is out of the question.

    The fact they are a beneficiary calls into question the likelihood that any job they seek would require any considerable mental faculties or well-maintained mental acuity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. mikenmild (12,355 comments) says:

    Testing should be strictly limited to situations where it can be demonstrated that a level of impairment would significantly affect performance.
    Plenty of folk have put in the odd day at work when they really should have been sobering up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    and meanwhile..as the populace gets whipped up into yet another moral-panic/distraction..

    ..rome is still burning…

    ..and nero is still just fiddling..

    ..phillip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Dave Mann (1,240 comments) says:

    EDIT: I didn’t mean to say that National has done nothing AT ALL to roll back the state’s strangling grip. They have done SOME small insignificant things like the 90-day rule for new employees…. but my point is that generally nothing substantial has changed at all, and certainly nothing in any area which matters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    I don’t know why people insist they must have their effing drugs.

    Employers can’t even find people to fill in gaping wide open jobs because of drug testing to stop the stupid heifers hurting themselves/others while on the job.

    Great policy. All of a sudden there will be tonnes of jobs when all the dickheads can pass a drug test.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Dave, I get your point. My first impression was that you were saying National was more likely than opposition parties to entrench welfare dependency, whereas (as I understand it) you’re saying they’re just about as bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. backster (2,196 comments) says:

    PHIL is starting to panic already.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Herald Poll results so far:

    Beneficiaries will have their welfare cut if they fail or refuse drug tests – do you agree with this policy?

    Yes, it seems sensible (73%)

    11450-11500 votes cast so far.

    Seems to be popular policy (with all the caveats that go with a Herald online poll)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    backster, phil isn’t included in the job-seekers category.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    UpandComer

    Boy! I’m in for a hiding here.

    …..”I don’t know why people insist they must have their effing drugs.”…..

    Probably because for many life is just so shitty & boring they’d prefer to be out of it.

    …”there will be tonnes of jobs when all the dickheads can pass a drug test.”….

    A genuine question…..do you really think that there are, say 150,000 jobs that are not being done right now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    UpandComer (198) Says:
    July 2nd, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    I don’t know why people insist they must have their effing drugs.

    Enjoyment, obviously. Of course the inability to abstain whilst unemployed and looking for work would indicate either a problem with priorities or an addiction.


    Employers can’t even find people to fill in gaping wide open jobs because of drug testing to stop the stupid heifers hurting themselves/others while on the job.

    I suspect in many cases they are less concerned that people will hurt themselves, and more concerned that in the unlikely event that they do, the employer may be liable if robust health and safety regulations are not adhered to, even if the weekend joint had nothing to do with the accident.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    …..”I don’t know why people insist they must have their effing drugs.”…..

    Probably because for many life is just so shitty & boring they’d prefer to be out of it.

    Given that scenario, is there any compelling reason for them to have a long life, or would a short life suffice provided they were sufficiently doped up for it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pete George (23,798 comments) says:

    There’s different aspects to this issue.

    I expect most people will be against giving people benefits that are then used to buy drugs. Many would probably include tobacco and alcohol in that.

    But a potential downside, possibly major, is that it could result in more druggies doing more crime to pay for their habits. And there’s a real chance it will deprive disadvantaged kids even more.

    The best solution is not always the most palatable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Bevan (3,232 comments) says:

    Would it end up with a solo parent losing a benefit because of last month’s joint?

    Lose the benefit and the kids. If a solo mum is funding her drug habit, or is getting into a position where she is toking a joint whether its free or not then she’s just proven how unfit she is to be a mother.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Dave Mann (1,240 comments) says:

    @ RightNow

    Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying. New Zealand is wierd country; one where ‘centre-right’ actually means ‘socialist’. Its unfathomable that a country developed by (really really) hard work, self-reliance, the pioneering spirit, DIY and creative ‘can-do’ attitudes should have sunk so low in the space of only one or two generations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. dime (10,213 comments) says:

    Petes right – think of the kiddies.

    the benefit should cover living costs, then drug use, then money for the kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    seeing as we are relying on them…the herald should run one of those polls..asking..’should all politicians being paid by the state be regularly drug-tested..?’

    ..that one would get near to 100% yes-vote…

    ..so..?..the point..?..

    phillip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    gee phil, perhaps the point is whether or not they’d pass a drug test. Who do you think would lose the most MP’s?
    I reckon this order (percentage-wise, most to least)
    Mana
    Greens
    Maori
    Labour
    NZ First
    National
    ACT
    Don’t know about Dunne, he could be up there with Mana.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    RightNow

    …”Given that scenario, is there any compelling reason for them to have a long life, or would a short life suffice provided they were sufficiently doped up for it?”…..

    For a hypothetical question that’s a doozy. I have met people who’s sole aim & purpose in life is getting fried. The vehicle may be drugs or alcohol or a combination of both. It’s not a new phenomenon….there used to be people who worked really hard on remote sheep stations as fencers, shepherds etc who would come into town every three months or so, cash their wage cheque & stand in the pub until they’d blown the lot. Unlike a dole bludger they’d worked for it but they died, often early, with nothing to show for their time on earth.

    On balance I suspect that through ill health, poor nutrition or violence the average life of these no hopers will be short but relatively hard on taxpayer pockets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Mr Nobody NZ (365 comments) says:

    Phil it sounds like your advocating that random drug testing should be mandatory for everybody, which I strongly agree with. It would be even better that every failed test result would also that person being placed into a mandatory drug rehabilitation programme.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Bevan (3,791) Says:
    July 2nd, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    Would it end up with a solo parent losing a benefit because of last month’s joint?

    Lose the benefit and the kids. If a solo mum is funding her drug habit, or is getting into a position where she is toking a joint whether its free or not then she’s just proven how unfit she is to be a mother.

    Maybe not mother of the year but hardly deserving of having her kids taken off of her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Mr Nobody NZ,

    Small government eh? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    http://whoar.co.nz/2012/million-workers-have-class-a-drugs-in-their-system-study-finds/

    “..Almost a million UK employees carry on working with drugs including cannabis, opiates and cocaine in their systems, according to a new report.

    The study – which analysed the results of 1.7m UK workplace drug tests over the past five years –

    – also found the number of workers testing positive rose by nearly 50% between 2007 and 2011, up from 2.26% to 3.23%.

    Contrary to stereotypes, the age group most likely to test positive for Class A drugs such as cocaine, heroin, amphetamines and methadone was not the under-25s –

    – but those aged between 25 and 34…”

    (cont..)

    phillip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    do you consider alcohol to be a ‘drug’ there..mr nobody..?

    ..or do you exempt that drug from yr condemnation/strictures…’cos you use it..?

    phillip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    Weihana

    …”Small government eh”…..

    Facilities & trained staff to administer 4 million drug test each year with a suitably sized Government Dept reporting to a Minister of Sobriety. Then facilities in which to punish or rehabilitate the miscreants. Should make unemployment a distant memory.

    We could always look to Saudi Arabia for guidelines. Namely their the Committee for the Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue, known as the Haya,

    Sorry Mr Nobody…..no chocolate fish! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    and of course those drug tests on politicians must include the strong prescription-drugs…

    ..why should we be paying people whacked on uppers/downers/leapers/screamers..given to them by their legal drug-pusher..

    ..what use are they..if they are off their tits all the time/pilled out…?

    ..(there are so many corridors you can take this one down..eh..?..using exactly the same justifications..)

    phillip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. mikenmild (12,355 comments) says:

    Given the widespread and illogical prejudice against illegal drugs, we should perhaps think of this policy int eh context of alcohol only. Would this be a good move if it targeted alcohol only – should traces of alcohol in the blood be enough to lose you a job, a benefit or maybe care of your children? If not, why would one advocate widespread drug testing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    Plenty of people seeking to move from one place of gainful employment to another place of gainful employment are requested to submit to drugs tests.

    What’s so special about people seeking to move from “unemployed drain on society” to “gainfully employed” that they can’t do the same.

    You simply CANNOT be whacked on drugs to do many jobs. The harsh reality of that tough capitalist world! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    I’ll support this if Paula pees in a cup for me.

    Weihana, reminds me of this very funny bit by the Daily Show’s Aasif Mandvi in which he ends up asking Florida Governor Rick Scott to pee in a cup for him:

    The best bit is from 5.05

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    RRM

    But there’s the rub…..I agree that many jobs become exceedingly dangerous for all concerned if employees are whacked off their faces. What is not so clear is at what blood/piss level that may prove use of a drug days prior to the test does sacking or disciplinary action become appropriate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Ryan Sproull (7,360 comments) says:

    Scott,

    Aasif Mandvi is easily the most fucking hilarious dude on the Daily Show.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Scott Chris,

    Hilarious. That bit did come to mind when I first read this story as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    and in the interests of efficient/’moral’ use of govt money..

    ..any/all employees/management of any company doing contract work for the govt..(i dunno….polling..?..as one example..)

    ..must all be drug-tested clear before any contracts are awarded..

    ..with ongoing random tests..of course…for the course of that contract..

    ..(with of course strong/serious financial-penalties/contract-cancelling for any company with any staff/management failing a random test…eh..?..)

    i mean we are talking millions of dollars of tax-payers’ money here..spent on contracts every year….

    …we can’t have people smoking a joint on a saturday nite getting any of that money..!..

    (like that nice mr key said on the telly tonite..about those druggie young people…)

    ..eh..?

    ..dirty druggies..!

    (wow..!..that stench of hypocrisy is almost becoming overwhelming…)

    phillip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Viking2 (11,672 comments) says:

    My quick post from earlier today.
    Viking2 (7,018) Says:
    July 2nd, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    but but, but, what about the workers.
    Yep approximately 80% of our population have or do indulge in smoking cannabis including plenty of pollies if they would admit it..

    Ain’t gunna work. They can stay off for a month or so and then continue as if nothing has happened.
    Then the boss sacks them for being incompetent (and after all sorts of drama.)

    Now just to prove the point this from tonights news.

    Worker awarded $13k after drug dismissal
    RACHEL YOUNG
    Last updated 12:57 02/07/2012

    29

    Share

    A Christchurch man who was fired after smoking marijuana while working on a building site has been awarded more than $13,000 in compensation.

    In a decision released last month, the Employment Relations Authority ruled that Matthew O’Connell was unjustifiably dismissed from Consortium Construction Ltd (CCL), where he worked as a carpenter.

    O’Connell was working on the third-floor scaffolding in an earthquake-damaged building on December 9, 2010, when site foreman Jonathan Small smelt cannabis and identified it coming from O’Connell before telling him to put it out.

    Small reported the incident to CCL development manager Danny Whiting, who, just before hometime on December 10, 2010, told O’Connell about the allegation and that his employment would end.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/7205582/Worker-awarded-13k-after-drug-dismissal

    So you can see how conflicted this whole process can bve.
    I am aware of a young fellow who at 17 had started to get his life together. Was employed by a bricklayer on a large site. Brickie reckoned he was the best labourer he had had in 10 years. Worked like a dog. But one day a bag was picked up by someone else and was found to contain some tinnies and his gear. Sacked immediately by site management although he was not under the influence but was talked into taking them to work to sell them to others on the site who probably were. No further testing.

    Now sure a lesson to the young man but inherinitley unfair as no one could stand up for his work because they all would lose their work as well. That from the caring contractor building a caring retirement centre.

    No credit to anyone.

    The other thing that pisses me off about this discussion is the religous holier than thou attitude of many. Booze adicts, nasty religious cranks, politicans et al seem to consider that people who unemployed are that way because its all their fault and that they are all drug addled people.
    Well get out there and meet some of them. A lot are simply not like that, they are there because of their circumstances and or they haven’t been able to get work. They come to my workshop door all the time. Good people fucked by the system that surronds them.

    Og all those making all the noise how many of you are actually creating any jobs and taking on staff.
    Put your hands up.
    Its not just somebody elses thing to do you know.

    Welcome to real world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. mikenmild (12,355 comments) says:

    Good comment V2.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Rufus (735 comments) says:

    Mikenmild “Given the widespread and illogical prejudice against illegal drugs,”

    So you’d rather we all turned a blind eye?

    It’s illegal end of story.

    You want to change the law, go for it.

    As long as it is illegal, I’m all for helping people get off it. Especially people who hold their hand out to the taxpayer for money to pay for said illegal drugs.

    The whole point of the benefit, whatever flavour you’re on, is that society is helping you out in a tough spot. You owe them to spend it wisely, and use it to try and improve your lot.

    Using taxpayer monies to fund your illegal drug habit is a nice slap in the face.

    FFS. Whatever happened to personal responsibility and accountability?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. mikenmild (12,355 comments) says:

    Ha ha. I raised the illegality of some drugs to illustrate the absurdity of this situation. If someone is unable to work because of drug or alcohol impairment, you do something about it. Drug testing beneficiaries because you don’t like them taking drugs is illogical. Testing for drugs and alcohol should be restricted to situations where it might actually be relevant to the workplace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    WRT alcohol, I do remember maybe 20 years ago a couple of pints at lunchtime was deemed quite acceptable for most office workers (certainly the ones I worked in). Now many offices have zero tolerance rules. Not sure about public sector – what’s your experience of it mm?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Rufus (735 comments) says:

    V2, I appreciate your battling for the underdog, I really do. I appreciate your comments on KB, even if I don’t always agree with your viewpoint. And I really appreciate you giving people a chance, at risk to your self, because you’re in a position to do so.

    But that young idiot in Chch is just that – an idiot.

    He brought it on himself – who in his right state of mind takes drugs at work?

    A. it’s illegal,
    B. it’s reason for dismissal
    C. if he screwed up and caused damage or injury to others, CCL would have been liable too.

    It seems the only reason CCL had to pay out was because they didn’t follow the correct procedure.

    Good luck to him finding another job in Chch. Time to grow up and take some responsibility for his actions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    do you use alcohol..rufus..?

    and of course another thread of insanity in this particular symphony…

    ..is that a joint smoked four weeks previously will show you as failing..

    ..so therefor..and i am sure it is already happening…people working in those testing- industries use much worse drugs..but ones that flush out of yr system fast…

    ..dumber than fucken doorknobs…eh..?

    phillip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Rufus (735 comments) says:

    Mike, they are working, as it were, – for the taxpayer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Viking2 (11,672 comments) says:

    You grant a benefit then its that persons money to spend. Just like the oldies can spend their super how they want.

    Rufus (430) Says:
    July 2nd, 2012 at 6:09 pm

    How many jobs have you created this year?

    Like Dipton Bill, he has plenty of jobs in his ex hometown but no one wants to go and live there for the money paid. (not even him).
    Compare that with Aussie and the mines have to pay shitloads to get people there and previously had to supply housing although even that got canned.
    Perhaps if the employers in Dipton land paid a market rate that would encourage people to go there for work they wouldn’t be short of employees.

    Now there’s a novel real market based solution for the socialists that call themselves a Govt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. mikenmild (12,355 comments) says:

    RN
    I’ve never felt constrained in my lunchtime consumption -though I consider myself a moderate drinker. I’ve seen a few drunks at work in my time and my experience is that they are generally indulged, but that the incidence is much lower now.
    Judging by trends in public management over recent decades though, I suspect the consumption of psychotropic drugs by senior officials has grown exponentially.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Rufus (735 comments) says:

    Viking – “How many jobs have you created this year?”

    None. But then I’m not in a position to at this stage. Feel holier than me?

    Re: no-strings-attached taxpayer largesse – surely you can see a difference between Super and Unemployment benefits?

    They come with different contractual obligations. If you’re on the Unemployment benefit, you are required to be willing and ready to apply for and take work offered.

    If your illegal habit is standing in the way of fulfilling your contractual obligations, then the contract is void.

    Like I said, personal responsibility would be nice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Viking2 (11,672 comments) says:

    Rufus, my point was that the policy won’t work because of these things.
    Unless or until everyone is tested at the start of every shift then it just won’t work. I defy you to recognise someone who is taking “p” in small doses. They behave in a way that is little different to those that drink copious quantities of coffee.
    Cafine is a stimulant and observe the behavoir of people who drinkl heaps of coffee, observe how irrational they become.

    Colouring used in many confections can do the same thing especially to children. Azio based colouring makes kids hyper.

    Many young adults are hyper becuase of the food that they eat containing colourings and then add the coffee. They are dangerous on our roads, just like those full of booze, but no one advocates banning cupos of stimlant in your cars whilst driving.

    As I said the whole deal is conflicted and beating people up does not fix it.
    Many of thoise yopung people would be in jobs if Bennett and Key had any moral fibre or guts of any kind.
    The barrier to many is the lack of youth rates.
    Young people need mentors and they get that by going to work.
    I have blogged at length about the issue of youth rates and the effect that can be had to mend this problem but stupoid fucking idiots that call themselves politicians are so blind they cannot see.
    So entrenched in socialist dogma that they are seriously conflicted.
    Want to fix this, bring back youth rates. free up education and get the fuck out of peoples lives.

    Ever heard of W Edwards Demming? The father of Japanese quailty culture?

    He had 14 points for companies in crisis.
    No.6 Institue training on the job.
    No.12. Remove barriers that rob people fo pride of workmanship.
    No14. Put EVERYBODY IN THE COMPANY(COUNTRY) to work to accomplish the transformation.

    His Book
    “Out of the Crisis”

    Deming’s 14 points

    The 14 points are a basis for transformation of [American] industry. Adoption and action on the 14 points are a signal that management intend to stay in business and aim to protect investors and jobs. Such a system formed the basis for lessons for top management in Japan in 1950 and in subsequent years.

    The 14 points apply anywhere, to small organisations as well as to large ones, to the service industry as well as to manufacturing. They apply to a division within a company.

    Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with the aim to become competitive and to stay in business, and to provide jobs.
    Adopt the new philosophy. We are in a new economic age. Western management must awaken to the challenge, must learn their responsibilities, and take on leadership for change.
    Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place.
    End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead, minimise total cost. Move towards a single supplier for any one item, on a long-term relationship of loyalty and trust.
    Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs.
    Institute training on the job.
    Institute leadership. The aim of supervision should be to help people and machines and gadgets to do a better job. Supervision of management is in need of an overhaul, as well as supervision of production workers.
    Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company.
    Break down barriers between departments. People in research, design, sales, and production must work as a team, to foresee problems of production and in use that may be encountered with the product or service.
    Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the workforce asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force.
    a. Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Substitute leadership.
    b. Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute leadership.
    a. Remove barriers that rob the hourly paid worker of his right to pride in workmanship. The responsibility of supervisors must be changed from sheer numbers to quality.
    b. Remove barriers that rob people in management and engineering of their right to pride in workmanship. This means, inter alia, abolishment of the annual or merit rating and management by objective.
    Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement.
    Put everybody in the company to work to accomplish the transformation. The transformation is everybody’s job.

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/w_edwards_deming.html

    http://deming.org/index.cfm?content=61

    Everyone should read this work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Leaping Jimmy (16,699 comments) says:

    Focus is all wrong here.

    Biggest problem for unemployed people is drugs.

    Most of them (biggest rump) I would bet are in their 20’s and 30’s so health is not their biggest problem.

    Anyone who’s seriously smoked marijuana at some point in their lives knows: it makes it OK to do nothing. i.e. months, if not years go by, without you moving one iota along in life, while your peers, well they just keep going, and if one keeps doing it, well, before long a decade’s passed, then two, then crikey, you’re forty… Get the picture?

    Seriously, I guarantee you the one thing which would help more people on the dole than anything else, would be drug test every single one of them. Forget about being in the context of a job, do it for everyone getting a benefit including the sickness benefit, and do it now.

    Like I said the other day, the govt probably doesn’t want to, because then you’re faced with: what do you do with 100,000 marijuana users and another 100,000 P users? Because those would be the figures. That’s why they don’t want to suggest it.

    But the reason you get people spending decades of their lives eeking out an existence on a few hundred bucks a week, if that, is cos most of them, 90-95% of em, use drugs.

    So we can chose to ignore it, or we can deal with it.

    What would a healthy society do, and what would a sick society do, in the face of this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Mr_Blobby (207 comments) says:

    It should be all beneficiaries. Example one a solo mother who takes drugs is either spending money/time that should be spent on the children or is getting it for free in exchange for “fringe benefits.”In either case she has shown that she is not fit to be a parent, and the children should be taken away. Example 2 a sickness beneficiary like the gang member who can’t work because he is addicted to Dope and because of his violent demeanor, has to be handled by a special remote unit. Who is somehow entitled to special grants for things like fencing for a swimming pool, tires for the car, and extra payments to pay off fines etc. Example 3 Phil the pill Whore, need I say more on that subject.
    Going by how he is bouncing off the walls more than usual. I would say whore has shit his pants.
    Nice thought, but the devil will be in the detail. By the time it is watered down it will be a bit like 3 strikes and crushing cars, a solitary example many years in the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Viking2 (11,672 comments) says:

    They come with different contractual obligations. If you’re on the Unemployment benefit, you are required to be willing and ready to apply for and take work offered.

    Really then show me a contract. Not an implied thru the mouth of fools and newspapers contract, a real wriitten and signed one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Viking2 (11,672 comments) says:

    Seriously, I guarantee you the one thing which would help more people on the dole than anything else, would be drug test every single one of them. Forget about being in the context of a job, do it for everyone getting a benefit including the sickness benefit, and do it now

    You are deluded. Every wekk I see people looking for work that are not reeking of cannabis.
    You are just sterotyping people according to your predjudices that are gained thru media.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Viking2 ” bring back youth rates.”

    mikenmild “Good comment V2.”

    (yeah right)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. mikenmild (12,355 comments) says:

    I’m just waiting for anything to back up the wild assertions above that most beneficiaries are drug abusers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. mikenmild (12,355 comments) says:

    To make it clear for RN, I don’t think youth rates are much help, but I do think V2 knows what he’s talking about in respect of drug testing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    It seems like months since I laughed at anything on the Dim Post but this thread lead had me in stitches:

    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.

    Oof!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. mikenmild (12,355 comments) says:

    Good one tom, I wasn’t aware there was a process operating.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    mm, I don’t really care to speculate on what V2 knows or doesn’t, but with respect to the proposed policy the testing is for those on the job-seekers benefit, a specific group of beneficiaries. I personally don’t think most beneficiaries are drug users/abusers, although I imagine a large group of them are on prescription drugs that might impair their abilities for certain jobs.
    But (hypothetically) wouldn’t drug testing be a great way to counter the wild assertions that most beneficiaries are drug abusers. Nothing like getting the real facts out there to prove them wrong don’t you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. mikenmild (12,355 comments) says:

    Why don’t you examine the facts as currently know first?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Mr_Blobby (207 comments) says:

    Would clap if I thought for a moment that they were serious about it.
    Maori and Mana despite there protestations that smoking should be illegal, and how evil it is, will appose it all the way.
    Got to love all the excuse from the so called experts on how unfair it is, and why it won’t work.
    What a bunch of tossers. I bet every one of you is a net drain on society. I bet not one of you contributes to the growth of the country. I bet every one of you is a beneficiary or in some sort of support role, funded by the taxpayer in one way or another. I suggest you try getting a real job, in the productive economy, and start contributing in a positive way instead of bludging. Now if you are starting to feel unappreciated, then you are right, you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Mr_Blobby (207 comments) says:

    It should be all beneficiaries. Example one a solo mother who takes drugs is either spending money/time that should be spent on the children or is getting it for free in exchange for “fringe benefits.”In either case she has shown that she is not fit to be a parent, and the children should be taken away. Example 2 a sickness beneficiary like the gang member who can’t work because he is addicted to Dope and because of his violent demeanor, has to be handled by a special remote unit. Who is somehow entitled to special grants for things like fencing for a swimming pool, tires for the car, and extra payments to pay off fines etc. Example 3 Phil (the pill) Whore, need I say more on that subject.
    Going by how he is bouncing off the walls more than usual. I would say whore has shit his pants.
    Nice thought, but the devil will be in the detail. By the time it is watered down it will be a bit like 3 strikes and crushing cars, a solitary example many years in the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    “Why don’t you examine the facts as currently know first?”
    Known fact: Some job seekers decline to apply for jobs that require drug testing.
    What other facts do you think should be examined?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. mikenmild (12,355 comments) says:

    What proportion of beneficiaries declining work due to their substance abuse would you think justifies testing all beneficiaries? 1%, 5%, 20%, maybe Leaping Jimmy’s preposterous 90%?
    This proposed policy is just a dog whistle for the haters out there. Se how they come running.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Uh huh. 75% of kiwis are haters. Get used to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. mikenmild (12,355 comments) says:

    Oh right then, anything to help the 75% hold the others in more contempt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    I’m sorry for you that you see it that way mm. I see it more as a way for the innocent not to be tainted by the few rotten apples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Nobody’s going to hold someone in contempt for passing the drug test you see, so this is really good for most of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. mikenmild (12,355 comments) says:

    By testing all of them? While we’re at it, let’s raid the houses of all DPB recipients to make sure they don’t have partners living with them, coz that happens sometimes too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Nostalgia-NZ (5,318 comments) says:

    How much does all this cost?

    How much do the proposals of also taking children away from their mothers cost?

    Does this mean that some people will be expected to starve to death, will children be effected by one or both of their parents failing to pass a test?

    Or is it something ‘nice’ to get the people’s minds off things of more importance?

    Is a new ‘super’ department going to be put in place to take tests and results, will these be new positions for displaced public servants?

    Will we see those that fail their tests later placed on ‘sickness benefits?’ Given therapy and so on.

    How exciting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    What policy do you think would be better?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Mr_Blobby (207 comments) says:

    It should be up to the individual employer to decide if or at what level drug testing should take place. Some may feel that a drugged up workforce is beneficial for there business. Some may not. But as the employer, the one who has the responsibility of paying the wages and is held accountable for workplace injuries, it is there right to decide who or who not to employ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Mr Blobby, you should probably read the original post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Mr_Blobby (207 comments) says:

    Good idea mikenmild “let’s raid the houses of all DPB recipients”. No need we know the skanks are sleeping around because it takes two to get pregnant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Mr_Blobby (207 comments) says:

    Rightnow I did. I stand by my comments

    1. It should be up to the individual employer to decide if or at what level drug testing should take place. Some may feel that a drugged up workforce is beneficial for there business. Some may not. But as the employer, the one who has the responsibility of paying the wages and is held accountable for workplace injuries, it is there right to decide who or who not to employ.
    2. Nice thought, but the devil will be in the detail. By the time it is watered down it will be a bit like 3 strikes and crushing cars, a solitary example many years in the future.
    3. Would clap if I thought for a moment that they were serious about it.
    4. If most beneficiaries are not substance abusers, then what is the problem?
    5. It should be all beneficiaries. Example one a solo mother who takes drugs is either spending money/time that should be spent on the children or is getting it for free in exchange for “fringe benefits.”In either case she has shown that she is not fit to be a parent, and the children should be taken away. Example 2 a sickness beneficiary like the gang member who can’t work because he is addicted to Dope and because of his violent demeanor, has to be handled by a special remote unit. Who is somehow entitled to special grants for things like fencing for a swimming pool, tires for the car, and extra payments to pay off fines etc. Example 3 Phil (the pill) Whore, need I say more on that subject.
    And my personal favorite. Going by how he is bouncing off the walls more than usual. I would say whore has shit his pants.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. mikenmild (12,355 comments) says:

    Wouldn’t it be easier just to put all the beneficiaries in protective custody where we can keep any eye on them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    FFS no mm, it would be easier just to shoot them. Be sensible for once in your life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Gary2 (17 comments) says:

    The situation as proposed is this: A Work & Income client notifies W&I that they are interested in a job listed by the department, or is identified as being suitable for a job. They are then referred to the business. If they refuse to take part or are drug-tested and fail, they are then work-tested, meaning usually that their benefit is cut by a percentage. W&I staff will not be donning rubber gloves and taking samples of urine. Nothing more needs to be done that doesn’t happen now other than there will be some clear repurcussions for those failing tests. It may have been mentioned already, but for those who didn’t realise, it can take between 4 and 6 weeks for the residue of marijuana to get out of someone’s system. No doubt some apologists will say that is not fair but from the point of view of an employer who has to take legal responsibility for accidents, too bad!

    There are far too many otherwise fit & healthy people who are on unemployment benefits because they cannot do most of the jobs they are qualified for. This includes the meat industry, forestry, dairy farming and general factory work. For those who ask where are the jobs anyway – there are currently thousands of immigrants on work permits employed in New Zealand in positions which these beneficiaries could be doing. Thousands!

    And some ask about the children. Unfortunately, all too often, beneficiaries know that they can use children to get themselves out of some of the obligations that they would ordinarily have to face, as there is a moral obligation for the state to care for the kids even if the parents aren’t too concerned. The kids get used by this minority which grates with many of those who have to deal with the parents.

    As for contractual agreements by beneficiaries to follow some basic rules around job searching etc: Check out P.31 on the following download which is signed by all applicants for unemployment benefits. http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/documents/unemployment-benefit-application.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Mr_Blobby (207 comments) says:

    No milknmild. Follow the example of other countries who do not have a social welfare yoke, cut them loose. If you want to eat you work. Everyone works, or is supported by the family not the country. Look around given the choice the vast majority would get there shit together.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Rufus (735 comments) says:

    Viking – re: unemployment benefit contract, obligations and responsibilities.

    Ever signed up for one?

    I have.

    They make you aware of what is expected of you when you sign the contract – because that is what it is.

    The fact many take the piss and that there are few consequences doesn’t change the fact that you are agreeing to keep your end of the bargain when you sign.

    As for your 6:39 post, agree with you regarding youth rates & mentoring.

    I would also like to see more people encouraged towards the trades and apprenticeships.

    More useful to more people than worthless degrees and part-finished feel-good polytech courses that will only result in more student debt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. mikenmild (12,355 comments) says:

    Let’s just imagine a typical DPB recipient. In her thirties, with two kids and abandoned by her partner. Let’s drug test her, because if she had a joint last month she must be an unfit mother. FFS

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Viking2 (11,672 comments) says:

    RightNow (4,240) Says:
    July 2nd, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    Viking2 ” bring back youth rates.”

    So rightnow tell me what I have wrong with this?

    Having been around this world for wee while I have to confirm for you that fucking around with the market place ALWAYS has disasterous results and this is just another prime example of stupid bloody doo gooders thinking they know better than the market.
    The market says that it is unwilling to pay adult rates for young people who have no training, require hundreds of supervision hours for training in the work place, who have no work ethics because nanny state now refuses to allow them to obtain those ethics at a young age, and whose enthusiasm for work has been destroyed by nanny state, nanny school system and its pathetic helpers, and stpuid adults that remain determined to undervalue youth.

    Usually they are the same people who have managed to fit themselves up with an overpaid job in some govt or quasi govt agency or local body.

    No doubt you fit in that space.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Viking2 (11,672 comments) says:

    e.g. I can employ the young lass over the road to baby sit my kids for $8.00 an hour tax free but I can’t employ the same young lady in my workplace after school for less than $13.50, which I won’t, when all she wants to do is to earn some money to feed her horse and look after it. Its her hobby you see.

    Stupid fucking socialists. We need to tax the bastards more.

    As Key says the rich (who are seldom socilaists) can find their way around stuff as do the Indians who run their own cash economy around here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Oh mm, you’re becoming a fact free zone. Had a few tonight eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    V2 – I’m not against youth rates FYI.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Nostalgia-NZ (5,318 comments) says:

    To take another look at this.

    I have an associate who is a contractor whose men often work on ‘Site Safe’ controlled workplaces. His men take a breathalyser reading before leaving his yard, if they fail – home they go. His view is that he employs a lot of tough, rough round the edges labourers and machine operators – if he was absolute on the ‘rules’ he might not have a work force. Many of his men have worked for him for a decade or more. At the moment he has few teetotallers or ministers working his cranes and while he has a few recruits from the local churches they only abstain on Sundays. I wonder what Paula thinks about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    if she had a joint last month she must be an unfit mother. FFS

    Not necessarily. But it is money she could have spent on the wellbeing of her children…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Leaping Jimmy (16,699 comments) says:

    This is not about getting drugs off the workplace, that’s what OSH does.

    This is about getting drugs out of beneficiary lifestyles.

    For many reasons. Which hopefully are obvious: e.g. why should we taxpayers pay beneficiaries to get stoned? We’re quite happy aren’t we to pay for their rent and their food but why, the fuck, should we, pay for them to get wasted? Why?

    And we know they do.

    And if ya think they don’t, then you’re not living in reality.

    Simple. As. That.

    The benefit is: stop the enervating effects of drugs every single day making it OK to do nothing and all of a sudden people wake up, become motivated, and stuff starts to happen in their lives as if by magic. That’s not the main reason for doing it, but it’s a heck of a good side effect, isn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Viking2 (11,672 comments) says:

    Youth welfare privatisation fears ease
    By Simon Collins
    5:30 AM Monday Jun 18, 2012

    Fears that private companies might take over the supervision and care of young beneficiaries have eased, as Maori and other community providers appear to have won contracts for the work.

    Iwi organisations have been named as preferred bidders in Gisborne and part of Northland, and most existing youth transition service providers elsewhere are negotiating to expand their services in the first phase of the Government’s radical welfare reforms.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/social-welfare/news/article.cfm?c_id=322&objectid=10813689
    So we have another bunch if state funded doo gooders endeavourijg to doi what the market place would do if left alone
    without stupid socialist laws.

    How do you tax payers like that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. freemark (651 comments) says:

    It’s a good policy for the following reasons:
    – political high ground – no one can seriously argue that if you are on an a jobseeker benefit you don’t need to change your lifestyle to become an employee.
    – if we are paying you a benefit you shouldn’t be spending it on non essentials (legal or illegal drugs) pay TV or subscribed services or pokies or racing included blah blah.
    – we operate already under a totally arbitrary system of random drug testing (even politicians Phil), and although I’m sure some people are safer at .08 than others at .00 there is no practical method of differentiation.. walk in a straight line anyone?
    – most employers in safety sensitive industries are aware of the length of time cannabis can stay in one’s system, and make allowances for valued employees.. so become a valued employee and you’ll have less to worry about with that weekend puff.

    I have passed a random drug test 48 hrs after a wee smoke, but it was a behavior changing experience.
    I have also as a roughneck been subject to the stoned actions of an otherwise competent driller, luckily I retain my 12 fingers.

    Bottom line.. get a job, work hard, you have a bit more licence. Bludge and stone.. take the shit that’s given to you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    mm, I presume you are a committed libertarian and feel that no laws can be justified that might interfere with personal feedom?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Mark (1,502 comments) says:

    SO long as there are safe guards the policy sounds fine. Not all employers test for drugs, typically it is in industries where there is some dangerous activities undertaken.

    Simple answer do not smoke dope and you wont lose your benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. vto (713 comments) says:

    The requirement is to be not imparied by drugs or alcohol at work.

    Drug testing does not do this.

    It is bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. redeye (633 comments) says:

    Be a good time to buy DB shares. Most of these bludgers will still want to get shit faced. If they can’t smoke a joint they’ll take to the more dangerous drug. And there’s money to made out of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Leaping Jimmy (10,948) Says:
    July 2nd, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    This is about getting drugs out of beneficiary lifestyles.

    No it isn’t. This is about politics and making the voters think you are achieving something when you are just pissing away money on bureaucratic initiatives while trying to address what is arguably a non-problem.

    If a person has a drug problem then they are eligible for the sickness benefit and will not be subject to this new policy. So what does this policy achieve? Shit fuck all.

    All it really achieves is to stereotype beneficiaries as drug addicts so as to shift all blame away from the government. If anyone doesn’t have a job it’s because they’re a stoned loser and the government can’t be held accountable for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. mikenmild (12,355 comments) says:

    Well put Weihana – it’s just another dog whistle policy with no effect in the real world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Mr_Blobby (51) Says:
    July 2nd, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    No milknmild. Follow the example of other countries who do not have a social welfare yoke, cut them loose. If you want to eat you work. Everyone works, or is supported by the family not the country. Look around given the choice the vast majority would get there shit together.

    Interesting that the top 10 nations on the Human Development Index (which includes New Zealand) all have reasonably strong social welfare systems. But it is your suggestion that we look further down the list and follow their example?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Pascal (1,187 comments) says:

    My taxes help pay for beneficiaries. This is a good thing; if they are people that need the money to get over a bad patch in their life or if they need the assistance. It is not there to help fund a drug habit – because that is taking money away from somebody that needs it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote