Welfare support and drug testing

[scumdog]

Pretty simple really. Do as you are told or we will take something off you. The dole is a human right in my book, especially if the "market" isn't going to provide well paying jobs.



Great.

Let's ALL stop work and execute our right to be on the dole...,

[mashman]

Great.

Let's ALL stop work and execute our right to be on the dole...,

:rofl: that has been an option for decades... although it seems that some people have forgotten that... and you of all people inciting mass doling, you just wanna get yer baton out doncha?

[Madness]

I was sick once. You seen the shit they play on telly during the day? Bugger that.

[Ocean1]

The dole is a human right in my book,

You write fiction, wouldn't recognise reality if it bit you on the arse.

For the record: The dole is charity, try to be thankful to those who give you your daily bread. Try not to impose on their generosity too long.

[Oscar]

Aye, criteria that never existed until some fuckwit in a blue tie decided that that's the way it should be.

It was the voters who decided, and since you didn't vote you've proven your indifference, you heartless bastard.

[Akzle]

Yes yes, but the amazing maze of fantastic arty connections that are going on inside the average pot users brain can make any two completely irrelevant tangents connect with total relevance you see!!!
The other key thing to remember when discussing anything with a pot user is that its all a huge conspiricay man!!, the government is just out to get us all.
The other thing that pot heads always kid themselves with continually, is that they are super mellow & cruisey.
They may well feel that way, but I have seen more than the usual amount of angry outbursts & an overwhelming need to justify their point of view fron the stoner brigade.
bro. you're one angry and apparently ignorant motherfucker. i don't mean that in a disrespectful way, but your world view seems to be an incredibly negative one.

the government's obviously already got you...


Wow amazing to see such ignorance exists still. Unless you are just trolling. But nah I reckon you're just an idiot who has less of a grip on reality than what you think a 'pot user' has. i wouldn't have used the word idiot, but i agree with the sentiment.


Bob...your completely inflexible point of view isn't going to move the debate towards a solution.

...You simply cannot measure everything in dollars and cents. and again...


Strange how this debate sparking issue happens to be let loose as the asset sale thingy is being done eh? :innocent: that's done and dusted and toasted and fuck the lottaya. there's still a petetion running for a (non binding because the govt doesn't actually give a fuck what you think) referendum. i encourage you all to contact your local greens office for this petetion.


You write fiction, wouldn't recognise reality if it bit you on the arse.

For the record: The dole is charity, try to be thankful to those who give you your daily bread. Try not to impose on their generosity too long.

actually, some government types got together a while ago and decided what were "basic human rights" - things that everyone was entitled to (somewhere dry to sleep, food, electricity, i think broadband, even, is now on the list.. but whatever), and, because the governments love their pie, the way they met their obligations was with dole systems.
this came about after the league of nations, where our defacto government was acknowledged on a global scale, they continue as the "united nations"
infact, fuck me. article 22 of the UN charter of human rights: "Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization..."
that's a law above the goverment's law. so, ocean1, that is your duly elected reality, certainly not a fiction.
and article 25: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control"

dont blame the bennies. you voted for the damned government. so yall can sit the fuck back down and do what you're told.

[ducatilover]

I was sick once. You seen the shit they play on telly during the day? Bugger that.

YOU GET TO SEE HOME AND AWAY TWICE!!!!!!!

That's so important I shouted the whole sentence

[mashman]

You write fiction, wouldn't recognise reality if it bit you on the arse.

For the record: The dole is charity, try to be thankful to those who give you your daily bread. Try not to impose on their generosity too long.

heh... I certainly don't recognise your rose tinted reality as reality, but that's entirely your problem I'm glad to say.


It was the voters who decided, and since you didn't vote you've proven your indifference, you heartless bastard.

:killingme, bling in the post... and those who voted should be shot for making such pathetic self serving decisions.

[RDJ]

Very appropriate. You will do what Uncle Stalin says or else. The other side of Nanny state. We politicians, our consultants and lawyers can be pissed as farts when ruining the country but god help you if you fail some dodgy drug test unprofessionally administered at the local fast food chain. :woohoo:

If you like your booze or tote and decide the forestry worker is not for you then you will also be punished on the presumption it is because you would fail the test.

More dealing with the symptoms of previous failed policies rather than address the problem. Of course you can't address the real issue, the IMF etc wouldn't like that.

Nonsense on extended stilts. If I have to submit to and pass a drug test to remain employed and collect my pay, why is it that people who collect unemployment don't have to do the same?

[wharekura]

I start threads like this to open up my own opinions on things, yet I see mostly personal attacks. I see hard working people sick of supporting layabouts and others tired of having their personal freedoms attacked when they see nothing wrong with what they do albeit noted by today's govt. as illegal. What this thread has shown is a good mix of people that are a part of the forum.

I stick to my original opinion - I dont mind giving someone a hand up but not a hand out.

I chopped some trees and left them to dry for the renters next door in case they wanted some firewood - doing a good deed I thought, you know the types - tight on cash but not on booze. After I found it wouldnt be taken unless I chopped it up to fit their fireplace. I was so pissed off I took the shit to the dump (the trees that is)

[oneofsix]

Nonsense on extended stilts. If I have to submit to and pass a drug test to remain employed and collect my pay, why is it that people who collect unemployment don't have to do the same?

I see you can't look at it for any where but your own tight arsed perspective.

I keep my job without having to submit to a drug test, why is it the unemployed should be denied the chance of a job just because they may have had a drink last night?
Some of the drug tests test hair looking for drug taking months ago, that is not fair. Also so unwell people may have used a drug for medical reasons but we aren't allowed to study that. Some people might only be using the drug as a bored buster to fill in time until they have something better to do.

Truth is this govt. move is just a way to reduce the unemployment roster without doing anything to solve the problem. This will in turn make the problem and the full out from the problem worse, it always does.

Actually you should look into the history of why some of the drugs are illegal, it is not because of there affects.

[sidecar bob]

bro. you're one angry and apparently ignorant motherfucker. i don't mean that in a disrespectful way, but your world view seems to be an incredibly negative one.

the government's obviously already got you...


I was actually taking the piss out of dumb angry stoners tounge in cheek, but you missed that. Must be the drugs.

[skippa1]

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control"

dont blame the bennies. you voted for the damned government. so yall can sit the fuck back down and do what you're told.

I cant see the bit about everyone have the right to smoke it up for free? Lets see, food (all good with that), Clothing (yes), Housing(too right), medical care (absolutly), necessary social services (yep), security of employment(yes), etc etc....
No free drugs isnt there. :scratch:Huh why ever not?:blink: Thats pretty fucked up aye......

[mashman]

I start threads like this to open up my own opinions on things, yet I see mostly personal attacks. I see hard working people sick of supporting layabouts and others tired of having their personal freedoms attacked when they see nothing wrong with what they do albeit noted by today's govt. as illegal. What this thread has shown is a good mix of people that are a part of the forum.

I stick to my original opinion - I dont mind giving someone a hand up but not a hand out.

I chopped some trees and left them to dry for the renters next door in case they wanted some firewood - doing a good deed I thought, you know the types - tight on cash but not on booze. After I found it wouldnt be taken unless I chopped it up to fit their fireplace. I was so pissed off I took the shit to the dump (the trees that is)

So you expected something in return? That attitude sounds vaguely familiar. I love it when people project their wants and expectations upon others, it shows a severe lack of understanding... but I'm not surprised by that attitude.

The basics of life. Everything costs money. You can't get any of them for free. Some are unfortunate enough to be a part of the unemployed, which means that there aren't enough jobs, which even the most useless amongst you must realise is true. Society decides to give these people money, why? To stop them from dying? To stop them from "acquiring" the means for the basics? To feel better about themselves by offering a financial helping hand? Some people resign themselves to the fact that they will be on the dole forever. Now that's a win given that not everyone wants to live on the dole, same amount of jobs, less people. But instead of leaving them alone to get on with it and because you deem that you are helping them out, you feel that you deserve something from these people in return. Call me a fuckin whaaaaaambulance... in fact you don't feel that you deserve it, you demand it of them by expecting politicians to fight a battle that they have been losing since the beginning of time, but it makes you happy, so you vote for it like a fool, irrespective of the consequences (asset sales, smaller classes, economic meltdowns, austerity etc...).

This policy will cause more financial stress on the people who it targets and you and I as the tax payer and you dare to call it progress... hardly surprising that sort of thinking fail instigates personal attacks.

[Woodman]

maybe it might make some of them clean their acts up .

[mashman]

maybe it might make some of them clean their acts up .

And what's stopping them from doing that at the moment? I'm sure it'll fix things... I'll start squireling some tax $$$ away just in case :blink:

[wharekura]

So you expected something in return? .
Not at all, they expected me to chop it up for them and carry it over. My winglish and wammer not clear. So will try and make it clearer:

"I chopped some trees and left them to dry for the renters next door in case they wanted some firewood"
- I did this as I had surplus and there was no need to throw it away if someone else could use what I have chopped.

"After I found it wouldnt be taken unless I chopped it up to fit their fireplace."
- I thought providing the surplus was enough, but they wanted more.

If that is still not clear or that my expectation is that if someone wants something I have, for nothing, then I do expect they put in the effort to chop the rest up for themselves.

[skippa1]

So you expected something in return? That attitude sounds vaguely familiar. I love it when people project their wants and expectations upon others, it shows a severe lack of understanding... but I'm not surprised by that attitude.

Ahhhhh isnt it the other way around? The difference being, their wants and expectations arent projected onto us, they are imposed on us:oi-grr:. And yes, when they are imposed on me, I want a return. Not much, I just want them to be prudent with the money they are given. And when they fail a drug test when applying for a job, they impose on me again, because they clearly not only want my money, they also want me to satisfy their wants and needs with no intention of supporting themselves, which shows a clear lack of understanding.....but I'm not surprised by that attitude............sound familiar?

[Brian d marge]

On saying all of this , there iis a social compact ( contract?) the froggie wrote about it ( Rousseau) with out it Hobbes argued that life would be "brutish and short " and indeed was .

We have decided that suffering should be abolished , this was kicked off by a fella called rountree ( of the sweets fame) who came to the conclusion it wasnt the people per say who chose poverty , but a series of events , there fore there should be a basic level of assistance , which would ( actually) have benifits for those providing the assistance ,,,less crime for one

blah blah

There is a lot of work out there but a lot of it is soul distroying some deliberatly designed that way ..if you take the skill out of a job the worker becomes redundent by losing his or her bargaining power

So , the dole is neccessarry ...but I do want people to be productive in my society , lets give people option lets give them a chance to be productive , usefull

lets call this scheme "a work scheme " or . a green task force

as long as they pull their wieght , testing should be unnessassary ( which in its basic for is a invasion of pravacy, and can be opened up to miss interpritation,,as what happened to those 4 irishmen back in the 70s , )


nope this is a deliberate ploy to calm the right wing middle class in order to A, get some shitty deal through OR increase the right leaning vote, in time for the next election

stephen

[mashman]

waffle waffle, I'm such a nice guy, look at me, wasn't I nice...

If that is still not clear or that my expectation is that if someone wants something I have, for nothing, then I do expect they put in the effort to chop the rest up for themselves.

I thought you didn't expect them to do anything. You offered, they declined, don't get yer knickers in a twist coz they didn't give you the joy joy feeling of having your offer accepted.


Ahhhhh isnt it the other way around? The difference being, their wants and expectations arent projected onto us, they are imposed on us:oi-grr:. And yes, when they are imposed on me, I want a return. Not much, I just want them to be prudent with the money they are given. And when they fail a drug test when applying for a job, they impose on me again, because they clearly not only want my money, they also want me to satisfy their wants and needs with no intention of supporting themselves, which shows a clear lack of understanding.....but I'm not surprised by that attitude............sound familiar?

:rofl: as I alluded to, I guess non too obviously, you're as bad as each other... displaying exactly the same character traits and denying it in the same breath. You can't make this shit up :killingme... however one is not putting demands on you, merely accepting a handout that should be without strings, where the other is making demands using their ass as a replacement for their brain.

[Edbear]

Reading through this thread it is surprising the number of people who can't seem to grasp the concept of personal responsibility. If you are on the unemployment benefit you have a responsibility to get off it as soon as you can. Your "job" is to look for a job. The old adage, "beggars can't be choosers" is true, you get whatever job you can to support yourself, not wait until the "perfect" job comes along and drops conveniently into your lap.

It is obviously true that many simply do not want to work, and those that do, want to get their ideal job, not just whatever job is available to them. Anyone actively seeking work adn who is prepared to do most anything they can get, should be encouraged and supported. They deserve the dole while they look. Those who are picky and choosey and pass on jobs they thoink are beneath them or they don't like, should be given a kick where it will do the most good.

John Key was talking about those who deliberately avoid getting a job, not those who are trying to get a job. Some here don't seem to get that. If someone is genuinely seeking employment they will present themselves in a manner that gives them the best chance of getting the job, not in a manner that is going to ensure they don't get an interview.

I have sympathy for those who want to work and do their best to find "A" job, and support them, but have no sympathy whatsoever for those who can't be bothered. We have lived in a fool's paradise for so long that people now think it is their right to have everything given to them and if something requires effort, it is not worth pursuing.

[Maki]

There was a time when the state did not take care of people the way it does now. People would help family members or neighbors who were going through a rough patch. The condition for such help would usually be that the person who was being helped was also making a sincere effort to stand on his or her own two feet again. This condition would be imposed, both for the benefit of the person receiving help (to avoid dependency) and for the person providing the help (to avoid an indefinite financial drain). The logic of this is quite clear and it transfers well to the current situation.

If you provide a benefit for people and expect nothing whatsoever in return, not even a level of sober living that would make them fit to take on employment if it did become available, then you are doing them NO FAVORS whatsoever. You are doing them a disservice and you are doing a disservice to their families and to society in general. There IS no such thing as free money. Everything you or I consume has to be produced on the back of somebody's work. That work has to be respected and rewarded and people who abuse the system by hanging around all day stoned and not being in a state to contribute to society should starve until they get sober and or get a job, whichever comes first.

If they get a job where their employer allows them to be stoned, fine, it is none of my business. If they however sit around high on drugs and use the money I work for and pay through my taxes to support them it IS my business and I want it to stop.

[Brian d marge]

Reading through this thread it is surprising the number of people who can't seem to grasp the concept of personal responsibility. If you are on the unemployment benefit you have a responsibility to get off it as soon as you can. Your "job" is to look for a job. The old adage, "beggars can't be choosers" is true, you get whatever job you can to support yourself, not wait until the "perfect" job comes along and drops conveniently into your lap.

It is obviously true that many simply do not want to work, and those that do, want to get their ideal job, not just whatever job is available to them. Anyone actively seeking work adn who is prepared to do most anything they can get, should be encouraged and supported. They deserve the dole while they look. Those who are picky and choosey and pass on jobs they thoink are beneath them or they don't like, should be given a kick where it will do the most good.

John Key was talking about those who deliberately avoid getting a job, not those who are trying to get a job. Some here don't seem to get that. If someone is genuinely seeking employment they will present themselves in a manner that gives them the best chance of getting the job, not in a manner that is going to ensure they don't get an interview.

I have sympathy for those who want to work and do their best to find "A" job, and support them, but have no sympathy whatsoever for those who can't be bothered. We have lived in a fool's paradise for so long that people now think it is their right to have everything given to them and if something requires effort, it is not worth pursuing.

true but , some are truely unemployable , some do NOT want a Job because they are making money elsewhere , some are genuinley trying ... but it does come back to what does one call a "job" , and being abused at a dead end job for not much more than the dole ....
Im looking at the dole ( or education )

Also, it takes about a couple of months on the dole , before you can sink into " who cares" attitude especially if you apply for work and keep getting rejected.

Now , what would the state say IF YOU refused the dole... were completly self sufficient ??? they would need to get their pound of tax some how , I wonder HOW they would do it

Stephen

[nodrog]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EAy6MbkjbTA/T8qHuXmjMsI/AAAAAAAAFuc/dGgxf0VXnng/s1600/stoner.jpg

[Edbear]

true but , some are truely unemployable , some do NOT want a Job because they are making money elsewhere , some are genuinley trying ... but it does come back to what does one call a "job" , and being abused at a dead end job for not much more than the dole ....
Im looking at the dole ( or education )

Also, it takes about a couple of months on the dole , before you can sink into " who cares" attitude especially if you apply for work and keep getting rejected.

Now , what would the state say IF YOU refused the dole... were completly self sufficient ??? they would need to get their pound of tax some how , I wonder HOW they would do it Stephen

Please explain..?

I am virtually unemployable as I am 54, no formal qualifications, live on drugs including painkillers for a broken back, (twice). I can't lift, stand or walk much and suffer fatigue and pain every day. I tried for months to get a job once I was cleared for work by ACC, but I was only cleared for 20hrs per week sedentary work.

I have a lot of experience in jobs such as when I was in Small-Medium business management at TelstraClear. So I could do several types of office work, but no-one wants a 54 year old who can only work 20hrs a week. The want young, fresh, energetic go-getters with tertiary qualifications. Of course they can pay them less as well.

If I was physically capable I would have got a job pumping gas or spraying weeds on the Council, I'm not too proud, but certainly would not want to wind up on the dole. People need to realise it is far easier to change your job, whatever it is, than get one from the dole queue.

[Brian d marge]

Please explain..?

.

Was just wonder out loud ..IF we have a social " agreement " and one feels that the social agreement has been broken, so one withdraws from not society but from the structure of society , yes that includes medical at what point would the state come knocking, and if it could be proved you werent reliant on the structures proved by the state ( roads etc) what would the state do ?

user pays!

Stephen

[Maki]

Was just wonder out loud ..IF we have a social " agreement " and one feels that the social agreement has been broken, so one withdraws from not society but from the structure of society , yes that includes medical at what point would the state come knocking, and if it could be proved you werent reliant on the structures proved by the state ( roads etc) what would the state do ?

user pays!

Stephen

The state would come knocking the second they found out your are not paying your taxes. They do not give a rats ass whether or not "one feels" an agreement has been broken.

[skippa1]

I thought you didn't expect them to do anything. You offered, they declined, don't get yer knickers in a twist coz they didn't give you the joy joy feeling of having your offer accepted.



:rofl: as I alluded to, I guess non too obviously, you're as bad as each other... displaying exactly the same character traits and denying it in the same breath. You can't make this shit up :killingme... however one is not putting demands on you, merely accepting a handout that should be without strings, where the other is making demands using their ass as a replacement for their brain.

you keep toking bro.....your world is a happy, somewhat confused, but happy place.:rolleyes:

[Brian d marge]

The state would come knocking the second they found out your are not paying your taxes. They do not give a rats ass whether or not "one feels" an agreement has been broken.
thats what I reckon to , but just thinking out loud, could it be possible to remove oneself from the "taxable" state

stephen

[jasonu]

if they are contributing(working and paying tax) and not posing a risk to others, I dont care, Im not paying for their habit.

That is the point of this discussion isn't it?

[Bikemad]

Nonsense on extended stilts. If I have to submit to and pass a drug test to remain employed and collect my pay, why is it that people who collect unemployment don't have to do the same?

best question so far............how come none of the layabout sympathisers haven't answered it yet me wonders...........doh!:motu:

[Ocean1]

actually, some government types got together a while ago and decided...

I think I see where some ramdom fuckwit might come unstuck, there.

See, the UN isn't the font of all wisdom, In fact they're more yer rabid, foam-at-the-mouth socialist misfits. And yet even THEY see the folly of a free-for-all for any lazy prick that feels he has rights someone else needs to realise for him.


article 25: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control"

Turns out the actual suppliers of such extraordinary largess as our social welfare system don't really consider "would rather veg out with some weed, dude" as "beyond his control".

[jasonu]

And something to consider, if they clean up for the test, start using again, and do some damage on the job, or on the way to work, is they a net gain, or loss to society?

Random drug testing for ALL employees takes care of that.

[mashman]

Reading through this thread it is surprising the number of people who can't seem to grasp the concept of personal responsibility. If you are on the unemployment benefit you have a responsibility to get off it as soon as you can. Your "job" is to look for a job. The old adage, "beggars can't be choosers" is true, you get whatever job you can to support yourself, not wait until the "perfect" job comes along and drops conveniently into your lap.

It is obviously true that many simply do not want to work, and those that do, want to get their ideal job, not just whatever job is available to them. Anyone actively seeking work adn who is prepared to do most anything they can get, should be encouraged and supported. They deserve the dole while they look. Those who are picky and choosey and pass on jobs they thoink are beneath them or they don't like, should be given a kick where it will do the most good.

John Key was talking about those who deliberately avoid getting a job, not those who are trying to get a job. Some here don't seem to get that. If someone is genuinely seeking employment they will present themselves in a manner that gives them the best chance of getting the job, not in a manner that is going to ensure they don't get an interview.

I have sympathy for those who want to work and do their best to find "A" job, and support them, but have no sympathy whatsoever for those who can't be bothered. We have lived in a fool's paradise for so long that people now think it is their right to have everything given to them and if something requires effort, it is not worth pursuing.


There was a time when the state did not take care of people the way it does now. People would help family members or neighbors who were going through a rough patch. The condition for such help would usually be that the person who was being helped was also making a sincere effort to stand on his or her own two feet again. This condition would be imposed, both for the benefit of the person receiving help (to avoid dependency) and for the person providing the help (to avoid an indefinite financial drain). The logic of this is quite clear and it transfers well to the current situation.

If you provide a benefit for people and expect nothing whatsoever in return, not even a level of sober living that would make them fit to take on employment if it did become available, then you are doing them NO FAVORS whatsoever. You are doing them a disservice and you are doing a disservice to their families and to society in general. There IS no such thing as free money. Everything you or I consume has to be produced on the back of somebody's work. That work has to be respected and rewarded and people who abuse the system by hanging around all day stoned and not being in a state to contribute to society should starve until they get sober and or get a job, whichever comes first.

If they get a job where their employer allows them to be stoned, fine, it is none of my business. If they however sit around high on drugs and use the money I work for and pay through my taxes to support them it IS my business and I want it to stop.

If someone loses their job with 50k in the "bank", they are expected to use those saving to support their costs of living. Why would they not hold out for a job that pays the standard of living they require to keep their home etc...? Also just taking a job until something better comes along takes a job away from someone that might actually need it for a longer period of time. One thing you guys seem to forget, or ignore, is that there aren't enough jobs to go around.

As for doing them no favours... WTF!!! they have made their choice, let them get on with it. at any given point in time there are X number of jobs available and Y number of people to fill them. Why not have professionally unemployed people. It'd certainly stop the bene bashing and is a perfect opportunity to accept the inevitable. IF everyone went to a new job within a year, we would have a revolving door of workers and we would be paying out exactly the same amount of $ s we do now. Forcing those with a different set of values into work ain't gonna do anyone any favours. But I have no doubt that you guys can't grasp that fact, because you use your personal circumstances and hardships as a measure of what others should aspire to, irrespective of whether they are capable of it or just plain don't want to. The dole ain't a picnic, get over yourselves and see it from their perspective for a change... I care not that there are some that don't want to work, it ain't like it makes a blind bit of economic difference, as mentioned before, revolving X Jobs Y people revolving door same payout, yet you'd rather lay down the law instead of using some common sense and allowing what happens to run its natural course.

:rofl:@people starving. It happens elsewhere in the world, millions and millions and millions of them, and all because there aren't any jobs :yes:. This is why I wanna see this policy implemented with extreme prejudice... I can't wait til thieving, muggings and killings kick in because people are starving in a place where food, money and stuff is just a street or two away. Think it through, where does that lead? Yes they may get caught and end up in jail, costing us an extra 80k a pop, but you'll have people who will have suffered because of a policy you howled for... and I will blame you for that damage! Fuckin pathetic!

[mashman]

you keep toking bro.....your world is a happy, somewhat confused, but happy place.:rolleyes:

An average of 1 a month this year and then I'm even happier... go figure :).

[jasonu]

Great idea - but no Govt would do that while they depend on so many of their votes from beneficiaries

But that is the way it is done here. You get a check card (replaced food stamps) that is credited monthly with your benefit amount that you can use to buy food, nappies ect but not fags, booze, penthouse, Maccas or fush un chups. Can't (legally) get a cash advance either. Works great.

[mashman]

Random drug testing for ALL employees takes care of that.

A spectacular waste of money. I assume employers should be partially funded by the tax payer so that the tax payer can be drug tested? Or are you expecting the employer to pick up the tab? I suppose it's our own fault for allowing drugs to be available, so just take my random drug tests outof my salary, I won't miss the $$$.

[steve_t]

But that is the way it is done here. You get a check card that is credited monthly with your benefit amount that you can use to buy food, nappies ect but not fags, booze, penthouse, Maccas or fish un chups. Can't (legally) get a cash advance either. Works great.

So, over there, are there many issues with people eg swapping a pack of nappies and a frozen chicken for a pack of ciggies?

[jasonu]

A spectacular waste of money. I assume employers should be partially funded by the tax payer so that the tax payer can be drug tested? Or are you expecting the employer to pick up the tab? I suppose it's our own fault for allowing drugs to be available, so just take my random drug tests outof my salary, I won't miss the $$$.

The employer pays for it from the (hopefully) profits made and as it is one of the costs of doing business it is a tax deduction. It is required by the employers' occupational and health and safety insurance carrier.

[jasonu]

So, over there, are there many issues with people eg swapping a pack of nappies and a frozen chicken for a pack of ciggies?

Yes this does happen. The system is not fool proof rather it makes it more difficult for the beneficiary to piss away the money he gets from the tax payer on non essential items.

[steve_t]

Yes this does happen. The system is not fool proof rather it makes it more difficult for the beneficiary to piss away the money he gets from the tax payer on non essential items.

Yeah, I guess that's the best you can hope for. Any system will have ways to get around it or exploit it

[Bikemad]

Nonsense on extended stilts. If I have to submit to and pass a drug test to remain employed and collect my pay, why is it that people who collect unemployment don't have to do the same?


best question so far............how come none of the layabout sympathisers haven't answered it yet me wonders...........doh!:motu:...................... ...anyone?

[Maki]

I have an idea. Let the people who want to give out money to people who are on the benefit and unfit for work because they are high on drugs pay for it. I am sure mashman would be delighted to contribute a few hundred $ a year so that some lazy person can sit on his or her arse, watch sky and smoke dope. If mashman were really sincere he would invite a family of them to come visit and do it in his living room for a few months. That would make him feel all warm and fuzzy, especially once he has changed their kid's nappies a few hundred times because they are stinking up the place.. I say let him but don't ask me to do it.

With respect to the argument that if their benefit was cut they would start running around doing crime, don't make me laugh. The sods are too lazy for that. They would take the easy way and STOP USING DRUGS.

So, put your money where your mouth is, or shut the f*** up.:mad:

[nodrog]

http://cdn.runt-of-the-web.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/conspiracy-keanu-birds.jpg

[mashman]

The employer pays for it from the (hopefully) profits made and as it is one of the costs of doing business it is a tax deduction. It is required by the employers' occupational and health and safety insurance carrier.

Does the amount and quality of work a person does exclude them from being tested? I ask as employers could lose valuable members of staff because they had a smoke the night before.

[mashman]

http://cdn.runt-of-the-web.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/conspiracy-keanu-birds.jpg

why not both?

[mashman]

I have an idea. Let the people who want to give out money to people who are on the benefit and unfit for work because they are high on drugs pay for it. I am sure mashman would be delighted to contribute a few hundred $ a year so that some lazy person can sit on his or her arse, watch sky and smoke dope. If mashman were really sincere he would invite a family of them to come visit and do it in his living room for a few months. That would make him feel all warm and fuzzy, especially once he has changed their kid's nappies a few hundred times because they are stinking up the place.. I say let him but don't ask me to do it.

With respect to the argument that if their benefit was cut they would start running around doing crime, don't make me laugh. The sods are too lazy for that. They would take the easy way and STOP USING DRUGS.

So, put your money where your mouth is, or shut the f*** up.:mad:

:rofl: no problem, as long as they're tax deductible. I'll keep them fed, watered and will happily buy them a bag of grass... in fact I'll get them to grow it in the house and blame them when the cops come calling. I ain't got no problem with changing kids nappies, even if they aren't my own, done it before, I'll do it again if need be.

I guess we'll see what happens when they bring it in... but what will happen when every job has been filled and there are still tens of thousands of unemployed people failing drug tests?

Waaaa waaaaa waaaaaa... why not just put them in concentration camps with broadband and nothing but job sites to search... oh, hang on, that's probably where we're heading... I guess it'll free up some property.

[mashman]

Nonsense on extended stilts. If I have to submit to and pass a drug test to remain employed and collect my pay, why is it that people who collect unemployment don't have to do the same?

For the same reason people like myself don't have to submit and pass a drugs test. It isn't needed.

[Maki]

Where does the absurd idea come from that "every job" has been filled? It may be news to some but New Zealand has a desperate shortage of workers, even in unskilled jobs like fruit picking. Why? People would rather sit on their asses and smoke weed and get payed for it. Suckers like mashman are happy to cough up, so why the hell not?

http://www.immigration.govt.nz/templates/custom/SearchskillshortagesPopup.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID={3B3850BF-FB16-43DF-9CCD-FE0342BFB73C}&NRORIGINALURL=%2fmigrant%2fstream%2fwork%2fskilled migrant%2fLinkAdministration%2fToolboxLinks%2fesse ntialskills.htm%3flevel%3d1&NRCACHEHINT=Guest&level=1

Most of the jobs here require people to actually get of their bums and get an education but since there is little incentive for them to do that, why should they? There are also plenty of unskilled jobs for those who could actually be bothered..

[mashman]

Where does the absurd idea come from that "every job" has been filled? It may be news to some but New Zealand has a desperate shortage of workers, even in unskilled jobs like fruit picking. Why? People would rather sit on their asses and smoke weed and get payed for it. Suckers like mashman are happy to cough up, so why the hell not?

http://www.immigration.govt.nz/templates/custom/SearchskillshortagesPopup.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID={3B3850BF-FB16-43DF-9CCD-FE0342BFB73C}&NRORIGINALURL=%2fmigrant%2fstream%2fwork%2fskilled migrant%2fLinkAdministration%2fToolboxLinks%2fesse ntialskills.htm%3flevel%3d1&NRCACHEHINT=Guest&level=1

Most of the jobs here require people to actually get of their bums and get an education but since there is little incentive for them to do that, why should they? There are also plenty of unskilled jobs for those who could actually be bothered..

It was a hypothetical question. There are plenty of people looking for jobs, why are they gonna get the bash because there's a minority who won't work? and why aren't they taking the jobs? Not all will be lazy, not all will fail a drugs test, yet not all are employed. So why aren't they taking the jobs Mr Einstein?

[Akzle]

I cant see the bit about everyone have the right to smoke it up for free? Lets see, food (all good with that), Clothing (yes), Housing(too right), medical care (absolutly), necessary social services (yep), security of employment(yes), etc etc....
No free drugs isnt there. :scratch:Huh why ever not?:blink: Thats pretty fucked up aye......"livelihood" =)


Ahhhhh isnt it the other way around? The difference being, their wants and expectations arent projected onto us, they are imposed on us:oi-grr:. And yes, when they are imposed on me, I want a return. Not much, I just want them to be prudent with the money they are given. And when they fail a drug test when applying for a job, they impose on me again, because they clearly not only want my money, they also want me to satisfy their wants and needs with no intention of supporting themselves, which shows a clear lack of understanding.....but I'm not surprised by that attitude............sound familiar?
shaddup. it's your representative government. you had your say at election time. your opinion doesn't matter any more. you don't get a say in it.
don't like it?
stop letting them take "tax"

[Road kill]

Does the amount and quality of work a person does exclude them from being tested? I ask as employers could lose valuable members of staff because they had a smoke the night before.

Yes it does.
Some employers even go so far as to telling their pet stoners when the next test is.
After that it's just a matter of having a weed free weekend along with 3 liters of water a day and you come up clean or close enough on Monday morning.
I work with around a dozen pot heads,their drug tests are always on a Monday morning an they always seem to know when their due.
On the other hand mine could be any day and I never know when their due,,,but then I'm not one of the drug abusing cunts that endanger your life everyday of the week as they pilot their 10-32 tonne rigs down the roads of NZ......and my employer knows this.

How do I feel about drug testing the unemployed ?
I'd prefer the gov't works out why they are all unemployed first.
That might actually make a difference;).

[Maki]

It was a hypothetical question. There are plenty of people looking for jobs, why are they gonna get the bash because there's a minority who won't work? and why aren't they taking the jobs? Not all will be lazy, not all will fail a drugs test, yet not all are employed. So why aren't they taking the jobs Mr Einstein?

Because the jobs are not where they happen to live. They would rather stay were they are and remain on a benefit than pick themselves up and travel somewhere where they would actually have to do work. It does not take an Einstein to figure it out. Thousands of primary school drop outs have managed to make this deduction...

[scumdog]

But that is the way it is done here. You get a check card (replaced food stamps) that is credited monthly with your benefit amount that you can use to buy food, nappies ect but not fags, booze, penthouse, Maccas or fish un chups. Can't (legally) get a cash advance either. Works great.

Yep. i realised that - bring it here!

AND be like Dakota where car insurance mandatory - paid with cash.
A beneficiary doesn't get cash there, just vouchers - ergo can't pay car insurance.

So...the state takes their drivers licence from them - and return it when they get a job.

(Well 7-8 years ago it was still that way)

Imagine the horrified screams from those excercising their 'right' to get the dole here in NZ if they introduced it.! :crazy:

[mashman]

Yes it does.
Some employers even go so far as to telling their pet stoners when the next test is.
After that it's just a matter of having a weed free weekend along with 3 liters of water a day and you come up clean or close enough on Monday morning.
I work with around a dozen pot heads,their drug tests are always on a Monday morning an they always seem to know when their due.
On the other hand mine could be any day and I never know when their due,,,but then I'm not one of the drug abusing cunts that endanger your life everyday of the week as they pilot their 10-32 tonne rigs down the roads of NZ......and my employer knows this.

How do I feel about drug testing the unemployed ?
I'd prefer the gov't works out why they are all unemployed first.
That might actually make a difference;).

:rofl:... Aye, this policy will make a world of difference if that is true.


Because the jobs are not where they happen to live. They would rather stay were they are and remain on a benefit than pick themselves up and travel somewhere where they would actually have to do work. It does not take an Einstein to figure it out. Thousands of primary school drop outs have managed to make this deduction...

That the only reason? Or is that yet more propaganda? Why would anyone move to work, especially if they have settled kids at school, friends/family in the area and are happy where they are? :rofl:@have to do work as if that's what's stopping them from moving. In which case perhaps the employers should move to an area where they can provide more jobs for people?

[Maki]

:rofl:... Aye, this policy will make a world of difference if that is true.



That the only reason? Or is that yet more propaganda? Why would anyone move to work, especially if they have settled kids at school, friends/family in the area and are happy where they are? :rofl:@have to do work as if that's what's stopping them from moving. In which case perhaps the employers should move to an area where they can provide more jobs for people?

That's inspired, why didn't I think of that... Move all the fruit farms and building sites to south Auckland! That would provide more jobs for the people and they could stay in their miserable neighborhoods. You should be a politician, mashman.

[Akzle]

thats what I reckon to , but just thinking out loud, could it be possible to remove oneself from the "taxable" state

stephen quite easy. stop being "employed". operate cash only. dont talk to the government. return their letters unopened. do not vote.

look up "notice of understanding and intent and claim or right" (NuI, CoR) read through one five or six times. you'll get the point.

[mashman]

That's inspired, why didn't I think of that... Move all the fruit farms and building sites to south Auckland! That would provide more jobs for the people and they could stay in their miserable neighborhoods. You should be a politician, mashman.

:rofl: I read that back and it wasn't worded well at all, no change there I guess... are there enough building sites in Auckland? Any other jobs in Auckland that pay well enough that they'll cover travel expenses to and from the city and pay a decent living wage after the bills are paid for? If so, then why are there people who want to work in Auckland, I'm talking about those who want to work, that don't just take any job that's on offer? They can't be that miserable if they stay there and don't want to move.

At the end of the day forcing people into low paid work and removing their only income stream is not only barbaric and as backwards as those who agree with the idea, it's slavery.

[Maki]

:rofl: I read that back and it wasn't worded well at all, no change there I guess... are there enough building sites in Auckland? Any other jobs in Auckland that pay well enough that they'll cover travel expenses to and from the city and pay a decent living wage after the bills are paid for? If so, then why are there people who want to work in Auckland, I'm talking about those who want to work, that don't just take any job that's on offer? They can't be that miserable if they stay there and don't want to move.

At the end of the day forcing people into low paid work and removing their only income stream is not only barbaric and as backwards as those who agree with the idea, it's slavery.

What year did it become barbaric to expect people who can work to work? Even the citizens of the communist Soviet Empire where told that they had to work to eat. No work, no food. Is that barbaric? Making me work to pay people who are too lazy to work IS barbaric and that is making a slave out of me.

I guess I will have to word my posts directed to you more simply in the future to allow for your IQ, mash. Isn't it obvious that New Zealand's building sites and fruit farms can NOT be moved to South Auckland?

I have to say that this discussion has opened up a new perspective for me. I have always considered it a given that a healthy person should work to earn a living. If they can not get a job in South Auckland, Tonga, Samoa, Waikiki Beach, or wherever the hell they happen to find themselves, then the natural order of things is that they move to where there is work. They do NOT ask someone else to pay them for doing nothing because they like it where they live, they get cheap drugs and they do not have to work. Now I discover that there are people out there who are happy to work and and support those who have no wish to do any work themselves and would not do what is necessary to get work.

If you want to pay someone a benefit for sitting around smoking dope, wherever they happen to be I suggest you go ahead and do it. Just don't ask me to agree with it or pay for it.

[mashman]

What year did it become barbaric to expect people who can work to work? Even the citizens of the communist Soviet Empire where told that they had to work to eat. No work, no food. Is that barbaric? Making me work to pay people who are too lazy to work IS barbaric and that is making a slave out of me.

I guess I will have to word my posts directed to you more simply in the future to allow for your IQ, mash. Isn't it obvious that New Zealand's building sites and fruit farms can NOT be moved to South Auckland?

I have to say that this discussion has opened up a new perspective for me. I have always considered it a given that a healthy person should work to earn a living. If they can not get a job in South Auckland, Tonga, Samoa, Waikiki Beach, or wherever the hell they happen to find themselves, then the natural order of things is that they move to where there is work. They do NOT ask someone else to pay them for doing nothing because they like it where they live, they get cheap drugs and they do not have to work. Now I discover that there are people out there who are happy to work and and support those who have no wish to do any work themselves and would not do what is necessary to get work.

If you want to pay someone a benefit for sitting around smoking dope, wherever they happen to be I suggest you go ahead and do it. Just don't ask me to agree with it or pay for it.

Expect all you like, but forcing people into work is slavery. You choose to work, they don't.

No need to reword your posts if you read mine properly. I didn't mention South Auckland and I didn't mention moving building site or fruit farms. :rofl:@IQ... it's how you use yer brain, not how powerful it is Mr black and white :facepalm:

:killingme... damn you're entertaining if nothing else. I still think there's some hope for human beings to work smarter, make sensible decisions and bend to the talents of those who can work instead of using a stick and excusing it by calling it a magic wand. Have you ever spent any time with those you deem are at the bottom of the human heap?

[Maki]

Expect all you like, but forcing people into work is slavery. You choose to work, they don't.


Until now the idea that a healthy person can choose not to work and instead live on handouts from taxpayers was a foreign one.

I have always assumed that a benefit was not simply a handout but a means to assist someone to get back on their feet and support themselves. Refusing the handout when a person refuses to work seems natural, not slavery.

If you consider the person on the benefit, how do you think they feel about themselves? Don't you think they would feel better if they were earning a living? In the grand scheme of things, don't you see that you might be doing someone a favor by insisting that they work rather than languish on a benefit? How many people have been damaged by becoming dependent on welfare to the extent that they sincerely believe that they are useless dregs of society and that their contribution is neither wanted nor needed? Who gains from reducing people like that? Does it make you feel high and mighty to know that you are helping those poor good for nothing useless slobs? If that is the way you think you should be ashamed.

[skippa1]

shaddup. it's your representative government. you had your say at election time. your opinion doesn't matter any more. you don't get a say in it.
don't like it?
stop letting them take "tax"

and I support the proposition of drug testing so I get what I want. What do you want.....actually dont tell me, that green shit makes me ill:sick:

[scumdog]

Until now the idea that a healthy person can choose not to work and instead live on handouts from taxpayers was a foreign one.

I have always assumed that a benefit was not simply a handout but a means to assist someone to get back on their feet and support themselves. Refusing the handout when a person refuses to work seems natural, not slavery.

.

Quite right, giving the right to do so I'd happily refuse to pay one red cent to such a person that chose not to work.

Their choice not to work

My choice not to pay them
Simple.

[Ocean1]

Expect all you like, but forcing people into work is slavery. You choose to work, they don't.

June 4th is tax free day for yer average kiwi, we've worked from Jan 1st until then to pay tax. Me, I'm still paying this years tax.

So I'm glad you feel it's unfair to make people work if they don't want to. Next year I'm choosing to pay tax until just May. There won't be enough tax to cover those who choose not to work at all. Sorry.

[mashman]

Until now the idea that a healthy person can choose not to work and instead live on handouts from taxpayers was a foreign one.

I have always assumed that a benefit was not simply a handout but a means to assist someone to get back on their feet and support themselves. Refusing the handout when a person refuses to work seems natural, not slavery.

If you consider the person on the benefit, how do you think they feel about themselves? Don't you think they would feel better if they were earning a living? In the grand scheme of things, don't you see that you might be doing someone a favor by insisting that they work rather than languish on a benefit? How many people have been damaged by becoming dependent on welfare to the extent that they sincerely believe that they are useless dregs of society and that their contribution is neither wanted nor needed? Who gains from reducing people like that? Does it make you feel high and mighty to know that you are helping those poor good for nothing useless slobs? If that is the way you think you should be ashamed.

Welcome to the world. What do you think the purpose of giving people the dole is? What is the fallout of not giving people the dole?

That's exactly what it is for, in exactly the same way that tax is for other things other than beneficiaries, yet there are plenty of working people who can afford not to structure their tax affairs so that they don't have to claim anything from the government, yet that's exactly what they do. Yet I don't see the loopholes being closed, do you? So persecute the majority that are down on their luck and are trying to get back into the workplace, just to punish the few who are playing the system. Superb logic! biting your nose off to spite your face much?

Whether they are working or not they will feel exactly the same way as they currently do. No I don't see forcing someone into work that doesn't want to work as a good thing at all, I certainly wouldn't see it as helping anyone, especially the employer. What do you mean by damaged? and if they feel that they are useless etc... then that's the fault of society, not wholly the person by any means. There are plenty of people who work that fit into that category... some even kill themselves, same as kids at posh schools with "everything" going for them. I understand what the fallout of not helping these (slobs? really? all of them? you really haven't spent any time living among these "slobs", :rofl: :facepalm: have you?). My eyes are open and I have accepted certain truths, some of them are good for the economy and that requires that some of the population need to be unemployed. In no way am I ashamed of the way I view humanity, quite the opposite in fact... there are better ways of dealing with things and the path of greasing the voters palm isn't one of them. I once shared a very similar views to yourself, fortunately I changed my mind.

[mashman]

June 4th is tax free day for yer average kiwi, we've worked from Jan 1st until then to pay tax. Me, I'm still paying this years tax.

So I'm glad you feel it's unfair to make people work if they don't want to. Next year I'm choosing to pay tax until just May. There won't be enough tax to cover those who choose not to work at all. Sorry.

:rofl: go for it big man. No need to apologise, it's entirely your choice.

[Maki]

My eyes are open and I have accepted certain truths, some of them are good for the economy and that requires that some of the population need to be unemployed.

Very interesting. Thanks for your honesty.

[mashman]

Very interesting. Thanks for your honesty.

Good luck with that new perspective you have ;)

[scumdog]

My eyes are open and I have accepted certain truths, some of them are good for the economy and that requires that some of the population need to be unemployed.

No problem with that.

As long as you are refering to the infirm, the crippled and other less fortunate.

And not to lazy leeches who chose not to work but are happy to put their hand out for the rest of their lives.

[mashman]

As long as you are refering to the infirm, the crippled and other less fortunate.

And not to lazy leeches who chose not to work but are happy to put their hand out for the rest of their lives.

I'd rather not go after the fucktards (yes plenty of them are, some are career beneficiaries that are very smart individuals) if it means that the infirm, crippled and other less fortunate get caught in the cross fire... ESPECIALLY not when it's for something as trivial as having recently smoked a joint, and ESPECIALLY not when it's for votes, which it is. Smart individuals scamming at the bottom and smart individuals scamming at the top, no contest as to who is worse and there's absolutely no difference between the two other than the $$$ they scam. Vilifying those who have less because they buy drugs is pathetic and is about as backwards as supposedly intelligent human beings can be.

[Maki]

Now that we have established that you believe there is a certain proportion of the population that needs to be unemployed, is there something you would like to do about it? any targeted policies?

Encourage them to have kids?
Give them an added benefit for each new child?
Discourage them from having kids?
Give them a free transistor radio if they agree to be sterilized?
Give them free contraception?
Give them cheap or free drugs to discourage crime?
Educate them?
Ignore them?
Offer them work?

Any other ideas?

Are you a Nazi?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I still hold the view that we are all born equal but inequality arises from the assumptions we make. If we assume that people of a certain origin will achieve poorer outcomes than people of some other origins we are paving the path towards making our assumptions come true. If we assume that some person is not fit to be part of the work force and pay them a benefit for not working, then we are making sure that this person will probably never become productive part of the workforce. You believe that this person is not fit to be employed and soon enough that person will agree with you. Was this person useless to begin with or did you make them useless with your assumptions and your handouts?

If you don't believe our assumptions and the way we treat groups of people affect their outcomes, have a read:

"No group has been more "helped" by the American government than American Indians. Yet no group in America does worse."

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/03/25/freeloading-doesnt-help-the-freeloaders

And

"No group has been more "helped" by the American government than American Indians. Yet no group in America does worse.Almost a quarter of Native Americans live in poverty. 66 percent are born to single mothers. They have short life spans. Indian activists say the solution is -- surprise -- more money from the government. But Washington already spends about $13 billion on programs for Indians every year. There are special programs in 20 different Departments and Agencies: Empowering Tribal Nations Initiative, Advancing Nation to Nation Relationships, Protecting Indian Country, Improving Trust Land Management, New Energy Frontier Initiative, Climate Change Adaptation Initiative, Construction, Improving Trust Management, Tribal Priority Allocations, Resolving Land and Water Claims, Indian Land Consolidation Program. This is just a partial list. But that's still not enough for Indian activists.


In my Fox News Special "Freeloaders" , Elizabeth Homer, who used to be the U.S. Interior Department’s Director of American Indian Trust, argues the government must do more. I say government already does too much. Indians would be better off without government handouts. I have evidence: tribes not recognized by the federal government, tribes that get no special help, often do better. Members of the Lumbee tribe from Robeson County, NC, own their own homes. They succeed in business. Lumbee tribe members include real estate developer Jim Thomas, who used to own the Sacramento Kings. Lumbee Jack Lowery helped start the Cracker Barrel Restaurants. Lumbees started the first Indian owned bank, which now has 12 branches. The political class doesn't understand that its independence, not government management, that allows people to prosper. Congressman Mike McIntyre (D-NC) is pushing a bill called the Lumbee Recognition Act. This bill would give the Lumbees the same "help" that other tribes get. That would give the Lumbees about $80 million a year. "We shouldn't take it!" says Lumbee Ben Chavis, another successful businessman. Chavis says not getting any handouts is what makes his tribe successful, and if the federal money starts coming, members of his tribe "are going to become welfare cases. Its going to stifle creativity. We don’t need the government giving us handouts.""

http://www.huntingtonnews.net/2795

[wharekura]

How about a poll? No need - I am right, and everyone agrees :)

[mashman]

Now that we have established that you believe there is a certain proportion of the population that needs to be unemployed, is there something you would like to do about it? any targeted policies?

Encourage them to have kids?
Give them an added benefit for each new child?
Discourage them from having kids?
Give them a free transistor radio if they agree to be sterilized?
Give them free contraception?
Give them cheap or free drugs to discourage crime?
Educate them?
Ignore them?
Offer them work?

Any other ideas?

Are you a Nazi?

I believe it because the RBNZ uses unemployment as one mechanism for helping to manage inflation, it is totally and utterly unavoidable without making your $ worth less. My targeted policy would target everyone in the country irrespective of age, gender, IQ, ethnicity etc... and it would level the playing field properly, not just lip service to the idea of equity. In the current financial situation, I'd ignore them and I'd offer them work... No to pretty much everything else on your list, other than Education. In the short term I'd legalise cannabis using the existing supply chain, which would remove some people from the dole and into employment by default (amongst other things).

I'm not a Nazi, I'm from the place where they bombed our chippy's. As for other ideas, yes, many of them, but most of them are unattainable under financial system.

[mashman]

How about a poll? No need - I am right, and everyone agrees :)

Not everyone, but most... which is exceptionally sad given that we're supposed to be smart sheeple.

[wharekura]

You do agree mashyman - with all your waffle, you agree.

[mashman]

You do agree mashyman - with all your waffle, you agree.

With what? To what? If it's anything to do with things going in where there should only be things coming out then no.

[Maki]

Thanks again, mash.

I have been living in NZ for 10 years and I like most things here. There are one or two things that irritate me though. One of them is the obsession with ethnicity. Why does a child have to be asked about their ethnicity when they start school in this country? Why does the question of ethnicity keep cropping up in all sorts of questionnaires? We need to get over it and start treating people like people but not Maori, Pacifica, Asian, Pakeha, etc. NZ is very close to being a racist society.

With respect to using unemployment to control inflation you might say it is a way to keep wages down. By having a higher supply than demand of laborers you can control the wages and therefore inflation. If there are more jobs than workers employers will have to start paying more and at the same time charge more for their services and products and that of course is inflation.

It is a shame because I think having a meaningful job gives a person purpose and dignity.

[mashman]

Thanks again, mash.

I have been living in NZ for 10 years and I like most things here. There are one or two things that irritate me though. One of them is the obsession with ethnicity. Why does a child have to be asked about their ethnicity when they start school in this country? Why does the question of ethnicity keep cropping up in all sorts of questionnaires? We need to get over it and start treating people like people but not Maori, Pacifica, Asian, Pakeha, etc. NZ is very close to being a racist society.

With respect to using unemployment to control inflation you might say it is a way to keep wages down. By having a higher supply than demand of laborers you can control the wages and therefore inflation. If there are more jobs than workers employers will have to start paying more and at the same time charge more for their services and products and that of course is inflation.

It is a shame because I think having a meaningful job gives a person purpose and dignity.

I agree with all of that, even the meaningful job bit... but the meaningful job has to be meaningful to the person doing it. The problem with that is we need to do things very differently, but where money is king, it'll never happen and to a certain degree that's why I "defend" the unemployed from mandatory testing where they aren't exactly rolling in $$$.

[Brian d marge]

quite easy. stop being "employed". operate cash only. dont talk to the government. return their letters unopened. do not vote.

look up "notice of understanding and intent and claim or right" (NuI, CoR) read through one five or six times. you'll get the point.

notice of understanding and intent and claim or right" (NuI, CoR)

ohh thats a goodie , didnt a guy called spooner , do something similar back in the 1800 google ..yes Lysander spooner , Im not so sure about the cash thing , practical but I want to Felicity kendals arse in a tight pair of jeans , first thing in the morning ,,,,foooaarrr

Stephen

[jasonu]

Does the amount and quality of work a person does exclude them from being tested? I ask as employers could lose valuable members of staff because they had a smoke the night before.

No, there are no exceptions. You do a pre employment UA and are fully imformed of the random drug testing policy so there is no excuse. I have seen a couple of long time employees get the boot because of failing the UA (urine analasis) test. Failing the test doesn't necessarily mean the automatic boot. On the 1st offence the company can opt to have the employee do counciling. Depends on the employee involved and what he tested positive for. Our company uses an outside agency to conduct the tests for opiates, pot, narcotics, and drugs such as meth.

[jasonu]

Yep. i realised that - bring it here!

AND be like Dakota where car insurance mandatory - paid with cash.
A beneficiary doesn't get cash there, just vouchers - ergo can't pay car insurance.

So...the state takes their drivers licence from them - and return it when they get a job.

(Well 7-8 years ago it was still that way)

Imagine the horrified screams from those excercising their 'right' to get the dole here in NZ if they introduced it.! :crazy:

I'm pretty sure vehicle insurance is mandatory in all states. In Oregon (and probably most other states) you must show proof of insurance before you can register or renew registration for a vehicle. Is the dole ment for insurance payments? I think not. Can't afford your vehicle on the dole then catch a bus or ride a bike.

[Road kill]

No, there are no exceptions. You do a pre employment UA and are fully imformed of the random drug testing police so there is no excuse. I have seen a couple of long time employees get the boot because of failing the UA (urine analasis) test. Failing the test doesn't necessarily mean the automatic boot. On the ist offence the company can opt to have the employee do counciling. Depends on the employee involved and what he tested positive for. Our company uses an outside agency to conduct the tests for opiates, pot, narcotics, and drugs such as meth.

Oh,,,I see all work places are not the same.
Well who would'a thunk it huh:shifty:

[sidecar bob]

Well if nothing else, this thread has proved one thing.
Stoners are still regurgitating the same tired old cliches they were twenty three years ago, when I had my last toke, while under the mistaken impression that they are the smartest forward thinkers the planet has to offer.
Good onya stoners, you are still as dumb as fuck & will be the last ones to work that out.

[oneofsix]

Well if nothing else, this thread has proved one thing.
Stoners are still regurgitating the same tired old cliches they were twenty three years ago, when I had my last toke, while under the mistaken impression that they are the smartest forward thinkers the planet has to offer.
Good onya stoners, you are still as dumb as fuck & will be the last ones to work that out.

The more they toke the less likely they are to work it out and the more self righteous they will feel.
But is that really the point?
The thread has also shown the benefit haters trotting out the same self righteous BS as ever as well.
Societies require a few to challenge the norm or the society dies through stagnation or exhaustion. Govt. should try to regulate the non-conformers to prevent harm to the society for the benefit of the society. Instead the last few govt. have been regulating all to solve issues with the few and generally just burdening the majority and still failing to address the issues.

[skippa1]

The more they toke the less likely they are to work it out and the more self righteous they will feel.
But is that really the point?
The thread has also shown the benefit haters trotting out the same self righteous BS as ever as well.
Societies require a few to challenge the norm or the society dies through stagnation or exhaustion. Govt. should try to regulate the non-conformers to prevent harm to the society for the benefit of the society. Instead the last few govt. have been regulating all to solve issues with the few and generally just burdening the majority and still failing to address the issues.

I havent actually seen any bene haters at all, only those that dont want tax money used to buy drugs. But hey, dont that get in the way of a good yarn aye:msn-wink:

[Paul in NZ]

I havent actually seen any bene haters at all, only those that dont want tax money used to buy drugs. But hey, dont that get in the way of a good yarn aye:msn-wink:

Quite! I heartily approve of the welfare state ideals but its not a career choice.

[jasonu]

I havent actually seen any bene haters at all, only those that dont want tax money used to buy drugs. But hey, dont that get in the way of a good yarn aye:msn-wink:


Quite! I heartily approve of the welfare state ideals but its not a career choice.

What they said +10:niceone::niceone::niceone::niceone::niceone::n iceone::niceone::niceone::niceone:

[oneofsix]

Except this affects hose that haven't yet committed to the benefit lifestyle and is more likely to force them into it.
I don't think the benefit should be a lifestyle but benefit stylers have to settle into it and that takes a few years. School leavers can be saved but not be slapping them down or pissing them off.

The mirror is the glass thing with the silver backing. You can see yourself in it.

:jerry:

[Paul in NZ]

Except this affects hose that haven't yet committed to the benefit lifestyle and is more likely to force them into it.
I don't think the benefit should be a lifestyle but benefit stylers have to settle into it and that takes a few years. School leavers can be saved but not be slapping them down or pissing them off.

The mirror is the glass thing with the silver backing. You can see yourself in it.

:jerry:

No - not getting your reasoning on this. Can you expand your argument please?

[Akzle]

If you want to pay someone a benefit for sitting around smoking dope, wherever they happen to be I suggest you go ahead and do it. Just don't ask me to agree with it or pay for it.
no-one's asking you. the government is telling you.


and I support the proposition of drug testing so I get what I want. What do you want.....actually dont tell me, that green shit makes me ill:sick:
already done.



My choice not to pay them
Simple.
as above. no. it's not your choice. government dictates.
i don't know why you people think it's optional. you all tongue government ass, toting it as wonderful and goodly, then whinge about what they decide... how does that work?



With respect to using unemployment to control inflation you might say it is a way to keep wages down. By having a higher supply than demand of laborers you can control the wages and therefore inflation. If there are more jobs than workers employers will have to start paying more and at the same time charge more for their services and products and that of course is inflation.
inflation is actually a natural by-product of a debitous "monetary" system, where money is fed into society with interest, with no means to create or repay the interest.


No, there are no exceptions. You do a pre employment UA and are fully imformed of the random drug testing policy so there is no excuse. I have seen a couple of long time employees get the boot because of failing the UA (urine analasis) test. Failing the test doesn't necessarily mean the automatic boot. On the 1st offence the company can opt to have the employee do counciling. Depends on the employee involved and what he tested positive for. Our company uses an outside agency to conduct the tests for opiates, pot, narcotics, and drugs such as meth.

bet that costs a bit.
bet your company doesn't take that cost as a loss.
bet the consumer ends up paying more for your good/services, just for the sake of enforcing that policy.
bet that it probably wouldn't make a fuck of difference (to the product) if your staff were not tested, and your company could viably charge less...

[steve_t]

Except this affects hose that haven't yet committed to the benefit lifestyle and is more likely to force them into it.
I don't think the benefit should be a lifestyle but benefit stylers have to settle into it and that takes a few years. School leavers can be saved but not be slapping them down or pissing them off.

The mirror is the glass thing with the silver backing. You can see yourself in it.

:jerry:

Drug testing for beneficiaries is more likely to force beneficiaries to become "career beneficiaries"? How do you figure that?

[oneofsix]

Drug testing for beneficiaries is more likely to force beneficiaries to become "career beneficiaries"? How do you figure that?

kicking a person when they are down usually doesn't help them up. You are just encouraging them to hate and feel 'entitled'. The kicker becomes the excuse.

[FJRider]

bet that costs a bit.
bet your company doesn't take that cost as a loss.
bet the consumer ends up paying more for your good/services, just for the sake of enforcing that policy.
bet that it probably wouldn't make a fuck of difference (to the product) if your staff were not tested, and your company could viably charge less...

Actually ... those costs mean a reduced profit margin. They work on the principle of have quality, reliable, drug free staff ... that are capable of doing the job they are paid to do. Drug testing policy of these companys ... both in their recruiting and advertising ... is often well publicised. With the intent of getting/keeping a good reputation for the service's they provide.

More customers ... hopefully ... will result. (And more profit)

[jasonu]

bet that costs a bit. Probably
bet your company doesn't take that cost as a loss. Of course not, why should they?
bet the consumer ends up paying more for your good/services, just for the sake of enforcing that policy. Of course they do, someone has to cover the cost.
bet that it probably wouldn't make a fuck of difference (to the product) if your staff were not tested, and your company could viably charge less... What is does is (hopefully) ensures some stoned dickhead doesn't chop their finger off with the bandsaw because he was too busy zoneing and not paying attention to the job he is paid to do. It is also a part of the workers benefit insurance the company must carry. They insist on the drug testing

10characters

[Paul in NZ]

kicking a person when they are down usually doesn't help them up. You are just encouraging them to hate and feel 'entitled'. The kicker becomes the excuse.

I think you have it arse backwards. They want them to give up drugs and help them get into a job. How it that kicking them?

[oneofsix]

I think you have it arse backwards. They want them to give up drugs and help them get into a job. How it that kicking them?

Nah, that's the sales pitch. They just want to use the drugs as an excuse to kick them off the benefit. If they wanted to help them get off drugs they would replace some of their stupid ra ra pretend this is how you write a CV seminars with drug and alcohol counselling.

Look at it this way; you are sitting back having a few with your mates after spending the morning going around the business. WINZ rings you late afternoon and ask you to be at a job appointment early the next morning. You fail the drug and alcohol test so they then kick you off the benefit.

[Paul in NZ]

I doubt it. Frankly the drugs and booze are doing far more kicking and keeping people down.

[Brian d marge]

the gordon gekos of this world would be screwed... wot no coke at work sod that !!!!

Stephen

[oneofsix]

I doubt it. Frankly the drugs and booze are doing far more kicking and keeping people down.

You appear to be thinking of the career drunk or pot head whereas I am thinking of the rec user that is goign to be the majority of the victims of this piece of shit. Goes back to what I said about slapping everyone and missing the few they are meant to be aiming at. Cracking nuts with sledge hammers instead of dealing with the crack heads trying to make benefits their career.
Looks good on the spreadsheet but doesn't solve the countries problems.

[FJRider]

Nah, that's the sales pitch. They just want to use the drugs as an excuse to kick them off the benefit. If they wanted to help them get off drugs they would replace some of their stupid ra ra pretend this is how you write a CV seminars with drug and alcohol counselling.

Look at it this way; you are sitting back having a few with your mates after spending the morning going around the business. WINZ rings you late afternoon and ask you to be at a job appointment early the next morning. You fail the drug and alcohol test so they then kick you off the benefit.

The hard and fast "rules" of the scheme are not yet final. To my understanding ... it is still at the proposal stage at the moment.

[steve_t]

You appear to be thinking of the career drunk or pot head whereas I am thinking of the rec user that is goign to be the majority of the victims of this piece of shit. Goes back to what I said about slapping everyone and missing the few they are meant to be aiming at. Cracking nuts with sledge hammers instead of dealing with the crack heads trying to make benefits their career.
Looks good on the spreadsheet but doesn't solve the countries problems.

I actually don't think it looks good on the spreadsheet at all

[oneofsix]

I actually don't think it looks good on the spreadsheet at all

Better on Ciggie papers?

[jasonu]

Look at it this way; you are sitting back having a few with your mates after spending the morning going around the business. WINZ rings you late afternoon and ask you to be at a job appointment early the next morning. You fail the drug and alcohol test so they then kick you off the benefit.

Cobblers. If you are in the job market and you know you will most likely face a drug test, then smokeing pot should be off the list of things to do, don't you think?
BTW no one has mentioned any pre employment alcohol test.

[oneofsix]

Cobblers. If you are in the job market and you know you will most likely face a drug test, then smokeing pot should be off the list of things to do, don't you think?
BTW no one has mentioned any pre employment alcohol test.

True, why should you have any personal freedom or fun when you are job hunting? There are after all plenty of jobs out there and the lazy bums just wont apply themselves. What was the story? a Bar in Wanganui or some out of the way place wanted 1 bar person and 312 people actual had the cheek to turn up in person. Must be all those bums that chose unemployment as a career.

[scumdog]

What was the story? a Bar in Wanganui or some out of the way place wanted 1 bar person and 312 people actual had the cheek to turn up in person. Must be all those bums that THOUGHT THEY WOULD GET FREE BEER..

Fixed:shutup:

[mashman]

I'm open to having my mind changed, but have yet to be convinced that in the short or long term this policy will do any good at all, quite the opposite. For all of those for the policy. What is to stop a person not having a smoke before an interview and then turning up to work after a night of smoking, and to just sit there and do the bare minimum to get through the day? Are you prepared for employers to have to suffer that?

I'd like to know what happens when a person is dismissed for being stoned. Will they automatically be ineligible for collecting the dole? Are you prepared for any fall out? Will you be happy IF crime stats rise and you have to pay more tax, or the country has to borrow more money, because the crime rate rises? Will you be at ease with yourself because a desperate person, who would have otherwise been stoned on the couch (your words), injures or even kills someone because they don't have enough money to feed themselves or their family (they are going from some money to none)? Because I will hold you all responsible as accessory's to the crimes committed. That may mean nothing to you, which only goes to underpin your complete lack of understanding in regards to the bigger picture.

For me this policy is akin to speed cameras. They're there for a purpose but are inherently pointless, you only have to take your foot off the gas for 10 seconds to avoid being "penalised" and then you can blast away at 200kmh again.

[FJRider]

For me this policy is akin to speed cameras. They're there for a purpose but are inherently pointless, you only have to take your foot off the gas for 10 seconds to avoid being "penalised" and then you can blast away at 200kmh again.

Considering ... the final, and full details of this legislation ... have not been written ... let alone introduced yet. And you have an opinion on it's contents ... :eek:

At least Speed cameras DO have a purpose. A financial income ... from a practice used ... in an attempt to deter motorists from exceeding posted speed limits. :bleh:

[mashman]

Considering ... the final, and full details of this legislation ... have not been written ... let alone introduced yet. And you have an opinion on it's contents ... :eek:

At least Speed cameras DO have a purpose. A financial income ... from a practice used ... in an attempt to deter motorists from exceeding posted speed limits. :bleh:

:rofl:... the analogy works today. If you know when the test is coming and you care enough to want to keep your job, then you'll not smoke for a couple of days, then go back to being a cannabis chimney afterwards. The legislation coming in won't change that, will it? Sorry for having an opinion :weep:, I should know not to have by now... but hey, some people just never learn eh :eek:.

So do the career unemployed.

[Brian d marge]

thread bomb ,,,felicity Kendall....foarrrrrrr

265964

Stephen

[Akzle]

thread bomb ,,,felicity Kendall....foarrrrrrr

265964

Stephen

i think we need to affix a breath-alcohol lockout device to your keyboard,

[skippa1]

I'd like to know what happens when a person is dismissed for being stoned.
They have a stand down period before the recieve the benefit

Will they automatically be ineligible for collecting the dole?
Yes

Are you prepared for any fall out? Will you be happy IF crime stats rise and you have to pay more tax, or the country has to borrow more money, because the crime rate rises?
Why would the xrime rate rise. All the opinion that has been expressed by the "pro cannibis" brigade quite clearly announces that smoking pot does not lead to a life of crime.

Will you be at ease with yourself because a desperate person, who would have otherwise been stoned on the couch (your words), injures or even kills someone because they don't have enough money to feed themselves or their family (they are going from some money to none)?
Rubbish, remember, pot smokers are non violent.

Because I will hold you all responsible as accessory's to the crimes committed. That may mean nothing to you, which only goes to underpin your complete lack of understanding in regards to the bigger picture.

They aint gonna do it, they are too mellow:wait:

Righto, so you expect an employeer to continue to employ a person who fails a drug test and potentially risk others lives, maybe even your own familes in case of what the said smoker may do if they loose their job???:rolleyes: One way to fix it.....dont come to work impaired......relatively simple to say, apparantly too hard to grasp.
Do you know that if you knowingly allow a person to work that is impaired or judged to be impaired by way of a drug test and they cause an incident or accident, even if you are only a work mate or an employeer, YOU can be deemed to have been a contributing factor to the result and can (many have been) be charged with negligence and fined or jailed. Heaps of company directors and managers have been prosecuted in this manner when they didnt have sufficient means of ensuring workplace safety....like drug tests. Why do you think they all do them now?

[mashman]

.
Why would the xrime rate rise. All the opinion that has been expressed by the "pro cannibis" brigade quite clearly announces that smoking pot does not lead to a life of crime.


Loss of money where they have little in the first place... keep up.


Rubbish, remember, pot smokers are non violent.

They aint gonna do it, they are too mellow:wait:

Not according to your experience



Righto, so you expect an employeer to continue to employ a person who fails a drug test and potentially risk others lives, maybe even your own familes in case of what the said smoker may do if they loose their job???:rolleyes: One way to fix it.....dont come to work impaired......relatively simple to say, apparantly too hard to grasp.
Do you know that if you knowingly allow a person to work that is impaired or judged to be impaired by way of a drug test and they cause an incident or accident, even if you are only a work mate or an employeer, YOU can be deemed to have been a contributing factor to the result and can (many have been) be charged with negligence and fined or jailed. Heaps of company directors and managers have been prosecuted in this manner when they didnt have sufficient means of ensuring workplace safety....like drug tests. Why do you think they all do them now?

I never said I wanted people to be drunk or stoned at work. Can you show me where I did? and in context please :cool:. I agree that people should have more concern for those around them, especially in the working environment, but accidents don't just happen to people who are impaired and those who are impaired aren't always involved in accident. In other words, prevention doesn't always work and the fact that we can't see into the future and people who aren't impaired have accidents mootifies your argument. I understand ye olde not stopping someone from doing something "dangerous" and them dying is akin to receiving an assist for the darwin award... hence why I'll hold you all responsible :niceone:, but I see no reason why I should enforce it just because of a rule. Did you see the story in the states of the life saver who saved a life and then got sacked because he left his area to save someone in an area he wasn't allowed in? What would have happened had he watched the guy die? The argument of prevention is useless and pathetic without common sense and only the weak minded would spout such utter shite under the misguided notion that it will ALWAYS save lives.

[skippa1]

I
never said I wanted people to be drunk or stoned at work. Can you show me where I did?
You didnt say you wanted the to be but you did ask what would happen

I'd like to know what happens when a person is dismissed for being stoned.

Not according to your experience
Yes but this is the world according to you:baby:



but I see no reason why I should enforce it just because of a rule.
You might not but fucked if Im going to jail for some arse that comes to work stoned


The argument of prevention is useless and pathetic without common sense and only the weak minded would spout such utter shite under the misguided notion that it will ALWAYS save lives.

Who ever said that?

[jasonu]

True, why should you have any personal freedom or fun when you are job hunting? There are after all plenty of jobs out there and the lazy bums just wont apply themselves. What was the story? a Bar in Wanganui or some out of the way place wanted 1 bar person and 312 people actual had the cheek to turn up in person. Must be all those bums that chose unemployment as a career.

It is called personal responsibility. If you are in the job market and YOU KNOW THERE WILL BE SOME SORT OF DRUG TEST then lay off the weed if you are serious about becoming employed. If you (job applicants) can't figure that out then you deserve to have your dole (dope money) taken away.

[jasonu]

what is to stop a person not having a smoke before an interview and then turning up to work after a night of smoking, and to just sit there and do the bare minimum to get through the day
.

Random drug testing, pride, self esteem, the hope of furthering and bettering yourself, the knowledge that you did a good days work and actually earnt your money, the list goes on.

[steve_t]

It is called personal responsibility...

What are these words? This concept seems fairly obscure :jerry:

[Brian d marge]

At work with a cnt of a hangover ...drugs bad , work bad ,,,life in general ( at this point ) sucks big balls.....I want to go hone and crawl into me pit ....

Stephen

[avgas]

http://polaroidsofandroids.com/images/news/2009-01-22-tame-impala/kids.jpghttp://www.photoshoppix.com/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/10008/normal_getting_stoned_2.jpghttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bEBzZgZ5Tmc/ST8fxnoxnhI/AAAAAAAAQ3M/r4bJQEaMQP4/s400/Stephanie+Marin+living+stones.jpghttp://www.stonetherapyschool.com/images/cover.jpg

[nodrog]

A message from your leader.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8nYHjV3qUo&feature=related

[Akzle]

http://polaroidsofandroids.com/images/news/2009-01-22-tame-impala/kids.jpg
hey! you found my family album!

[mashman]

I
You didnt say you wanted the to be but you did ask what would happen

Yes but this is the world according to you:baby:

You might not but fucked if Im going to jail for some arse that comes to work stoned

Who ever said that?

Well here's hoping that's the tack they take.

Is it? or did you decide that that was how I see the world?

As I said, fuckin stupid. If raising your concerns isn't enough to stop someone from being under the influence and driving and you end up in jail, would you blame the person for under the influence for you being in jail?

I said it.

[mashman]

It is called personal responsibility. If you are in the job market and YOU KNOW THERE WILL BE SOME SORT OF DRUG TEST then lay off the weed if you are serious about becoming employed. If you (job applicants) can't figure that out then you deserve to have your dole (dope money) taken away.

:rofl: personal responsibility card alert... you're not allowed to get stoned because of will hamper your chances of getting a job and it may also result in you losing any money you have. Personal responsibility removed by legislation, all is well :blink:. Shutting the door after the horse has bolted eh? yup, that's worked well for people getting pissed and driving their cars, rape, murder, war and some even come with exclusions depending on who you are and what your position is. Priceless.


Random drug testing, pride, self esteem, the hope of furthering and bettering yourself, the knowledge that you did a good days work and actually earnt your money, the list goes on.

:killingme... speechless with laughter here. Sounds like a textbook to me, one that people read and swallow in the hope that it'll make them a different person.

[FJRider]

... the analogy works today. If you know when the test is coming and you care enough to want to keep your job

The legislation coming in won't change that, will it? ... but hey, some people just never learn eh :eek:.



As I understood .... the main subject of this thread is the drug testing of the unemployed ... on a benefit. Not those already in work. I gather from what I have read on the subject ... the drug test will be prior to the "potential employee", being sent for a job interview. Those on the benefit will have no idea when that could be.
Currently ... the "potential employer" pays for the drug test. It will be WINZ that will pay for the drug test under the new legislation (if I understood it correctly)

The minister of Welfare stated those failing a drug test wont get taken immediately off a benefit. Although she never mentioned any possible reductions in "extra assistance" they may/will recieve.
Continued failing of the test cannot go well for those people either.

[mashman]

As I understood .... the main subject of this thread is the drug testing of the unemployed ... on a benefit. Not those already in work. I gather from what I have read on the subject ... the drug test will be prior to the "potential employee", being sent for a job interview. Those on the benefit will have no idea when that could be.
Currently ... the "potential employer" pays for the drug test. It will be WINZ that will pay for the drug test under the new legislation (if I understood it correctly)

The minister of Welfare stated those failing a drug test wont get taken immediately off a benefit. Although she never mentioned any possible reductions in "extra assistance" they may/will recieve.
Continued failing of the test cannot go well for those people either.

Oh I see, back on topic :laugh:. Tis a waste of money and of employee potential to screen for drugs. It does not mean that the person will take drugs at work or indeed mean that the person will be impaired during their working day due to after effects.

[Road kill]

If employers are going to drug test new job seekers,,what's the point of WINZ doing it ?
Wouldn't that be just another cost to the NZ tax payer ?
All seems a bit pointless to me.
An no I don't smoke the stuff,nore have I ever been on the dole,,,nore do I really give a shit.
It just seems a bit odd that mr "My tax money" is dumb enough to buy this shit.

[skippa1]

If employers are going to drug test new job seekers,,what's the point of WINZ doing it ?
It's that just yet another cost to the NZ tax payer ?
All seems a bit pointless to me.
An no I don't smoke that stuff,nore have I ever been on the dole,,,nore do I really give a shit.
It just seems a bit odd that mr "My tax money" is dumb enough to buy this shit.

yeah well it probably would seem a bit pointless to you, you clearly havent armed yourself with much information, youre not even sure whos doing what. And if you dont give a shit, why bother posting? :wait:

[FJRider]

If employers are going to drug test new job seekers,,what's the point of WINZ doing it ?
Wouldn't that be just another cost to the NZ tax payer ?
All seems a bit pointless to me.
An no I don't smoke the stuff,nore have I ever been on the dole,,,nore do I really give a shit.
It just seems a bit odd that mr "My tax money" is dumb enough to buy this shit.

It saves the Employer the time and cost ... of the interview/drug test ... to get a fail. (on all counts)

There has been a downturn on the number of employers using the WINZ service for their "Human resource needs" ... and I gather this is an attempt to regain a reputation for a reliable available workforce. And (be seen to be attempting to) reduce the numbers on a benefit.

If ... after a few failed tests (by a few) ... this is achieved ... will the new policy be a win ... or fail ... ???

[oneofsix]

It saves the Employer the time and cost ... of the interview/drug test ... to get a fail. (on all counts)

There has been a downturn on the number of employers using the WINZ service for their "Human resource needs" ... and I gather this is an attempt to regain a reputation for a reliable available workforce. And (be seen to be attempting to) reduce the numbers on a benefit.

If ... after a few failed tests (by a few) ... this is achieved ... will the new policy be a win ... or fail ... ???

This downturn in employers using WINZ, where do you get that from? Curious because I know of someone that just got a job at a fastfood joint from a group of people at WINZ. The fast food joint didn't use WINZ, there was a Human Resources company between them and WINZ. As the fast food joint is getting WINZ subsidizing the human resources place is properly also being paid for from WINZ. Another layer of wasted tax payer money.


BTW if these people are kicked of the unemployed wont the career beneficiaries just go to a friendly Dr and get declared an addict so they can go on the sickness benefit? Then they wont even to have to bother job hunting.


Lucky for Oliver Stone he will never require our welfare, he's too stoned to pass the test.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/7234532/Oliver-Stone-speaks-up-for-marijuana
could use his taxes though.

[FJRider]

... The fast food joint didn't use WINZ, there was a Human Resources company between them and WINZ. As the fast food joint is getting WINZ subsidizing the human resources place is properly also being paid for from WINZ. Another layer of wasted tax payer money.

If the employer thought WINZ were any good ... they would have dealt with them directly. The Human resource company's dont get the wage subsidy ... the employer does.
WINZ dont care who uses their resources to get staff. Nor should you ... fewer dole bludgers should be a good thing.


BTW if these people are kicked of the unemployed wont the career beneficiaries just go to a friendly Dr and get declared an addict so they can go on the sickness benefit? Then they wont even to have to bother job hunting.

It would be the "Hoops" those "Addict's" would need to jump through to stay on the benefit that may stop/slow a few in their chosen "career" ...

[Road kill]

yeah well it probably would seem a bit pointless to you, you clearly havent armed yourself with much information, youre not even sure whos doing what. And if you dont give a shit, why bother posting? :wait:

Why bother posting ?
Because after a while it does become annoying to listen to so many people seemingly intelligent talking shit about something that "if history proves it's self" will probably never happen anyway.
Like I said,,just people buying the same old shit from our gov't yet again.

Ok you can take your cheap shot at my english now.:niceone:

[skippa1]

Why bother posting ?
Because after a while it does become annoying to listen to so many people seemingly intelligent talking shit about something that "if history proves it's self" will probably never happen anyway.
Like I said,,just people buying the same old shit from our gov't yet again.

Ok you can take your cheap shot at my english now.:niceone:

actually, I cant even begin to imagine why you would torture yourself with this annoying shit. Why read it if it pisses you off?

[Road kill]

actually, I cant even begin to imagine why you would torture yourself with this annoying shit. Why read it if it pisses you off?

Christ knows,it's like some kind of sick compulsion.
You must know how it is,it starts off with some sort of promise then before you realise,your just another part of it all.
:doh:

[jasonu]

:rofl: personal responsibility card alert... you're not allowed to get stoned because of will hamper your chances of getting a job and it may also result in you losing any money you have. Personal responsibility removed by legislation, all is well :blink:. Shutting the door after the horse has bolted eh? yup, that's worked well for people getting pissed and driving their cars, rape, murder, war and some even come with exclusions depending on who you are and what your position is. Priceless.



:killingme... speechless with laughter here. Sounds like a textbook to me, one that people read and swallow in the hope that it'll make them a different person.

Now you are just being a wanker on purpose. See ya at the next argument.

[mashman]

Now you are just being a wanker on purpose. See ya at the next argument.

:rofl:... yes there is definitely a level of wankdom in there. We are poles apart on the subject, shame you see it as an argument (gives you a convenient out though eh :shifty: praps an emoticon will help)... but legislating away personal responsibility hasn't worked, it only produces criminals (needlessly in so many case imho). Whilst I agree with drug testing at work if there is suspicion (there are obvious signs), I don't agree with drug testing anyone in the application process as it says absolutely nothing about the level of restraint/personal responsibility that that person will show in their day to day working life. I understand your argument that if you are serious about the job you should be showing restraint etc... but why should someone put their life on hold for a job? I honestly don't see why as once they have the job they could quite easily get wasted every day and carry on without anyone noticing (obviously job dependent). To that end you are removing the ability for the prospective employee to display that personal responsibility you covet before they even have the job, whilst at the same time labelling them as a criminal and financial penalising them. I really really really really disagree with such a foolish position... May as well have some fun with it :headbang:

http://calitreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MontyPythonRunAway.jpg

[FJRider]

Whilst I agree with drug testing at work if there is suspicion (there are obvious signs)

They may not be "stoned or pissed" at work ... but often impaired enough to the "just a drink or two" stage. Often NOT obvious. Untill they shunt their truck into the back of a school bus ... nobody realises it.


I don't agree with drug testing anyone in the application process as it says absolutely nothing about the level of restraint/personal responsibility that that person will show in their day to day working life. I understand your argument that if you are serious about the job you should be showing restraint etc... but why should someone put their life on hold for a job?

If you are serious about getting a job ... the sensible time for restraint ... would be in the time you are looking for a job.
This thread is still about drug testing those on the benefits ... is it not ... ???


I honestly don't see why as once they have the job they could quite easily get wasted every day and carry on without anyone noticing.

Many do each day now. We share the roads with some of them ...



To that end you are removing the ability for the prospective employee to display that personal responsibility you covet before they even have the job, whilst at the same time labelling them as a criminal and financial penalising them.

Personal responsibility is taking actions ... that you are aware of the ramifications of ... if caught. And are prepared to accept (without complaint). If that is a financial penalty .. and as yet no such penalty has been stated, it will be in the new legislation. Only the active imagination of those that may have something to hide themselves ... have stated such.

[mashman]

They may not be "stoned or pissed" at work ... but often impaired enough to the "just a drink or two" stage. Often NOT obvious. Untill they shunt their truck into the back of a school bus ... nobody realises it.

I agree wholly. Hence the other thread for those driving under the influence... yet not every influenced truck driver crashes. Would it be fair to assume that the crash of which you speak may have happened anyway? after all, not paying attention is not paying attention.



If you are serious about getting a job ... the sensible time for restraint ... would be in the time you are looking for a job.
This thread is still about drug testing those on the benefits ... is it not ... ???

Whilst I see your point, I don't agree, fully, that just because someone fails a drug test that they will be impaired during the working day, especially if it's only the traces of the drug that is left. If they can be "straight" at the interview with traces of drugs in their system and be offered the job, then I fail to see the need for the drug test.



Many do each day now. We share the roads with some of them ...

Agreed... yet people who are "straight" have accidents to. I'm not excusing it because I agree that there's a time and place for substance use and at work isn't one of them... but hey, we're all different.



Personal responsibility is taking actions ... that you are aware of the ramifications of ... if caught. And are prepared to accept (without complaint). If that is a financial penalty .. and as yet no such penalty has been stated, it will be in the new legislation. Only the active imagination of those that may have something to hide themselves ... have stated such.

Again I agree, but I don't see why traces of a drug means that you are a liability. Granted it highlights a potential and I guess that comes down to how paranoid the employer is about it. You assume that those who have stated such have something to hide. IF I get pinged, yes this may be considered off topic :banana:, the day after I have my 1 smoke a month then I will wear the punishment irrespective of how stupid I think the legislation is. I will then implement my plan in protest.

[FJRider]

... yet not every influenced truck driver crashes. Would it be fair to assume that the crash of which you speak may have happened anyway? after all, not paying attention is not paying attention.

One of the things drugs and booze are known to do ... is reduce the inhibitions of those persons that consume them. They are prepared to take more risks than they normally would. And it also slows their reaction time down. If the appearance of the unexpected ... such as a mob of stock, a tractor and silage wagon, or a school bus ... (all or none may appear) the likelyhood of "something" happening is increased. That is not to say it will happen ... but would you be happy for them to take the risk with your kids in that school bus ... ???


If they can be "straight" at the interview with traces of drugs in their system and be offered the job, then I fail to see the need for the drug test.

Those that dont use ... or at least willing and able to take and pass drug tests ... their chances of gaining employment ... increase. To refuse or fail the test is not a good look. Most reputable employers wont ask for a second test to be given. And most will ask during initial talks ... if the applicant has failed a drug test previously. A yes answer would most likely result in the employer looking elsewhere ... or very strict conditions of employment ... and ... passing a pre-employment drug test of course.


Agreed... yet people who are "straight" have accidents to. I'm not excusing it because I agree that there's a time and place for substance use and at work isn't one of them... but hey, we're all different.

With the increase in insurance premiums ... and the ACC levys employers are subject to ... reducing the known risk of "something" happening due to the consumption of illegal substances and influences during work hours, is their aim. Even a series of minor incidents can sky-rocket those levys/premiums.


Again I agree, but I don't see why traces of a drug means that you are a liability. Granted it highlights a potential and I guess that comes down to how paranoid the employer is about it. You assume that those who have stated such have something to hide. IF I get pinged, yes this may be considered off topic :banana:, the day after I have my 1 smoke a month then I will wear the punishment irrespective of how stupid I think the legislation is. I will then implement my plan in protest.

Not always liability ... but always increased risk of potential issues ....
How many of those posting in this thread, that are not in favour of drug testing ... are potential employers ... ???

We all know the risks of ignoring the current (stupid) legislation ... and matters little if we agree with the intentions of it or not. Them's IS the rules. Break them and be prepared for the result. Whinging if caught is a source of amusement for others .... so I dont whinge if "caught" ...

[mashman]

One of the things drugs and booze are known to do ... is reduce the inhibitions of those persons that consume them. They are prepared to take more risks than they normally would. And it also slows their reaction time down. If the appearance of the unexpected ... such as a mob of stock, a tractor and silage wagon, or a school bus ... (all or none may appear) the likelyhood of "something" happening is increased. That is not to say it will happen ... but would you be happy for them to take the risk with your kids in that school bus ... ???


Apart from stoners, coz they're paranoid to face people... or tripping balls for that matter. heh. I have already stated that I wouldn't want people driving under the influence, but all of the wishing and testing in the world won't stop that, will it?



Those that dont use ... or at least willing and able to take and pass drug tests ... their chances of gaining employment ... increase. To refuse or fail the test is not a good look. Most reputable employers wont ask for a second test to be given. And most will ask during initial talks ... if the applicant has failed a drug test previously. A yes answer would most likely result in the employer looking elsewhere ... or very strict conditions of employment ... and ... passing a pre-employment drug test of course.

So you'll be happy for a prospective employer to have access and monitor your emails, text messages and phone calls then? You may say that that is out of bounds and not up for discussion, but that is something else that is available to employers should they suspect something. May as well know the person you're hiring before you hire them? and if you're going to put in the effort, you wouldn't grumble?



With the increase in insurance premiums ... and the ACC levys employers are subject to ... reducing the known risk of "something" happening due to the consumption of illegal substances and influences during work hours, is their aim. Even a series of minor incidents can sky-rocket those levys/premiums.

Not always liability ... but always increased risk of potential issues ....
How many of those posting in this thread, that are not in favour of drug testing ... are potential employers ... ???


Risk is everywhere and I'd reckon the character of the person that is to be employed is more of a risk than whether they take drugs or not. Sure it's a risk, but it doesn't mean that you will cause an accident... I'm sure that some smart computer programme will assign us all an individual risk factor at some point. Whatever happened to giving someone enough rope? Computer says no (rope). The probability of a thing happening does not dictate the outcome and those who believe such nonsense with enough verve to start legislating for it need their heads read... and all to save some cash eh.



We all know the risks of ignoring the current (stupid) legislation ... and matters little if we agree with the intentions of it or not. Them's IS the rules. Break them and be prepared for the result. Whinging if caught is a source of amusement for others .... so I dont whinge if "caught" ...

:laugh: aye, rules is rules... shame they will be used to cost people their livelihood. I'd role out the common sense defence, but that's against the rules these days, it's all about what some self-righteous pompous cretin has taken offence to and written on a piece of paper to give to politicians to put into law eh... and people swallow it :facepalm:... but I'll take my medicine too if that's what the law decides should happen, mmmmmmaybe not as gracefully as your good self though :msn-wink:

[FJRider]

but all of the wishing and testing in the world won't stop that, will it?

So you'll be happy for a prospective employer to have access and monitor your emails, text messages and phone calls then?

Risk is everywhere and I'd reckon the character of the person that is to be employed is more of a risk than whether they take drugs or not.

:laugh: aye, rules is rules...

NO.

That has never been "on the table" as far as the legislation under discussion in this thread goes. Please stay on topic. And take off that silly looking tin-foil hat. It makes you look stupid.

Good character ... ??? As long as they show up for work when they are supposed to .... and capable of doing the job they're paid to do ... it matters little (usually) if they are complete and total arseholes ... The joys of being an employer eh ... !!!

If the "rules" in legislation are put into legislation through due process ... it matters little the reasons of those that began the process of new legislation.

[mashman]

NO.

That has never been "on the table" as far as the legislation under discussion in this thread goes. Please stay on topic. And take off that silly looking tin-foil hat. It makes you look stupid.

Good character ... ??? As long as they show up for work when they are supposed to .... and capable of doing the job they're paid to do ... it matters little (usually) if they are complete and total arseholes ... The joys of being an employer eh ... !!!

If the "rules" in legislation are put into legislation through due process ... it matters little the reasons of those that began the process of new legislation.

:rofl: my apologies for straying away from the issue that the thread is addressing.

I wish they'd just bring in the chip, with medical capability, it'd save money in the long term and solve all of our woes.

[Brian d marge]

400 posts and still no drugs ...bored

Vivian ...I need you

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ccjfSyO9ncM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Stephen

[mashman]

Drug test plan won't work, Labour says (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/14574682/drug-test-plan-wont-work-labour-says/)

""The minister is simply putting in place an incentive which says `if you come in and fail the drug test and say you're a dependent we will move you onto the sickness benefit'," Labour's social development spokeswoman Jacinda Ardern said on Friday."

bwaaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaa... just smack yerself up before ya go a testin' and ye be sweet. At least they're trying eh :killingme

[scumdog]

Tonights TV poll had 10% agreeing with Mashy, go Mashy!:banana:

[mashman]

Tonights TV poll had 10% agreeing with Mashy, go Mashy!:banana:

WOW, how many people "votes" and what was the demographic of the "voters"... but 10% is more than I'd hope for given the sheepish nature of NZ

[Oscar]

WOW, how many people "votes" and what was the demographic of the "voters"... but 10% is more than I'd hope for given the sheepish nature of NZ

People vote.
Sheep don't.
So who's the sheep here, Shrek?

[mashman]

People vote.
Sheep don't.
So who's the sheep here, Shrek?

baaaaaaaaaa

[Oscar]

baaaaaaaaaa

Translation: I don't vote, I just complain.

[mashman]

Translation: I don't vote, I just complain.

baaaaahahahabaaaaaaaa

[Oscar]

baaaaahahahabaaaaaaaa

Too stupid to vote, eh?
Ah well, shearing time soon.

[Akzle]

MOOOO!



i think i missed the point :scratch:

[oldrider]

Talking it up is all good but New Zealand is chocka block with rules and regulations that can not be policed or administered effectively now!

Cut the crap and get rid of most of them and just settle for the most important ones and then support the people that have to police them!

All we do in NZ is keep on creating work for all the excess lawyers that get churned out of university every year whether we need them or not!

The last thing this country needs is more laws, lawyers and judges ... they (IMHO) are part of the problem, rather than the solution! :rolleyes:

[Usarka]

Tonights TV poll had 10% agreeing with Mashy, go Mashy!:banana:

Was that on close up? When Mike Wanking was saying bene's should be tested because the govt was paying their wages, I wish that woman had suggested the govt also get TVNZ to drug test their staff.

Would be a 98% fail rate.

[Akzle]

Talking it up is all good but New Zealand is chocka block with rules and regulations that can not be policed or administered effectively now!

Cut the crap and get rid of most of them and just settle for the most important ones and then support the people that have to police them!

All we do in NZ is keep on creating work for all the excess lawyers that get churned out of university every year whether we need them or not!

The last thing this country needs is more laws, lawyers and judges ... they (IMHO) are part of the problem, rather than the solution! :rolleyes:

well said, that man!

but the lawyers have to get paid... so the politicians need to make work for em...
it's just good business, jack.

i'd love to love the cops. i really would. i'd love the armed constabulary act to be re-enacted.
...but there's no money in it.

[blue rider]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10826097


Unlike other indicators such as inflation or GDP, it doesn't spread the pain across the population.

If your number's up then you bear the disproportionate brunt of the economic downturn.

And then it still makes things worse for the rest of us. Higher unemployment means the Government takes less money in taxes, pays out more on welfare and the increased demand for jobs puts downward pressure on wages. Oops, the kids are off to Australia, oh dear.

Attempts to break the cultural cycle around long-term unemployment are also stymied and another generation of kids is condemned to grow up in poverty ... and so on.

Article continues below

Never mind, says John Key, who described yesterday's small increase to a rate of 6.8 per cent as a "technical rise" and pointed the finger at the Christchurch quake.

One might point out that the "technical rise" of 0.1 per cent in the June quarter still represented some 2000 people becoming unemployed



that would be 2000 new ducklings to drug test....whohoo...i wonder who the drug testing business is going to, at the rate people are loosing their jobs in this country, and subsequently can't find new one...thats a business opportunity.

[Oscar]

MOOOO!



i think i missed the point :scratch:

Mashbrain complains but doesn't vote.

[blue rider]

and those welfare queens too should be drug tested every week before they recieve their 50 $ cash payment and their food card


...he said the payment card could be spent only at food stores. Transport and medical costs would have to be paid out of the $50 cash payment, plus a disability allowance if applicable.

Young parents would also be able to earn "incentive payments" of an extra $10 a week for staying in education or training, another $10 for undergoing budgeting, and another $10 if they met all their parenting obligations including parenting education, enrolling their children with a doctor or Well Child provider, and enrolling them in early childhood education or childcare.



http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10827772

[scumdog]

Was that on close up? When Mike Wanking was saying bene's should be tested because the govt was paying their wages, I wish that woman had suggested the govt also get TVNZ to drug test their staff.

Would be a 98% fail rate.

Since ya know that why not whip along and point out the ones that will fail? - save the expense of a drug test eh...:shifty:

[blue rider]

Since ya know that why not whip along and point out the ones that will fail? - save the expense of a drug test eh...:shifty:

I am all for all employes of the government, including all politicians, for drug abuse, including alcohol and prescription meds.

How many of your colleagues would last if a test were held today?

After all, us tax payer are paying the wages of all public / civil servants.
In the end, it could be fun. No passing the piss test no job, dismissed on the spot. It would be hilarious.

[scumdog]

I am all for all employes of the government, including all politicians, for drug abuse, including alcohol and prescription meds.

How many of your colleagues would last if a test were held today?

After all, us tax payer are paying the wages of all public / civil servants.
In the end, it could be fun. No passing the piss test no job, dismissed on the spot. It would be hilarious.

And straight onto the dole...hilarious...:shifty:

[blue rider]

And straight onto the dole...hilarious...:shifty:


surely a druggy that was dismissed because would not be recieving a penny under our beloved national government.

after all Mrs. Bennet is making sure Tax payers money only goes to those that deserve it. or are you saying this is all hogwash to appease the rubes and the unwashed masses, some sort of bread and circus, divide and conquer , so that the government appears as to be doing things.....heavens say it aint so....where are my smelling salts.:innocent:

[Usarka]

Since ya know that why not whip along and point out the ones that will fail? - save the expense of a drug test eh...:shifty:

I refuse to comment on the grounds that I may incriminate myself. :whistle:


I am all for all employes of the government, including all politicians, for drug abuse, including alcohol and prescription meds.

I agree. If it's good for one it's good for all.

Just not me.

[FJRider]

And straight onto the dole...hilarious...:shifty:

There used to be a clause in the WINZ policy, that those dismissed from their employment ... had an eight week standown before they were eligible for a benefit.

[mashman]

and those welfare queens too should be drug tested every week before they recieve their 50 $ cash payment and their food card

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10827772

Words don't begin to sum up what a total and utter cluster fuck this is :angry2: bunch of thoughtless self centered fuckin wankers backed by "ordinary" thoughtless self centered wankers. :angry2::angry2::angry2::angry2::angry2::angry2::a ngry2:

[Akzle]

Mashbrain complains but doesn't vote.

i complain. and i sure as shit don't vote. i reserve the right to make my own decisions, as a thinking adult.
why would i vote for someone to make decisions for me? especially if that person was a politician???!!!

the day i vote will be the day "hang the lot of the fuckers" is on the polling form.

[mashman]

i complain. And i sure as shit don't vote. I reserve the right to make my own decisions, as a thinking adult.
Why would i vote for someone to make decisions for me? Especially if that person was a politician???!!!

The day i vote will be the day "hang the lot of the fuckers" is on the polling form.

am oot of rep... so woof woof...

[Akzle]

I am all for all employes of the government, including all politicians, for drug abuse, including alcohol and prescription meds.

How many of your colleagues would last if a test were held today?

After all, us tax payer are paying the wages of all public / civil servants.
In the end, it could be fun. No passing the piss test no job, dismissed on the spot. It would be hilarious.
and what a fucking waste. people who do their jobs proficiently (excepting politicians and public servants here), people who cause no harm to anyone but enjoy a joint with dinner, and turn up to their jobs for 40 hours a week to keep the cogs of the govt turning, keep the government's boot firmly on the back of their necks..
good deal.


There used to be a clause in the WINZ policy, that those dismissed from their employment ... had an eight week standown before they were eligible for a benefit.

it depends on the reason. if it's "your fault" that you're not employed, stand down happens,(stealing, quit, drunk etc) if you're 90-day-dismissed, your contract isn't renewed, redundant etc, you're on the benny straight up (i think it takes about 2 weeks.. but muh. they do "back pay" you since your were "entitled")

[FJRider]

i complain. and i sure as shit don't vote. i reserve the right to make my own decisions, as a thinking adult.
why would i vote for someone to make decisions for me? especially if that person was a politician???!!!

the day i vote will be the day "hang the lot of the fuckers" is on the polling form.

There is a difference between "rights" ... and "entitlement". (google both to see the difference)

Funny thing is ... to change a political system .... you need to vote (Although there ARE more serious options, for changes to be made)

But of course this would mean being ... part of/IN the system ... in our society.

But we cant have that ... eh ... !!

[Ocean1]

Words don't begin to sum up what a total and utter cluster fuck this is :angry2: bunch of thoughtless self centered fuckin wankers backed by "ordinary" thoughtless self centered wankers. :angry2::angry2::angry2::angry2::angry2::angry2::a ngry2:

Meh. If you don't like the terms of charity then choose to earn your own keep.

[Akzle]

Figgy.
you are a moron. do me a favor and click the ignore button on me. do not reply to my posts.


i hear that with the amount to roll out the drug tests they could put into kiwirail to keep those 200 guys employed...

[mashman]

Meh. If you don't like the terms of charity then choose to earn your own keep.

Are they registered with the Charities Commission? Earn your own keep? :killingme Where are the jobs? Where are the well paid jobs to keep these people off any form of govt subsidy? Where are the "instructions" for the new system which could leave some parents without enough money to feed/clothe/provide heating etc... for their kids? Tis ok though, they are sub-human and therefore should be treated as such. Did I mention something about thoughtless self centered fuckin wankers? I've got a cap for ya fella :niceone:

[Ocean1]

Are they registered with the Charities Commission? Earn your own keep? :killingme Where are the jobs? Where are the well paid jobs to keep these people off any form of govt subsidy? Where are the "instructions" for the new system which could leave some parents without enough money to feed/clothe/provide heating etc... for their kids? Tis ok though, they are sub-human and therefore should be treated as such. Did I mention something about thoughtless self centered fuckin wankers? I've got a cap for ya fella :niceone:

What the fuck else do you call the giving of resources the recipient didn't earn?

As for the rest? Be fuct, if you can't feed yourself or your kids Darwin says you die.

Quietly.

[mashman]

What the fuck else do you call the giving of resources the recipient didn't earn?

As for the rest? Be fuct, if you can't feed yourself or your kids Darwin says you die.

Quietly.

Are we talking about the central banks now? :eek: Failing that I call it sharing.

I thought Darwin would have had us evolving and dealing with the problem?

lulz... not that hard given the feet on peoples throats these days.

[Ocean1]

Are we talking about the central banks now? :eek: Failing that I call it sharing.

Nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about. And "sharing" with people who don't reciprocate isn't good survival strategy.




I thought Darwin would have had us evolving and dealing with the problem?

Nope. Work hard to get food and shelter or die. Simple.

Get it right and your kids get the same deal, otherwise they die beside you.

[mashman]

Nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about. And "sharing" with people who don't reciprocate isn't good survival strategy.


Nobody? Why not? What's to stop those who are left to die from killing others and taking what they want? Epic strategy you have their. Several hundred thousand people fighting for survival v's a few million comfortable self interested individuals. My money is on the desperate. But by all means believe that they'll just roll over and die for you.



Nope. Work hard to get food and shelter or die. Simple.

Get it right and your kids get the same deal, otherwise they die beside you.

The law of the jungle eh :killingme, how very evolved... perhaps he should have practiced what he preached.

Get it right and everyone will cooperate and share the burden.

[Ocean1]

Nobody? Why not?

Because you talk crap.


What's to stop those who are left to die from killing others and taking what they want?

Valid individual survival strategy. Except those who construct their own survival are smarter than yer average thief. They tend to be more sucessful than otherwise in defending their property and they usually have more help.


The law of the jungle eh :killingme, how very evolved... perhaps he should have practiced what he preached.

Darwin? He was a successful man, what the fuck are you on about?



Get it right and everyone will cooperate and share the burden.

Get it right and the successful will survive. Get it wrong and the hangers-on will take everyone down with them.

[Akzle]

Get it right and everyone will cooperate and share the burden.

you're more optimistic than me. i'm praying for meteors. (http://www.space.com/14810-asteroid-earth-impact-risk-2012da14.html) (it'd be more fun to watch)
"humanity needs to remain vigilant against the asteroid threat, "
anyone know about space wars?:rolleyes:

[mashman]

Because you talk crap.

:rofl: as opposed to your ever so wise position on the subject?



Valid individual survival strategy. Except those who construct their own survival are smarter than yer average thief. They tend to be more sucessful than otherwise in defending their property and they usually have more help.

Good luck with that when there's a hoard that's led by someone smarter than the defender leading them.



Darwin? He was a successful man, what the fuck are you on about?

WOW, I'm impressed, you asked for clarification. Was Darwins theory of evolution solely based on species physical development? or do ya think he might have considered mental development and social evolution? You seem to be saying that Darwin prescribed to the law of the jungle "Work hard to get food and shelter or die". Bit odd given that he gave us the theory of evolution yet overruled his findings by thinking that we should live by the law of the jungle? praps he was joking but you didn't understand what he meant... and WTF does success have to do with it?



Get it right and the successful will survive. Get it wrong and the hangers-on will take everyone down with them.

:killingme How does success guarantee survival? and how does having hangers-on take everyone down with them?

[Ocean1]

and WTF does success have to do with it?

:facepalm:

[mashman]

you're more optimistic than me. i'm praying for meteors. (http://www.space.com/14810-asteroid-earth-impact-risk-2012da14.html) (it'd be more fun to watch)
anyone know about space wars?:rolleyes:

I'm kinda lookin forward to something happening, but I wants aliems... granted yours is more plausible given the evidence, but as you say, I'm optimistic. As for my optimism in human nature, there's enough of us to do the jobs that need doing and some. A little logistics and we could avoid huge amounts of the shit people face day in day out. Offered the choice of going of the dole and "struggling" v putting a little effort in and not having the worry of where the food etc... is coming from (obviously there'd need to be a change in regards to how our society functions and our economy runs to allow for equity)... do you think people would do their bit for a couple of hours a day, or would they rather fight the fight?

[mashman]

:facepalm:

I'm seeking clarification. I fail to see what success has to do with survival, other than a historical look at who survived.

[Ocean1]

I'm seeking clarification. I fail to see what success has to do with survival, other than a historical look at who survived.

If survival is the objective, (and it is) then ramaining alive is...?


And remaining alive with reserve capacity is...?

[Maki]

:killingme How does success guarantee survival? and how does having hangers-on take everyone down with them?

:facepalm:

[mashman]

If survival is the objective, (and it is) then ramaining alive is...?


And remaining alive with reserve capacity is...?

Sorry, when I said I was looking for clarification, I didn't mean let's hangman... but to have a wild stab in the dark let's pretend that I know what you're talking about:

remaining alive is... lucky.

reserves of what?

[Berries]

anyone know about space wars?:rolleyes:
I had it on my Atari. Classic.

[mashman]

:facepalm:

OH SHIT, another one. Did someone forget to tell me that it was read the mind of the poster night? Or make your own mind up what the poster is referring to night? Go on, let's see if you can keep it in the context under which it was written... should be good for a larf if nothing else.

[Ocean1]

Sorry, when I said I was looking for clarification, I didn't mean let's hangman...

Didn't look like you were having much luck all by yourself.

If survival is the objective, (and it is) then ramaining alive is: the very definition of success.


And remaining alive with reserve capacity is (I'm guna change this bit): the only way you get discretionary income.

[mashman]

Didn't look like you were having much luck all by yourself.

If survival is the objective, (and it is) then ramaining alive is: the very definition of success.


And remaining alive with reserve capacity is (I'm guna change this bit): the only way you get discretionary income.

:rofl: at least you noticed.

I did say: "I fail to see what success has to do with survival, other than a historical look at who survived". Sheer luck will play a much bigger part in ones survival, so I'll stand by lucky too. And in the context of the statement, you could still fail (not be successful) and people will survive.

You're assuming that having discretionary income is going to matter... and if the currency at that time is trade of skills, Darwin and politicians would really be in the shit. If it all goes tits and the sky starts falling and the world leaders head for cover with their army to protect them from those who also want to survive and will clamber over their dead bodies to do so, but aren't allowed in the hidey hole, then when they come out and there's nothing that money can buy... is the army going to stay and serve the leaders, or fuck off and start to fend for themselves? Money won't mean a damn thing. Yes I know that's an extreme scenario, but I'm sure the last thought of many a species, including our own has been, ooo that's a shiny fast moving object that's gonna crash into us, or fuck me that red stuff spewing from that mountain looks a tad hot blah blah blah... and somewhere in all of that human beings cooperated on some level and looked after their sick, injured, lazy etc... We're better than we give ourselves credit for.

[Usarka]

Didn't look like you were having much luck all by yourself.

If survival is the objective, (and it is) then ramaining alive is: the very definition of success.



Ergo, people who are on the dole are successful.

[Oscar]

OH SHIT, another one. Did someone forget to tell me that it was read the mind of the poster night? Or make your own mind up what the poster is referring to night? Go on, let's see if you can keep it in the context under which it was written... should be good for a larf if nothing else.

Pretty rich coming from someone who baa's when he runs out of cogent thought (i.e. most of the time).
Pretty insulting to the sheep, really.

[oldrider]

Ergo, people who are on the dole are successful.

People on the dole have no positive control on the level (or not) of their success unless they continue to bite the hand that feeds them! ... :facepalm:

That factor in it's self should be incentive enough to get off the dole and re-establish control on their earning power.

Unfortunately, the socialist state school education system drills that out of them!

Couple that with the apparent easy and constant supply of drugs or alcohol available to anyone who wants it, the best we can expect from our students is mediocrity!

Anyone out there who still believes New Zealand is a high achieving country, is in a dream world, why are our top achievers leaving us in droves?

New Zealand is a land of mediocrity and a place where the high achievers are usually criminals and murder is a major growth industry! :rolleyes:

[mashman]

People on the dole have no positive control on the level (or not) of their success unless they continue to bite the hand that feeds them! ... :facepalm:

That factor in it's self should be incentive enough to get off the dole and re-establish control on their earning power.

Unfortunately, the socialist state school education system drills that out of them!

Couple that with the apparent easy and constant supply of drugs or alcohol available to anyone who wants it, the best we can expect from our students is mediocrity!

Anyone out there who still believes New Zealand is a high achieving country, is in a dream world, why are our top achievers leaving us in droves?

New Zealand is a land of mediocrity and a place where the high achievers are usually criminals and murder is a major growth industry! :rolleyes:

Of course they do. It may involve illegal activity, because if they didn't have "enough", they'd get that job. Biting the hand that feeds them? How does that happen then?

It would seem counter-intuitive to take a job and a pay cut and lose your day to make someone else money would it not? Why would any sane person do such a thing? I eye their position with great envy and if it weren't for my trappings, that's the Mrs and the kids :shit:, then I'd be doing something entirely different... but currently I am trapped into having to earn.

I agree that the state education system doesn't arm them with anywhere nears the skills they need to play in the world. Where's the financial management classes? And how to dodge taxes 101? Surely as we need to invest etc... according to every man and his dog such classes should exist i.e. this is how the market works, this is what a good "bet" looks like, don't put all of your eggs in one basket etc... but we don't and the simple reason is that if everyone did that, no fucker would work. No need to look any further than that. we know what it takes to make money, yet it is not taught at school, so there ain't no need for the tin foil hat brigade to show how fackin ignorant they are in this case, other than if anyone thinks that that is a conspiracy, they need their head read.

Drugs and alcohol do not stupid people make. That's the sole province of stupid people, or to be fair, people who don't know what they want to do yet and are still in that phase of having fun and getting on with life. Surely you remember those days J? The pursuit of money wasn't always a necessity was it?

They're leaving because there isn't enough money, sorry, opportunity in NZ... but no fear, they'll be back when they need their free pension that they didn't contribute towards. They'll be entitled to it and they're gonna have to top up their savings somehow.

New Zealand is not special in any way. Exactly the same shit that happens here happens all over the planet. I'm surprised people believe that the place and its issues are special. Crime and punishment, death and taxes bwaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaa you're right, they're all growth industry's.

[scumdog]

They're leaving because there isn't enough money, sorry, opportunity in NZ...

Would that all those that hang on the tax-payers tit 'because they can't find a job' would do likewise...:shifty:

[mashman]

Would that all those that hang on the tax-payers tit 'because they can't find a job' would do likewise...:shifty:

heh heh heh... praps the govt could offer a lump sum payment for that purpose

[FJRider]

Would that all those that hang on the tax-payers tit 'because they can't find a job' would do likewise...:shifty:

If it was a one way ticket ... I might like that idea ... :shifty:

[avgas]

Ergo, people who are on the dole are successful.
drug addicts apparently

[FROSTY]

Usually I can see the sense in the arguements and counter arguements in these threads. In this case I just can't
For gosh sakes its easy.You need to be drug free (alchohol included) to safely operate dangerous machinery.So you need to be drug tested.To refuse the drug test shows you do not intend to get the job. That has concequences
Why complicate things with emotional rubbish??

[avgas]

Usually I can see the sense in the arguements and counter arguements in these threads. In this case I just can't
For gosh sakes its easy.You need to be drug free (alchohol included) to safely operate dangerous machinery.So you need to be drug tested.To refuse the drug test shows you do not intend to get the job. That has concequences
Why complicate things with emotional rubbish??
Because apparently people believe its their right to be unemployable.........:facepalm:
Fuck knows who told them that.

[mashman]

Because apparently people believe its their right to be unemployable.........:facepalm:
Fuck knows who told them that.

Which automatically makes the useless :facepalm:
Self-determination... I thought you liked that ideal :bleh:

[oldrider]

Because apparently people believe its their right to be unemployable.........:facepalm:
Fuck knows who told them that.

Helen Clark and the Labour party ... all they asked in return was their loyalty vote at election time! :yes: . :sick:

[avgas]

Which automatically makes the useless :facepalm:
Self-determination... I thought you liked that ideal :bleh:
Don't get me wrong I love the idea of people shooting themselves in the foot. I just don't like paying for their diapers and training wheels.
Even rabbits have to be smart - if they just relied of breeding they would have got wiped out years ago.

[scumdog]

Because apparently people believe its their right to be unemployable.........:facepalm:
Fuck knows who told them that.

For some it was their parents....and their grandparents....:yes:


'right' my fekking arse!<_<

[mashman]

Don't get me wrong I love the idea of people shooting themselves in the foot. I just don't like paying for their diapers and training wheels.
Even rabbits have to be smart - if they just relied of breeding they would have got wiped out years ago.

And yet you won't offer them the rope with which to hang themselves, despite the fact that that's what it takes to become a fully functioning member of this society. Put the Rand down man, step into the light :innocent:

[Akzle]

Where's the financial management classes? And how to dodge taxes 101? Surely as we need to invest etc... according to every man and his dog such classes should exist i.e. this is how the market works, this is what a good "bet" looks like, don't put all of your eggs in one basket etc... but we don't and the simple reason is that if everyone did that, no fucker would work. No need to look any further than that. we know what it takes to make money, yet it is not taught at school, so there ain't no need for the tin foil hat brigade to show how fackin ignorant they are in this case, other than if anyone thinks that that is a conspiracy, they need their head read.

"MBA" national party offices. it involves doing some things you wouldn't tell your mum. and you feel dirty and degraded afterwards. but who cares. you're rich and can now laugh at all the poor brown people.


please don't tell my mother i'm in politics, i'd hate her to think less of me, she thinks i play the piano at a brothel


You need to be drug free (alchohol included) to safely operate dangerous machinery.

no you don't

i operate some of THE most dangerous machinery in the country on a weekly basis. i don't drink much because i can't afford it, but i smoke like a train. and haven't hurt anyone to date. (anyone that i didn't intend to hurt, that is.)

[Berries]

i operate some of THE most dangerous machinery in the country on a weekly basis.
You're a barrista?

[Akzle]

You're a barrista?

i do enjoy my coffee. but no. (i meant :ride: and :2guns: and :Police:)

[imdying]

If you can't feed yourself or your kids Darwin says you die.Actually, that's not correct.

If I can't feed myself or my children, then it's actually you who will die. Will I let them starve? No, of course not. Will I home invade you, kill your family and take anything of value to pay the rent for a few more weeks, of course I will.

I know who you are. I know where you live. I know what you do, and I can approximate what you earn.

Why on earth would I let my children starve when I can feed them simply by executing you and yours? :facepalm:

If we put a few thousand people into this position, how do you think the 8500 sworn officers in this country will prevent this? Magic?


/edit: Not you you

[ducatilover]

i do enjoy my coffee. but no. (i meant :ride: and :2guns: and :Police:)

Smiles, eyebrows and hats? That's a bit hard core buddy, calm down!!!!!

I too enjoy a good coffee, welfare people should make lots of coffee, then everyone would be happy and shut the fuck up

[oneofsix]

Actually, that's not correct.

If I can't feed myself or my children, then it's actually you who will die. Will I let them starve? No, of course not. Will I home invade you, kill your family and take anything of value to pay the rent for a few more weeks, of course I will.

I know who you are. I know where you live. I know what you do, and I can approximate what you earn.

Why on earth would I let my children starve when I can feed them simply by executing you and yours? :facepalm:

If we put a few thousand people into this position, how do you think the 8500 sworn officers in this country will prevent this? Magic?


/edit: Not you you

Darwin, survival of the fittest not survival of the richest :Punk:

[mashman]

Darwin, survival of the fittest not survival of the richest :Punk:

Survival of the run and hide and die with those you have run and hid with.

[Akzle]

Smiles, eyebrows and hats? That's a bit hard core buddy, calm down!!!!!

I too enjoy a good coffee, welfare people should make lots of coffee, then everyone would be happy and shut the fuck up

sorry. but i've just had too much caffeine. see. when i say coffee.. i mean the kind that paralyses children and causes heart problems in otherwise-healthy adults. most people make it with water. i make it with coffee. and grind and snort a couple of beans if i want a real kick.

i've expressed myself poorly. i'll go sit in the corner.

[Ocean1]

Will I home invade you, kill your family and take anything of value to pay the rent for a few more weeks, of course I will.

Guess that's the point at which we discover if you're more likely to survive by stealing my stuff than you might have been doing it my way.


Darwin, survival of the fittest not survival of the richest :Punk:

They're not mutually exclusive qualities, dude. In fact, as any casino floor manager would tell you guys try harder to keep their hard earned cash than they ever will to risk winnings.

[imdying]

Guess that's the point at which we discover if you're more likely to survive by stealing my stuff than you might have been doing it my way.Why force that position? Surely it's cheaper to pay the benefits?

[GrayWolf]

Actually, that's not correct.

If I can't feed myself or my children, then it's actually you who will die. Will I let them starve? No, of course not. Will I home invade you, kill your family and take anything of value to pay the rent for a few more weeks, of course I will.

I know who you are. I know where you live. I know what you do, and I can approximate what you earn.

Why on earth would I let my children starve when I can feed them simply by executing you and yours? :facepalm:

If we put a few thousand people into this position, how do you think the 8500 sworn officers in this country will prevent this? Magic?


/edit: Not you you

I guess its at that point, you find out if the 'rich bastard' has a gun, dog, or has had the time to study some obscure form of self defence.... It's funny how this 'sense of entitlement' operates... the real question is... WHY is it that this person (yourself described as example) is IN the position of not being able to fed his children in the first place??

[oneofsix]

I guess its at that point, you find out if the 'rich bastard' has a gun, dog, or has had the time to study some obscure form of self defence.... It's funny how this 'sense of entitlement' operates... the real question is... WHY is it that this person (yourself described as example) is IN the position of not being able to fed his children in the first place??

:yes: can't understand how they would get in that position in NZ where we have people working full time and still on a benefit to top up their wages, where hundreds of people will get off their arses and turn up for a single position, where the CEO's get over a 9% increase whilst the staff are lucky to get 1 or 2% if they get to keep a job and if they lose their job they then have a 6 month stand-down. Can't think of any reason why a person might feel they are in that position.

[imdying]

I guess its at that point, you find out if the 'rich bastard' has a gun, dog, or has had the time to study some obscure form of self defence.Why should the rich bastards have to arm themselves up in the first place? Isn't that indicative of the law creating problems instead of solutions?


I... It's funny how this 'sense of entitlement' operates... the real question is... WHY is it that this person (yourself described as example) is IN the position of not being able to fed his children in the first place??Myself? You not meaning you goes both ways... Changing the law in this way isn't going to change facts; people will end up in that situation. Why change the law if it's only going to make things worse? A carrot might be a better device than a stick in this case.

[Delerium]

Actually, that's not correct.

If I can't feed myself or my children, then it's actually you who will die. Will I let them starve? No, of course not. Will I home invade you, kill your family and take anything of value to pay the rent for a few more weeks, of course I will.

I know who you are. I know where you live. I know what you do, and I can approximate what you earn.

Why on earth would I let my children starve when I can feed them simply by executing you and yours? :facepalm:

If we put a few thousand people into this position, how do you think the 8500 sworn officers in this country will prevent this? Magic?


/edit: Not you you

They cant.. but the people whos houses you break into can sure kill your ass when they get sick of it.

[Swoop]

They cant.. but the people whos houses you break into can sure kill your ass when they get sick of it.
..........
268562

[Delerium]

Pretty rich coming from someone who baa's when he runs out of cogent thought (i.e. most of the time).
Pretty insulting to the sheep, really.

its just his mating call.

[oneofsix]

They cant.. but the people whos houses you break into can sure kill your ass when they get sick of it.

yep that worked for the French in 1789 and the Russians in 1917.

:corn:

[imdying]

They cant.. but the people whos houses you break into can sure kill your ass when they get sick of it.So long as the murder of a few innocents along the way is acceptable, no problem :)

[Akzle]

A carrot might be a better device than a stick in this case.

there are no carrots. only the big stick and the little stick, fortunately, which one they beat you with is your choice.
good deal eh.

[mashman]

They cant.. but the people whos houses you break into can sure kill your ass when they get sick of it.

and I'm going to go for. I won't be entering your house, but something that used to have a pin in it will be or possibly something that has a timer on it will. I will destroy your house and all those within, then happily sift through the wreckage for food. Who needs tactics when you can just blow the place to smithereens, avoid needless energy expenditure and confrontation... that's best saved when me and the kids play spot the food amongst the body parts. If nothing else they'll get a crash course in physical biology too... yes that's right babe, that is a heart. Sounds like a fun day out.

[imdying]

Ok extremes aside... burglaries on the rise at the very least :(

[Usarka]

Ok extremes aside... burglaries on the rise at the very least :(


Pretty much. You've cut my dole, for whatever reason I don't have a job, i've got no money, how am i going to survive.

Prison isn't cheaper. Maybe the govt is counting on a few suicides - that'll save dole money.

[blue rider]

Pretty much. You've cut my dole, for whatever reason I don't have a job, i've got no money, how am i going to survive.

Prison isn't cheaper. Maybe the govt is counting on a few suicides - that'll save dole money.

privatize prisons......

create criminals
private prison on government contracts
profit

[scumdog]

Prison isn't cheaper. Maybe the govt is counting on a few suicides - that'll save dole money.

We can only hope....:innocent:

[Road kill]

Pretty much. You've cut my dole, for whatever reason I don't have a job, i've got no money, how am i going to survive.

Prison isn't cheaper. Maybe the govt is counting on a few suicides - that'll save dole money.

Do you know what happens if you mistakenly load a .308 round with the wrong "very fast" powder and even manage to compress a bit to much in there.

Use your imagination mr burglar,,,I have.

[Akzle]

Do you know what happens if you mistakenly load a .308 round with the wrong "very fast" powder and even manage to compress a bit to much in there.

Use your imagination mr burglar,,,I have.

assuming you don't end up wearing the bolt, you'll fuck your gun. you shouldn't be compressing powder into cases.

[98tls]

We can only hope....:innocent:

Hope all you like mate methinks its for nought.This past week a 7 year old made 34 111 calls,towards the end of peoples patience the guy on the Fire end said "if you ring back a policemans coming round to your house" he replied "dont care dads got a gun with his weed so well shoot you dead'.Dads probably not to pleased though.

[oneofsix]

Hope all you like mate methinks its for nought.This past week a 7 year old made 34 111 calls,towards the end of peoples patience the guy on the Fire end said "if you ring back a policemans coming round to your house" he replied "dont care dads got a gun with his weed so well shoot you dead'.Dads probably not to pleased though.

I guess there will be more than one policeman then and those will be in black clothes and wearing body armour.

[avgas]

And yet you won't offer them the rope with which to hang themselves, despite the fact that that's what it takes to become a fully functioning member of this society. Put the Rand down man, step into the light :innocent:
Rope, bullets, poison. Whatever they prefer. Sharing is caring.

[avgas]

Hope all you like mate methinks its for nought.This past week a 7 year old made 34 111 calls,towards the end of peoples patience the guy on the Fire end said "if you ring back a policemans coming round to your house" he replied "dont care dads got a gun with his weed so well shoot you dead'.Dads probably not to pleased though.
Sounds like not enough Jandal.

[Usarka]

Sounds like not enough Jandal.

Too much stash, not enough bash.

[Akzle]

I guess there will be more than one policeman then and those will be in black clothes and wearing body armour.

nono. he said GUN with his WEED. not "fat germanian in control of webhosting"

[wharekura]

An update...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10829975

[oneofsix]

nono. he said GUN with his WEED. not "fat germanian in control of webhosting"

yeah, guns and body armour for weed, helicopters and anti-terrorist squad for obese web hosting nerds.

[oneofsix]

An update...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10829975

What a lot of inexact language. Makes it all sounds reasonable and get tough except all of lazy pricks that don't want work will automatically be defined as addicts and in need of exact tax payer help and those really trying will be penalised for eating sesame seed rolls and not having the right tribal connections. :corn:
Does really sound like a lose lose for the tax payer and job hunter but will appeal to the self righteous.

[blue rider]

Mrs Bennett said there was 100 per cent drug testing on anyone working on the Christchurch rebuild.

She said the Ministry of Social Development spent $130 million on addiction programmes.

"We do think we can get help for those that need it,'' she said.

Some people on prescribed medicine will be exempt and people with addiction will be supported with their dependency.

Because a drug addict could get help in today's system if he/she wanted too.....Yeah sure Tui.

But if the drugs are prescribed you are exempt, so no problem if one has got a thing for hillbilly heroin.....it comes on a prescription. :facepalm:


What about fucking job creation to take care of those that actually would like to work! I guess that's in the too hard basket.

[Akzle]

...so no problem if one has got a thing for hillbilly heroin.....it comes on a prescription. :facepalm:


heroin will show up the same as morphine or codeine. being that it's all the same drug. (thanks US occupation of afghanistan)
you could of course supplement your pinging habit with a codeine prescription, quite easily obtained from a non-bent quack, for that severe pain you have. i have a stash of 30mg tabs for just such occasions.

but yes. once you've been prescribed the amphetamine for your ADHD you'll be free and clear to smoke P. and of course your sick horse needs the ketamine, you must have had some on your hands when you sat down for lunch..
i'm yet to find legal/pharmac substitutes for MDMA or weed. yet.
but weed can be flushed through (even a heavy user's) system in a couple of days. and one has a legal right to defer providing a sample for a few weeks, too. (they may remove this for the benficiaries though)

[mashman]

I can't be arsed with this zero sum game. It achieves nothing but create criminals out of every day people and taking their money away from them is going to do what exactly? Make them reconsider their wicked ways? :killingme

[scumdog]

I can't be arsed with this zero sum game. It achieves nothing but create criminals out of every day people and taking their money away from them is going to do what exactly? Make them reconsider their wicked ways? :killingme

No.
It will mean less $ paid out by the Gov't.
Simple

[Akzle]

It achieves nothing but create criminals out of every day people and taking their money away from them is going to do what exactly? Make them reconsider their wicked ways? :killingme

make jobs.

...for police.

[short-circuit]

No.
It will mean less $ paid out by the Gov't.
Simple



Three fifths of fuckall is still fuckall...except the social costs of stripping it away will manifest as major economic costs.

Meh - I await the bashlash.

[Akzle]

It will mean less $ paid out by the Gov't.

no it wont.
it's just reshuffling it. now the government will be paying (probably more than) for police anad court time, as well as potentially jailing
for these people who, my guess is, aren't going to go and get jobs just cos they've had their benefit cut off. when it's so much easier jut to take your shit and sell it.

[mashman]

No.
It will mean less $ paid out by the Gov't.
Simple

:killingme... you said it.



make jobs.

...for police.

be fair... we're paying for insulation to be fit into private houses. That creates jobs.

noooooo, surely not. Praps a pay rise for Polly's for saving the public no money at all and raising the prison population so that the bad bad benny is off the streets.

[mashman]

no it wont.
it's just reshuffling it. now the government will be paying (probably more than) for police anad court time, as well as potentially jailing
for these people who, my guess is, aren't going to go and get jobs just cos they've had their benefit cut off. when it's so much easier jut to take your shit and sell it.

You said it would create more jobs

[Akzle]

be fair... we're paying for insulation to be fit into private houses. That creates jobs.

oh THAT's where the kiwirail boys are going after they're fired...



...hlyfk. five layers deep HTML.

[mashman]

oh THAT's where the kiwirail boys are going after they're fired...

they'll need, ahem, re-training

[Akzle]

You said it would create more jobs WORK
. .

[Akzle]

they'll need, ahem, re-training

i don't know. i still think they're being railroaded by this deal.