Welfare support and drug testing

[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?

[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...-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?

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.

[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.

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.

[jasonu]

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 . 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.



... 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.

... 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 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

[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 , 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 , 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" ...

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 ... 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

[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.

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.

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.