Welfare support and drug testing

[mashman]

It's not about what their money is spent on ... it's about what their time is spent on.

If looking for work is their aim ... sitting around at home smoking dope wont find you work.

Maybe, just maybe it's about both It reminds me of the scene from The Dark Knight where the Joker pops into Gamble house, kills him, snaps a pool cue in half and throws it on the floor between three of Gamble's associates announcing that he has an job opening for one of the associates. Keep them scrambling because just in case they decide organise themselves.

Didn't do me any harm. I upskilled by catching up on 3 years worth of tech in 4 weeks, did a fuckload in the garden (oh and sidecar knob, I dug a few holes), picked my kids up (noooo not under the influence) and bagged myself a handful of interviews for unsuitable positions (surfing the net stoned... fuckin hard work to stay away from all that porn I can tell ya), figured out exactly how the world works and found myself a job. All whilst not claiming the dole... so contrary to your statement, it doesn't stop you from doing anything, other than driving. People can even find jobs, attend interviews and do other stuff too. It's a miracle that a person could function eh

[husaberg]

Don't you get tired of wasting your life talking shite? Y

No but i get pretty tired of listening to your shit talk.
You attempt to talk a good game but you wouldn't even make the reserves..........

How about you put up or shut up.
Come on show us the courage of your convictions.

Problem is you don't make the rules. the people paying the bills do.

Like i said earlier go on the benefit, take the money tell take out an add in the paper telling everyone its your right to do illlegal drugs cause you are your own person.
See yourself get tested, then booted off the benefit, then argue you case. Go on, if you are so sure your right, do it.....

[short-circuit]

No but i get pretty tired of listening to your shit talk.
You attempt to talk a good game but you wouldn't even make the reserves..........

Put up or shut up.
Come on show us the courage of your convictions.

So what...?

I should resign from my job, claim the dole, start using drugs, advertise this in the paper so I can be tested and verify whether I would lose my benefit or not

....and if I don't you win?

Does your mummy know you're still up?

[FJRider]

That's exactly why drug testing is flawed. It's much the same as if roadside alcohol testing picked up traces of alcohol in the system from days before, at levels that would not impede the drivers ability to drive.

Maybe some employers don't want to hire users of any illegal drugs. In which case it would not be "flawed" ... the amount in you system would be the issue. It just being there would be to that employer.

[Madness]

Maybe some employers don't want to hire users of any illegal drugs. In which case it would not be "flawed" ... the amount in you system would be the issue. It just being there would be to that employer.

Not really what this thread's about though, is it?

[oneofsix]

Maybe some employers don't want to hire users of any illegal drugs. In which case it would not be "flawed" ... the amount in you system would be the issue. It just being there would be to that employer.

But the tests themselves are floored, one example being that if you eat sesame seed cake or bagels and you will test positive.

[short-circuit]

Maybe some employers don't want to hire users of any illegal drugs. In which case it would not be "flawed" ... the amount in you system would be the issue. It just being there would be to that employer.

Then why target only beneficiaries? Those employers should pay for their own testing (not using tax dollars) and start with their existing workforce.

You really are dancing now to find a justification.

[mashman]

Not really what this thread's about though, is it?

Oddly enough it is. Put the pipe down bro.

The down side is that this thread is about that exact thing. You're not allowed to take drugs, therefore if you take drugs you are not to be trusted, 1) because you are using drugs (probably regularly, assumption) and B) because you are breaking the law. Tis a bitter disappointment given that drugs have been almost tolerated up til this point and the reason most of them have been made illegal is because of a set of misconceptions and propaganda.

I'm hoping the fallout is spectacular. It may actually wake a few people the fuck up as fortunately not everyone is, even non users, is anti drugs... tis a shame we can't all benefit, pun intended, from their legalisation... but that's a political hot potato that no govt/political party has the balls for and only highlights the idiocy of ALL policy making.

[husaberg]

So what...?

I should resign from my job, claim the dole, start using drugs, advertise this in the paper so I can be tested and verify whether I would lose my benefit or not

....and if I don't you win?

Does your mummy know you're still up?

Like i said put up or shut up.Afterall you are right aren't you..... thought not FOS.

Then why target only beneficiaries? Those employers should pay for their own testing (not using tax dollars) and start with their existing workforce.

Read some posts you are truly deluded.....

I will no doubt get flamed but jeeze.
The field in which i work where we are subject to pre employment, random (and not so random) as well as post incident testing.
The field i work in can be construed as dangerous and life threatening certainly no place for people under the influence of anything.
The industry pays pretty good and is safe if you follow the rules and use common sense.
So i are subject to drug tests (and alcohol), I have no issue with it.

So why should the beneficiaries which are being supported either, in their hunt for employment , sickness. raising of a child or recoveries from an accident etc
have an issue with it. The benefit is not meant to subsidise someones drug habit is it. If they are buying drugs, are there kids going short. Why is there surplus money available to afford what, most people would not consider a necessity.

[short-circuit]

Oddly enough it is.

yes but

a) the withholding of an entitlement is not a legal sanction
b) the application is discriminitory in that it targets only a particular group who stand to lose twice (loss of entitlement plus prosecution)
c) the logic behind the policy has yet to be explained

[short-circuit]

Like i said put up or shut up.Afterall you are right aren't you..... thought not FOS.



Read some posts you are truly deluded.....

I'm begining to think you are either a child or are brain damaged.

[Madness]

Oddly enough it is. Put the pipe down bro.

Alas the tin is empty, hence the brain fart. Some people perform better with a bit o' THC in their system

[mashman]

yes but

a) the withholding on an entitlement is not a legal response
b) the application is discriminitory in that it targets only a particular group would stand to lose twice (loss of entitlement plus prosecution)
c) the logic behind the policy has yet to be explained

No need to sell me on that ya cunt.

[husaberg]

I'm begining to think you are either a child or are brain damaged.

From what i have seen with your posts. i see no evidence of you begining to think at all.

[FJRider]

Then why target only beneficiaries? Those employers should pay for their own testing (not using tax dollars) and start with their existing workforce workers.

You really are dancing now to find a justification.

Where is it said that ALL testing will be paid by WINZ ... ???

Most employers do pay for the test as a normal step/condition ... in the process of pre-employment now. And a regular random test as a matter of course .... for all staff.

What is being proposed by the esteemed minister of welfare is ... they must pass a pre-employment drugs test. A fail would see them loose the benefit. As well as not getting the job. If it gets people off their books ... I can't see why WINZ couldn't pay for the test ... if they are asked to. Who pays for it is of little importance in the great scheme of things ...

WINZ pay a reasonable subsidy for the employment of those that were on a benefit. And well worth hiring from an initial financial gain for the employer .... at least 6 months of subsidy. (I think)