Welfare support and drug testing

[mashman]

Whereas I question it's intention, it's necessity and it's efficacy....as well as the whole ideology that drives it.

The bigger picture huh. Something that we'll never know... we'll only ever collect tin foil hats along the way. Some will be red, some will be green, some will slope left, a few to the right etc...

[Ocean1]

Fair enough.

And there are people who work that are negative tax providers. Does that make them tomato's or bricks?

No surprises there, abour 55% of Kiwis represent a net drain on the public purse..

I fully understand what you are saying... but keeping inflation down is important isn't it? As well as spending the money that has been "stolen" from us wisely?

Yes, it is, but the unemployed have little to do with inflation.

Neither do they represent aprticularly good value for the tax dollar.

[FJRider]

Not if it's the same thing that you're fighting for. As long as the goal is shared, are you really going to care how you get there?

Guns run out of bullets.

If you fight the proposed drug testing on the grounds of some "abuse of rights" is one thing. To fight it on the grounds ... that you know the outcome of your first drug test will be a fail. Thus the loss of your entitlement ... is another.
Trying to achieve the same goal ... but for totally different reasons. The first for the benefit (excuse the pun) of many ... and the second the benefit (literally) of one.

Are their goals the same ... ???

To conserve your own ammo ... try to use the ammunition of the force you are fighting ... against them. (they don't like that)

[Akzle]

Neither do they represent aprticularly good value for the tax dollar.

because politicians do...?

[scumdog]

because politicians do...

frikkin' windmill jousters....

[mashman]

No surprises there, abour 55% of Kiwis represent a net drain on the public purse..

Yes, it is, but the unemployed have little to do with inflation.

Neither do they represent aprticularly good value for the tax dollar.

I guess that answers who's next.

If the unemployment rate affects interest rates and interest rates affect inflation, as my economic reading has lead me to believe so far, then the unemployed have a lot do with inflation.

Agreed. Best to leave them to their own devices then and try not to force them into corners where they may end up offering even less value for tax dollar?

If you fight the proposed drug testing on the grounds of some "abuse of rights" is one thing. To fight it on the grounds ... that you know the outcome of your first drug test will be a fail. Thus the loss of your entitlement ... is another.
Trying to achieve the same goal ... but for totally different reasons. The first for the benefit (excuse the pun) of many ... and the second the benefit (literally) of one.

Are their goals the same ... ???

To conserve your own ammo ... try to use the ammunition of the force you are fighting ... against them. (they don't like that)

They're two arguments that are fighting towards the same aim in terms of finding a solution to the issue. Some from the oh do catch me, of which part of my argument is based on, along with the abuse of rights issue, the someone telling you what you can't spend your money on issue and the fact, imho, that the policy it is more damaging (socially and financially) to the country than not. So many reasons, all requiring the same point of view to be accepted to make them non-issues anymore.

I'm bloody sure such an encounter isn't relished on any front.

[FJRider]

Yes, it is, but the unemployed have little to do with inflation.

Neither do they represent aprticularly good value for the tax dollar.

They do keep the money in circulation. They have to ... to survive. Thus do have an influence on inflation as consumers.

Few politicians need their salary to survive.

[husaberg]

Few politicians need their salary to survive.

But they are required to turn up to work occasionally...........

[FJRider]

They're two arguments that are fighting towards the same aim in terms of finding a solution to the issue. Some from the oh do catch me, of which part of my argument is based on, along with the abuse of rights issue, the someone telling you what you can't spend your money on issue and the fact, imho, that the policy it is more damaging (socially and financially) to the country than not. So many reasons, all requiring the same point of view to be accepted to make them non-issues anymore.

I'm bloody sure such an encounter isn't relished on any front.

There is only one "issue" ... and that is the so called abuse of rights. (which in my opinion is actually just only a change in policy)
The possible loss of entitlement is only a problem ... easily solved.


Only the group fighting the so called, abuse of rights ... will relish the fight. The others will sit at home and have a smoke ... and watch the battle unfold on TV.

[FJRider]

But they are required to turn up to work occasionally...........

[Ocean1]

IIf the unemployment rate affects interest rates and interest rates affect inflation, as my economic reading has lead me to believe so far, then the unemployed have a lot do with inflation.

But it doesn't, not significantly.

[mashman]

There is only one "issue" ... and that is the so called abuse of rights. (which in my opinion is actually just only a change in policy)
The possible loss of entitlement is only a problem ... easily solved.

Only the group fighting the so called, abuse of rights ... will relish the fight. The others will sit at home and have a smoke ... and watch the battle unfold on TV.

Sorry, I was applying the law of common sense not the actual law to protect a financial position law. I guess it is that easy to change either way.

A binding referendum would be useful to avoid fighting at all. Isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? but not paying the change lip service. Explain all sides of the argument. And up the stakes a little. The right to allow pre-testing v's the legalisation of Cannabis? Let's address the actual issue eh. You may find arses get off couches for that one.

But it doesn't, not significantly.

You'll be glad to hear that I won't go into in to the supply of money affecting interest rates and by default inflation rates and by default unemployment and back again. It matters enough to some.

[FJRider]

A binding referendum would be useful to avoid fighting at all. Isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? but not paying the change lip service. Explain all sides of the argument. And up the stakes a little.

Referendums aren't worth a pinch of shit. Hoops to go through to get one ... wait for an election to hold one ... and if the result isn't liked by the party in power ... don't need to do anything at all. No binding responsibility to take ANY action. End of story ....
Remember the one we had to decide if MMP was to stay ... ??? remember the action the goverment took after it ... ????

If you don't remember ... there wasn't any.

The right to allow pre-testing v's the legalisation of Cannabis? Let's address the actual issue eh. You may find arses get off couches for that one.

Remember the golden rule ... The one's with the gold ... makes the rules. And NAH ... the couches will still be full ... if they could get off their arse's ... they'd have a job.

[husaberg]

Reasonable is mentioned a lot, we all know why. Hint there's two reasons for it

Welfare Reforms—Pre-employment Drug Testing for Job Seekers
[Sitting date: 28 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4771. Text is subject to correction.]

6. MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made to require those on benefits with work-test obligations to be ready and work available?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) : Today we have announced that—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not reasonable. There is no way I could hear the Minister’s answer with that noise.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Today we announced that from July 2013 beneficiaries with full or part-time work obligations will be sanctioned if they refuse job opportunities that require a drug test, or if they fail a drug test. Labour members can cry out, but for 9 long years they let beneficiaries sit on welfare with no tests whatsoever, and it is acceptable to them for those people to sit there and have recreational drug-use and not actually have any obligations under that.

Mike Sabin: What evidence is there to point to the fact that drug use is a barrier for those on benefits seeking work?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There is no doubt that we have a problem with recreational drug-use in New Zealand. Ministry of Health research shows that around 20 percent of beneficiaries use drugs at least once a week, and that those receiving an unemployment benefit were around three times more likely to be regular cannabis users than those not on welfare, yet over 40 percent of the jobs we are asking beneficiaries to apply for require a drug test. At the end of the day, I believe that the majority of the New Zealand public shares the very reasonable expectation that people do not let their illegal recreational drug-use get in the way of a job.

Mike Sabin: How will this policy change support greater employment opportunities for those on benefit?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Requiring beneficiaries to be work-ready, available, and drug-free will certainly improve employment opportunities, giving greater confidence to employers to take them on. Many employers have publicly stated that they have problems recruiting people off benefits and into work because of their recreational drug-use. This is particularly prevalent in industries like forestry and construction, and, unfortunately, particularly in regions like the member’s own Northland, and the East Coast and the central North Island.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said about 40 per cent of the jobs listed at Work and Income required drug testing. "It's reasonable for employers to expect people to be drug free."

Bennett said beneficiaries would face sanctions if they refused to apply for drug-tested jobs. Under the current system an unemployment beneficiary can decline without penalty to apply for an available drug-tested job because they won't pass the test.

"Recreational drug use is simply not an acceptable excuse for avoiding available work. Thousands of working New Zealanders are in jobs requiring they be clean of drugs; it's reasonable to expect someone looking for work to do the same."

Drug testing only applied to those with a work expectation attached to their benefit and only for jobs requiring drug tests.
Those who failed tests would be given a warning and reasonable period of time to stop using drugs before having to take another drug test, Bennett said.
However, if beneficiaries refused to apply for a drug tested job, they had to agree to stop using drugs or their benefit would be cut by 50 per cent. They would be given 30 days to allow any drugs they had taken to leave their system.

If they failed a test or refused a second time, they would have their benefit suspended until they agreed to provide a 'clean' drug test within 30 days. If they did not do this their benefit would be cancelled.
Bennett said people with addiction would get help with their dependency and those on some prescribed medications would be exempt.

[scumdog]

frikkin' windmill jousters....

Got me:

Thread: Welfare support and...

'PENIS'



Guess who?????