Welfare support and drug testing

[Akzle]

last time i looked in the court pages your question was answered.
...
Well you you resent tax, the police, roads and hospitals well that's a clever argument to put forward.............

sorry you are wrong the benefit and weather you get one is decided by the people that hand it out not you.they decide the recipient not you.

they are currently in the process of deciding that drug users no longer qualify...that's their prerogative weather you agree or not. <- this doesn't make sense


For your benefit i will include the whole post maybe you should read it rather than respond to part of it out of context.

i'm responding to the parts i feel like, nothing is really "out of context" as you're quite lacking in context by any definition.

1) wtf is "the court pages"?
2) i resent what tax is spent on. that's not exactly an "argument" for or against. that was stated in response to ocean saying he resents how beneficiaries, though given the right by the politicians who presumably fleece him for tax, spend the money. i resent the entire system. i'm not laying the blame at the feet of the recipients of 180$/week cos they can't find work. i'm laying it at the 50k/year + pollys.
3) the "benefit" is DICTATED by the united nations. it is NOT "decided" by those who hand it out. there is a set list of criteria of people who are ELIGIBLE for a handout. as mentioned in my last post: unemployed, invalid or in possession of a vagina. (all the same thing really, innit :P)
4) you handily skipped over every question posed you....

It’s a good indication that they should have looked around before doing that baccalaureate in tourism majoring in underwater basket weaving, they might have noticed we’re short of engineers.

a) no not really, b) i wonder why that might be c) how's australia paying?

[FJRider]

How dare people choose to study that which interests them... I wouldn't mind trying some form of engineering, but I can't afford to re-train.

But at least they dont have to start paying the student loan back ... untill they come off the benefit ...

[Akzle]

As a (former) taxee why are you complaining at all about how money from OTHER tax payers is spent??

You have no valid argument...etcetera etcetera etcetera....

as a (current) piss-poor troll, why are you on this thread?
you have no valid anything... etcetera etcetera.

[mashman]

But at least they dont have to start paying the student loan back ... untill they come off the benefit ...

I can't imagine that lasting for much longer.

[husaberg]

i'm responding to the parts i feel like, nothing is really "out of context" as you're quite lacking in context by any definition.

1) wtf is "the court pages"?
2) i resent what tax is spent on. that's not exactly an "argument" for or against. that was stated in response to ocean saying he resents how beneficiaries, though given the right by the politicians who presumably fleece him for tax, spend the money. i resent the entire system. i'm not laying the blame at the feet of the recipients of 180$/week cos they can't find work. i'm laying it at the 50k/year + pollys.
3) the "benefit" is DICTATED by the united nations. it is NOT "decided" by those who hand it out. there is a set list of criteria of people who are ELIGIBLE for a handout. as mentioned in my last post: unemployed, invalid or in possession of a vagina. (all the same thing really, innit :P)
4) you handily skipped over every question posed you....

a) no not really, b) i wonder why that might be c) how's australia paying?

Your attention span and comprehension skills are rather lacking as are the validity of your augments.
Read my response i answered every question. You just didn't like the answers.
If you serious think its ok to do drugs on the benefit, take out an ad in the paper (that's where the court pages are displayed BTW)
Tell everyone you are doing drugs dare the Authorities to drug test you fail the drug test everything will be sweet for you...Right
The UN will fix it for "you insert TUI ad here"
I can't really be arsed humoring you anymore, because your not that funny. Ok, i take that back, you are super funny... but i are not laughing with you.....
Maybe i do need more sympathy

What's the big issue in regards to drugs that makes it a deal breaker? It only makes someone less employable if they refuse the test.

We are a contractor for a major entity. the Major entity, has a policy, we have to uphold it..or else have no work from them....
We also do a lot of other sub contracts all over Australasia, they all also have the same drug policies.

So whilst I'm sure you'll think that I'll only have myself to blame should I ever be sacked for having drugs in my system, I will be blaming the employer . Radical train of thought I know...

Yip radical alright, esp if you signed up for it

Bummer to hear about your colleagues, and their families, having had that treatment, it must really piss them off that the employer was looking to get rid of them. Seems like a waste, snigger, to get rid of good staff because they have "residue" left in their system.

You would have to be a robot not to feel for them and the families esp..... But it is hard. You can't have a Zero tolerance policy (no doubt expensive as well)
without enforcing it. It has to be one rule for all its clearly spelled out after-all. Everyone's subject to it, and everyone has been tested. 6% has failed which is a shame and a waste of potential.

[Ocean1]

It’s a good indication that they should have looked around before doing that baccalaureate in tourism majoring in underwater basket weaving, they might have noticed we’re short of engineers.

How dare people choose to study that which interests them... I wouldn't mind trying some form of engineering, but I can't afford to re-train.

I see the problem, there. You thought that education was for entertainment!
And yes, only special people get a second shot at it.

Frankly, I don't give a fuck what they studied, just so's they don't come bitching to me with the hand out when it turns out to have been a poor choice.

a) no not really, b) i wonder why that might be c) how's australia paying?

a) It's an outstanding indication that they're lacking in marketable skills, stop flapping your lips just to hear yourself talk.

b)Why we're short of engineers? Because a couple of generations thought their stuff was made by computers and that engineers were old fashioned anachronisms. Turns out they were wrong.

c) Fucking outstandingly, thanks for asking, I’m just back from a very profitable wee assignment over there. WA in particular pay qualified techies very handsomely.

[short-circuit]

Your attention span and comprehension skills are rather lacking as are the validity of your augments.
Read my response i answered every question. You just didn't like the answers.

blah blah blah I have nothing at all better to do with my entire saturday from 7:40 am than bash beneficiaries....

Pot meet Kettle:
You did the same with me failing to respond to the points I raised in post 623 (aimed squarely at you) and the direct questions I put to you in posts 625 and 627. Instead you chose to deflect posting off topic statements couched as questions.

[FJRider]

I see the problem, there. You thought that education was for entertainment!
And yes, only special people get a second shot at it.

It's funny how their "entertainment" features often on the TV news ...
mashman is special. Ask his mum.

Frankly, I don't give a fuck what they studied, just so's they don't come bitching to me with the hand out when it turns out to have been a poor choice.

Or bugger off overseas without any intention of any repayment of their tax-payer funded loan.

a) It's an outstanding indication that they're lacking in marketable skills, stop flapping your lips just to hear yourself talk.

b)Why we're short of engineers? Because a couple of generations thought their stuff was made by computers and that engineers were old fashioned anachronisms. Turns out they were wrong.

c) Fucking outstandingly, thanks for asking, I’m just back from a very profitable wee assignment over there. WA in particular pay qualified techies very handsomely.

a) He does that a lot ...

b) It's the difference between design ... and build.

c) Qualified and experience ... always pays well. No matter the occupation.

[mashman]

We are a contractor for a major entity. the Major entity, has a policy, we have to uphold it..or else have no work from them....
We also do a lot of other sub contracts all over Australasia, they all also have the same drug policies.

Yip radical alright, esp if you signed up for it

You would have to be a robot not to feel for them and the families esp..... But it is hard. You can't have a Zero tolerance policy (no doubt expensive as well)
without enforcing it. It has to be one rule for all its clearly spelled out after-all. Everyone's subject to it, and everyone has been tested. 6% has failed which is a shame and a waste of potential.

Many accidents?

Ahhh, the hiding behind the contract defence. Fair enough. Be funny to see employees living within the confines of their contracts and only do their jobs and no more.

You can have a zero tolerance policy without enforcing it. It's entirely up to those who make the decisions. I agree with the waste of potential if those people weren't using at their place of employment. Shame that the contract of employment extends into private life.

I see the problem, there. You thought that education was for entertainment!
And yes, only special people get a second shot at it.

Frankly, I don't give a fuck what they studied, just so's they don't come bitching to me with the hand out when it turns out to have been a poor choice.

How do you figure that?
Such a shame.

They don't do they?

[husaberg]

Many accidents?

No but one of them worked by himself a lot which was a risk two of the others were very forgetful and random, (but all were nice people)
Ahhh, the hiding behind the contract defence. Fair enough. Be funny to see employees living within the confines of their contracts and only do their jobs and no more.

You can have a zero tolerance policy without enforcing it.

er ... it doesn't work when the entity is given the results. if you didn't can't use the people it would kind of be hard to justify continuing to pay them......

It's entirely up to those who make the decisions.

Correct, but the decision is made by the person who knowingly takes the drugs when they know the policy.
What you suggest is a TOTAL TOLERANCE POLICY

I agree with the waste of potential if those people weren't using at their place of employment.
Shame that the contract of employment extends into private life.

Yeah but the drug tests were failed while the employee was at work.
I personally think its a shame their drug taking interfered with there employment....

[husaberg]

Pot meet Kettle:
You did the same with me failing to respond to the points I raised in post 623 (aimed squarely at you) and the direct questions I put to you in posts 625 and 627. Instead you chose to deflect posting off topic statements couched as questions.

POst 623 is a quote to Mashman i am not Mashman. Sorry Mashman but its true. There can be only one Mashman

The questions were answered, have you forgotten? Well i will refresh your memory

Yes and I added social and economic reasoning to back up my beliefs not just an ideological standpoint like you.

As I see it a few pages back we established that the costs of testing alone would outweigh "savings" on cuts....and then you'd have the added costs associated with poverty creation (crime, health etc). So the economics argument fails.

You haven't you pulled some costs, added your own stats and came up with your own figure based on what you want the result to be.Back it up.
The economics of a policy will be judged by its effectiveness in the medium to long term, and whether it causes a change in societies attitude.
The fact it worries a small percent of the population, so much without any significant cost so far shows it can be quite effective.

How can the presence of a substance in someone's body can't prove anything about their spending habits? Or, how do you prove a person spent state money on the substance showing up in the test?

Are they testing for legal drugs? gee are drugs free, do any of the benefits have minimum standards that apply to the receiver of the benefit, check them out you may find that they do.

On you last point, the word responsible comes from two words: response-able. For this, one needs resources and the flexibility of both internal and external support. Think about that a little before claiming I haven't addressed your quesion.

No it doesn't and no you haven't'


Responsible
1.Answerable for an act performed or for its consequences; accountable; amenable, especially legally or politically.
Parents are responsible for their child's behaviour.
2.Capable of responding to any reasonable claim; able to answer reasonably for one's conduct and obligations; capable of rational conduct.
3.Involving responsibility; involving a degree of personal accountability on the part of the person concerned.
She has a responsible position in the firm.
4.Being a primary cause or agent of some event or action; capable of being credited for something, or of being held liable for something.
Who is responsible for this mess?
5.Able to be trusted; reliable; trustworthy.
He looks like a responsible guy


As, i have yet to see any petitions, protests, public outcry or strongly worded letters of condemnation from the united Nations appalled at how unjust the policy is, or will be, i can only gather that there may not be a ground swell of support against the policy. If it is so unjust why is that?
You are just as in-titled to your own opinion as myself so why do you consider your opinion more valid than my own.

Without even going into the a debate around your beliefs about how society should be, the presence of a substance in someone's body can't prove anything about their spending habits....that's a major problem.

p.s. You never addressed my points around the other logical holes in the policy

p.p.s. Looks like good old bene bashing to me

That's your belief. You talk a good game but you never answered my questions.
As for the costs go back a few pages.
Like i have said, Please explain to me why you think the benefit should fund peoples lifestyle choices to take drugs?
I am not bashing beneficiaries just the small percentage of people that choose to take the money and spend it on drugs.

Like i said above you talk of social responsibility, what about individual responsibility and personal accountability?

[mashman]

No but one of them worked by himself a lot which was a risk two of the others were very forgetful and random, (but all were nice people)

er ... it doesn't work when the entity is given the results. if you didn't can't use the people it would kind of be hard to justify continuing to pay them......

Correct, but the decision is made by the person who knowingly takes the drugs when they know the policy.
What you suggest is a TOTAL TOLERANCE POLICY

Yeah but the drug tests were failed while the employee was at work.
I personally think its a shame their drug taking interfered with there employment....

Are you attributing that to drug use?

It does if the policy is led from the top.

True, the person can do what they like in their free time can't they?
No I'm not. What I'm suggesting is that if you suspect that someone is using drugs at work, then test them. If there is an incident, then test them. That's not a total tolerance policy.

This is where it falls apart for me. I don't believe that work should have such a high priority that it interferes with what a person likes to do in their free time 24/7. The tests need to be better before they can be relied upon... they're fucking with people's lives and personal choices and it highlights that those who enforce such policy have little understanding, or actually give a shit, about how "flawed" the tests are.
@ drug taking interfering with their employment. Something is very very wrong with that sentence.

[Ocean1]

I don't believe that work should have such a high priority that it interferes with what a person likes to do in their free time 24/7.

Yeah, god forbid work should intefere with your "work/life blend".

Which, in spite of what you might have heard requires one to work first, then you get to live. And not before.

[husaberg]

Are you attributing that to drug use?

Can't say, but one of the employee's attendance records on Mondays improved dramatically after random drug testing was initiated, Sadly ironically he failed a scheduled drug test A and B plus another one the same day. The drug test he failed was before an Aussie job conditions of participation and entry to site for the job was a drug test this came from the people paying for the Job. While they were there. They were also tested daily, prior to work which is common.

It does if the policy is led from the top.

policies are like that. Generally made by those that pay the bills

True, the person can do what they like in their free time can't they?

Yeah but they failed drug tests in Work time while at work.

No I'm not. What I'm suggesting is that if you suspect that someone is using drugs at work, then test them. If there is an incident, then test them. That's not a total tolerance policy.

Sorry They sign up for it, are well paid, they accept the policy. (They may not like it, But can leave)They are also tested prior to employment. The policy is clear.
Re the rest of your points this would no doubt happen as well anyway the Post incident is certainly mandatory Alcohol as well.

This is where it falls apart for me. I don't believe that work should have such a high priority that it interferes with what a person likes to do in their free time 24/7. The tests need to be better before they can be relied upon... they're fucking with people's lives and personal choices

I guess you won't be joining us then anytime soon. PS the employees are also on call at lot rostered and are paid for this as well regardless.

@ drug taking interfering with their employment. Something is very very wrong with that sentence.

You got that right just ask there families......

[mashman]

Yeah, god forbid work should intefere with your "work/life blend".

Which, in spite of what you might have heard requires one to work first, then you get to live. And not before.

Damn right... I never thought you'd see sense.

Oh hang on, normal service seems to have resumed. I ain't got no problems with working. Tis when it encroaches, unduly, on my personal life that I start to draw the line. Funny. I seem to remember enjoying myself more when I was younger, quite possibly because I didn't have to work, quite possibly because I figured that work was a means to an end and no more... which is essentially true. Makes me giggle to think that people prize their working day so highly and to a degree where work is an absolute necessity for people to barely put food on the table. Something went horribly wrong somewhere.