Welfare support and drug testing

[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.!

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

[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

[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

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

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

What they said +10

[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.

[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.

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

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.

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?