Welfare support and drug testing

[short-circuit]

Ah, will you two quit it, now I'm nearly losing me bourbon, hummmm bourbon, coke,check, bourbon, check. Back soon!


Na Akz, I might've said words that indicate a them and us, but I'd put that down to social conditioning more than an actual ideal.
I'm known for being a bit hard nosed when it comes to any minority that aren't pulling their collective weight, won't deny that, but have mates from all parts of this big wide world of ours, many of them from here, many of those browner than me.
Funny thing is all of my mates work and pay our gubbermint their pittance, guess that makes us all ineligible to comment on unemployed lay abouts who actively do nothing more than they have to to maintain their present lifestyle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits

New Zealand

Main article: Social welfare in New Zealand

In New Zealand, the Unemployment Benefit provides income support for people who are looking for work or training for work. It is one of a number of benefits administered by Work and Income, a service of the Ministry of Social Development.

To get this benefit, a person must meet the conditions and obligations specified in section 88A to 123D Social Security Act 1964. These conditions and obligations cover things such as age, residency status, and availability to work.[21]

The amount that is paid depends on things such as the person's age, income, marital status and whether they have children. It is adjusted annually on 1 April and in response to changes in legislature. Some examples of the maximum after tax weekly rate at 1 April 2011 are:
$167.83 for a single person aged 20–24 years without children
$288.47 for a sole parent
$335.66 for a married, de-facto or civil union couple with or without children ($167.83 each).[22]

More information about this benefit and the amounts paid are the Work and Income website.[23]

External links
Work and Income web-site
Social Security Act 1964



Yeah...what a "lifestyle"

[scumdog]

Yeah...what a "lifestyle"

And some still have it by choice.

[short-circuit]

And some still have it by choice.

What 6.8% of the population and growing by the day?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10825796

Edit: that link is August - we've probably cracked 7%

[caseye]

Yep, when you add up the $20, oh no sorry $40.00 for the lawn mower man, the weekly accomodation allowance, the kids pay outs and all the other nice things that our govt gives out then it IS A Lifestyle choice, one which many have made a career out of keeping.
My comment about 4 generations of state (same house, different generations of same family! occupants) house occupancy is not over stated or something I have no knowledge of and part of that knowledge goes back a good 30 years.
It is this sort of ingrained and these days inbreed "I'm owed it" attitudes that I am absolutely against.
They have no more right to that house than I do to a penthouse suite in the Hilton, yet they get it day in and day out.
Why? mostly because it's easier to say yes than have a problem, this has to stop.
How do we level the field? more taxes? pay more out in benefits?
Stop benefits and return to a central agency that pays out on circumstance and makes certain that the recipients know! it's a loan, until they begin earning again.
I don't have all the answers, who the hell does.
But this country is fast approaching the time when we have to look in the mirror and come to terms with what we've created and the look of our own future.
One things for certain, fixing it is going to hurt, some more than others.

[Ocean1]

And some still have it by choice.

I learned a new word today: Ineptocracy: A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

I thought: Scummy will like that!

I'd signeaturise it, but I don't think it'll fit...

[short-circuit]

I learned a new word today: Ineptocracy: A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

I thought: Scummy will like that!

He might if he or Darryl Kerrigan could work out what that meant

[mashman]

Does a drugs test stop accidents from happening? No.
Do people who don't take drugs have accidents? Yes.
Once you have taken a drugs test, what is to stop you from immediately taking drugs? Nothing.
Is it wise to push people into a position where they may decide that criminal behaviour is their only avenue to get money? No, people could get hurt.
If the status quo is 10k per year and you do push people in to crime they're gonna cost you 90k per year in prison costs, let alone police costs, court costs and other associated costs. Sounds like a false economy to me.
We're talking about a few thousand people out of millions. They aren't exactly rolling in $$$ yet you're "we're" advocating removing the little $$$ that they have used a drug recently.
There's a hundred thousand people or so that are looking for jobs that want a job. Yet we're trying to force single parents, teenagers and other assorted beneficiaries into work that they clearly don't want or feel that it'll cost more to take the job than it will to stay on the benefit. Surely you'd rather that those who want to work take the positions that are available? There aren't enough jobs.
Essentially it's a witch hunt. Left to its current devices, likely a a zero sum game. Under the "new' legislation it could go either way, it may save the 4 or 5 million that the govt claim, but there will be human cost. why put people who are already likely under stress under even more stress? and all to catch a tiny percentage of those who are career beneficiaries. It's disappointing that so many people would rather go chasing after the idiots because they are spending "their" money (fuckin hilarious) on something that they do not approve of... irrespective of the probable human cost. Actually, it isn't disappointing, it's fucking pathetic that people (loose term for bitter hitlers) swallow and support such stupid stupid policy under the guise of giving a tiny tiny tiny percentage of people the learn and to hell with the collateral damage. Dress it up all you like, but you are exacting revenge!

[Akzle]

[COLOR="#139922"]...
3) you're quite right, but you also prove yourself wrong, in that you present an "us and them" mentality.

...I might've said words that indicate a them and us, but I'd put that down to social conditioning more than an actual ideal.

"you present" ≠ i believe you hold it as an ideal

Yep, when you add up the $20, oh no sorry $40.00 for the lawn mower man, ...
It is this sort of ingrained and these days inbreed "I'm owed it" attitudes that I am absolutely against....
I don't have all the answers, who the hell does....
One things for certain, fixing it is going to hurt, some more than others.

i think it is a lifestyle for the breeders. but if you don't have a vagina, WINZ is decidedly fucking useless.
the people who have their lawns mowed, hair cut, gutters cleaned etc are not unemployed, they're invalid. and thus you, as a society have an obligation to look after them. innit?
who ha the answers? me. i've got lots of em. Bob for PM. i'll sort this, and all other shit, out in a hurry.

I learned a new word today: Ineptocracy

:
The CSIRO has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The
new element is Governmentium (Gv).
It has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198
assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312
particles are held together by forces called morons, which are
surrounded by vast quantities of lefton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons or protons, it is inert. However,
it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it
comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction
normally taking less than a second to take from four days to four years
to complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years. It does not decay
but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which a portion of the
assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact,
Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each
reorganisation will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming
isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe
that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical
concentration.
This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an
element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has
half as many peons but twice as many morons. All of the money is
consumed in the exchange, and no other byproducts are produced.

[avgas]

The CSIRO has discovered.....

They also discovered how to make a viable hybrid car for Holden.....in 3 generations.......the last one being the 1990's.
They also discovered various ways to save marine life. None of which were implemented.

Turns out it wasn't a $ as the various viruses they have created in the last 40 years.
Fucking joke.

i'm sorry I had to vent - did not mean to derail the thread again. Don't even get me started with the NZ government research departments.

[avgas]

Does a drugs test stop accidents from happening?

According to results, yes.

I will see if I can bring the NZ stats up - but from my dealings in the engineering industries drugs tests generally halve the number of workplace accidents. While I can't claim that this is due to the drugs, so simply a behavior changes. You generally can't ignore stats like that. That is very comparative to motorcycle helmet / seatbelt surveys done was back in the 60's.
In the meantime here is a report done by some fancy people at Princeton.
http://www.princeton.edu/~amas/papers/246.full.pdf

While i think its good to do drug testing, I can see the flaws in the test process. The number one being if you smoke a joint, your fucked for 28 days......where as all the executives can smoke P on Friday and be clean on Monday.

As for drug testing beneficiaries. I don't see why not if they need to be clean to be employable. I certainly wouldn't hire someone who didn't inform me they had a drug problem. Its the same as drinking problem as far as I am concerned. Neither makes the workplace a safe environment.
However if they informed me straight up from the start I think there is a way forward. But that is a catch 22.

[short-circuit]

According to results, yes.

I will see if I can bring the NZ stats up - but from my dealings in the engineering industries drugs tests generally halve the number of workplace accidents. While I can't claim that this is due to the drugs, so simply a behavior changes. You generally can't ignore stats like that. That is very comparative to motorcycle helmet / seatbelt surveys done was back in the 60's.
In the meantime here is a report done by some fancy people at Princeton.
http://www.princeton.edu/~amas/papers/246.full.pdf

While i think its good to do drug testing, I can see the flaws in the test process. The number one being if you smoke a joint, your fucked for 28 days......where as all the executives can smoke P on Friday and be clean on Monday.

As for drug testing beneficiaries. I don't see why not if they need to be clean to be employable. I certainly wouldn't hire someone who didn't inform me they had a drug problem. Its the same as drinking problem as far as I am concerned. Neither makes the workplace a safe environment.
However if they informed me straight up from the start I think there is a way forward. But that is a catch 22.

Yeah but this has nothing to do with 'fitness to work' in NZ's glut of non-existent jobs....It has everything to do with (short-sighted) slashing of social spending.


Even if you want to go down the ludicrous track of employment safety, there are so many scientific issues and legal and human rights considerations.

But again this is a red herring.

[avgas]

Yeah but this has nothing to do with 'fitness to work' in NZ's glut of non-existent jobs....It has everything to do with (short-sighted) slashing of social spending.


Even if you want to go down the ludicrous track of employment safety, there are so many scientific issues and legal and human rights considerations.

But again this is a red herring.

I think you will find that it is more expensive to implement the scheme than the savings made by cutting benefits.
What makes your human rights more prominent than those you work with?
Is your need for drugs stronger than their need for a safe work environment?

I believe that is the call sign of an addiction.

[short-circuit]

I think you will find that it is more expensive to implement the scheme than the savings made by cutting benefits.
What makes your human rights more prominent than those you work with?
Is your need for drugs stronger than their need for a safe work environment?

I believe that is the call sign of an addiction.

Of course it's far more expensive to implement the scheme than the savings made by cutting benefits and that point has been made and I agree - it's a fucking stupid, discriminatory policy.

But about the rest of your post..
What the fuck are you talking about? Not sure how you infer any of the above from what I wrote. I don't use substances of any sort but I would have questions about some of the following:

• Definitions around "safety"
• Determining what other factors might compromise "safety"
• What constitutes a drug and instances of legitimate use
• Who gets tested, why, how and what the frequency might be
• Possible abuses around such policies
• Legal questions such as "innocent until proven guilty" and "reasonable grounds to suspect"
• My time vs work time

....Just to name a few.

I mean, my boss might be keen to see if I'm attempting to supply - Should he be entitled to whip out the rubber gloves and perform a rectal cavity search? weeeeeell if it's in the interests of "safety" then of course he should eh?

[scumdog]

I learned a new word today: Ineptocracy: A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

I thought: Scummy will like that!

I'd signeaturise it, but I don't think it'll fit...

Scummy likes!

Sadly, as you say, the leeches are ovetaking the leeched.

[husaberg]

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.