Welfare support and drug testing

[mashman]

I wouldn't lie to you ...

But I have been "Between jobs" a few times ... and my employers were forthcoming with the employment conditions of WINZ. Potential employers would do well to ask about the subsidy.

I never doubted you............. much.

Cunning way to cull the dole numbers whilst still paying for them, albeit not them getting paid

Nah the point i'm making is he isn't aware of it.

Sure this rule is about targeted beneficiaries, not all of them, just the ones who take drugs.

Like i have said the one who pays the money, makes the rules.

Aware of what?

ahhhh that makes perfect sense. Do we know who will be paying for these drugs tests yet?

I think we all understand that. Does that mean we can have a referendum then?

[FJRider]

Isn't the law about interpretation. You said it yourself, if it is good for 1 it is good for all and that clearly isn't the case. I didn't have to pass a drugs test to get my job and I dare say there are many others who don't either. That could quite easily mean that beneficiaries are being targetted. You'd have to be pretty well entrenched in some fucked up ideology to deny that... no offense like, just sayin.

Where is it written ... that a drug test will be required for every job being applied for ... ??? I recall the word "May" even being mentioned at the start of the announcement. Some employers may not give a toss either way. With the 90 day trial period in law ... they have an "out" if they need one.

It is interesting that .... beneficiaries are being described (by beneficiaries) ... as being targeted ... perhaps they should present a smaller target

[FJRider]

I never doubted you............. much.

Cunning way to cull the dole numbers whilst still paying for them, albeit not them getting paid

Who wouldn't believe me ... ????

The name of the game is numbers ... numbers off the main unemployment figure. The various schemes that were run (and still are) reduce that number even more.

[mashman]

Where is it written ... that a drug test will be required for every job being applied for ... ??? I recall the word "May" even being mentioned at the start of the announcement. Some employers may not give a toss either way. With the 90 day trial period in law ... they have an "out" if they need one.

It is interesting that .... beneficiaries are being described (by beneficiaries) ... as being targeted ... perhaps they should present a smaller target

T'was a response to husaberg where he was advocating that of he should be tested that everyone should be expected to be tested. Either way, I really don't much care for the "fines" that are going to be imposed. I'd hope that there are employers out there who'd see the policy as bullshit. True... good job that the employer has to keep the employee for 3 months (someone reported) before WINZ will give them the beneficiaries salary for the year.

Of course they would... even some none beneficiaries are saying the same thing and most likely for similar reasons. I'd rather they painted a larger target as it'll be interesting to see who's top of the list when it comes to clawing back lost earnings.

[FJRider]

Of course they would... even some none beneficiaries are saying the same thing and most likely for similar reasons. I'd rather they painted a larger target as it'll be interesting to see who's top of the list when it comes to clawing back lost earnings.

I have had real experience of being shot at. And they may have had their reasons for doing so. But I found making a smaller target increased my survival chances considerably ... and when shooting back ... use better ammunition than them. This reduces their desire to shoot at you ... considerably

[scumdog]

Behold the reason people feel the need to drug test Beneficiaries..........

Ya think??

[scumdog]

lost earnings.

'earnings' - that and a beneficiery are mutually exclusive eh...

[mashman]

I have had real experience of being shot at. And they may have had their reasons for doing so. But I found making a smaller target increased my survival chances considerably ... and when shooting back ... use better ammunition than them. This reduces their desire to shoot at you ... considerably

Aaaaand that makes perfect sense. However nature does things differently with the strength in numbers to ensure survival. Perhaps a hundred people v's 9 bullets would reduce the chances of a shot being fired at a ll?

'earnings' - that and a beneficiery are mutually exclusive eh...

Let's see now. The govt pay beneficiaries which gives them money to live. I'd call it earnings, same as, say, ooo, I dunno, the same as the earnings that Police receive. I hope there's more of a brotherhood in the Police.

[Ocean1]

Let's see now. The govt pay beneficiaries which gives them money to live. I'd call it earnings

Which demonstrates nicely how fuckt up your ideas about earnings are. Earning it would mean that they'd actually, y'know; done some constructive work.

[mashman]

Which demonstrates nicely how fuckt up your ideas about earnings are. Earning it would mean that they'd actually, y'know; done some constructive work.

bwaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... they have done something constructive, they have taken the position of unemployed person so that those who are more interested can take the position of working person. Allowing for thems who are interested to perfect economic balance

[oneofsix]

Who wouldn't believe me ... ????

The name of the game is numbers ... numbers off the main unemployment figure. The various schemes that were run (and still are) reduce that number even more.

This must be why Burger King had to employ 650 overseas staff rather than Kiwi's. There must be so few unemployed in NZ capable of flipping burgers More likely it was that BK could run an upgraded sweet shop whereby if the imports complain they lose their job and have to leave the country, but it also allows them to force down the NZ wages so that the rest of NZ has to subsidize their wages and therefore BK's business.

As a condition of their work visas, workers sponsored by an employer can stay in New Zealand on the provision they remain in that job and could have to leave the country if they lose or leave it. That meant sponsored workers were less likely to agitate for better wages and conditions because they were dependent on the goodwill of their employers, Roche said. It also pushed down pay rates across the board.

"We've seen examples of that with Burger King, where newly arrived migrant workers have been working well in excess of 40 hours a week, have been told they are on a salary so effectively working for less than the minimum wage, and have pressure put on them to not join a union and not complain."

Next they will be using the threat of drug testing to blackmail their employees. Why don't they just try being good employers? because they are too self centered and self righteous.

Better ammo and better life style, join a gang. Works well in the good ol US of A except in NZ they seem better organised at making money instead of fighting each other.

[Ocean1]

bwaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... they have done something constructive, they have taken the position of unemployed person so that those who are more interested can take the position of working person. Allowing for thems who are interested to perfect economic balance

Unemployment isn't a "position", it's the failure to obtain a position, and there's absolutely nothing constructive being done in exchange for the dole.

Unless you're producing something of tangable value in exchange for whatever income you get then you're taking it from someone else. Mostly me, as it happens.

[Madness]

Tinny houses don't run themselves ya know!

[mashman]

Unemployment isn't a "position", it's the failure to obtain a position, and there's absolutely nothing constructive being done in exchange for the dole.

Unless you're producing something of tangable value in exchange for whatever income you get then you're taking it from someone else. Mostly me, as it happens.

They get taxed on their income, so unemployment must be a position.

They're helping the govt to manage the inflation and interest rates. I'd say that was tangible and provides more of a service to the country as a whole than you do as an individual hogging wealth.

[Ocean1]

They get taxed on their income, so unemployment must be a position.

Using the same logic you could demonstrate that a tomatoe is a brick, because it's red.

They're helping the govt to manage the inflation and interest rates. I'd say that was tangible and provides more of a service to the country as a whole than you do as an individual hogging wealth.

They are not. They're detracting from the governmnet's revenue base, if you call that a "service" then it's one that represents negative value. As for hogging wealth: what wealth I have I earned, along with the right to do with it whatever I want.

Again: if you didn't earn what you have then it was taken from someone who did.