+ Reply to Thread
Page 14 of 25 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 246
  1. #131
    harvs's Avatar
    harvs is offline Winner 2014 - Spirit of BubHub Award
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    9,997
    Thanks
    6,239
    Thanked
    15,895
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/4/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 2/4/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 19/3/15Busiest Member of the Week200 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by maternidade View Post
    Exactly
    Not sure what your point is?

  2. #132
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,198
    Thanks
    312
    Thanked
    960
    Reviews
    13
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Atropos View Post
    So if you're going to drug test, shouldn't it apply to everyone instead of targeting one group- especially when it has been shown repeatedly that this group is less likely to use illegal drugs?
    Point is that it is. As per previous post most workplaces have policies that allow them to test. Their current "employer" is the government, so why not.
    Police also have the right to test anyone now

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to maternidade For This Useful Post:

    Wild_flower  (01-06-2014)

  4. #133
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,806
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by maternidade View Post
    Point is that it is. As per previous post most workplaces have policies that allow them to test. Their current "employer" is the government, so why not.
    Police also have the right to test anyone now
    Really- *most* workplaces? I'm a government employee- a police employee actually- and my workplace does not have a policy whereby I am required to submit to drug testing. I don't think it's all that common at all.
    Police don't have the right to just test anyone at random with the exception of random testing of drivers- they have to have a reasonable suspicion.
    The why nots have been well discussed- it's costly, it marginalises and discriminates and generalises (incorrectly), it's ineffective.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (02-06-2014)

  6. #134
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,245
    Thanks
    1,772
    Thanked
    2,017
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a weekBusiest Member of the Week - Most posts for the week ended 19/6/2014
    Quote Originally Posted by Atropos View Post
    Really- *most* workplaces? I'm a government employee- a police employee actually- and my workplace does not have a policy whereby I am required to submit to drug testing. I don't think it's all that common at all.
    I don't think it's common either. I've never been subjected to a drug test in any of my workplaces. I think it tends to apply more so in industries such as mining, where safety risks are already quite high.


    Sent from my GT-I9505 using The Bub Hub mobile app

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to HarvestMoon For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (02-06-2014),beebs  (02-06-2014)

  8. #135
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    10,495
    Thanks
    1,430
    Thanked
    9,003
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/10/14100 Posts in a week
    It is actually very common in a workplace environment where there is interface with the public or anything even remotely dangerous. I am involved in advising on workplace health and safety generally and a drug and alcohol policy is standard. From memory there needs to be reasonable cause. In any event it is usually found in the employers WHS policy (even if they never enforce it).

    There would be a general statement that all employees must comply with those policies (even if they never saw them).

    That's my guess anyway.

    But I see that as quite a different issue to what was being proposed by the article. I'm going to bed now so don't have the energy to go into it - be back tomorrow.

  9. #136
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    320
    Thanks
    240
    Thanked
    150
    Reviews
    0
    Gotta weigh up the gain against the loss, I mean, what about the percentage of those on dole payments who are far from addicts, like the bracket of older people struggling to be employed due to age, but still too young to retire, kids out of school still between jobs and studying, people with families and young children just trying to get by and who may lack in skills, all these people have already taken a kick to their confidence due to their situation, and then forcing them to be treated as potential drug addicts would push people further under into a state of hopelessness. Subjecting all recipients to this is cruel, demeaning and damaging. Certainly there's a number of folk that are addicts and on the dole. But this is not the answer. Addiction runs deeper than finances. It's like saying just take beds off depressed people, that'll sort them out. Where the government may save a penny on some dole checks, they'll be spending it in response to an increase in mental health, longer term unemployment for some due to their self worth being squashed. Plus an increase in crime rates. Addicts are still going to be addicts, gotta get their cash from somewhere. Weigh up the odds, do some sums. This is a narrow, crowd pleasing solution due to a stereo type. Imo.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dreamer1 For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (02-06-2014),TheGooch  (02-06-2014)

  11. #137
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    403
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked
    147
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer1 View Post
    Gotta weigh up the gain against the loss, I mean, what about the percentage of those on dole payments who are far from addicts, like the bracket of older people struggling to be employed due to age, but still too young to retire, kids out of school still between jobs and studying, people with families and young children just trying to get by and who may lack in skills, all these people have already taken a kick to their confidence due to their situation, and then forcing them to be treated as potential drug addicts would push people further under into a state of hopelessness. Subjecting all recipients to this is cruel, demeaning and damaging. Certainly there's a number of folk that are addicts and on the dole. But this is not the answer. Addiction runs deeper than finances. It's like saying just take beds off depressed people, that'll sort them out. Where the government may save a penny on some dole checks, they'll be spending it in response to an increase in mental health, longer term unemployment for some due to their self worth being squashed. Plus an increase in crime rates. Addicts are still going to be addicts, gotta get their cash from somewhere. Weigh up the odds, do some sums. This is a narrow, crowd pleasing solution due to a stereo type. Imo.
    Are people not reading the article that was posted !?

    The government would only look into you if you got a opportunity to start a job & the job required a drug test before you commenced work then if you refused or failed the drug test the government would say well you just missed out on a job because you either failed the test or refused to take it so they would then give you 30 days with their help to get clean and redo a test then if you failed you would receive a cut to your payment until your next drug test .

    They are not going to just drug test everyone !!! For example if your employment agency got you a job on the mines you would need a drug test . But if you got a job at Coles you wouldn't need one !!!

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Wild_flower For This Useful Post:

    A-Squared  (02-06-2014)

  13. #138
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    10,495
    Thanks
    1,430
    Thanked
    9,003
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Elle92 View Post
    Are people not reading the article that was posted !?

    The government would only look into you if you got a opportunity to start a job & the job required a drug test before you commenced work then if you refused or failed the drug test the government would say well you just missed out on a job because you either failed the test or refused to take it so they would then give you 30 days with their help to get clean and redo a test then if you failed you would receive a cut to your payment until your next drug test .

    They are not going to just drug test everyone !!! For example if your employment agency got you a job on the mines you would need a drug test . But if you got a job at Coles you wouldn't need one !!!
    Yes I read it. You are referring to the NZ model. The closing paragraph of the article is worrying (can't quote am on phone).

    I'm glad you are confident you know exactly what it means. Given how this government feels about welfare recipients I have my concerns.
    Last edited by Sonja; 02-06-2014 at 00:58.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sonja For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (02-06-2014),TheGooch  (02-06-2014)

  15. #139
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,806
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Elle92 View Post
    Are people not reading the article that was posted !?

    The government would only look into you if you got a opportunity to start a job & the job required a drug test before you commenced work then if you refused or failed the drug test the government would say well you just missed out on a job because you either failed the test or refused to take it so they would then give you 30 days with their help to get clean and redo a test then if you failed you would receive a cut to your payment until your next drug test .

    They are not going to just drug test everyone !!! For example if your employment agency got you a job on the mines you would need a drug test . But if you got a job at Coles you wouldn't need one !!!
    It doesn't say that- it says that is how it has been implemented in NZ- where the welfare system is different to ours. It says the government is looking at their system and may implement something similar- it doesn't give explicit detail of what would be implemented here. We don't know exactly what they have in mind so it's not unreasonable to discuss all relevant scenarios.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (02-06-2014)

  17. #140
    Mod-pegasus's Avatar
    Mod-pegasus is offline ADMINISTRATOR
    and all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks with the one word...UNLESS
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,644
    Thanks
    1,733
    Thanked
    1,735
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Atropos View Post
    It doesn't say that- it says that is how it has been implemented in NZ- where the welfare system is different to ours. It says the government is looking at their system and may implement something similar- it doesn't give explicit detail of what would be implemented here. We don't know exactly what they have in mind so it's not unreasonable to discuss all relevant scenarios.
    This:
    The Coalition says it is looking closely at New Zealand’s welfare system, which includes a tough approach to drug use.
    is what it says.

    It does not say
    and may implement something similar
    That is an assumption that posters and "The Australian" seem to have made.

    The government has looked at heaps of models from many other countries.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Mod-pegasus For This Useful Post:

    GingerKat  (02-06-2014)


 

Similar Threads

  1. If you HAD to choose a drug, what would it be?
    By loislane2010 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 07-02-2014, 18:44
  2. Work for the dole
    By mum2bubba in forum General Chat
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 29-10-2013, 12:02

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Einsteinz Music
Make music at Einsteinz Music in age-appropriate class in Sydney's Inner West, Eastern Suburbs or North Shore. For ages 6 mths - 4 yrs. All music is live! Christmas Gift certificates available for full term or casual classes. Call 0431 338 143
sales & new stuffsee all
True Fairies
True Fairies is the first interactive website where children can engage and speak with a real fairy through the unique webcam fairy portal. Each session is tailored to the child, and is filled with enchantment and magic.
Visit website to find out more!
featured supporter
Baby Monitors
Looking to buy a baby monitor? :: Read viewer reviews of baby monitors BEFORE you buy :: Buy at a local or online Baby Nursery Shop
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!