Work for dole

Forums › Off topic › Work for dole

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2020401 22-May-2018 14:17

MikeAqua:

MikeB4:

Its not hard really, companies fail, markets change eg Amazon has the potential to create jobless figures here in NZ that will surpass those of the 1930s. Work and Income cannot create jobs they can only put candidates forward and at that point they are in the competitive job seeking environment. There also needs to be a change in attitude in NZ, there is a 'NIMBY' attitude in many employers and while they want benefit numbers to drop they do not want these candidate sin their back yard. Having said that there are many great employers that take a good many candidates offered by Work and Income.

Yet every week or two you see some sector or business on the TV complaining that they can't find employees. I.e. jobs are available but they can't find people for them. This includes relatively generic labouring jobs, that almost anyone could do.

I know people in Northland for example who struggle to find employees to drive forklifts, even though they are prepared to fully train people. Yet Northland has high unemployment and economic deprivation.

I have a client who is probably the largest employer in Kaitaia, which probably has the highest unemployment in NZ.

They have jobs vacant and considerable difficulty filling them - mainly because of mandatory drug testing. The secondary issue is employees who decide after a few days that it's too much like hard work and don't bother turning up anymore.

Pluralsight

Learn cloud, mobile, security, data and web technologies with Pluralsight (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17245 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2020437 22-May-2018 15:20

I take your point. I know how demeaning and negative life on the dole is. I have been there. Maybe 'compensation' would have been a less bad word choice. I agree that everyone is entitled to at least the basics. Maybe there should be some form of universal income. But I was talking about a very specific group of people, not beneficiaries in general. These are the ones who are deemed unemployable and beyond help. Giving them just enough to survive on and not requiring anything in return is not doing them any favours. It is chucking them on the scrapheap. I happened to be living in England in the 1970s when the country went through a severe recession. Jobs dried up. I was on the dole for about a year and it was a miserable existence. People in that situation become dispirited and despairing. They can't afford any kind of activity to lighten their existence. I was fortunate that I possessed the intellectual resources to keep myself productively occupied. I frequented the library and wrote a children's book that later became quite a success. But it was still a miserable time. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

I don't believe people are helped by being given the absolute minimum they need to stay alive. At the very least, they also need some structure and purpose in life, and the prospect of something better. That is the point I was trying to make. Just handing out free money doesn't help anyone.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

frankv

5583 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2020684 22-May-2018 20:12

Right. Perhaps the answer is to give people deemed unemployable access to training or skills development or whatever. Not necessarily aimed at making them employable (although that would certainly be win-win), but at allowing them to improve the quality of their lives. Allow people to expand their lives in whatever direction *they* choose. For example, there's zero cost in allowing people to attend lectures at universities or polytechs. Art classes. Gym or swimming pool access for people wanting to improve their physical health and fitness. Car maintenance. Car modification.

MikeAqua

7616 posts

Uber Geek

#2020950 23-May-2018 09:29

MikeB4:

I simply will not accept that someone is unemployable.

People with drug and alcohol problems can be unemployable.

Indeed my friends in Northland who have trouble finding forklift drivers struggle to find them largely because of the drug issue. Most candidates disappear when the drug test is mentioned.

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17245 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2020973 23-May-2018 09:59

If the entire culture at WINZ was turned upside-down, and New Zealand decided to follow an entirely different path, it is conceivable that drug use in itself might no longer disqualify one from employment. Obviously no-wants someone who is high to be operating heavy machinery, but there might be other useful things that drug users could do, as long as they weren't high while doing them. Why should smoking a joint at home in the evening shut you out of every job?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18132 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2020983 23-May-2018 10:08

Rikkitic:

If the entire culture at WINZ was turned upside-down, and New Zealand decided to follow an entirely different path, it is conceivable that drug use in itself might no longer disqualify one from employment. Obviously no-wants someone who is high to be operating heavy machinery, but there might be other useful things that drug users could do, as long as they weren't high while doing them. Why should smoking a joint at home in the evening shut you out of every job?

The affects of drugs last a long time, same with alcohol, drink at night still affected in the morning. I am not sure what you mean by "if the entire culture at WINZ was turned upside-down" could you please expand on that.

Scott3

3340 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2020999 23-May-2018 10:37

kryptonjohn:

I have a client who is probably the largest employer in Kaitaia, which probably has the highest unemployment in NZ.

They have jobs vacant and considerable difficulty filling them - mainly because of mandatory drug testing. The secondary issue is employees who decide after a few days that it's too much like hard work and don't bother turning up anymore.

Rikkitic:

... Obviously no-wants someone who is high to be operating heavy machinery, but there might be other useful things that drug users could do, as long as they weren't high while doing them. Why should smoking a joint at home in the evening shut you out of every job?

Regarding drug testing, the current commonly used drug tests seem overly intrusive, partially with regards to cannabis. What business is it of the employer if the employee has consumed cannabis 30 - 95 days ago?

That said, there are obvious safety issues with jobs are dangerous, if employees turn up stoned, drunk, or high.

Siliva testing for cannabis intoxication is available. Outlawing urine testing, and using Silvia testing in it's place, would make a massive change to the employment of people in areas with drug issues. It would mean if a job came up, a cannibals user could quit, and be fit for duty in a couple of day (rather than having to wait months for the cannabis to clear their system as they do now). Also means somebody who has a joint after work on friday won't run the risk of being fired on Monday. - Moves the focus of the issue onto intoxication rather than historic traces of the drug in urine.

There is a bit of a class issue here too. If you compare a cannibals user to a say a cocaine or MDMA, the latter drugs are more expensive, and typically consumed by wealthier people. The latter drugs will be gone from your urine in a few days. Also wealthier people are more likely to work in roles with out drug testing (historically the financial sector was a common example).

A client of mine introduced a drug testing program a few years ago. (to be fair, the work that they do is quite dangerous, so they had to do something). They were located in an area with drug problems, and most of the roles they had were low skilled / semi skilled. With the introduction of the scheme, workers who acknowledged addiction problems were offered temporary immunity, and received company funded help to quit. All others were fair game for testing. They test 2 people per month at random. Drug use is so rife, that essentially 1 - 2 people get fired every month for failed drug test. (they employ 100 - 200 people).

What is really sad about the above, it that they have lost some really good workers through the above. People the company really struggled without, and people that really needed the income from their job.

Really sad actually, in the interest of appearing to to the right thing (with standard urine drug testing), this company has harmed both itself, and some of what were it's best workers. All without actually resolving the drug issues in it's workforce.

MikeAqua

7616 posts

Uber Geek

#2021037 23-May-2018 11:31

Scott3:

Regarding drug testing, the current commonly used drug tests seem overly intrusive, partially with regards to cannabis. What business is it of the employer if the employee has consumed cannabis 30 - 95 days ago?

I agree with this. I'm not sure where the science is at on cannabis testing and the link between levels and impairment? Perhaps this is something the govt can fund.

From HSE perspective should be treated the same way as alcohol from a workplace perspective.

There is of course the stigma of it being criminal activity. My contract says I can be sacked if charged or convicted for criminal behaviour. The biggest risk in my role is stress and fatigue.

A benefit of legalisation would be the removal of this issue.

Mike

JimmyH

2820 posts

Uber Geek

#2021296 23-May-2018 18:50

Rikkitic:

If the entire culture at WINZ was turned upside-down, and New Zealand decided to follow an entirely different path, it is conceivable that drug use in itself might no longer disqualify one from employment.

It doesn't. And, as I understand it, it's the potential employer that decides whether or not to drug test applicants, not WINZ. They also drug test applicants who don't come from WINZ, and it pretty much has nothing to do with the culture at WINZ.

Drug use doesn't disqualify someone from employment. But it does, and should, disqualify them from some jobs. I don't really care if the person who serves me at a cafe smoked up last night and is still feeling the effects. I do care if the pilot of my plane did, or the forestry worker standing beside me swinging a chainsaw.

rugrat

2944 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2021302 23-May-2018 18:59

I agree with most of what you wrote Jimmy.

But isn’t the effects of cannabis temporary like drinking?

We don’t ban people from work place because they had a drink night before, only if they’re still impeded by it.

MikeAqua

7616 posts

Uber Geek

#2021581 24-May-2018 09:03

JimmyH:

I don't really care if the person who serves me at a cafe smoked up last night and is still feeling the effects.

But their employer would care if they seriously burn/cut themselves and it turned out they were under the influence of something. I'm not sure if you could call a cafe a safety-sensitive workplace. There are multiple hazards capable of causing serious injuries - fire, knives, boiling liquids.

I know a young guy who suffered a life altering head-injury as result of a slip in a restaurant chiller.

Mike

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2021591 24-May-2018 09:11

MikeAqua:

JimmyH:

I don't really care if the person who serves me at a cafe smoked up last night and is still feeling the effects.

But their employer would care if they seriously burn/cut themselves and it turned out they were under the influence of something. I'm not sure if you could call a cafe a safety-sensitive workplace. There are multiple hazards capable of causing serious injuries - fire, knives, boiling liquids.

I know a young guy who suffered a life altering head-injury as result of a slip in a restaurant chiller.

I also don't care if someone serves me coffee stonned over, hung over or stonned.

I and most people here know a lot of stonners, The ones I know work in construction, electrical and bars. One goes to work stonned.
Not one of them has had an accident that you could attribute to being stonned over or stonned at work.

You could be under the influence of anything, Stress, Depression, Anxiety, Low Blood Sugar, Stonned over, Hung over, Coming down from a weekend on the glass bbq... The list goes on. Most of the time its just a mere coincidence that something goes wrong and under the drug test they have something in their system. Our society LOVES to blame something for an accident or incident. Take car crashes for an example, The families of the deceased feel they need to have "Closure" or have the blame burdened on someone.

The guy who slipped in the chiller should have his employer sued, No chiller should have sheet ice in the bottom of it or be missing a non slip surface... That is a health and safety issue.

MikeB4

18132 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2021600 24-May-2018 09:30

Drug testing should be linked to job and appropriate risk mitigation. Is a writer a risk after having a joint? but a truck driver certainly is. I take medication that would probably see me suspended or fired after testing, for what though running over people in my chair or dangerous knocking over of coffee? However if I were a Semi driver I could cause mayhem (I would without the drugs) A sensible approach needs to be taken with this and blanket laws or systems don't work to bring appropriate and equitable outcomes.

MikeAqua

7616 posts

Uber Geek

#2021609 24-May-2018 09:43

Coil:

I and most people here know a lot of stonners, The ones I know work in construction, electrical and bars. One goes to work stonned.
Not one of them has had an accident that you could attribute to being stonned over or stonned at work.

You can engage is risky behaviour and get away with it for quite long period of time - until the day you don't. Like the way my generation drove in our 20s. Most of us got away with it.

The employer is liable, so they can reasonably require workplace testing if they have a safety sensitive workplace. But it has to be in the employment agreement.

Mike

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2021643 24-May-2018 09:53

MikeB4:

Drug testing should be linked to job and appropriate risk mitigation. Is a writer a risk after having a joint? but a truck driver certainly is. I take medication that would probably see me suspended or fired after testing, for what though running over people in my chair or dangerous knocking over of coffee? However if I were a Semi driver I could cause mayhem (I would without the drugs) A sensible approach needs to be taken with this and blanket laws or systems don't work to bring appropriate and equitable outcomes.

MikeAqua:

I agree with this. I'm not sure where the science is at on cannabis testing and the link between levels and impairment? Perhaps this is something the govt can fund.

I agree with both comments - and this present a considerable challenge WRT implementing a sensible policy.

There's a further issue too. On the worksite where my son had been working for 18 months, there was a shortage of skilled labour - they couldn't afford to lose any. There were drug testing clauses in contracts but almost no drug testing was being carried out, on the few occasions when there was to be drug testing, the entire staff (100 or so at the peak of the contract) of his company seemed to be forewarned by "leaks" that tests were going to happen and when, the drug users knew all the evasion tricks. AFAIK I think they "lost" one employee who did something dumb - and was caught by drug detection dog brought in by the head contractor - he had some cannabis in his tool bag. According to what I was told, there were many methamphetamine users on site - yet none were found.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5