Bill English apparently mooted drug-testing all beneficiaries - not just those on the new dole - the Jobseekers Support. That predictably brought a variety of responses. But there doesn't seem to be any guiding principle at play.
Not all workers are drug-tested. Why should all jobseekers? If someone fails to get or keep a particular job because they are failing a drug-test then they shouldn't be eligible to taxpayer suppport.
The broad principle should be anyone causing their own ongoing incapacity to work make themselves ineligible for a benefit. And that would include any working age person.
The bigger issue with drug-testing is how widespread will it become and to what purpose?
Imagine this.
Cannabis is fully legalised but use it, and you will never work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Wait ... "failing a drug-test" does not equal "causing their ongoing incapacity to work".
I didn't say it did. Heavy drug or alcohol abuse might.
But if the only kind of work you can do, or choose to do, requires passing a drug test, and you can't comply then that's no reason to expect the taxpayer to support you. Find another kind of job.
Administering drug-tests causes an ongoing incapacity to employ ... was my point. :-)
Drug-tests have never been a problem for me ... I know all the answers!
Post a Comment