Last year, there were 31,791 referrals for drug testable positions nationwide and just 55 sanctions for failing a drug test, according to Ministry of Social Development (MSD) figures.Seem low to you? No mention of sanctions for refusing to take a drug test.
The article highlights some reasons why the number could be 'artificially' low including people switching to drugs that are non-detectable, or many people's main employability problem being alcohol which won't necessarily lead to failing a drug test.
From the file of ‘unintended consequences’, a 2016 government report released under the OIA noted that, “There has also been anecdotal evidence that increased testing has led to employees and job seekers using drugs that have a shorter detection time but are more harmful.”
But consider this:
Beneficiaries diagnosed with drug dependency would not be sanctioned under the policy, but would receive the support they needed to deal with their addiction, [MSD representative] said.There are thousands of beneficiaries who will never be put forward for jobs that require drug-testing because they have a primary incapacity of substance abuse.
Here's the interesting thing though. They have decreased in numbers. The source for this data is my own and one other OIA request.
The number rose through Labour's last term (while unemployment fell) and has dropped under National.
A 'tougher' but more practical approach may be the driver of this fall. (Or the problem could still be there and hidden under other incapacity categories eg psychological and psychiatric conditions which risen 11% since June 2008.)
But that very few people receiving a benefit fail a drugs test is not reason to do away with the sanctions. Nobody should be able to render themselves unable to work and expect to live off taxpayer funding.
2 comments:
"But that very few people receiving a benefit fail a drugs test is not reason to do away with the sanctions."
Seems like if this is the way the tests are implemented then the whole thing is a waste of time and money.
If the employer wants to drug test they should pay for it given the taxpayer has a hit rate of 0.17%
Curious as to how the cost vs benefit argument goes to justify ongoing funding for this
Zoe, As I understand it the employer does pay but if the applicant is a beneficiary and fails, the employer is reimbursed by Work and income and the beneficiary has to repay the cost from his or her benefit. The policy was introduced because prospective employers wouldn't even interview beneficiaries apparently as they expected they'd fail the test at the employer's expense.
Personally I believe drug-testing has become too widespread and is used by employers in environments where it wasn't intended eg offices.
Post a Comment