Beneficiaries who fail drug test for job application to be given 30 days to get clean, or benefit cut in half, Bennett says

People with addictions would be supported to get help with their dependency, while those on some prescribed medications would be exempt, Bennett said. Experts would carry out "robust clinical assessments" to determine whether people were recreational users or had a drug dependency, she said.

Reading between the lines, this is a move to get them off the unemployment benefit and onto the sickness benefit while they are "treated" for their dependency, thus helping the official figures in an attempt to make the government look good. This is all just cheap rhetoric and a diversion, look elsewhere for the news because this isn't it.

On Tuesday morning Bennett said around 40% of the jobs listed at Work and Income required drug tests.

Wow - that's a high percentage - has drug testing become the standard for say, jobs in the hospitality sector?

I'm wondering whether there is some discriminatory recruitment treatment going on with respect to those candidates being referred by WINZ - as 40% just seems a very high number to me.

How about we drug test all beneficiaries; including all those of the South Canterbury Finance bailouts, all Telecom shareholders and employess who are being bailed out of their lack of re-investment in their business via the govts boadband rollout, the farming community that benefits from a lack of cost recovery of environmental degradation (postponing Carbon tax initiative), Doctors for whom the major player is govt subsidies, drivers who benefit from subsidised roading projects...etc etc. 

The Govt guarantee for the banks etc during the early days of the financial turmoil surely must make banks beneficiaries? Therefore all their employess!

Government has so many dependants these days; the best game in town is to circle the Beehive (lobbyists )and contrive to get favours (legislation) to favour your sector. 

Yes indeed lets line up the beneficiaries in this economy and get some drug testing under way. Your turn Ms Bennet. Midstream please! 

Well let's stop the hypocracy here and test them for traces of alcohol, by far and away the root cause of misery that purvees the lower socioeconomic demographic.... by far and away the most common cause of absenteeism , tardy arrival, poor presentation, indifference to work ethic..etc indeed in all classes of N.Z. Society.....f#%king hypocracy.

Yet again the proof that know nothing grad students becoming politicians, gives rise to naive policy aimed at winning the affectionate vote of similarly small minded individuals.

what do you say on the damage alcohol has done to Society Minister, and further that it's abuse is far more wide spread and commonplace.

 I know a number of Sth Auckland detectives, just ask them which they think is the far greater evil in terms of the repercussions to society , the destroyer of security and self worth for the victims of it's high.........I have asked , it's a no contest.

 Fit for work.......? have yourself tested Minister, you may pass a drug test, I doubt youd score F on an IQ test.

Here's a little something I hope some of you take the time to watch....objectively ,  it's not new  but it's becoming news, now start scaling it down and listen for the bells ringing.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryus2012/2012/08/2012823103039675592.html

Wonder what Lance Armstrong would think about this drug testing proposal?

I forgot to mention Ms Bennett, as a Minister of the Crown there should be a certain responsibility to arrive in a( fit) and presentable condition, you may want to .. steer clear of lunching with Gerry as it's starting to show....excess protien has a direct effect on cognition as Gerry's performance in Christchurch would demonstrate thus far.

Are there any examples of this type of approach working successfully anywhere in the world?

if you take half their benifit away then the ferals amongst them will have to steal twice as much.

nah it's all about destabilising them. the guru behind it did exactly the same thing with the finance sector. problem is we are a low paid society and there aint no jobs. and besides we have the bleediing heart lefties who will stymie bennett at every opportunity.  

Oh Paula - what are you doing - perhaps you should lead the dependency issue by example. Your lifestyle is dependent upon politics and private enterprise is paying for your dependency. You cost far more than anyone on an unemployment benefit and whatever you are taking to inflate that ego of yours should be a banned substance.

When the people say they don't like welfare they are referring to all you Politicians and Bureaucrats that are milking off the system. If you created a decent society people might not want to take drugs to escape the misery of the system they find themselves in.

Marc Ellis seemed to do well with Charlie's, mmm wonder where that name came from?

This will make not one lick of difference in the long run. All these nasty punitive moves from someone who took advantage of training incentives to get where she is today, only to pull that ladder to success up behind her, are just a sop to baying pack of right wing reactionary hounds that seem to love this government. No mention of how they plan to put things in place to see that there are both jobs for people to take up and decent paying ones at that. It seems nowdays that far too much ordinary but vital work no longer pays enough to live one, hardly something to inspire people.

Cant believe there are so many on here apparently condoning drug use.

Its illegal chaps and chapesses, and anybody who expects to be funded by the taxpayers of NZ needs to understand there are certain obligations that go with receiving that funding......

.

I work two jobs and am all saved up to buy a home for my family. Looking in my price range, I see that some dope smoking, Playstation player can have the exact same brand spanking new home that I can just afford, for free gratis and for nothing, payed for by you and me. Nice one, maybe I should do the same, chuck in my jobs, start a bad antisocial habit and spend more time with my family...
I'm NOT some screaming right winger... But somewhere the system is stuffed! And it irks me no-end that so many on this site condone this rort...

Raegun, I am not taling about the people who NEED the system... we ALL do from time to time, I am talking about the fact that I have 2 jobs, work bloody hard and the BEST I can afford is the same as the druggie gets for free!

Tell you what, spend a Monday morning in a district court and you'll see the types (and number) of people that get for FREE what people like me sacrifice so much for! The number of lazy not looking for work, drug taking munters is far higher than your comment alludes!

Taking drugs is illegal, it causes antisocial behaviour and crime... I agree with Kermit the Frog above, "...there are certain obligations that go with receiving that funding......"

Wow! Am i reading that right?

"Politicians who fail promises test to be given 30 days to fix it, or salary cut in half, Bennett says"

My post in this blog is a Business Ethics assignment and I would like to make a couple of claims that warrant further thought.

Social development minister Paula Bennett, is using drug testing as a measurement, with consequences such as half or full benefits being suspended if the criteria is not met of passing a drug test. The key concern should be getting the beneficiaries back into the workforce, there ability and performance as a worker but not the results of a drug test. Drug tests only measures how much of a drug is in there system, not time of consumption or how much the individuals performance will be impaired, as all individuals range in different ages, heights and sizes which can be affected differently (The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, Module 2, 2009, p.7). Drug testing cannot distinguish if an individual beneficiary is an occasional user or there is drug abuse (The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, Module 2, 2009, p.7). It may not be an important aspect of whether there are regular users of drugs but how the drugs impacts their work, their performance and others in the work place which drug testing doesn’t analyse.

The main concern with drug testing being used as a pre-employment screening process for beneficiaries, it gives information about personal activities unrelated to work which is a breach of privacy. “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with their privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to the attacks upon their honour and reputation” stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 12. (The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, Module 2, 2009, p.4).  If drug testing is refused, the article gives the impression that, it’s as bad as failing a drug test, which is incorrect, maybe individuals just have an issue with new employers or members of work and income invading their privacy and know that they have no right to do so. All beneficiaries have a right to privacy and employers should only have a right to information about any employee that directly affects their work and what beneficiaries do in their own time is none of an employer’ or work and incomes concern. (Desjardins and Duska 1987).  As cited in Desjardins, according to George Brenkert, a right to privacy involves three place relations between a person, some information and another person (Desjardins and Duska 1987). Employers have the right to know that the consumption of illegal drugs such as marijuana, methamphetamine or cocaine is not taking place in work hours but it’s not justified for the employer to know what private activities occur outside these hours.  

Drug testing used as a pre-employment screening process does not show past or present performance or productivity of a beneficiary. Employers seeking employee actual performance would gather better results from skill testing, interviews with past bosses or co-workers then drug testing (The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, Module 2, 2009, p.40). Drug testing only shows whether the beneficiary has drugs in there system or not and what drugs which could account for drugs taken in personal time outside work hours. Drug testing does not show whether the beneficiary will fulfil their duties as an employee, how they would fit in to the business or good qualities that they would bring to the position, it can provide private information about the beneficiary in what they do in their own time and home which is a breach of privacy.

Privacy is part of the individual’s personal identity which is seen by all ethical theories as a fundamental principal and ethically important (The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, Module 2, 2009, p.5). If we used one of the ethical theories, Kantian model and applied it to this case, maxim action would be “I will invade private activities of each beneficiary”. This would not become universal law as it would not be seen as an ethical or justifiable action as its invasion of the beneficiaries’ basic right to privacy and out of work activities undertaken in their own time or own home.

Drug testing can produce false positive results such as the intake of opiates, over the counter cold medication, and prescribed medication. Poppy seeds for instance, contain morphine from eating them for example a poppy seed bagel; it will result in a true positive result for opiates but also over the counter cold medication “can turn an initial screen for amphetamine positive because of the structural similarities between the various OTC drugs and amphetamine” (Advance Diagnostics). These are just two examples where positive drug testing results have arisen and both items are legal to take.  In this article only some prescribed medications would be exempt, Bennett said. I don’t understand how only some prescribed medication will be exempt, if the beneficiary requires that medication and it’s been approved by the doctor that should be enough. Doctors would be in a better position to state whether abuse of that drug has taking place, by previous blood tests, records of when there last visit was and what was prescribed and how long it should last for. When it comes to weight loss or pre work out supplements that can show as a false positive in drug tests, that are legal to consume and you can buy them over the counter, in stores, would there be allowances for these? Again the privacy issue arises because employers or work and income do not need to know about whether you are taking pills to lose weight or supplements for better results at the gym even though positive drug readings have occurred.

In conclusion drug testing is a breach of privacy; it should not be used as a pre-employment screening process as it doesn’t give information on one’s work history, performance or productivity, and also false positive results.  

Referencing

The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand. (2013). Module 1:71203 Business Ethics.Retrieved from http://campus2.openpolytechnic.ac.nz/mod/book/view.php?id=140635&chapterid=9384

DesJardins, J., & Duska, R. (2001). Drug testing in employment. In T.L. Beauchamp & N.E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (6th ed., pp. 283-294). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Advance diagnostics, retrieved 20/04/14 from http://www.advancediagnostics.co.nz/FAQ.html

Notaneconomist ...Whatever happened to all these these guys.

Christov, please respond if you can. I hear you have been unwell.

Where is Gummy. Where is Wolly, etc.?

Seems nothing changes in the past two years, except the bloggers and unfortunately the content, still stuck on houses, not real issues.

We need to get back to basics.

We need to get back to reality.

The worst thing about poltics and high finance is nothing improves, when you have the same old people trying to fix things for their own benefit,  Opinionated.

What about legal highs, these partakers were driving cars, using machinery as well as high as a kite.

But no ban, until the people got in on the Act, not the minister in charge of the act.

People power can change anything, but not unless the good people stand up to the problems, pertaining.

Some excellent bloggers still around, some new, just saying.

The time has come, but it is yet to be recognized, that with technological advances a portion of society will no longer be required to partake in productive activity. Many have been soaked up into "service jobs" where they receive income doing things for others that they could well be doing themselves. But there are limits and increasingly it is prudent to pay some to stay out of the workforce.

It seems simple to let the dumbest be drug addled slobs if they want to be, provide them with sufficient for the basics and leave them to zone out in peace. Then the smart people all get the jobs they want.

Everybody happy................

My response to this article is part of a business ethics assignment.

While I agree in theory with Social Development Minister Paula Bennett that beneficiaries should be able to pass a drugs test and be capable of being work ready in order to be entitled to receive a benefit, her approach to applying a drug testing regime on beneficiaries to determine whether they receive a full or partial benefit is unethical.

Traditionally drug testing in the workplace has been proposed to address safety issues raised by the presence of intoxicated workers in the workplace (Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, 71203 Business Ethics, 2014). Minister Bennett seems to be proposing a drug testing regime for beneficiaries purely to be able to coerce the ones who are unable or unwilling to pass a drugs test to become clean from drugs, in order to retain their full benefit, as if this was their only impediment to gaining employment. I would think a lack of education and/or specified training, and the nationwide shortage of jobs to be a factor contributing more to the nations unemployment rate than the fact that some beneficiaries may be drug users. Therefore drugs testing beneficiaries before they enter the workforce has nothing to do with following the traditional health and safety guidelines.

The main focus of the Social Development Ministry should therefore be to find employment for the beneficiaries first. As the minister is proposing to test the beneficiaries before they enter the workforce they technically have no legal obligation to partake in a drugs test, unless the job for which they are applying requires one. If a drug test is required as part of a job application, the job being applied for should also be a position that will potentially pose a potential health and safety risk if the employee was to be under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Beneficiaries have certain obligations which they need to adhere to, a pre-employment drugs test being one if the position requires one, but they do not have an employment contract with the Social Development Ministry which requires them to partake in random drugs tests for them.

Minister Bennett also states that “Work and Income will reimburse employers for test failures and those who fail a test will have to pay back the cost out of their benefit”. This point also bring to light some privacy issues. A right to privacy involves a three place relationship between person A, some information and another person B (George Brenkert, 1981). If a newly employed beneficiary, person A, submits to a drug test, the information, the only person with a right to use that information is the employer, person B. Unless it is for a pre-employment drugs test for a beneficiary, if an employer passes a failed drugs test information on to Work and Income to claim a reimbursement for a failed drugs test is this then not a breach of the employees privacy? A person’s right to privacy is violated whenever personal information is requested, collected and/or used by an employer in a way or for any purpose that is irrelevant or in violation of the contractual relationship that exists between employer and employee (DesJardins and Duska, 1987). In this case passing the information on to a third party, Work and Income, does amount to a breach of privacy.

Minister Bennett also states “Where people fail a drugs test or refuse to apply for a drug tested job, they must agree to stop using drugs or their benefit will be cut by 50%. They will be given 30 days to allow any they have taken to leave their system” THC, the psychoactive compound in cannabis can remain in the body for up to 90 days, as it is water soluble and is stored in fat, depending on frequency of use, an individual’s metabolism, level of exercise and diet (ChenPalmer, 2012). So even a social user of cannabis who may only use the drug occasionally may fail a drugs test. While employers have the right to ensure that they provide a safe working environment, what right do they have to know what their employees are doing in their private time? If their employees are using drugs recreationally this is a matter for the police not the employer. If an employee shows signs of being under the influence in the workplace, and therefore have a right to address the issue, and employee who may have used drugs over the weekend will still have remnants of the drugs in their system but the effects or the drug, which will usually wear off after it has been consumed, will not necessarily impair their performance at work.

Referencing

The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, 2014, 71203 Business Ethics, Module 2, Pg. 6.

George Brenkert, Privacy, Polygraphs and Work, Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 1 (1), Fall 1981.

Joseph DesJardins and Ronald Duska, Drug Testing in Employment, Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 6, 1987.

ChenPalmer, Drug Testing of Employees, 2012, http://www.chenpalmer.com/news/publications-and-presentations/drug-test…

My response to this article is for a Business Ethics assignment.
In this article, author Alex Tarrant reports on the Government putting in place workplace drug testing for beneficiaries in order to keep their full benefit. I believe the focus should be getting the beneficiaries into jobs and to get them back into the workforce based on their abilities and skills rather than the results of a drug test.

Drug testing for pre-employment screening breaches the beneficiary’s privacy as it produces information about someone’s personal activities which are unrelated to their work. “Employers should only ask for the information they need to determine an applicant’s suitability for the particular job” (https://privacy.org.nz/assets/Files/Brochures-and-pamphlets-and-pubs/Pr…). “Where people fail a drug test or refuse to apply for a drug tested job, they must agree to stop using drugs or their benefit will be cut by 50%” quoted by Paula Bennett gives the impression that refusing a drug test is just as bad as failing a drug test. This is not correct and refusing a drug test should not be treated with the same consequences as failing a drug test. Maybe there are more suitable jobs for the beneficiary which don’t require drug testing, or the individual has an issue with the potential new employer and Work and Income invading their privacy and know their rights to privacy so refuse to do a test.

Sure, employers have the right to know if the consumption of illegal drugs are consumed in the workplace or during workhours however I believe it is not admissible for the employer to know the private activities of the individual outside of the work hours.
Looking at the three ethical theories; Utilitarianism, Kantianism and Virtue ethics; all see individual personal identity or privacy as ethically important (Open Polytechnic, 2017, M3). If we were to consider say Utilitarianism it sees privacy as important because ignoring people’s individual identities is not likely to increase happiness or minimise suffering (Open Polytechnic, 2017, M3).
Privacy is an individual’s right and is also ethically important, I believe the use in drug testing in this article is breaching privacy and is ethically wrong.

Using a drug test as part of a pre-employment screening process does not include important work-related information about the individual. You would think that employers would want to gather information including previous work experience, performance, productivity and skills which could be attained from interviews with previous employers, personal references, skill testing rather than drug testing.
Drugs have an inconsistent effect on people who take them, as it depends on the person in general and also things such as their age, height, weight, tolerance etc as to how much they are affected. In the situation where an employee has a positive drug test, it doesn’t mean their performance was impaired or that their future performance will be impaired or that they are bringing drugs onto the workplace (privacy.org.nz). Because of the inconsistent effect drugs have, shouldn’t employers be checking the employees level of performance and if an employee is performing well then haven’t they sufficiently meet their duty as an employee?

I agree that for some employment positions which are ‘safety sensitive’ it is important to know the employee is fit for the job to keep themselves, other staff members and the public safe and to prevent any harm. However, even in these cases I believe there are other less intrusive and more effective ways available than drug testing. Desjardins and Duska mentioned two ways which are less intrusive and could be more effective including asking the employee questions such as “is there anything that might prevent you from doing this job” or hiring an individual on a probationary period.
If drug testing is a requirement by the employer, there should be conditions that make it fair for both employer and employee. Desjardins and Duska discuss conditions that should be met before it is ethically ok for employers to drug test their employees (Open Polytechnic, 2018, M3). These conditions include testing for certain drugs that potentially cause harm, employers to develop testing methods that are fair to both parties and the condition that there must be clear and present potential for harm.
The outcome of a drug test can give a false positive result as not all drugs are illegal. “…many prescribed and over-the-counter drugs can yield a false-positive test. This is especially likely if the drugs or their breakdown products have a chemical structure that is similar to the tested drugs” (https://www.livestrong.com/article/161857-drugs-that-can-cause-false-po…). For example, someone who is on an antibiotic called Amoxicillin may produce a positive drug test for cocaine, or the antibiotic called Cephradine may cause a positive drug test for LSD. Other prescription medicine which can have false positive results can be from cold medicine, antidepressants, anti-inflammatory drugs and also pain killers. In this article, Paula Bennet mentioned people on some prescribed medications would be exempt from the drug testing. However, is this relevant? While some legal pills may produce a false positive result, they can also have a negative effect on people which can negatively affect their work performance. In my opinion it should be this work performance that should be of concern to an employer. Not the results of a drug test.

In conclusion I think private drug use outside work is rightfully private and only in exceptional cases such as safety sensitive positions, employers may perhaps enforce drug tests. In this case it should not be used as part of a pre-employment screening process as it can produce false positive results and it does not give any indication of an individual’s work ethic, work history, performance or skills.

References:
Adamec, C. (2017). Drugs that can cause false positive drug test. Retrieved from https://www.livestrong.com/article/161857-drugs-that-can-cause-false-po…

Desjardins, J., & Duska, R. (1987). Drug testing in employment. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 6(3), 3-21.

Employment New Zealand. (2018). Drugs, Alcohol and Work. Retrieved from https://www.employment.govt.nz/workplace-policies/tests-and-checks/drug…

Open Polytechnic of New Zealand. (2017). Module Three. 71203 Business Ethics. Lower Hutt, NZ: Open Polytechnic.

Privacy Commissioner (2008). Privacy at work, a guide to the Privacy Act for employers and employees. Retrieved from https://privacy.org.nz/assets/Files/Brochures-and-pamphlets-and-pubs/Pr…

Tarrant, A. (2012). Beneficiaries who fail drug test for job application to be given 30 days to get clean, or benefit cut in half, Bennet says. Retrieved from https://www.interest.co.nz/news/60859/beneficiaries-who-fail-drug-test-…