Belly,
What's your post got to do with someone refusing a drug test ?

I keep repeating, I'm with Lambie on this one.

To continue on the road to drug testing the unemployed, then the first step should be for politicians to lead by example. That's very fair.

It's an agreeable precept to employment, that an employee should be sober and free from the influence of drugs on the job.

I'm not up to speed on this, but if Lambie can arrange a private members bill in the lower house, which proposes that politicians should be free from the effects of alcohol and drugs during their attendance in the house, then the next step, (assuming it is supported), would be the reasonable assumption that a breathalyser should be operating at the entry doors.

Then and not before, I will condone drug testing, and the penalising of the unemployed.

Dan

Here's one. Like many local councils, one in Sydney runs "random" drug and alcohol testing of employees. This practice was not disagreed with by the union or the workers. However with the tests only being conducted in the early hours of the morning at the depots, on outdoor staff only. Well the workers now demand that such tests be truly random for all council employees, including office staff, tests at say 2 o'clock on a Friday afternoon, after the long lunch. Now that put the cat among the pigeons, the gung-ho council have gone away to "consider" that proposal.

My son tells me the same regime applies at his job on Sydney buses, test the drivers, but not the office staff. As it does also apply at my son-in-laws work site as a crane operator on the rail tunnel project in Sydney (two blokes sacked the other day for failing the test). One rule for one, another rule for the rule makers.

Hi there DIVER DAN...

If you were to support Ms. LAMBIE's proposition, that our elected leaders be free from the effects of grog & drugs when in the House, we'd not have a parliament at all! Neither Federal, State, or Local Government for that matter?

After all, endless quantities of grog, a car, and complimentary Business Class transport, are merely just another covert benefit for them? That's even before their Parliamentary benefits are taken into account. I suppose it could also be asserted, some of us are just envious?

One of the CEO's I worked under, once complained to me that he'd heard about people complaining about his salary.
I told him that, personally, I couldn't care less if he had diamond studded toilet seats. However, if the cost of them was taken out of the funding to run the show efficiently but it wasn't run efficiently, then yes, I too would have a problem.
If he can manage so well that his high salary is justified, then I can't see a problem ! Where I do see a lot of huge problems is where CEO's mismanage so badly yet they still receive their high salaries & we have to "tighten" our belts. Heads of Departments & other high ranking bureaucrats are very guilty of that !

OSW

Actually, I would support what is fair and reasonable.
It is not reasonable for politicians living in glass houses, to be throwing stones over the fence, at their aboriginal neighbors.
That puts it pretty much in a nutshell.

Dan