"They are not the same as welfare recipients."
This is being proposed specifically for unemployed (those seeking work, Job seekers allowance) and students. (Im unclear what welfare benefits students receive in Aus, but here we dont provide 'welfare' to full time students and part time students would be excluded unless they were parttime/unemployed).
So my reading of this was extremely specific regards the fit and healthy unemployed. Its clearly a contentious proposal, but its muddying the waters claiming disabilities, the dying, etc would be impacted. Absolutely not.
So several further points:
To argue the case that addicts are victims, would those doing that, say they should automatically fall into the 'disability' category and therefore be eligible for disability benefits due to their limited capacity to work? In short, are they 'disabled' not unemployed?
Second point, (because I dont agree with the first), many professions drug test. They can sack you on the results of drug testing. They can request drug testing on application for roles. At present this cost is fully met by employers. Would it be unreasonable for all employers to drug test applicants? Is this something that, without government intervention of any sort, will become far more widespead within the working population anyway? If so, we would indeed have category of job seekers, who are unemployed specifically due to failed drug testing, and therefore 'unemployable'. What dark hole do they then fall down in the absence of any government intervention?
As it stands, unemployment benefits can be stopped if you lose a job due to 'behaviour'.
Is one of the pertinent questions then, is drug addiction 'behaviour' or 'disability'?
Posters are absolutely correct in pointing out alchoholism etc, however clearly that has indeed fallen into a 'behaviour' category, i.e. when it interferes with work, youre out. If it doesnt, its accepted. The same can be said for those using drugs. If youre fully employed and its not interfering with your work, its accepted.
Should employers do more? Should employment law be changed, that where a long term employee has then found themselves in this situation where the ability to work is impacted, there should be a one off corporately paid rehab scenario offered before automatic sackings kick in?
At the far end, which is where Mrs TP comes from, even if we agreed that significant addiction which results in incapacity to work or function etc falls into a 'disability' category, what do we do with those that refuse intervention?