EI debate could lead to election: Ignatieff

[Smallc]

I do not see a "leftist" bias at the CBC. I see a "Liberal Bias" that has shifted to alot of government pandering of the current CPC government. More to the point, as governments change so does the direction of the CBC.

I can't even agree with that so much. I remember watching the CBC News about 4 - 5 years and wondering, why are the always attacking the government? i thought they were out to get the government. Everyone seems to see what they want to see when it comes to the media. After a time, I realized that what was happening wasn't bias, but rather, it was reporting. I take issue with this idea that the CBC News organization is full of bias. Everything has some bias, there's no way around that, but aside from MSNBC and FOX News, which aren't Canadian, I haven't seen any media organizations with a large amount of bias.

[benny]

I think that Ignatieff was hired director of Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy not out of a US need for unbiased expertise on the subject but because Ignatieff's views were perfectly in phase with the US perspective on human rights.

[madmax]

I haven't seen any media organizations with a large amount of bias.

Then you haven't spent alot of time dealing with the media. I would also consider you a good Canadian taking everything openly and honestly as reported.

In the meantime, the thread is on EI, and I was actually trying to get the thread back on track. People have their own little grudge matches, and turn an issue such as EI and its need to be reformed into a discussion about the CBC.

Ignatieff will not call an election on the basis of EI. What is it? 72 Confidence votes in a row? If Ignatieff wanted to do something about EI, he had the opportunity to address it in the Budget. He didn't, because he didn't care then anymore then he does now. He reads polls.

[scribblet]

Do you really believe that a worker should be able to collect EI for a year after contribution for only 9 weeks?

[benny]

Do you really believe that a worker should be able to collect EI for a year after contribution for only 9 weeks?

To be useful as a countercyclical measure, EI should stimulate an economy up until recessions are gone.

[Topaz]

Do you really believe that a worker should be able to collect EI for a year after contribution for only 9 weeks?

I do for this very reason, IF the person can't find another job because that area is having high unemployment, then yes they should because they will get a chance of other training for other jobs. The other choice is welfare then we are all paying for that person getting help, the other way, that person has a chance of getting even a better job.

[Topaz]

Today the Unemployment figures show over 36,000 people found jobs in April, my question is how many of them are working for the EI Agency? Once the job of getting the surplus of workers their EI, they will all be let go and then the unemployment numbers will go up again.

[benny]

I do for this very reason, IF the person can't find another job because that area is having high unemployment, then yes they should because they will get a chance of other training for other jobs. The other choice is welfare then we are all paying for that person getting help, the other way, that person has a chance of getting even a better job.

On welfare, one is offered job training too.

[Topaz]

On welfare, one is offered job training too.

BUT, if there is NO jobs in the area, you won't get training and I know this because people in my area have been told, you can take the training but you won't find a job in this area.

[capricorn]

Today the Unemployment figures show over 36,000 people found jobs in April, my question is how many of them are working for the EI Agency?

Some of them were probably hired by taxation to deal with income tax returns. It happens every year.

Once the job of getting the surplus of workers their EI, they will all be let go and then the unemployment numbers will go up again.

Yeah. Some people take these jobs for a number of months, collect EI for a while then go back to those seasonal jobs the following year. It's always been that way.

[benny]

BUT, if there is NO jobs in the area, you won't get training and I know this because people in my area have been told, you can take the training but you won't find a job in this area.

If there is no job, job training is useless whether it is done inside a EI or a welfare program.

[madmax]

Do you really believe that a worker should be able to collect EI for a year after contribution for only 9 weeks?

If someone is laid off and looking for work they should be entitled to EI. As it is, EI does not pay enough to live on, particularly if you are working in a minimum wage position and find your self laid off. Unless you think $4.60 cents is an amount that people can live off of? Which is about $730 that is still taxed.

What is your solution??? The fact is, I recall being raised in an area of high unemployment during a cyclical downturn and EI was available after 9 weeks. I also recall then, how difficult it was for people to find 9 weeks of employment. Things turned around after a few years, and the 9 weeks became a non issue because people were working again. About 13 years later, the Liberal government changed EI.

Today, and each day I go on, friends of mine from across the Province of Ontario are being walked out the door. I know of many office staff today that cannot find work and I know of alot more scheduled to be out of work in 1 years time, and they aren't involved in Auto.

I also am very aware of people who held employment for 20 to 25 years until 2007 and then found NEW employment, only to findthemselves out of work once again. I am also aware of people less then 25 hours away from collecting EI and have been since January of this year. It means they have not received any income in 2009. Perhaps you think that is good.

As much of the workforce in the past two years is now located through temporary employment agencies, the agencie would prefer not to release any ROC and keep those people poor and dangling on a string when needed, if needed and that could be 13 months before being awarded a temp job maybe longer.

What I tend to find is that those people who love to trash the unemployed, and EI bums, are now singing a new tune as they have discovered just how much of EI has been Stolen, and how little they receive and how few qualify.

[benny]

What I tend to find is that those people who love to trash the unemployed, and EI bums, are now singing a new tune as they have discovered just how much of EI has been Stolen, and how little they receive and how few qualify.

What I tend to find is that those people (Muddy, for instance) who love to trash the unemployed, and EI bums, are more than ever sticking to the following absurd prejudice: the reason people are losing their jobs is that they are not working (hard) enough.

[Molly]

... it's not necessarily '9 weeks' either. For someone who works part-time-- maybe even CAN't work full-time, but is still dependent on the income, still required to pay ei premiums-- a layoff is still a major problem, and they've darned well paid for the coverage.

[Argus]

I do for this very reason, IF the person can't find another job because that area is having high unemployment, then yes they should because they will get a chance of other training for other jobs. The other choice is welfare then we are all paying for that person getting help, the other way, that person has a chance of getting even a better job.

Yeah, and what happens if he collects it for a year, then works for another nine weeks, then collects it again for a year, then works for nine weeks, then collects pogey for another year, etc. etc. etc.

There are hundreds of thousands of people who have been doing that for years.

[Argus]

If there is no job, job training is useless whether it is done inside a EI or a welfare program.

If there's no job then MOVE to where there is a job.

[Argus]

Some of them were probably hired by taxation to deal with income tax returns. It happens every year.

Yeah. Some people take these jobs for a number of months, collect EI for a while then go back to those seasonal jobs the following year. It's always been that way.

Not always. That didn't used to be allowed. The Liberals changed it.

[Argus]

If someone is laid off and looking for work they should be entitled to EI. As it is, EI does not pay enough to live on, particularly if you are working in a minimum wage position and find your self laid off. Unless you think $4.60 cents is an amount that people can live off of? Which is about $730 that is still taxed.

EI doesn't pay enough to live on because it has become a welfare supplement and not an employment insurance program. You used to be able to get far higher payments for longer periods. But after the Liberals allowed it to be used as an employment/welfare supplement for seasonal workers the cost was immense, and they had to start cutting back on how much you could collect, and how long you could collect it. Then that wasn't enough so they started cutting back on the conditions which allowed you to collect it. Yet every year there are tons of people who simply use it as a supplement. On the coasts the fishing boat owners are even in on it, hiring people for just long enough to qualify for EI, then laying them off and hiring more people for the same time period. This stupid program is why there are three or four or five times more fishermen than we need.

[benny]

If there's no job then MOVE to where there is a job.

For the sake of ecological balance, moving should not mean rushing though.

[Moonbox]

I'm curious as to how Ignatieff reconciles wanting to reduce spending and be more responsible fiscally, and allowing people to work 9 weeks a year and mooch for the next 43.

[Topaz]

I'm curious as to how Ignatieff reconciles wanting to reduce spending and be more responsible fiscally, and allowing people to work 9 weeks a year and mooch for the next 43.

I'm not against this BUT, it has to be the company layed you off, you just can't quit to collect. I guess it doesn't matter because if these people can't collect EI then its welfare and all of us are still paying one way or the other.

[M.Dancer]

I'm not against this BUT, it has to be the company layed you off, you just can't quit to collect. I guess it doesn't matter because if these people can't collect EI then its welfare and all of us are still paying one way or the other.

"These people"? Are you talking about the congenitally too stupid to work?

[benny]

I'm curious as to how Ignatieff reconciles wanting to reduce spending and be more responsible fiscally, and allowing people to work 9 weeks a year and mooch for the next 43.

Decreased stress in a population is linked to decreased healthcare costs.

[Moonbox]

I'm not against this BUT, it has to be the company layed you off, you just can't quit to collect. I guess it doesn't matter because if these people can't collect EI then its welfare and all of us are still paying one way or the other.

If your company laid you off, then you should have been working more than 360 hours previously anyways. If you're going to collect EI, it should be from long and gainful employment being lost. It's there to ensure that you can meet your obligations and not lose your house and car while you look for new work. By reducing the requirement to 360 hours, all you do is turn it into more expensive welfare, but one that's even easier to abuse.

Decreased stress in a population is linked to decreased healthcare costs.

Well we should all quit work then so we don't over-burden the health care system right?

- PS...I hope you're joking

Edited May 14, 2009 by Moonbox

[M.Dancer]

Decreased stress in a population is linked to decreased healthcare costs.

Try again. Not having an earned income through gainful employment is linked to stress, divorce and serious bad moods.