Topaz Posted July 29, 2009 Report Posted July 29, 2009 Remember, back in June, when Harper and Iggy said they were going to talk about changes to EI? Well, I knew that was all the Tories would do on the EI matter and now it seems they are at each other throats. The Tories won't move on the 360 hours and one thing they should do in my opinion is set new rules are part time workers and how many hours they have to work before they can collect EI if they lose their jobs. I think there's just as many part time workers out there and there's no way they can collect if they have to go at the same rate as full timers. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090729/...ies_liberals_ei Quote
M.Dancer Posted July 29, 2009 Report Posted July 29, 2009 They better not budge on the 360....the nerve of someone trying to collect EI for a year after working only 9 weeks... Anyway Topaz, as I have seen in your other EI threads, you simply haven't a clue. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted July 29, 2009 Report Posted July 29, 2009 one thing they should do in my opinion is set new rules are part time workers and how many hours they have to work before they can collect EI if they lose their jobs. Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense? Repeating it brainless like a parrot won't make it true. Part Timers can collect EI just like anyone else. 15 hours of work a week for a year is all it takes. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Martin Chriton Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Won't happen in the short term but long term hopefully they'll tighten down considerably on EI. Too many people abuse it. A scheme that would be nice would be to force receivers to get a new job (no matter how crappy -- e.g.: MacDonalds) and EI would pay part of the difference until they find a real job. Would prevent people from working under the table and they'd be more motivated to get decent work. Edited July 30, 2009 by Martin Chriton Quote
Moonbox Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Everyone knew Harper wasn't going to do anything on this. The agreement to 'talk about' and 'review' EI was a straw man to begin with, just like the 'quarterly reviews' Ignatieff accepted on the Budget vote. They were just things he threw in there to make it look like he was doing SOMETHING, rather than becoming completely irrelevant. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Bryan Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Everyone knew Harper wasn't going to do anything on this. Thank God for that too. What the Liberals are demanding is insanity. Quote
Molly Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense? Repeating it brainless like a parrot won't make it true. Part Timers can collect EI just like anyone else. 15 hours of work a week for a year is all it takes. Actually, Dancer, that's not so. You should probably read the fine print. In order to qualify based on 15 hrs./week for a year, you firstly have to have worked for more than a year, at more than 15 hours per week. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Wild Bill Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Thank God for that too. What the Liberals are demanding is insanity. Not necessarily, Bryan. It could be simple good politics! You have to always remember that the true goal of a politician is NOT to come up with a solution but rather to get more votes! These goals do not always mesh. Newfoundland has had the "10-42" for years, where EI pays 42 weeks for 10 weeks of work. This was given after declaring the province an "economic disparity zone". A friend of mine move to PEI some years ago and got involved in the government grant process for starting up a business. He quickly learned that few of these businesses last more than 5 years. As soon as the start up grants run out they fold up and start another! Workers in Ontario have naturally resented not having the same EI benefits if they have the misfortune of having to file a claim. So for Ignatieff and the Liberals to propose to "level the playing field" across the country could be a real vote grabber! Consider the Roman Empire. Some believe that the start of the fall came when they extended the vote to the "rabble", who promptly voted themselves "bread and circuses" until the bread ran out along with the money to pay for the circuses. Why did this happen? Because it helped elect many Roman Senators, that's why! It's not that so many citizens are greedy, although of course, some are! It's just that most folks don't think that deeply about consequences, especially when they are getting a "gift". This is the principle behind nearly every scam. When you are being asked for your account info by that Nigerian minister who's going to give you a million dollars to free up a bigger amount to feed his orphans it's easy to get distracted by that million! The "360" plan is no different. What's more, if you time things right you can delay any significant negative effects for years! You simply drag your feet on implementing the scheme as long as possible, until the economy improves and the number of people making EI claims falls anyway! It could be a couple of generations before we face another recession like this one. So it will be some other guy's problem to solve an EI deficit! So yes, it's a bribe that in the long term can hurt us. Still, the greedy will be happy, the hungry will be happy and the gullible will be happy. That could add up to a majority for Ignatieff! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
capricorn Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 So for Ignatieff and the Liberals to propose to "level the playing field" across the country could be a real vote grabber!---- That could add up to a majority for Ignatieff! I'm not convinced that most Canadians want an election over EI reform. If they did, the Liberals would be way ahead in the polls. My sense is that they want politicians to amend the system through consensus. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
M.Dancer Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Actually, Dancer, that's not so. You should probably read the fine print. In order to qualify based on 15 hrs./week for a year, you firstly have to have worked for more than a year, at more than 15 hours per week. 15 hours times 52 weeks is 780 hours. More than enough to qualify Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Moonbox Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 15 hours times 52 weeks is 780 hours. More than enough to qualify Sounds like a sweet deal to me. Where do I sign up? Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
M.Dancer Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Sounds like a sweet deal to me. Where do I sign up? Only sweet if you make $100 and hour... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Topaz Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Posted July 30, 2009 They better not budge on the 360....the nerve of someone trying to collect EI for a year after working only 9 weeks...Anyway Topaz, as I have seen in your other EI threads, you simply haven't a clue. Dancer, have you ever worked part time? Probably not, but this group is growing, especially in areas were the unemployment is very high. In some areas of Ontario there are no jobs, and if a part time one comes along its gone! So if the business you are working for has bad times then they will lay you off and what is that person going to do? You live in the Toronto area and like most politicans you probably don't know what its like in the rest of the province. In Windsor, things are so bad , if you are lucky to have a job, you may NOT be able to get a mortgage because of the 13% unemployment. So please , don't tell me I don't have a clue, I know alot more people on EI because of job losses then you probably do. Quote
M.Dancer Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Dancer, have you ever worked part time? Probably not, but this group is growing, especially in areas were the unemployment is very high. In some areas of Ontario there are no jobs, and if a part time one comes along its gone! So if the business you are working for has bad times then they will lay you off and what is that person going to do? You live in the Toronto area and like most politicans you probably don't know what its like in the rest of the province. In Windsor, things are so bad , if you are lucky to have a job, you may NOT be able to get a mortgage because of the 13% unemployment. So please , don't tell me I don't have a clue, I know alot more people on EI because of job losses then you probably do. That is neither here nor there. You have consistently demonstrated you don't know the rules about EI. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
madmax Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 They better not budge on the 360....the nerve of someone trying to collect EI for a year after working only 9 weeks... Nobody collects EI for 1 year .... regardless of the number of hours required to collect. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 The issue here isn't whether or not changes are made to the system, but instead the perception of cooperation between opposition parties and the government. Its an interesting little trap really. The discussions were to be ongoing through the summer, a real dead spot in Canadian politics. Nothing else has cropped up, so the focus has been retained on this single axis. If the opposition decides to say the government wasn't serious about changes to EI, then it simply declares that the minority government of Harper is unwilling to govern with the consent of the majority of Parliament with a resulting no confidence motion. If the Harper government consents to changes, the opposition will declare they have already begun to govern and a non confidence vote will occur. It is safe to say the Harper will face a vote as soon as the opportunity arises. I will therefore predict a vast shake up of cabinet, and a delay getting them new people sworn in. After that a major agenda change will take place in order to cause a change in opposition days that would allow the introduction of a confidence vote. The PMO will utilize Orders in Council to govern without convening the House until late this fall. Harper will succeed in retaining power until spring, but he will be finished at that point. Quote
Molly Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) 15 hours times 52 weeks is 780 hours. More than enough to qualify I repeat, Dancer, read the fine print. 'Usually' is the word they use to suggest the qualifiers. Look a little farther and learn that 780 hours is 130 hours short. 15 hours times 52 weeks qualifies you for 'Better luck next time.' And that's all. Edited July 30, 2009 by Molly Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.