Is it fair for seasonal wokers to get EI benefit repeatedly?

[From another nation in Canada]

Seaonal workers can apply for EI benefit every year when there is no work to do. Then they can be rehired/recalled by the same company during work season next year.

For a road worker, he can enjoy the NHL when road work is finished in the winter with EI benefit and the next year, he can be rehired/recalled by the same company again and re-collect benefit later that year.

My understanding is: EI is a kind of insurance, not government warefare. The insurance is used for a rainy day when something unexpected/unprepared happens, such as car accident. If the accident is pre-meditated, then that is called insurance fraud. This rule should be applied to seasonal worker who work for the same company for years, which has been applied for those who quit their job without just cause.

If the government wants to subsidize some industries in special regions, such as fishing, then they should use money from other sources, not from EI fund.

[Shwa]

Seaonal workers can apply for EI benefit every year when there is no work to do. Then they can be rehired/recalled by the same company during work season next year.

For a road worker, he can enjoy the NHL when road work is finished in the winter with EI benefit and the next year, he can be rehired/recalled by the same company again and re-collect benefit later that year.

My understanding is: EI is a kind of insurance, not government warefare. The insurance is used for a rainy day when something unexpected/unprepared happens, such as car accident. If the accident is pre-meditated, then that is called insurance fraud. This rule should be applied to seasonal worker who work for the same company for years, which has been applied for those who quit their job without just cause.

If the government wants to subsidize some industries in special regions, such as fishing, then they should use money from other sources, not from EI fund.

So to answer your OP question, yes it is fair, at least to the seasonal workers. Is it fair to me, who works full time and pays taxes, is that what you are asking?

You say that IF the government wants to "subsidize some industries in special regions" then they should use money from other sources. Does it matter?

Now as I understand the EI rules, quitting your job without just cause disqualifies you for EI, so what are you talking about?

[Newfie Canadian]

According the Gov of Canada website:

Employment Insurance (EI) provides Regular Benefits to individuals who lose their jobs through no fault of their own (for example, due to shortage of work, seasonal or mass lay-offs) and are available for and able to work, but can't find a job.

Can a seasonal worker help it if their work is seasonal? The problem a seasonal worker faces is if they are seasonal worker, then they are unlikely to get hired for another job once their seasonal job is done for the season. Who is going to hire a fish plant worker, for example, who works in a fish plant from April or May to September or October?

Is it fair? I don't know, but seasonal workers pay into EI as does everyone who works, so why shouldn't they be able to avail of the program?

[madmax]

Is it fair?

Is it fair the Federal Government diverted 56Billion generated as an EI fund, and gave it away to the very companies throwing hundreds of thousands of people out of work?

Is it fair that the Federal Conservatives did this with 8 Billion dollars in 2 short years and then ran up a huge deficit to boot.

Is it fair that the Canadians Federation of Independent Business is fighting EI increases because the Conservative Government Blew the EI FUND on their Friends and Pals.

Watch as the Conservatives have their butts handed to them, and back down on the EI increases, because we have had enough of contributing so much in terms of BILLIONS AND BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars only to have these clowns waste it on their Pals and Pork Projects.

[msj]

People have to keep in mind that people who work in seasonal type industries can do so in order to ensure they get laid off and, therefore, collect EI benefits.

But really, this is more of a handout to seasonal businesses than to EI recipients.

Without this system entire regions/sectors (rural, tourism, resource) would see huge decreases in economic activity.

Now, is the pick up in economic activity greater than the cost of this program?

In some regions no but in many regions it's yes.

In the end it may not be fair (subsidized business and workers) but given that any of us can choose to become either a subsidized business by starting a business or a subsidized worker by getting hired by one, I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other.

[From another nation in Canada]

So to answer your OP question, yes it is fair, at least to the seasonal workers. Is it fair to me, who works full time and pays taxes, is that what you are asking?

You say that IF the government wants to "subsidize some industries in special regions" then they should use money from other sources. Does it matter?

Now as I understand the EI rules, quitting your job without just cause disqualifies you for EI, so what are you talking about?

"Subsidize some industries in special regions" from taxes means every Canadian, either EI contributors or not, share the burden.

Quiting job without just causes and applying for EI benefit is considered to be the manipulation of the EI system and that is why the application is declined. Based on the same reason, the EI application of the seasonal worker who repeatedly in-and-out for the SAME COMPANY should be refused as well. Or at least, their premium should go up, as our auto insurance companies always do.

[msj]

"Subsidize some industries in special regions" from taxes means every Canadian, either EI contributors or not, share the burden.

Quiting job without just causes and applying for EI benefit is considered to be the manipulation of the EI system and that is why the application is declined. Based on the same reason, the EI application of the seasonal worker who repeatedly in-and-out for the SAME COMPANY should be refused as well. Or at least, their premium should go up, as our auto insurance companies always do.

There are some rules for chronic users of EI.

The clawback rate goes up depending on how often and recently a claimant has used EI, for example.

As for this being fair - one should not only consider the direct costs to those of us who work and pay taxes over the course of an entire year.

If these seasonal people left their regions and crowded cities for work, well that would have costs to my quality of life.

Those seasonal businesses also could lead to more competition for those year round businesses which would result in less profits.

[Topaz]

Do you think that the seasonal workers say when they were kids, when I grow up I'm going to be a seasonal worker, so I can draw EI? Believe me, being on EI does get you a better life, just helps you to stop from starving and besides that, they do pay into and some may have paid into for years and never collected but loss their job and could only find seasonal work. If these workers are getting EI good for them and they aren't on welfare which YOU would be paying for. If you want complain about something then complain about like MP's pensions. While other pensions are losing money NOT the MP's. In 2008-09,the half-billion pension fund grew 53.8 million. The funds interest rate is regulated and backed by...us, the taxpayers. There's no money in the fund, it just a paper account and taxpayers are on the hook when it comes due. Mps and senators pension benefits are worth half their income and indexed to inflation. A MP of six years, gets a pension of $27,000 yearly and a long term MP gets more than $100,000 yearly and the PM can drawing his at age 55 and the rest at 65 for a total of $178,000 yearly. All of this coming out of out taxes dollars. I'm not sure but I don't think they even pay anything towards their own pensions. Anyone know?

[Shwa]

"Subsidize some industries in special regions" from taxes means every Canadian, either EI contributors or not, share the burden.

This is the price you pay to be Canadian, that is, to help other Canadians toward a "standard" of living.

Quiting job without just causes and applying for EI benefit is considered to be the manipulation of the EI system and that is why the application is declined. Based on the same reason, the EI application of the seasonal worker who repeatedly in-and-out for the SAME COMPANY should be refused as well. Or at least, their premium should go up, as our auto insurance companies always do.

But quiting a job and seasonal workers are not the one in the same. Seasonal workers tend to stay in an area so the employer has a workforce when the product is "in season." This doesn't just happen with seasonal workers, but also workers in large manufacturing sectors.

So if premiums should go up like auto insurance, does your auto insurance go up everytime you change your tires?

[guyser]

So if premiums should go up like auto insurance, does your auto insurance go up everytime you change your tires?

Shh...we havent implemented that............................. yet!

[Argus]

Seaonal workers can apply for EI benefit every year when there is no work to do. Then they can be rehired/recalled by the same company during work season next year.

For a road worker, he can enjoy the NHL when road work is finished in the winter with EI benefit and the next year, he can be rehired/recalled by the same company again and re-collect benefit later that year.

My understanding is: EI is a kind of insurance, not government warefare.

It started out that way. Now it's welfare, basically, or an income supliment to seasonal workers whose actual actual pay rate, btw, was supposedly high in order to see them through the off season.

[Guest TrueMetis]

It started out that way. Now it's welfare, basically, or an income supliment to seasonal workers whose actual actual pay rate, btw, was supposedly high in order to see them through the off season.

Tell that to the fishermen in NFLD, or my brother the roofer. I'm sure they're be interested in hearing that.

[Argus]

Tell that to the fishermen in NFLD, or my brother the roofer. I'm sure they're be interested in hearing that.

Roofing isn't a bad example. It's a fairly low skill job that almost any young person can do. As such it should command very low wages, but it doesn't.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Roofing isn't a bad example. It's a fairly low skill job that almost any young person can do. As such it should command very low wages, but it doesn't.

Calling roofing low skill is like calling plumbing low skill, let's see "almost any young person" tear off the old wood on a roof and replace it in a few days. Most couldn't because it's a hell of a lot more than just nailing on shingles, especially if you know how to do metal roofing. You screw up and you may have just destroyed someones home.

[bill_barilko]

Flat roofing is relatively unskilled-carpentry work on a pitched surface 100' from the ground is not.

[KeyStone]

Seasonal workers who continue to draw upon EI year after year, are abusing the system.

Yes, they pay into the EI system, but they take far more out of it, than they put in.

No private insurance company in the world would insure workers for unemployment when there is 99% certainty they would be laid off.

Now, I don't have a problem with helping people that need help, but this isn't the case here.

Many of these people earn 40-60K a year in the months that they do work, and then get EI in the months that they don't work.

Why does someone on seasonal umemployment deserve to be making more in the offseason, than soneone workking full-time at 7-11?

Why do seasonal fisherman deserve a four-five month paid holiday, whereas teachers ration out their pay to get paid all year round?

Given that we know that the work is seasonal, these companies should estimate the total annual pay of the employees, and then hold some back, so that they can get paid regular paycheques throughout the year.

It is an unfair system, that panders to the fact that Atlantic Canada are swing votes, any one of the three parties could win the seats with the right policies.

[Smallc]

Why do seasonal fisherman deserve a four-five month paid holiday, whereas teachers ration out their pay to get paid all year round?

Where does that happen? In Manitoba at least, teachers are paid on a 12 month salary schedule. Educational assistants are employed for 10 months...and then they're laid off, and they collect EI for the other two.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Smallc

[KeyStone]

Where does that happen? In Manitoba at least, teachers are paid on a 12 month salary schedule. Educational assistants are employed for 10 months...and then they're laid off, and they collect EI for the other two.

Yeah, that is what I mean.

Teachers don't make 60,000 in 10 months, and then claim EI in the summer months.

They have their pay rationed out, so that they get paid equally in all 12 months.

Educational assistants is another area where change should be made then, if what you say is true.

There is no reason that they should get insurance for something they know very well is going to happen.

[Smallc]

Educational assistants is another area where change should be made then, if what you say is true.

There is no reason that they should get insurance for something they know very well is going to happen.

Well, in their defence, they have no guarantee of a job the next year. The number of required educational assistants varies from year to year. They aren't considered permanent staff.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Why do seasonal fisherman deserve a four-five month paid holiday, whereas teachers ration out their pay to get paid all year round?

Do you have any idea what the average pay for a fisherman is? Oh wait there is no point because the pay varies so widely. For some of them if their pay was averaged out over a year they wouldn't have enough to live on. The teacher comparison is crap because even when the salaries are the same a teacher get's a lot more in benefits.

[dre]

Giving EI money to fishermen is no different that subsidizing farmers.

Most western countries heavily subsidize their food supply for strategic reasons, and to increase exports. If we didnt dump loads of public money into fishing and agriculture those industries wouldnt exist for long, and we would rely on imports for all our food.

[KeyStone]

Giving EI money to fishermen is no different that subsidizing farmers.

Most western countries heavily subsidize their food supply for strategic reasons, and to increase exports. If we didnt dump loads of public money into fishing and agriculture those industries wouldnt exist for long, and we would rely on imports for all our food.

It's a good point. I hadn't considered that.

But it seems to me that we subsidize a lot more than just the food industry.

We also subsidize logging, mining etc, anything seasonal.

I don't have a problem with a top-up for people struggling to get by, or giving someone cash when they are unexpectedly laid off (that is what unemployment insurance is supposed to be for), but I do have a problem with workers who get a decent wage already, getting extra money.

Why is it that they are entitled to make more than the guy working at a gas station, while they are laid off?

[Argus]

Flat roofing is relatively unskilled-carpentry work on a pitched surface 100' from the ground is not.

If it's something you can learn in a week or two it's low skilled. End of story. The fact you have to remember to tie yourself off is beside the point. Window washers have to remember that too, and that's not a high skilled profession either. BTW, how many pitched roofs are 100 feet off the ground? I mean, really. Twenty feet is more like it.

I used to be a clerk. It took months of working and learning to get the hang of the software, and years before you actually mastered it. And that job wasn't considered to be particularly highly skilled.

[Michael Hardner]

Do you have any idea what the average pay for a fisherman is? Oh wait there is no point because the pay varies so widely. For some of them if their pay was averaged out over a year they wouldn't have enough to live on.

Then the price for their product is too low, perhaps ? Why should the people of Canada have to subsidize fish fishing ?

Edited November 20, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Michael Hardner]

Most western countries heavily subsidize their food supply for strategic reasons, and to increase exports. If we didnt dump loads of public money into fishing and agriculture those industries wouldnt exist for long, and we would rely on imports for all our food.

...and our food would be cheaper, and our taxes would be lower.