Richest people should offer job or pay bill for jobless people.

[Handsome Rob]

That’s just asinine. Do you really think the majority of those that are on EI due to the recent recession prefer that, to paying of their mortgage?

I'm yet to meet somebody on EI who didn't milk it. Most manage to find some degree of work within a short period of time, anything that's better than EI. Those that remain are enjoying the solace.

Anecdotal, but my experience.

[RNG]

I'm yet to meet somebody on EI who didn't milk it. Most manage to find some degree of work within a short period of time, anything that's better than EI. Those that remain are enjoying the solace.

Anecdotal, but my experience.

The closest I ever got to being beaten up was having a cup of coffee while my wife was pissing away money - sorry, shopping. So there are four guys sitting in the booth behind me, talking about how many days each had to work till they could get on pogey again. They had it down to the minute. I brought up the fact that I thought it was unfair that they expected me to fund their drugfests or whatever, and for some reason they got upset. Freaking a**holes.

Edited May 8, 2011 by RNG

[Guest Derek L]

I finished your argument for you, time to move on now.

Yet, you still haven't answered the question....

[Guest Derek L]

I'm yet to meet somebody on EI who didn't milk it. Most manage to find some degree of work within a short period of time, anything that's better than EI. Those that remain are enjoying the solace.

Anecdotal, but my experience.

I'm sure some do milk it, same as welfare & disability, but I'd still argue that like any form of insurance, EI is something that we all pay into, so it's there if needed.

We'll were on anecdotal experience, just earlier today, got a call from a friend whom just got home from a vacation to find their condo flooded from a burst pipe in the wall. In their case, I'm sure they're pleased that both they have insurance as does the strata.

I honestly don’t see any reason why I’d ever need one of EI/Welfare/Disability, but it’s nice to know it’s there if I ever did, just as it is today for anyone that truly needs it. I too believe in giving a hand up, not a hand out, just as I believe that charity does start at home, and even though I think I pay an absurd amount of taxes, I don’t fault the government spending some of my money helping those less fortunate, even though I’d prefer to pay less tax and target charities of my own choosing.

[Mr.Canada]

I'm sure some do milk it, same as welfare & disability, but I'd still argue that like any form of insurance, EI is something that we all pay into, so it's there if needed.

Most milk it for all its worth and stay on until their benefits run out or nearly do. Some will then work again for another minimal time in order to qualify for EI again for another year of taxpayer funded vacation while still more will move onto welfare, the great social program for those who refuse to work.

Canada needs to make it harder to qualify for welfare and not just give it to just anyone. If people are too lazy to work they should be not be given free money for life from the state.

[Guest Derek L]

Most milk it for all its worth and stay on until their benefits run out or nearly do. Some will then work again for another minimal time in order to qualify for EI again for another year of taxpayer funded vacation while still more will move onto welfare, the great social program for those who refuse to work.

Canada needs to make it harder to qualify for welfare and not just give it to just anyone. If people are too lazy to work they should be not be given free money for life from the state.

Again, do you have any proof that suggests most on EI, stay on EI until their benefits run out?

[Pliny]

I think for homelessness stats to be meaningful, some effort should be taken to separate out those who do not have a permanent residence as a matter of choice/preference.

I would say alot of them have been "helped" all the way to homelessness and now they prefer not to be "helped" - thank you very much - especially if it encroaches upon their freedom "from" responsibility. Private property disappears when it becomes legal to take from one because another demands it or feels entitlement of it. Ownership becomes confused with title to property disappearing into legal trusts and such.

It may be the duty and obligation of those who have to help those who do not. When property is demanded from another without their consent for the benefit of someone else it is extortion. We have consented to paying taxes but we did not consent to the redistribution of wealth as their purpose. Under that system of redistribution irresponsibility of the individual towards society and the poor is fostered and the State becomes the sole entity responsible for society. State responsiblity and individual responsibility, it seems, are inversely proportional.

[ninjandrew]

And what about those that choose to leave, and not come back?

Well thats what I mean by come and go as they please. They dont have to come back.

[fellowtraveller]

I'm sure some do milk it, same as welfare & disability, but I'd still argue that like any form of insurance, EI is something that we all pay into, so it's there if needed.

Maybe everybody in your world pays into EI, but not in mine.

You see, I'm one of those strange, weird Canadians that are self employed and do not pay EI premiums and cannot draw EI. You may have heard of us, we are similar to the homeless in many ways, except of course we don't get welfare either. I also pay 100% of Canada Pension, compared to your 50%. Have you ever visited my planet? I've been to yours many times.

[Guest Derek L]

Maybe everybody in your world pays into EI, but not in mine.

You see, I'm one of those strange, weird Canadians that are self employed and do not pay EI premiums and cannot draw EI. You may have heard of us, we are similar to the homeless in many ways, except of course we don't get welfare either. I also pay 100% of Canada Pension, compared to your 50%. Have you ever visited my planet? I've been to yours many times.

This is true (I'm also self employed and I'm incorporated & own over 40%, so we're in the same boat), but I'm obviously speaking about people employed by others.......I'm sure that in both our cases, we've worked for others, so my point still stands, if be it, in pass tense.

In the end, we've both made choices, and regardless of how we're structured, the pros far out weigh the cons with being self employed......if not, why bother right?

And with that being said, it still doesn't prove that most on EI prefer it.

[BornAlbertan]

Yet, you still haven't answered the question....

While I agree with you and understnad the point you are trying to make, I don't find your comparison really valid. To me it's like saying because both a Peterbilt and a Silverado are both trucks that they can both pull a tractor trailer.

EI, Welfare etc...Are instituted to ensure a level of livable income. There are certainly many people who are on it and can't get off it. There are a great many people too who count their hours to eligibility so they can "go on pogey". I have known people like this in my life. Also known some people who attempted to work under the table so they could collect welfare and live in subsidized housing (I was treated like being the bad guy when I threatened to report them). So they are in fact out there...people who see social programs as nothing more than free $$.

Car InsuranceProtects you from liabilities and property damage of other people! On Saturday an 88 year old woman ran a stop sign and ripped right into the throughfare in which I was driving...t-boned my 2010 Dodge Ram. That truck is my pride and joy, less than 20,000km on it and the day prior I personally power polished it (didn't have anyone else do it for me). I buy insurance to protect myself and my property. I do not buy it with the intent of ever using it or abusing it. If I use it because it is my fault, my rates go up because my risk level goes up. I expect others I meet on the road to also be carrying insurance because again, it protects me as well as them.

I have maxxed out my EI contributions for years...if I ever use it, will I ever see a fraction of what I have paid in?! Well, it will be a small one. Many of the people who collect EI habitually also collect welfare. I remember in my early twenties a friend and I were hanging out in Edmonton when he said he wanted to visit his loser brother (my words not his....and I mean he was a LOSER!). Not to sound prejudiced but I shoulda seen it coming when he turned into one of the housing projects in Edmonton. The brother spoke of how the government OWED him "backpay" for while he was waiting on his EI claim because he worked for a couple months and now because of the government they were broke. Two minutes later he spoke of how they just got their welfare check and bought a stereo from a pawn shop and an ounce of weed so they were good for a bit. GOOD FOR A BIT?! Him and his whore wife (who btw also said they were contemplating having another kid because of the extra "government money" another kid would bring) were more concerned with a stereo and weed than they were caring for their 4 children (which might I add were being well groomed to be next generation of criminals!) When we left I told my friend "don't ever fucking do that to me again!"

While I am not saying they need to scrap EI, welfare etc....it is ABSOLUTELY ABUSED. Reform is required and people need to be made accountable for their abuses of the system. They are there for a hand up not a hand out....and you are NOT "owed" it like the person I referenced above seemed to think. It is earned by being a contributing member to society.

Edited May 9, 2011 by BornAlbertan

[BornAlbertan]

Again, do you have any proof that suggests most on EI, stay on EI until their benefits run out?

Sorry, that info was on the old long form census.

[icman]

Untill the unions priced them selves out of business, a buddy of mine works for a aero space company and he bends alunimum, for 25/hr plus bennifits, and now the owner is trying to control costs and they have now vote for a strike, good bye plant and 600 jobs.Canadian have gotten lazy and expect everything right away. You just can't blame the corporations and bamks and goverment all the time, we the people have to take some resposibilty also.

No-one, not even a "pinko, socialist, commie-bastard", is going to advocate that people who are lazy deserve to get paid the same as someone who works their ass off. But that's NOT THE POINT.

The point is, when someone is labouring their ass off in a skilled trade, trying to live in a city where the average house price has risen over $350K, and rents are over $1000/mo for something that will barely house a small family, there is something wrong when corporate leaders are making 100+ times their salary and giving themselves huge bonuses, and second level management is pulling down over $80K plus benefits.

For the most part, the complaints from the "commie" crowd are not about small businesses (<100-150 employees) struggling to get by, or even medium sized companies making some modest coin for their investors while gainfully employing a bunch of people. It's about huge companies posting record revenues and record profit percentages at the same time as they slash employee benefits, raid employee pension plans, slash health and safety budgets, and hand out multi-million dollar bonuses to the executive team, all the while complaining to the public that times are tight and pressuring politicians to bust organized labour.

That is the type of stuff that pisses people off. What pisses me off is people like you deliberately conflating the two issues so that you can shoot down legitimate complaints about misuse of corporate power by appearing to fire at the socialism boogeyman.

[icman]

I believe that they milk it for all it's worth and don't look for work until their benefits are about to run out. That's exactly how it is so don't try to tell me different, you'll just embarrass yourself. I'd like to do away with all social services and EI completely. Let only the strong survive and the weak get crushed. That's what they deserve instead of being leeches on the rest of us who pay taxes. Eliminating or reducing welfare and Ei benefits would save Canada billions and force freeloaders to work.

Then its a good thing you're not in our leadership. Canada doesn't make policies based on anecdotal evidence, nor by inferring behaviours on an entire group of people which are actually exhibited by only a few. Just because you see some people on injury comp playing volleyball at WCBeach in Tecumseh doesn't mean that 80% of people who are unemployed like to sit on their asses collecting pogie rather than get a job that fulfils their financial, intellectual and emotional needs.

Canada makes policies like, whether we like those unemployeed lazy-asses or not, keeping the economy afloat means stabilizing the velocity of money, which means providing funds and services to try to put out of work people back to work (including training), and minimally supporting their needs in the interrim. Oh, and we fund this with EI, not with taxpayer dollars.

In order to collect EI, one has to have worked, so please try to remember that the I in EI stands for insurance, and the people collecting that insurance paid premiums at some point. EI fraud is treated similarly to insurance fraud, with investigators, prosecuters, and everything else, and when someone is convicted of EI fraud, well, they get a nice vacation in a place where they also get a shiny new orange wardrobe.

And don't give me any of that "if it's insurance, then I don't want to pay, and I will relinquish my claim to the benefits" crap. You pay mandatory auto insurance, you pay mandatory employment insurance. Don't complain about the one without complaining about the other.

Edited May 9, 2011 by icman

[icman]

While I agree with you and understnad the point you are trying to make, I don't find your comparison really valid. To me it's like saying because both a Peterbilt and a Silverado are both trucks that they can both pull a tractor trailer.

EI, Welfare etc...Are instituted to ensure a level of livable income. There are certainly many people who are on it and can't get off it. There are a great many people too who count their hours to eligibility so they can "go on pogey". I have known people like this in my life. Also known some people who attempted to work under the table so they could collect welfare and live in subsidized housing (I was treated like being the bad guy when I threatened to report them). So they are in fact out there...people who see social programs as nothing more than free $$.

Car InsuranceProtects you from liabilities and property damage of other people! On Saturday an 88 year old woman ran a stop sign and ripped right into the throughfare in which I was driving...t-boned my 2010 Dodge Ram. That truck is my pride and joy, less than 20,000km on it and the day prior I personally power polished it (didn't have anyone else do it for me). I buy insurance to protect myself and my property. I do not buy it with the intent of ever using it or abusing it. If I use it because it is my fault, my rates go up because my risk level goes up. I expect others I meet on the road to also be carrying insurance because again, it protects me as well as them.

I have maxxed out my EI contributions for years...if I ever use it, will I ever see a fraction of what I have paid in?! Well, it will be a small one. Many of the people who collect EI habitually also collect welfare. I remember in my early twenties a friend and I were hanging out in Edmonton when he said he wanted to visit his loser brother (my words not his....and I mean he was a LOSER!). Not to sound prejudiced but I shoulda seen it coming when he turned into one of the housing projects in Edmonton. The brother spoke of how the government OWED him "backpay" for while he was waiting on his EI claim because he worked for a couple months and now because of the government they were broke. Two minutes later he spoke of how they just got their welfare check and bought a stereo from a pawn shop and an ounce of weed so they were good for a bit. GOOD FOR A BIT?! Him and his whore wife (who btw also said they were contemplating having another kid because of the extra "government money" another kid would bring) were more concerned with a stereo and weed than they were caring for their 4 children (which might I add were being well groomed to be next generation of criminals!) When we left I told my friend "don't ever fucking do that to me again!"

While I am not saying they need to scrap EI, welfare etc....it is ABSOLUTELY ABUSED. Reform is required and people need to be made accountable for their abuses of the system. They are there for a hand up not a hand out....and you are NOT "owed" it like the person I referenced above seemed to think. It is earned by being a contributing member to society.

This is an enforcement issue, not an illustration that EI as a concept is problematic or unsustainable. Perhaps if we didn't have to cut taxes ad infinitum so you could have your shiny, brand new Dodge Ram, there would be enough money in the kitty to, I don't know, hire some more investigators to put the quash on freeloaders like your friend's brother.

[Pliny]

It's about huge companies posting record revenues and record profit percentages at the same time as they slash employee benefits, raid employee pension plans, slash health and safety budgets, and hand out multi-million dollar bonuses to the executive team, all the while complaining to the public that times are tight and pressuring politicians to bust organized labour.

That is the type of stuff that pisses people off. What pisses me off is people like you deliberately conflating the two issues so that you can shoot down legitimate complaints about misuse of corporate power by appearing to fire at the socialism boogeyman.

Why would the government bail out such companies? I say let them fail. What do you say? Keep them going and just fire the executives? Get some cheaper management in?

Record revenues and record profits says management is doing a good job. Multi-million dollar bonuses for executives seem to be in order. These are not the problem. They certainly are the focus of attention

though.

Future liabilities built into union contracts are the problem. Most of them are agreed to because the company is supposed to be around forever and are too big to fail. All economic conditions, such as competition and demand are supposed to remain constant. Not understanding that a company has to meet changing conditions is the biggest failure of the socialist boogeyman in making it's future commitments. It assumes the golden goose will always be laying it's golden eggs and entitlement to them is a "right", even after she has stopped laying.

[icman]

Most milk it for all its worth and stay on until their benefits run out or nearly do. Some will then work again for another minimal time in order to qualify for EI again for another year of taxpayer funded vacation while still more will move onto welfare, the great social program for those who refuse to work.

You need to validate these statements with some facts. Perhaps you could put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, and quote some stats from Stats Canada (assuming that the demise of the long-form census has not totally screwed our EI and re-employment statistics just yet).

[Guest Derek L]

While I am not saying they need to scrap EI, welfare etc....it is ABSOLUTELY ABUSED. Reform is required and people need to be made accountable for their abuses of the system. They are there for a hand up not a hand out....and you are NOT "owed" it like the person I referenced above seemed to think. It is earned by being a contributing member to society.

I agree also, and the same can be said about Healthcare (How many people go to the doctors with just a sniffle?), I know Worksafe BC has a reporting line for fraudsters. Does EI or welfare? For welfare, I do think drug testing should be mandatory, as for EI, I still feel for those that have never used it, but have all of a sudden be laid for no fault of their own.

Have a friend/neibourgh that was/is a carpenter for 25-30 years and his wife runs a daycare out of the home. He’d never been without work for more then a week since he was out of school, and during the big building boom in Vancouver leading up to 2010, the wages of carpenters was in the $40-50 hr wages for those with his experience.

Then in late 2008, the building trades just died in the lower mainland, and he like many other carpenters had to survive on EI. He had to give-up his new truck, boat & camper and to add insult to injury, he has a son with special needs. At the same time, many of the parents of the children his wife looked after, also lost jobs/ got reduced hours, so they too didn’t need Daycare.

It’s stories like these that I find devastating to families, and also neighborhoods, luckily for them, all the people on our cul-de-sac we’re able to help out with giving him some odd carpentry jobs (Which he did report to EI) to help keep them somewhat afloat, then most also helped Santa out at Christmas for his son. Thankfully, last October he found a camp job in northern Alberta which helped payoff some debts, and has since found another carpentry job in the city as building has started up again.

So I don’t discount that some take advantage of it (and always will), there are those that do need it.

[Pliny]

No-one, not even a "pinko, socialist, commie-bastard", is going to advocate that people who are lazy deserve to get paid the same as someone who works their ass off.

They do until they are in charge.

[icman]

Why would the government bail out such companies? I say let them fail. What do you say? Keep them going and just fire the executives? Get some cheaper management in?

Because flash turnover of large organizations causes too much economic instability for a large region. And yeah. Any investor board that keeps executives that fail to properly manage their companies should be the ones who pay for the mistakes of their employees, and they should take appropriate action - like fire their executive team and get better managers in place.

Record revenues and record profits says management is doing a good job. Multi-million dollar bonuses for executives seem to be in order. These are not the problem. They certainly are the focus of attention though.

Wow, your prejudices are crystal clear. So when a company goes down, it's because of labour, labour, labour, but when it's successful, it's because of management, management, management. That is the dipshitiest thing I've heard since the last time Trump openned his mouth.

Future liabilities built into union contracts are the problem. Most of them are agreed to because the company is supposed to be around forever and are too big to fail. All economic conditions, such as competition and demand are supposed to remain constant. Not understanding that a company has to meet changing conditions is the biggest failure of the socialist boogeyman in making it's future commitments. It assumes the golden goose will always be laying it's golden eggs and entitlement to them is a "right", even after she has stopped laying.

I might agree if there was some kind of acknowledgement that the workers, not management, are the providers of the products that the company sells. You and your ilk claim that all this labour is unskilled. I defy you to remove all the line workers from the Ford plant in Oakville, populate the plant with new hires, and have it running at the same capacity and productivity numbers within 6 months, let alone the next day. All training has to be done by the management team - after all, they are the magic genies that make cars, the labourers are just a bunch of eyes and hands having their strings pulled by management, right?

Changing conditions are the province of managers. If managers can't see changing times ahead, then they are bad managers, and the company should be taking the losses out of management salary, not the line workers. Perhaps if times tighten and a company's bottom line suffers, then at a minimum managers don't deserve those multi-million dollar bonuses.

Edited May 9, 2011 by icman

[bloodyminded]

I have maxxed out my EI contributions for years...if I ever use it, will I ever see a fraction of what I have paid in?! Well, it will be a small one. Many of the people who collect EI habitually also collect welfare. I remember in my early twenties a friend and I were hanging out in Edmonton when he said he wanted to visit his loser brother (my words not his....and I mean he was a LOSER!). Not to sound prejudiced but I shoulda seen it coming when he turned into one of the housing projects in Edmonton. The brother spoke of how the government OWED him "backpay" for while he was waiting on his EI claim because he worked for a couple months and now because of the government they were broke. Two minutes later he spoke of how they just got their welfare check and bought a stereo from a pawn shop and an ounce of weed so they were good for a bit. GOOD FOR A BIT?! Him and his whore wife (who btw also said they were contemplating having another kid because of the extra "government money" another kid would bring)

First of all, the "government money" would not cover the costs of raising the child.

You might have done them the favour of explaining to them that their behaviour was counterpproductive...by their own standardsm I mean.

But I guess you were too busy being sanctimonious and superior.

And what makes you think she was a "whore"?

Edited May 9, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Moonbox]

Why are people even humoring the OP by responding to these threads? You are pleasing comrade chairman.

[RNG]

Why are people even humoring the OP by responding to these threads? You are pleasing comrade chairman.

Because that's half the fun of being here. Enjoy the lunacy.

[fellowtraveller]

and second level management is pulling down over $80K plus benefits

Lots of tradesmen here make that much and more, and their union benefits will be far better than what a middle manager gets.