Kenney says you can't get EI if you turndown work.

[Topaz]

The Alliance/Tory government may have a war on their hands with the Premiers of the Atlantic provinces over seasonal EI. Most people realize I think that fishing is a seasonal job like working the farming sector and I see nothing wrong with this and probably most of them don't have more than a high school education anyway, so what we they wan these guys to do? If the Tories are going to change the rules of EI, then I hope the opposition comes up with a Private Members Bill to make it a choice to pay into EI or not. I bet the MP's would be the first to exit! http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/atlantic-canadians-most-worried-changes-ei-212447339.html

[Moonbox]

The Alliance/Tory government may have a war on their hands with the Premiers of the Atlantic provinces over seasonal EI. Most people realize I think that fishing is a seasonal job like working the farming sector and I see nothing wrong

I see a lot wrong with it. If you're a 'seasonal' worker then you should be paid seasonally. That's what you chose to do or that's all that you ever made yourself qualified to do. I have a lot more respect for someone who works at Timmy's all year than someone who fishes, or does landscaping or plants trees for 7 months a year and then f's the dog on EI for the rest of the year. That is NOT what EI was originally intended to do.

'Landscapers' in my area can make $40-50k over a spring-fall season with overtime etc. Invariably, every year, these same people apply for EI, and get it, for the winter months, while at the same time doing snow removal and odd jobs for cash on the side. They make the barest, most token efforts to find employment while on EI, because they don't actually want to find anything. It happens a TON.

If the Tories are going to change the rules of EI, then I hope the opposition comes up with a Private Members Bill to make it a choice to pay into EI or not. I bet the MP's would be the first to exit! http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/atlantic-canadians-most-worried-changes-ei-212447339.html

I'm betting this actually goes over very well for them. They were never really perceived as the EI friendly party in the first place, yet they still won a majority. This is likely only going to increase their popularity with the WORKING public.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Moonbox

[eyeball]

I see a lot wrong with it. If you're a 'seasonal' worker then you should be paid seasonally. That's what you chose to do or that's all that you ever made yourself qualified to do. I have a lot more respect for someone who works at Timmy's all year than someone who fishes, or does landscaping or plants trees for 7 months a year and then f's the dog on EI for the rest of the year. That is NOT what EI was originally intended to do.

Actually it was originally intended for farmers and fishermen as a means to insure Canada's food security. I recall when fishermen could earn their EI by working on enhancing salmon and restoring, monitoring, maintaining salmon habitat in the off season. It was a sensible coherent socioeconomic approach to fisheries management but like everything else that's managed from Ottawa it was clearly doomed from the start.

'Landscapers' in my area can make $40-50k over a spring-fall season with overtime etc. Invariably, every year, these same people apply for EI, and get it, for the winter months, while at the same time doing snow removal and odd jobs for cash on the side. It happens a TON.

Yes, EI's scope was clearly expanded beyond it's original purpose by Ottawa.

I'm betting this actually goes over very well for them. They were never really perceived as the EI friendly party in the first place, yet they still won a majority. This is likely only going to increase their popularity with the WORKING public.

I'm betting this causes the final collapse of many already hollowed out seasonal resource towns, a lot of bankruptcies, a lot of people moving to the cities and the downward pressure they'll bring to the rest of the working public's labour market.

Myself, I'm thinking of putting up a tent city out in the back 40 for the local fish plant's immigrant work force. If you can't beat the system you might as well join it.

[Fletch 27]

Its sad when people go head-long into a carrer that they know bloody well they will be "out of work" for half a year and EXPECT the EI to cover the other half of the year. Very sad state of affaires for those canadians. Is a shame when they think they are entitled to have a year off with pay....

[jacee]

Its sad when people go head-long into a carrer that they know bloody well they will be "out of work" for half a year and EXPECT the EI to cover the other half of the year. Very sad state of affaires for those canadians. Is a shame when they think they are entitled to have a year off with pay....

Who would you suggest do the fishing, logging, ski resorts, summer resorts, construction, roofing etc etc ...?

[Boges]

Who would you suggest do the fishing, logging, ski resorts, summer resorts, construction, roofing etc etc ...?

People who are willing to work at Tim Hortons the rest of the year when they aren't doing those things.

[Fletch 27]

Ummm how about kids? Or is it "un-canadian" now to expect high-schoolers to have jobs? And,,,,, Roofing and construction is NOT seasonal, nor is "logging" (actually the prime season in Canada is winter when the ground is rock-hard)..... Even Landscapers (intelligent ones) have business throughout the winters...

Who would you suggest do the fishing, logging, ski resorts, summer resorts, construction, roofing etc etc ...?

Edited May 18, 2012 by Fletch 27

[madmax]

BUMP!

Apparently this is specifically an east coast problem where EI is a part of their culture. You couldn't game this system like that in the GTA.

The ones who "Gamed" the system was the Federal Government. The ones responsible for diverting the $56BIllion Surplus.

Once teh coffers were bare and heading into the recession, Deficit Flaherty had NOTHING left for EI but to borrow....monies and divert $10 of billions more to the banks.

The ones who gamed the system, Reduced the % from 65% TO 55%

Put a Ceiling on the yearly rate.

Increased the Length of Time required to collect

Decreased the # of weeks Eligible to collect.

And this was under Chretien...the Martin... the Harper...

EI is not the government, but it the government has laid claim to its monies.

The Conservatives can play politics with EI all they want, but we really know, this is not about EI , its about bringing in the Foreign Workers.....

and those are the "Seasonal" people workinging in your resort hotels... and even the Tim Hortons Children Camps.

They work for a few hundred bucks a month....

[eyeball]

Who would you suggest do the fishing, logging, ski resorts, summer resorts, construction, roofing etc etc ...?

People who are willing to work at Tim Hortons the rest of the year when they aren't doing those things.

As has been pointed out, at least one major resort in my region is ignoring applications from residents and holding out instead for government facilitated immigrants - who can now be paid 15% less than residents.

[Signals.Cpl]

The Conservatives can play politics with EI all they want, but we really know, this is not about EI , its about bringing in the Foreign Workers.....

and those are the "Seasonal" people workinging in your resort hotels... and even the Tim Hortons Children Camps.

They work for a few hundred bucks a month....

It can't possibly be that people are tired of having a high unemployment and a lot of unoccupied jobs all at the same time.

Am I eligible for EI regular benefits?

You may be entitled to receive EI regular benefits if you:

• have paid premiums into the EI Account;

• lost your employment through no fault of your own;

• have been without work and without pay for at least seven consecutive days in the last 52 weeks;

• have worked for the required number of insurable hours in the last 52 weeks or since the start of your last EI claim, whichever is shorter;

• are ready, willing, and capable of working each day; and

• are actively looking for work (you must keep a written record of employers you contact, including when you contacted them).

Everybody is up in arms when a government official lies for large or small things but when the seasonal workers who have made it their career choice to milk the system lie again its the governments fault.

There are also people who decide to skip the whole working part of the equation and go straight to welfare as a career choice, should we feel sorry for them if they are perfectly capable but unwilling? At some point people have to take responsibility for their own lives and make their career choices. If a person knowingly goes in to a field where they will be out of work for a significant time each year they should not expect the government to pay for their decision to not work.

[jacee]

As has been pointed out, at least one major resort in my region is ignoring applications from residents and holding out instead for government facilitated immigrants - who can now be paid 15% less than residents.

Hmmm that would be very irritating if you were laid off and just wanted a job .

Oh well, I guess the Tories would rather pay the EI than employ Canadians.

So what is Flaherty flappin his lips about!

[Fletch 27]

The Liberal Govs of the past have simply promoted stupidity.. A low paying seasonal job ensured that you are un-educated and willing to rely on government handouts.. Its in essences, pre-emtive begging. I am GLAD that this government is discouraging Canadian citizens from relying on "seasonal pandering" and is actually making sure people work, or will work, for a good wage.

Im sure Liberals would win an election if they stated that they would make getting EI as simple as a click of the mouse and that they EI payouts would be increased.. Maybe not, we seem to have grown up a little....

[eyeball]

Just on the off chance anyone else in Canada gives a shit, another 250 Canadian fishermen lost their jobs this spring.

For years Canadian and US fishermen have fished in each others offshore EEC's for tuna that migrate to the west coast. US fishermen have now decided they don't want Canadian boats fishing on their side of the line anymore. We had one bargaining chip that were keeping talks going - US boats still wanted access to Canadian ports to do something they're not allowed to do back home, which is to load and unload their foreign crew. Apparently our negotiators were going to with-hold that privilege but now they've changed their minds and the US got everything they wanted.

In addition to this, there has been a lot of buying and selling of Canadian groundfish quotas and boats on the west coast which has apparently resulted in the elimination of a number of smaller vessels and the amalgamation of quota onto very large factory processors. The safe assumption is that these vessels will eventually all be crewed by foreign fishermen and deliver their catch in the US.

[eyeball]

So when people are forced to relocate and pay rent in their new location, who pays the mortgage on the home they left behind in BC or Newfoundland, or do they just walk away from that as well?

It's easy for a young person with nothing tying them down to pick up and move but not so easy for people with property. I imagine there will be a new wave of old abandoned fishing boats washing up on our shores too.

[eyeball]

Hmmm that would be very irritating if you were laid off and just wanted a job .

It's more than just irritating for people have been dispossessed of that opportunity by ever changing government policies on ownership and access. Virtually everything where I live for example is now controlled by offshore interests that are importing offshore labourers to ship raw resources offshore. There are still fish and forests here but just no access to them. The tragedy of the commons has been replaced with the tragedy of enclosure.

I think a lot of people view EI as compensation for this sort of economic mismanagement. Take that away, crack down and get mean, and I think we'll soon find out if Canadians really want the dog eat dog every-man-for-themselves economy we're getting.

We're already seeing an increase in poaching here and I think government cutbacks on monitoring and enforcement will only make that poaching easier. Given the morals and ethics of our new economy I don't imagine the buyers of resources will be to fussy about where they get them.

[Signals.Cpl]

What makes a seasonal worker special compared to full time workers who are at minimum wage? Why should the person who makes my coffee work 40,50 or 60 hours a week making minimum wage and 1 week of paid vacation a year be any different then someone who CHOOSES to work 7 or 8 months of the year making the same pay as the full time worker and then when he or she goes on 4 or 5 months vacation they can expect the government to pay for said vacation? Saying someone can work 51 weeks of the year and get 1 week of paid vacation deserves no help while someone who works only 34-40 weeks of the year and gets the remainder off deserves the assistance makes it seem like the system does not support the full time worker even if they make less then the seasonal worker.

How can anyone sit here and explain that the full time worker gets 25 thousand take-home pay for 12 months of work while the seasonal worker gets 25 thousand take-home pay for 8 months of work and gets EI for the other 4 months that he chooses not to work? If you get a post secondary education and are gainfully employed the government will tax you in order to support those who choose to work part of the year and decided not to get a higher education.

Punishing full time workers and rewarding seasonal workers is not the greatest of practices.

[guyser]

Punishing full time workers and rewarding seasonal workers is not the greatest of practices.

Who is punishing full time workers?

[Moonbox]

Actually it was originally intended for farmers and fishermen as a means to insure Canada's food security. I recall when fishermen could earn their EI by working on enhancing salmon and restoring, monitoring, maintaining salmon habitat in the off season. It was a sensible coherent socioeconomic approach to fisheries management but like everything else that's managed from Ottawa it was clearly doomed from the start.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Yes, EI's scope was clearly expanded beyond it's original purpose by Ottawa.

and so the need for changes.

I'm betting this causes the final collapse of many already hollowed out seasonal resource towns, a lot of bankruptcies, a lot of people moving to the cities and the downward pressure they'll bring to the rest of the working public's labour market.

In this regard your argument has no merit. An employment assistance program that rewards non-productivity provides no net gain to the economy as a whole. Sure, someone earning EI spends the money into the economy, but that money had to be taxed from productive sources in the first place.

EI, as an institution, is good. It's necessary. In its current form, however, it is incredibly flawed and needs changing. Not subsidizing lazy assholes' snowboarding seasons isn't going to cause the collapse

of the economy. It will improve it.

[Moonbox]

Saying someone can work 51 weeks of the year and get 1 week of paid vacation deserves no help while someone who works only 34-40 weeks of the year and gets the remainder off deserves the assistance makes it seem like the system does not support the full time worker even if they make less then the seasonal worker.

Well said. I'm totally with you on this.

[guyser]

Sure, someone earning EI spends the money into the economy, but that money had to be taxed from productive sources in the first place.

Productive source is the person collecting it previously paying into it.

[Moonbox]

Productive source is the person collecting it previously paying into it.

Chronic seasonal workers pay a FRACTION of what they take out of the program. It never even comes close. Nice try.

[guyser]

Chronic seasonal workers pay a FRACTION of what they take out of the program. It never even comes close. Nice try.

The name is Employment Insurance . This means people pay into it from all corners of Canada and the money is pooled.

If you worked 40 years and paid your health bill that goes to OHIP , can I come back when you are 70 and let you know you didnt pay in enough ot cover the cost of the operation you are about to get?

'But I paid into it all my life, 40 years I paid"

"Sorry, didnt come close, Nice try though"

See what I mean?

[Signals.Cpl]

Productive source is the person collecting it previously paying into it.

Judging from my pay check, over an entire year there was 780 dollars deducted for EI. Now If 12 months of pay means I put in $780 dollars what do you think someone who makes 1)Less them me monthly 2)Works for only 8 out of the 12 months will invest less in to EI yet for those 4 months will probably withdraw no more then $458/week but lets be conservative and cut it in half 12 weeks at $225/week equals $2,700 for the time that the person is on EI. As I am being conservative with the figures, it could potentially be double. This means that using conservative figures the person is getting $2,000 more then they invested in to EI and that is every year.

[Signals.Cpl]

The name is Employment Insurance . This means people pay into it from all corners of Canada and the money is pooled.

If you worked 40 years and paid your health bill that goes to OHIP , can I come back when you are 70 and let you know you didnt pay in enough ot cover the cost of the operation you are about to get?

'But I paid into it all my life, 40 years I paid"

"Sorry, didnt come close, Nice try though"

See what I mean?

Yeah but at the same time you can't have someone taking 2 or 3 times as much as he invested every year for 40 years. It is insurance and thus it should be kept as a means of financial support between jobs, instead of 2,3 or 4 months of paid vacation.

If I work for 20 years pay in to EI and lose my job take EI for 6 months its one thing, taking EI for 6 and a half years out of the 20 doesn't seem right.

[Signals.Cpl]

Who is punishing full time workers?

If I work hard at Timmies or McDonalds for 12 months of the Year and my take home pay is 30 thousand and some guy works just as hard for 8 months of the year, gets 30 thousand take home pay and then the government gives him EI that rewards the person who is seasonally employed while while the person who is fully employed does not enjoy the governments assistance and is therefore punished for working 12 months rather then 8.