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

[guyser]

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.

Yup, and insurance everywhere operates like this. It is not anything new.

[guyser]

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.

No, not at all.

I will ask again, who is punsihing the worker?

[guyser]

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.

It is a means of financial support between jobs.

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.

When dealing with insurance mandated by the govt, there will always be (same as all other insurance except life) some who come back to the trough time and time again.

Car insurance, home insurance.....all the same. The diff is private industry can amend the rates to reflect the out costs.

[Signals.Cpl]

No, not at all.

I will ask again, who is punsihing the worker?

The government, the same one that pays someone to stay home for 4 months and earn money until the next season of work while the low wage earner who works 12 months gets nothing but essentially pays in to EI to support the underemployed seasonal worker.

So do you think seasonal workers would be happy if they didn't have to pay in to EI anymore?

EI is supposed to be an insurance, a means to support yourself if you lose your job, not a way to supplement your annual income if you are unemployed for 4 months of the year every year.

[Guest American Woman]

Do teachers in Canada get EI for the months that they don't work?

[Signals.Cpl]

It is a means of financial support between jobs.

When dealing with insurance mandated by the govt, there will always be (same as all other insurance except life) some who come back to the trough time and time again.

Car insurance, home insurance.....all the same. The diff is private industry can amend the rates to reflect the out costs.

Ok, but what the government is saying is that if you are on EI and there is a job that is open, you should do your best to take it. The idea is to prevent having 5,000 people on EI while 4,000 jobs go unoccupied.

I have met plenty of people who due to their Canadian citizenship feel entitled to a free healthcare, and free education for their kids, government subsidized housing, welfare and all kinds of other things whole they feel no obligation to work and pay taxes in order to support these benefits. People shouldn't plan their lives on welfare and subsidized housing, or plan on EI covering 1/3 of the year that they don't work. I believe in a strong social safety net but the safety net should not be meant as a lifelong economic plan but as a means of help in times of need. There are plenty of people who live their lives by being underemployed and taking benefits that should not be awarded to them or staying on welfare while also enjoying the other benefits that working people pay for.

EI should not be for people who MAKE the choice of being under employed.

[guyser]

The government, the same one that pays someone to stay home for 4 months and earn money until the next season of work while the low wage earner who works 12 months gets nothing but essentially pays in to EI to support the underemployed seasonal worker.

I certainly do not see it that way.

The govt isnt punishing any one for having a job. They are giving a benefit to one who is without a job.

So do you think seasonal workers would be happy if they didn't have to pay in to EI anymore?

I suppose they would. More money in their pockets.

EI is supposed to be an insurance, a means to support yourself if you lose your job, not a way to supplement your annual income if you are unemployed for 4 months of the year every year.

It is Insurance . No 'supposed' at all.

It is used to support oneself when a job is lost and it supplements ones income.

Now if one wants to talk about making harder rules for the job categories that are abusing it, then we can talk.

But I suspect that the pool who do so, in comparison to the overall working person, is rather quite small

Probably less than 16% of total working pool of adults on a per capita basis. (Higher in Nfld and Labrador and PEI)

[Signals.Cpl]

Do teachers in Canada get EI for the months that they don't work?

What you should know

If you are in the occupation of teaching you may be paid EI benefits. However, because of contractual arrangements in the teaching profession there are some variations to the EI rules. This means that:

If you are a teacher under a continuing contract in pre-elementary, elementary, intermediate, secondary, including technical and vocational schools, you cannot be paid regular benefits during non-teaching periods, even though you are unemployed, unless your contract ends. However, you may be paid maternity, parental; or compassionate care benefits;

If you are a teacher above the secondary school level—at universities, community colleges and CEGEPs—the same rules for regular benefits will apply as other claimants;

If you are a casual or substitute teacher you can be paid regular benefits during non-teaching periods.

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/information/teacher.shtml

[guyser]

Do teachers in Canada get EI for the months that they don't work?

Yes.........and no.

Generally not if still under contract. ie signed a 5 yr contract then no.(even tho they are 5 -1yr contracts and expire each June 30th)

If contract runs out and no new emplyoment contract signed , then yes.

If they have other qualifications for benefits from another occupation, then yes they can if they meet the number of hours to qualify.

Yeah...kind of confusing. So...if a teacher, and keeps ones job, then no EI paid.

[guyser]

Ok, but what the government is saying is that if you are on EI and there is a job that is open, you should do your best to take it. The idea is to prevent having 5,000 people on EI while 4,000 jobs go unoccupied.

In a simple world , then perhaps thats true.

In the real world, one who has a profession and making some good money may choose o keep taking EI instead of the counter clerk at McD's . And I dont blame that person one bit.

Why give up what you paid into for less wages?

It is a full time job finding a full time job.

At some point , one does have to decide to take whatever is out there, and thats because EI runs out and welfare is a step down from anything the person ever had before.

I have met plenty of people who due to their Canadian citizenship feel entitled to a free healthcare, and free education for their kids, government subsidized housing, welfare and all kinds of other things whole they feel no obligation to work and pay taxes in order to support these benefits. People shouldn't plan their lives on welfare and subsidized housing, or plan on EI covering 1/3 of the year that they don't work. I believe in a strong social safety net but the safety net should not be meant as a lifelong economic plan but as a means of help in times of need. There are plenty of people who live their lives by being underemployed and taking benefits that should not be awarded to them or staying on welfare while also enjoying the other benefits that working people pay for.

EI should not be for people who MAKE the choice of being under employed.

It shgouldnt , but there will always be fraud in the system.

The number of people as described above is very low. And you dont change a system because a few are abusing it.

Lastly, the govt always wants to change this or that which may improve the bottom line. However, the govt never seems to look inward for the savings, never seems to want to do the right thing at a cost now in order to save money later.

Look at family immigration and the sureties the govt has some of them sign guaranteeing that Grandma and Grandpa wont access services without paying for them. Does the govt go after them? Collect the fees they are owed?

No they dont. and if they did and word got out then these costs would lessen substantially and savings would be realized

[Signals.Cpl]

I certainly do not see it that way.

The govt isnt punishing any one for having a job. They are giving a benefit to one who is without a job.

They are when the person receiving EI is unemployed by choice. If you take a job and its for 8 months, you should plan accordingly so that you have money for the other 4 months. There are plenty of professions that have an irregular income where they might get a lot of money at once and see no income for 2 or more months and thus they plan accordingly.

I suppose they would. More money in their pockets.

Doubt that, as most likely pay less in EI then they take out of EI. I make a decent salary and I pay in 780 dollars in EI while if I went on EI I would receive 485 dollars a week.

It is Insurance . No 'supposed' at all.

It is used to support oneself when a job is lost and it supplements ones income.

Its not insurance since so many people treat is as a source to supplement their income during the downtime. If its called Employment insurance but is not treated as insurance then it can't be proper insurance. If you know when you begin work that you will work for 35 years and every years for 3-4 months of the year you will not have a source of income, then either find a source for that time, make plans accordingly or find a different job altogether. The rest of the work force should not be supporting the people who work only a fraction of the year.

Now if one wants to talk about making harder rules for the job categories that are abusing it, then we can talk.

But I suspect that the pool who do so, in comparison to the overall working person, is rather quite small

Probably less than 16% of total working pool of adults on a per capita basis. (Higher in Nfld and Labrador and PEI)

Yeah it might be small, but it does not mean it is without a consequence, it is potentially millions of dollars a year and billions over decades.

[guyser]

They are when the person receiving EI is unemployed by choice. If you take a job and its for 8 months, you should plan accordingly so that you have money for the other 4 months. There are plenty of professions that have an irregular income where they might get a lot of money at once and see no income for 2 or more months and thus they plan accordingly.

Exactly what has changed, via govt decree/edict or whatever, for the one who had continually worked? What did the govt do to punish the worker?

Did the govt amedn hours...pay...working conditions? Anything?

Not a damn thing. Thus, no punishment.

Doubt that, as most likely pay less in EI then they take out of EI. I make a decent salary and I pay in 780 dollars in EI while if I went on EI I would receive 485 dollars a week.

You asked if they'd behappier if they didnt pay into EI. I saod yes, they'll have a few more (really few)dollars...and you doubt that?

Heres $10....would you be happier....even a wee bit if I made it $12? Yes, you would.

Its not insurance since so many people treat is as a source to supplement their income during the downtime. If its called Employment insurance but is not treated as insurance then it can't be proper insurance. If you know when you begin work that you will work for 35 years and every years for 3-4 months of the year you will not have a source of income, then either find a source for that time, make plans accordingly or find a different job altogether. The rest of the work force should not be supporting the people who work only a fraction of the year.

It is exactly an insurance plan. Pooled investor dollars to pay out claims. What else can it be.

Auto insurance is the same, some get lots of payouts, everyone pays into it.

[Signals.Cpl]

Exactly what has changed, via govt decree/edict or whatever, for the one who had continually worked? What did the govt do to punish the worker?

Did the govt amedn hours...pay...working conditions? Anything?

Not a damn thing. Thus, no punishment.

You asked if they'd behappier if they didnt pay into EI. I saod yes, they'll have a few more (really few)dollars...and you doubt that?

I just doubt that people who are getting say 2700 dollars while investing 700 will be happy to keep the 700 and not get the extra 2k. Unless they are really really short sighted.

Heres $10....would you be happier....even a wee bit if I made it $12? Yes, you would.

They will not be happy because money in your pocket now means less money at the end of the work term

It is exactly an insurance plan. Pooled investor dollars to pay out claims. What else can it be.

Auto insurance is the same, some get lots of payouts, everyone pays into it.

Yet in Auto insurance if you keep making claims you will see your premiums rise and/or lose the service. In EI if you keep on using the system not due to circumstances but due to choice, they can't/won't increase your premiums but they sure can cut them off as they should if you are abusing the system.

[guyser]

I just doubt that people who are getting say 2700 dollars while investing 700 will be happy to keep the 700 and not get the extra 2k. Unless they are really really short sighted.

You didnt say they could not collect if not paid into. So yes, they now will not be happy to keep the EI since they cant collect EI

Yet in Auto insurance if you keep making claims you will see your premiums rise and/or lose the service. In EI if you keep on using the system not due to circumstances but due to choice, they can't/won't increase your premiums but they sure can cut them off as they should if you are abusing the system.

Hence why I used the term 'private insurance' earlier. Private Insurers will mitigate costs by underwriting rules , maximize profits by making those rules fair and equitable, and make money by investing that income.

Govts dont do that. They have a an (almost) one rule fits all scheme. Not to mention their actuaries probably tell them that so many people pay into EI that its not a worry .

[Signals.Cpl]

Exactly what has changed, via govt decree/edict or whatever, for the one who had continually worked? What did the govt do to punish the worker?

Did the govt amedn hours...pay...working conditions? Anything?

Not a damn thing. Thus, no punishment.

The government is punishing the full time workers by paying people who CHOOSE not to work EI. When the government year after year supports people who work for part of the year, contribute little to EI and get quite a lot out of it they are through this actions in effect punishing full time workers who choose to be full time.

It might be a simplistic view, but supporting one is in fact its also punishing the other. If the government chooses to support the people who choose to work less by giving them additional benefits that it withholds from the full-time workers because they don't qualify it is punishing them. Maybe its naive but you work hard, and you get paid go home and raise your family, you work hard for 8 months of the year and get benefits for the other 4 months seems is rewarding people.

[Signals.Cpl]

You didnt say they could not collect if not paid into. So yes, they now will not be happy to keep the EI since they cant collect EI

Sorry should have been clear.

[eyeball]

Sounds reasonable to me.

and so the need for changes.

Ottawa is going in the opposite direction to what you just acknowledged is reasonable.

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.

Perhaps not in a truly single industry town where the resource in question is non-renewable and exhausted but in a region like mine, that's just not the case. A large part of the unemployment problem has far more to do with a lack of access to resources. In situations where the resource has been depleted but could be restored and supplemented with little effort, like a fish hatchery it makes no sense to just give up.

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.

Calling whole communities of people lazy assholes will probably not improve things as much as you think.

In the meantime, how does forcing resident workers to move when times get lean but subsidizing employers with cheap imported labour to get them through the lean times improve our economy?

[madmax]

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.

If you work a minimum wage job you pay taxes. If you work a seasonal job you pay taxes. If you work you pay taxes.

Some employees pay into EI.

Regardless, you wish to ignore the fact that the Federal government wants to MASSIVELY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF FOREIGN WORKERS TO WORK FULL TIME IN CANADA in the OIL PATCH.

The very place were many people from Newfoundland go each year to work.

Once these Foreigners arrive, and theres lots already, the work for those Canadians who migrate west will dry up rapidly.

[madmax]

I certainly do not see it that way.

What do YOU know about insurance you greedy bastard ... I mean friendly agent..

When it comes to insurance you are the last guy I debate... cause it always turns out so bad for me..

[guyser]

What do YOU know about insurance you greedy bastard ... I mean friendly agent..

When it comes to insurance you are the last guy I debate... cause it always turns out so bad for me..

Somehow I missed this post.

Hows your rates lately...started to climb or drop?

Wait another year , results have improved and soft market is coming. Dont forget to shop around !

[gunrutz]

Somehow I missed this post.

Hows your rates lately...started to climb or drop?

Wait another year , results have improved and soft market is coming. Dont forget to shop around !

Im concerned about people who have depended on the system their whole lives and are now at an age where moving or retraining, or traveling long distances to find work inst reasonable.

[guyser]

Im concerned about people who have depended on the system their whole lives and are now at an age where moving or retraining, or traveling long distances to find work inst reasonable.

Not sure what you are getting at. Care to explain?