Let's argue why EI reform is horrible again.

[Hydraboss]

No. He used this thread because he's a seasonal fisherman.

Enough said.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Hydraboss

[CPCFTW]

No. He used this thread because he's a seasonal fisherman.

Enough said.

Oh that makes sense

[WWWTT]

as a taxpayer, I am i facor of the reforms to EI. Hopefully, it will reduce the abuse

What about corporate abuse and corporate tax cuts?

Guess you don't care abot the 500-600 billion corporations are sitting on after they got tax cuts to encourage corporate spending.

But don't question the government because they know what they are doing.

And if you question the government you are a communist and pretty much just a bad person.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

EI is insurance.

Auto insurance premiums go up up because of fraud. Try getting insurance in the City of Brampton.

I would consider someone who only works the minimum required hours they need to claim EI, then taking the rest of the year off as committing fraud.

These changes are meant to stamp that out.

And how many people commit this fraud?

And how much does the "increase" in fraud actually account for justifying an increase in premiums?

So you are saying that the government and insurance companies can wildly increase our costs by a small decleration.

Some may say that doing this is fraud!

Why are you going out of your way to support a government/insrance companies that may make unjustified claims???

WWWTT

[eyeball]

No. He used this thread because he's a seasonal fisherman.

Enough said.

I wish, I've fished a total of about 8 months in the last 15 years. That said, unless you work for a government the economy in my region is virtually all seasonal in nature.

I've subscribed to the theory that if enough other people leave there'll be enough work left over for those of us who don't and that's actually been working out better than I'd hoped.

[eyeball]

I would say amuse is the most likely..

I'm just as confused as Moonbox in terms of how this relates to EI.. Seems like you just used this thread to vent that society doesn't value the ecosystem as much as you'd like.

Well, maybe it seemed like people were using commercial fishermen to vent about seasonal workers in general and their apparent valueless livelihoods. It needs to be said that we weren't like your typical run-of -the -mill unproductive manufacturing or IT worker whose un-competitive laziness drove employers away to foreign countries. Our industry was wiped out by the same sorts of useless tits you good people imagine are somehow reforming EI in some meaningful way. Seasonal fishermen, only working the minimum number of weeks they need to go on holidays? Hmmm....maybe you guys mean sport-fishing guides. They're the only fishermen working anywhere near the minimum amount of time you'd need in my region. Maybe Jimmy Pattison's and Galen Westen's crews still seine up enough weeks to start a claim but those guys are all pretty much based in the city.

You folks do realize that even if you do force a seasonal worker to move, the job they did is still there just like the EI claim at the end of it. What's been gained in the scheme of things is lost on me. What's been lost is obvious though, like natural and social capital for starters.

[CPCFTW]

What about corporate abuse and corporate tax cuts?

Guess you don't care abot the 500-600 billion corporations are sitting on after they got tax cuts to encourage corporate spending.

But don't question the government because they know what they are doing.

And if you question the government you are a communist and pretty much just a bad person.

WWWTT

No I don't care about the money corporations are sitting on any more than I care about the billions of savings canadian citizens are sitting on due to tax cuts such as the TFSA. Why should I care if other people/companies save their after-tax income?

[Boges]

And how many people commit this fraud?

And how much does the "increase" in fraud actually account for justifying an increase in premiums?

So you are saying that the government and insurance companies can wildly increase our costs by a small decleration.

Some may say that doing this is fraud!

Why are you going out of your way to support a government/insrance companies that may make unjustified claims???

WWWTT

Hoe are these reforms fraud? If you've filed 3 times in 5 years chances are you aren't using EI for its intended purpose.

[Moonbox]

You folks do realize that even if you do force a seasonal worker to move, the job they did is still there just like the EI claim at the end of it. What's been gained in the scheme of things is lost on me. What's been lost is obvious though, like natural and social capital for starters.

and what you fail to realize is for seasonal work to be economically viable, it should pay enough to get the worker through the year. The fact that it needs to be perenially subsidized by the government suggests that it's either not a viable industry, or the workers aren't being paid enough. If it's the former, too bad. If it's the latter, then seasonal jobs being left open should lead the boat operators to pay better wages which might get the workers through the year. A 2,3 or 4 month holiday is something most Canadians can only dream of, and we don't relish the idea of our taxes dollars subsidizing idleness.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Moonbox

[eyeball]

and what you fail to realize is for seasonal work to be economically viable, it should pay enough to get the worker through the year.

I realize that more poignantly than you could ever imagine. Again I ask, why are we not targeting employers? The last time I went fishing me and my crew got paid .15 a lb while the owner of the quota (the real employer in our case) got $3.50. (please note all crew wages including mine, our expenses, bait, gear, taxes etc etc all came out of that measly 15 cents) Ottawa turned our industry upside down and inside out. Predictably, only the rich thrived...Oh noes, now this discussion is also about transparency, accountability in governance and the allocation of opportunity.

The fact that it needs to be perenially subsidized by the government suggests that it's either not a viable industry, or the workers aren't being paid enough. If it's the former, too bad. If it's the latter, then seasonal jobs being left open should lead the boat operators to pay better wages which might get the workers through the year. A 2,3 or 4 month holiday is something most Canadians can only dream of, and we don't relish the idea of our taxes dollars subsidizing idleness.

Well, you can't fish without quota, and the fact is the government only doles that out to a small handful of wealthy armchair fishermen most of whom haven't stepped foot on the deck of a boat in years. Talk about a holiday that most Canadians can only dream about eh?

What you fail to realize is that you don't have an effin clue just how FUBAR the economics of fishing and the economy of the coast has become under Ottawa's mismanagement. I think it's fair to say that any fisherman who can still afford to go fishing and actually put in enough time to file a fishing claim regards his 'benefits' as compensation.

I notice I have an email from an old fish buyer I used to deal with who's looking for unused fishing gear to help native fishermen get geared up to go fishing. They seem to be the only people in Canada these days with the power to thumb their noses at Ottawa and do an end run around their precious quota holders. No doubt you'll soon be in here defending the right of Ottawa to crack down on anyone with the temerity to upset their holiday.

Here's what I predict. Most if not all non-native fishing opportunities will go to quota but most commercially caught fish will be from native boats fishing according to their own rules. Soon the quota holders will only have sport-fishing guides and resorts to lease their quota to. You didn't realize that when Ottawa was phasing out Canada's seasonal commercial food fishery that it was also cultivating the growth of a seasonal commercial sport-fishery did you? You'll be thrilled to learn it's very much a welfare industry too in which most participants, including employers, rely on EI to get through the long off-season. That's one reason why I never switched to it - fool me twice shame on me right? The main reason though was how sporties relied on Ottawa running interference for them so they could grow at our expense. I'll turn to a life of crime before I ever stoop that low.

If you thought it was bad before, the cluster-fuck of opportunists now set on collision course on the coast should be like nothing we've seen before. The real fraud perpetrated against Canadians is when Ottawa uses EI and such to calm the waters and bail everyone out of the messes it creates.

I'm rooting for the natives myself. They have the only real moral claim to the economy of fishing in this country. We couldn't manage a fish barbecue without cocking it up.

[punked]

and what you fail to realize is for seasonal work to be economically viable, it should pay enough to get the worker through the year. The fact that it needs to be perenially subsidized by the government suggests that it's either not a viable industry, or the workers aren't being paid enough. If it's the former, too bad. If it's the latter, then seasonal jobs being left open should lead the boat operators to pay better wages which might get the workers through the year. A 2,3 or 4 month holiday is something most Canadians can only dream of, and we don't relish the idea of our taxes dollars subsidizing idleness.

You are still going to need Fish and Christmas trees. The industry is viable because it then employs the people at the Fish plant year round, the Christmas tree farms have communities built around them which support many other workers in the economy year round. You economy is making money but investing in these workers more then they are taking out. Look at the numbers then come back to me and talk about it.

Edited January 13, 2013 by punked

[Boges]

This is why it's good they reformed EI.

http://news.national...-charlottetown/

Marlene Giersdorf, single mother of a nine-year-old from Montague, P.E.I., is the first person known to be cut off Employment Insurance under a change of rules. As of this month, some recipients will lose benefits unless they are willing to work for 70% of their previous wage, commute for an hour or more and accept any job meeting those conditions. Ms. Giersdorf, 30, was recently told she was being cut off because of “an unwillingness to change your job demands,” and spent Monday morning protesting outside the city’s Service Canada building. A few months ago, she left a job at a nursing home with a doctor’s note citing stress from 60-hour work weeks. She said she has applied for many jobs in Montague, population just over 5,000, but hasn’t yet been able to find work. She spoke to the Post’s Katrina Clarke:

She quit her job!!!! People work decades at a job and get less than a year EI and this woman just gets a doctor to write her a note saying she's under stress and she thinks she can claim EI?

Effin' ridiculous!

Edited January 15, 2013 by Boges

[Moonbox]

You are still going to need Fish and Christmas trees. The industry is viable because it then employs the people at the Fish plant year round, the Christmas tree farms have communities built around them which support many other workers in the economy year round. You economy is making money but investing in these workers more then they are taking out. Look at the numbers then come back to me and talk about it.

If the fishing industry is viable, the canneries or packaging plants should pay more for the raw fish and consumers could pay more for the end product. Let the market decide if it's viable, not you.As for looking at the numbers, I got a good little chuckle out of that. If I were you, I'd try to avoid discussions involving numbers, particularly those involving economics, because you clearly don't have a clue. The suggestion that perpetually subsidizing a failing industry actually benefits the economy as a whole is a hippie/burnout fantasy that's been debunked a thousand times over by economists of every stripe throughout history. I suggest you do a little research into that.

Cases can be made for subsidies where the government wants to hasten development of a new/growing industry, or to prop up an industry in the short term suffering from a shock to the economy (ie a massive recession), but never as a long term solution. Perpetual subsidies aren't good for the economy. They never have been, and they never will be. I understand that this isn't good news for the community of tree planters, landscapers etc., as their snowboarding holidays or trips to Vietnam won't be paid for by the taxpayers as easily, but alas, that's the way things have to be.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Moonbox

[Topaz]

This new EI reform is BS. It helps the government keep more money while certain workers who have to pay into and can't draw from it because of lack of hours. The government should allow workers to opt out of this program, especially those who will never be able to draw from it. This is a government scam, at least , since the "new" conservatives took over..

[Moonbox]

In Topaz carnival-world, putting an end to a scam (ie. long-standing and widespread E.I. abuses) appears to be a scam itself.

[CPCFTW]

This is why it's good they reformed EI.

http://news.national...-charlottetown/

She quit her job!!!! People work decades at a job and get less than a year EI and this woman just gets a doctor to write her a note saying she's under stress and she thinks she can claim EI?

Effin' ridiculous!

haha good find.

Q: Have you had EI before?

A: Yes. Five or six times maybe. Most of it’s all sick benefits from when I needed a break and then switched onto regular benefits until I could find a job and yes, I did find a job.

"Damn gumint taking my rightful 1 year of sick leave for working for a year!" Sorry, this isn't France Marlene.

The sign may be the best part though... "FORCED on INCOME". What is wrong with people?

Edited January 16, 2013 by CPCFTW

[westguy]

WWWitt - what r u smoking?

[Moonbox]

Q: Have you had EI before?

A: Yes. Five or six times maybe. Most of it’s all sick benefits from when I needed a break and then switched onto regular benefits until I could find a job and yes, I did find a job.

That is kind of damning...She's like...30 maybe. EI five or six times...

This is exactly the sort of person who should be cut off.

[Topaz]

Moonbox, do you have a problem with my views on EI? Please state your beef with my views and I'll surly tell you were you are wrong.

[Moonbox]

I have a problem with your views on mostly everything Topaz, because they're rarely based on clear-headed thinking. You protest and throw tantrums at everything the Conservatives do, whether it's smart or dumb, important or trivial, fair or unfair. If you showed even a slight sense of objectivity, things might be different, but you've yet to figure that part out. At least you're not starting 8-10 threads a week anymore about how Harper burnt his toast.

As for this particular discussion, let's look at the merits (or lack thereof) of your proposal to allow people to "opt out" of EI. First off, it's not a savings plan. It's not something where what you put in you're going to get back. Most people never use even a fraction of what they put in. That's the way the system is supposed to work. It's supposed to help individuals and families that are having temporary difficulties to get back on their feet. The system relies on Canadians who will never use EI to fund the people who do need it. A tenured university professor pays EI, though he'll never use it, and so does a student cashier at a grocery store. Allowing people to 'opt out' based on their eligibility to use it in the future is a fundamentally broken idea based on that fact alone.

Another point to mention is that nothing is stopping someone from going 15 years working seasonally (after opting out) and not paying EI, to then eventually getting a full time job (in a factory let's say), where he works for 12 months only to have the factory shut down, at which point he starts earning benefits. In this case, his contributions to the plan were next to meaningless, but his benefits kick in anyways. You pay premiums for the right to collect EI at any point in your life and your job unexpectedly disappears if you're eligible .

None of this addresses how EI opt-outs would affect the businesses that pay these people either.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Moonbox

[Topaz]

I'm talking about workers who pay and can't collect because they don't have enough hours. Most full-time jobs do give enough hours and but what about someone who can only get 20 hours and those workers on the low end of the job market would be better off to be able to opt out of EI because they need all the money they can get their hands on and the EI Fund wouldn't miss it. I bet you if there was a poll that ask workers would they like to opt out of EI, a majority would say yes. All this really doesn't matter because after the next election and the government changes, that government will change things back and make it better for the worker. Have a nice day.

[Boges]

I'm talking about workers who pay and can't collect because they don't have enough hours. Most full-time jobs do give enough hours and but what about someone who can only get 20 hours and those workers on the low end of the job market would be better off to be able to opt out of EI because they need all the money they can get their hands on and the EI Fund wouldn't miss it. I bet you if there was a poll that ask workers would they like to opt out of EI, a majority would say yes. All this really doesn't matter because after the next election and the government changes, that government will change things back and make it better for the worker. Have a nice day.

So you want Part-time workers to be able to opt out of paying EI. Why is it the Conservatives fault that they can't? Did the Liberals do anything to address this?

The OP of this thread was referring to a system that forced repeat users to find work or risk getting cut off.

People would like to opt out of EI until they need it.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Boges

[Moonbox]

I'm talking about workers who pay and can't collect because they don't have enough hours. Most full-time jobs do give enough hours and but what about someone who can only get 20 hours and those workers on the low end of the job market would be better off to be able to opt out of EI because they need all the money they can get their hands on and the EI Fund wouldn't miss it. I bet you if there was a poll that ask workers would they like to opt out of EI, a majority would say yes. All this really doesn't matter because after the next election and the government changes, that government will change things back and make it better for the worker. Have a nice day.

I don't think you read anything I wrote, which is unsurprising given your tendency to stick your head in the sand anytime something comes up you don't agree with. Go back and read my post again, because I addressed those workers and the fact that nothing is stopping them from moving or changing careers and then becoming eligible for EI.

[eyeball]

What is it about the fact that Canada and a great deal of it's economic activity revolves around seasons, that Conservatives don't get? It's been like this forever and it's never going to change - I would have thought things that never change would make them happy but...oh well. They do realize we're talking about hundreds and hundreds of thousands if not millions of employees and thousands of employers? What'll it take to justify the existence of seasonal employers and employees to that certain subset of Canadians who come unglued at anything that smacks of socialism?

Maybe when global warming makes it like summer all the time things will be more amenable to the ideal economy of your fantasies but...maybe not.

In any case and as I've suggested in other threads, people should be able to capture the economic value of volunteerism and be able to factor it into both their financial accounting and moral justification for existence. Harper's Government has already started us down the road of recognizing remuneration and placed a direct economic value on volunteerism in the case of volunteer fire-fighters and he should expand on it in other areas of our economy and society. High on that list is our environment and ecosystems that are so vital to our seasonal way's of life.

Edited January 23, 2013 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

What is it about the fact that Canada and a great deal of it's economic activity revolves around seasons, that Conservatives don't get?

So which seasons does Canada decide to take off while the rest of the world keeps working ?