Atlantic premiers want EI changes suspended

[jacee]

Atlantic premiers want EI changes suspended: Premiers asking for further study into changes made to Employment Insurance

The premiers, who finished the second day of meetings today in Hunts Point, N.S., say the changes were made despite a lack of consultation and without regard for the effects on Atlantic Canada's seasonal-based economy.

First, EI is self-sustaining. Employee/employer premiums pay for it. The money goes in to gov and the money goes out, no effect on federal finances.

Second, Harper made some pretty ignorant comments about east coasters "culture of defeat".

So, imo, there is no justification for Harper's attack on the east coast seasonal workers, except narrow-minded petty prejudices.

It's true their industries are largely seasonal, and without ei support, they lose their workforce permanently - they move away. Now maybe that seems the smart thing to do - seek permanent work elsewhere - but then what about the east coast? Just depopulate it? I hear Alberta has a lot of east coasters. I guess they want them all?

I wish the Premiers well in making a really big stink.

Edited April 30, 2013 by jacee

[TimG]

First, EI is self-sustaining. Employee/employer premiums pay for it. The money goes in to gov and the money goes out, no effect on federal finances.

No. Money taken from workers in the cities is used to pay for seasonal workers in the hinterland. If EI was fair then people use use EI more would pay more and people who claim every year would be cut off.

So, imo, there is no justification for Harper's attack on the east coast seasonal workers, except narrow-minded petty prejudices.

EI stands for 'employment insurance' which means it intended to be used irregularly. If the martime provinces want to subsidize businesses that employ seasonal workers they should set up a program to do so. It makes no sense to use EI as a business subsidy (i.e. seasonal industries should pay enough to allow people to last the year if they want those workers back the next year). Edited April 30, 2013 by TimG

[Moonbox]

First, EI is self-sustaining. Employee/employer premiums pay for it. The money goes in to gov and the money goes out, no effect on federal finances.

EI benefits are not self-sustaining. The people who use it (especially the ones who use it regularly) never pay nearly as much as they contribute. Most people, I imagine, never use it in their life. Essentially, for the majority of Canadians, this is a tax to help the less fortunate. It's not something most of us have a problem with, as we'd all appreciate some help if things got rough for us, but at the same time, most honest working Canadians find the idea of seasonal workers perpetually abusing the system to be disgusting.

Second, Harper made some pretty ignorant comments about east coasters "culture of defeat".

Oh no! I hope their feelings weren't hurt!

So, imo, there is no justification for Harper's attack on the east coast seasonal workers, except narrow-minded petty prejudices.

The justification is that people with jobs and a work ethic don't feel it's paying EI premiums for people who pick their asses 3-4 months of every year.

It's true their industries are largely seasonal, and without ei support, they lose their workforce permanently - they move away.

A workforce that needs a perpetual hand-out to survive isn't really a workforce at all. It's a charity.

I wish the Premiers well in making a really big stink.

I hope that nobody listens!

[silver72]

ALL workers in Canada HAVE pay into EI but not ALL workers get its benfits from it and that is wrong. The rule should be IF you are paying into it, then you should get it back when needed and IF the gov't doesn't like that idea then, make the EI by choice. People who can only get part time work and those foreign workers coming ,they all pay and can't collect, so where is the fairness? There isn't any under this government.

[jacee]

No.

Yes, EI is self- sustaining: Premiums pay for benefits.

[jacee]

ALL workers in Canada HAVE pay into EI but not ALL workers get its benfits from it and that is wrong. The rule should be IF you are paying into it, then you should get it back when needed and IF the gov't doesn't like that idea then, make the EI by choice. People who can only get part time work and those foreign workers coming ,they all pay and can't collect, so where is the fairness? There isn't any under this government.

I agree it isn't fair that some people pay in who can't collect. That's a problem.

Otherwise, it's an INSURANCE plan: Lots of people pay for car insurance, house insurance, etc without ever having to collect, but it's there when you need it.

I recognize that the seasonal nature of many industries on the east coast is a special circumstance. However, I don't see depopulating the maritimes as a viable option.

[TimG]

Otherwise, it's an INSURANCE plan: Lots of people pay for car insurance, house insurance, etc without ever having to collect, but it's there when you need it.

If you claim on our house insurance once every year your premiums go up. After 5 claims or so you cannot buy it anymore.

IOW - if EI is INSURANCE then seasonal workers need to be cut off because they claim too many times.

[guyser]

If you claim on our house insurance once every year your premiums go up. After 5 claims or so you cannot buy it anymore.

No, not accurate.

Only after the first does one lose the claims free status. The rate stays the same.

One can always buy insurance for a house.

IOW - if EI is INSURANCE then seasonal workers need to be cut off because they claim too many times.

....or seasonal work can have a rate adjustment to reflect the increase , same as insurance in that part.

[Moonbox]

If seasonal work had a rate adjustment to cover the increased cost, they'd have to pay probably something like +30% of their income as an EI premium.

If that's what you're advocating, then it would probably just be a better idea for them to save 30% of their income to have something to live off over the winter. If they're not getting paid enough to do that, then those jobs aren't worth having. An industry that needs public hand-outs to survive is not worth anyone's dime.

[TimG]

One can always buy insurance for a house.

Not true:

http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/pre-2007/files/home/insurance/index.html

We all know how it works with auto insurance. You make a claim; your premiums might go up. But should you expect the same thing to happen with your house insurance?

Well, it can. What's more, if you make two or three claims on your home policy, you might find your insurance is cancelled. "Three strikes, you're out" is the general rule. So you make claims at your own risk.

[guyser]

If seasonal work had a rate adjustment to cover the increased cost, they'd have to pay probably something like +30% of their income as an EI premium.

Like WCIB , Certaion industries have higher rates. Seems pretty easy to do based on prior history.

An industry that needs public hand-outs to survive is not worth anyone's dime.

GM, Ford , Lehman Bros , 3/4's of wall St.....

[jacee]

If you claim on our house insurance once every year your premiums go up. After 5 claims or so you cannot buy it anymore.

IOW - if EI is INSURANCE then seasonal workers need to be cut off because they claim too many times.

Ya, well that's what Harper's trying to do, but the impact in the Maritimes will be devastating.

Maybe you know ... Is work in the oilfields not seasonal to some extent?

[guyser]

Not true:

Aboslutely true what I wrote.

Your link.....1999? Really?

Not to mention, she had to find another carrier.....not that there wasnt any she could approach

[jacee]

Moonbox:

An industry that needs public hand-outs to survive is not worth anyone's dime.

.GM, Ford , Lehman Bros , 3/4's of wall St.....

Edited April 30, 2013 by jacee

[silver72]

Still to be fair, part time people know they can never draw from it, unlike house insurance one KNOWS its there at all times but that's not true for certain workers , so I think the right thing to do is have a rule that one doesn't pay into EI until they have enough hours WORKED so they could collect.

[TimG]

Maybe you know ... Is work in the oilfields not seasonal to some extent?

Sure - but people get paid enough to manage the off season without subsidies. Companies that employ seasonal workers need to pay more. It is absurd to use the EI system to subsidize these companies. Edited May 1, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

Sure - but people get paid enough to manage the off season without subsidies. Companies that employ seasonal workers need to pay more. It is absurd to use the EI system to subsidize these companies.

I guess their profit margins aren't as big:

fishery, tourism , forestry and agriculture.

[Boges]

From what I hear people that work in the oil fields . . . I know this will be shocking to some. . . get another job during the offseason!!!!

Perish the thought!!!!!

[TimG]

I guess their profit margins aren't as big:

Since when is the profit margin of a private business a factor when deciding whether to subsidize their labour force? If the Atlantic premiers want to subsidize these businesses they should come up with a seperate program that does that. EI should be an insurance program - not a backdoor business subsidy. Edited May 1, 2013 by TimG

[Newfoundlander]

Sure - but people get paid enough to manage the off season without subsidies. Companies that employ seasonal workers need to pay more. It is absurd to use the EI system to subsidize these companies.

Correct!

Atlantic Canada also shouldn't strive to be a region of seasonal employment.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Newfoundlander

[jacee]

Since when is the profit margin of a private business a factor when deciding whether to subsidize their labour force?

Since it affects whether they can afford to pay staff enough to carry them through the off season. The profit margins are not like those from the oilfields. Some might argue that oil profits are artificially inflated by taxpayer subsidies - corporate welfare - and lack of environmental accountability - putting it on the taxpayer tab.

There's more than one way to subsidize industries.

Oh ... and it doesn't matter how much you earn when you're working, or if you get hired back next season: If you get a severance slip, you get ei, even in the oilfields.

Maybe we should cap it.

But there's a larger issue here. We all know that money and oil are flowing in Alberta, people there are the richest in the country, have the ear of Ottawa and all the benefits that flow from that.

Why do those so well off keep picking on those less fortunate? It's one of life's mysteries.

Can't the wealthy just enjoy their good fortune?

Edited May 1, 2013 by jacee

[TimG]

But there's a larger issue here. We all know that money and oil are flowing in Alberta, people there are the richest in the country, have the ear of Ottawa and all the benefits that flow from that.

The money also benefits many maritimers who get off their butts and go looking for work. Fort McMurray has the largest concentration of Newfoundlanders outside of St. John's.

Why do those so well off keep picking on those less fortunate? It's one of life's mysteries.

EI is not welfare. EI is not charity. EI is employment insurance. If you want a welfare or charity program then advocate for that - stop trying to twist the EI program. Edited May 1, 2013 by TimG

[Boges]

I'm still waiting for teachers to demand EI for the Summer.

[jacee]

I'm still waiting for teachers to demand EI for the Summer.

They're considered 'salaried', permanent contract, not eligible.

[jacee]

The money also benefits many maritimers who get off their butts and go looking for work. Fort McMurray has the largest concentration of Newfoundlanders outside of St. John's.

EI is not welfare. EI is not charity. EI is employment insurance. If you want a welfare or charity program then advocate for that - stop trying to twist the EI program.

Do you speak for Alberta TimG?

Interesting looking at the ei data:

http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26

Seasonal fluctuations in Alberta are the same as in the Maritimes - more unemployment in the winter. That's not oilfield shutdown time though.

It appears that Alberta, and in fact every province, has seasonal fluctuations in use of EI benefits - agriculture, fishing, forestry, tourism, etc.

IE There are people in every province using EI due to seasonal industries, and the seasonal fluctuation is about the same across the country - 35%. (Lowest month/highest)

The only reason Harper and others insult and pick on the Maritimes is that they have more seasonal industries.

They don't 'abuse' EI any more than other provinces.

But they have fewer backup industries and their economy is affected more by seasonal industries.

Edited May 1, 2013 by jacee