Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Joe Shlabotnik

(5,604 posts)
Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:47 PM Jan 2013

Re-defining Employment Insurance

New EI changes go into effect this week. Here's some perspective on the usual Conservatives talking points:


1. Myth: Employment Insurance is taxpayer-funded.
It is paid for entirely by employers and employees. The government stole $56 billion, but they don't pay back into it. So there are no savings to government coffers from changes to EI. To qualify for EI, you have to have paid into it.

2. Myth: Employment Insurance prevents people from leaving Atlantic Canada.
Anyone who thinks this has never been on a flight from St. John's or Halifax heading west. Since 2008, over 7,000 (net) Canadians left the Maritimes for other Canadian provinces. During the same time period, over 55,000 (net) Canadians moved to Saskatchewan and Alberta from another province (CANSIM 051-0018). This doesn't include those who commute incredibly long distances to get work in the oil patch.

3. Myth: Seasonal workers are lazy fishermen.
Many seasonal workers are highly skilled, and some of these skills even transfer between seasons (think heavy machinery drivers that plow snow in the winter, and dig basements in the summer). But the fact that their employment is seasonal makes it more precarious, and more likely that on any given change of season there simply won't be enough work to go around.

4. Myth: Claimants will always be better off working under these changes.
This is more the official line than a myth, but it's wrong nonetheless. As I already noted, the purpose of EI is to allow for better job market matches, not faster job market matches. A parent who is eight weeks into their claim, and is presented with an evening job at 80 per cent of their previous wage would be better off continuing to look for a job that paid higher wages and allowed them time with their child in the evenings.

1. Fact: EI is not terribly generous in the first place. Claimants receive up to 55 per cent of their average weekly income, up to a maximum of $485/week. The average payment is around $370/week.

2. Fact: There are over 5 unemployed Canadians for every job vacancy in Canada. News reports of labour shortages are grossly exaggerated. Where they do exist, the solution is often more spots for training and apprentices, and maybe (gasp) higher wages.

3. Fact: Most jobs created since the recession have been temporary. A rise in precarious employment will mean a rise in the number of unemployed without access to Employment Insurance, even without these changes. These changes will increase the tendency toward precarious employment, as people are encouraged to take 'bad jobs'.

Source: http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/progressive-economics-forum/2013/01/re-defining-unemployment-insurance
Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Canada»Re-defining Employment In...