Those are some great changes to EI. I just can’t believe that it took so long. I have been upset for years about the injustices of the EI system. On that note, anyone that thinks these changes are bad, well I can understand why you think this. If I had a job that I could work for six months of the year and then sit on my ass and get paid for the other six months of the year, I would also be upset. Everyone is upset when they have been taking advantage of a pathetic system for so many years and it is taken away. Good news everyone, there are jobs that you can find, that actually will employ you for the full 12 months of the year. Join the rest of us in hell. —From Hell
This article appears in May 24-30, 2012.
Thing *is* some of these seasonal workers make more than enough to sustain themselves quite comfortably for the entire year and don’t need to be collecting benefits.
What’s the max contribution to EI? A LOT less, I’m guess, than most of these people receive. It’s RIDICULOUS.
EI isn’t there for you to sit on your ass and get paid — it’s a safety net so you can eat and not have to live in a box while you’re in between jobs.
I was on EI this past summer, and I worked my ass off trying to find employment. I also worked temp jobs, so sometimes my EI was clawed back, but I figured it was better than sitting on my ass doing nothing. And low and behold, I found a job more than half way into my claim and started working.
If I have to work all year, why shouldn’t others have to?
EI is meant to help people when they lose their jobs, not to supplement your income year after year so you can live in Buttfuck Nowhere, where there aren’t any jobs.
My name is Basil Fawlty and I approve of this message.
It would be a simple solution just one amendment imo. Let seasonal workers collect ei BUT, only if you make less than 40 thousand a year in your 6 months of employment that you do work.
Ei is the people’s money. It isn’t there to be spent on anything other than ei. If someone wants to work a seasonal job a portion of the year and take a lay off and make a 65% of their wages that should be their prerogative. They paid in, it’s their money just as much as you and I.
For the record in 32, have worked since age 19 and have claimed Ei once for a month and a half until i found another job. I could barely pay my rent and eat let alone live high off the hog. All the people who want the ei rules to change ala those proposed by the cons are more than likely just jealous assholes who hate their jobs and are pissed they cant get layoffs and collect ei themselves.
I agree that EI is the people’s money and people shouldn’t be prevented from claiming what they are entitled to and what they have paid in to. I also do not agree that people should be forced to take jobs they don’t want to. However, I have worked steadily and paid into EI since I was 16, contributing the max amount every year since I have graduated school and worked full time. When I claimed maternity leave a few years ago (just 4 months, not the one year I was eligible for – who can live on EI for a year?!?) I did not get the 55% of my earnings that I had expected to get, I got less than 40%!
I think the system needs changes so people who regularly rely on EI to support their seasonal employment should have to make their yearly earnings last a year and people who need to use EI because they have been laid off, become sick, had to care for a sick family member or became a new parent can actually receive an amount that will allow them to live comfortably until they have recovered and reflects the amount that they have paid in to the system.
To make things worse at the time, my claim was delayed several weeks due to a “backlog”. So much for being there for me when I needed it after many years of being forced to pay in.
Maybe employment insurance should be like health insurance with each employer opting into a group plan for their employees. This would allow employers to choose a plan to accurately reflect the needs of each different group of employess instead of one big government run system that doesn’t really suit the needs of anyone.
Anyhow, I think the reason behind the government’s move to change EI is to reduce the % of people collecting EI so they look better globally when they say “the unemployment rate is Canada is only#%”. Which is pathetic because there are many more unemployed people in Canada, they just don’t qualify for EI!
I think there should be a limit on how many times you can apply for EI in a five year period. Because I HIGHLY doubt (I’ll rim Suckers’ wrinkly, smoke-stained asshole if I’m wrong) that seasonal workers drawing EI every year is paying in as much as they’re drawing.
You can thank the rest of us who pay into it and hardly or never draw it for subsidizing them.
LIke i’ve said: EI isn’t ‘vacation pay’ — and if everyone else has to actively be looking for work while on it, why don’t seasonal workers???? Why do they get to sit on their arses and sleep in every day while the rest of us have to schlep it to work. I know I don’t want to get up at 5:30am every morning and ride a bus for an hour and a half and then spend another 8 hours at work every damn day… but I guess SOMEONE has to keep funding these seasonal-working bums.
Shit that sucks yo… my exes the roofer, the landscaper and the house painter are really gonna feel the wrath of this one.
S’long as there’s no changes to Disability and my bipolar monies keep a comin, I could give two fucks!
OP, I’d agree with you if our taxes were being cut, but that’s not the case.
EI is being taken away, so where is my money going?
I can understand taking some EI away but they should calculate what they would save the individual and cut back taxes. After all, isn’t that the reason why we pay taxes, because we have a socialist regime? Aside from the fact that I agree they should take it away from Seasonal workers making $75k a year and more, this move is affecting everyone else, including people who can’t actually get jobs (Teachers) and are forced to rely on EI to make ends meet. I know 2 teachers that have decided to leave the country and work overseas due to this problem.
So from what I understand, there’s no happy medium, either make everyone lazy or kill everyone’s finances off! They should really base it per individual.
I really see no issue of teachers leaving to get jobs random. We as a province spit out a lot of teachers, and there are just not enough jobs in the province for them all. You made the decision to go into the profession so in making that decision you also committed yourself to moving to where the jobs are.
“…are more than likely just jealous assholes who hate their jobs and are pissed they cant get layoffs and collect ei themselves.”
Can’t ‘get’ layoffs??? Like it’s something you negotiate with your employer? Loool. That is exactly what people are pissed about. You’re not supposed to do that. I love my job, I don’t want to be laid off. I just want my friends/family who actually NEED EI to be able to get it, not to keep going to people who DECIDE to ‘get’ laid off every single year.
Why didn’t all you dipshits all become seasonal workers and fishermen if you think it’s a life on easy street? Try being on a boat for months at a time away from family, not to mention sight of land, working 35 hour shifts trying to fill your quota before the season runs out. Sound pretty lucrative compared to your 8-4 mon to Friday grind doesn’t it? How about working 15 hour shifts 7 days a week in the woods for 8 months of the year with no vacation time in the summer. Believe me when I say that for the benefit of EI for seasonal workers, there’s a definite offset. Before you all come down on seasonal workers, although there are some abusers, for the most part hard working people and essential to the economy.
Boo-Hoo. Why don’t we just call EI a subsidy for seasonal workers and business owners whose businesses rely on seasonal time-frames? Seriously? I’ve been following the ‘strike’ by lobster fisherman in LFA34 and it’s been more hilarious than reality tv. Maybe if half the people complaining about EI changes and not being able to ‘find work’ didn’t quit school in grade 9 to become a lobster fisherman ‘like pappy’ they’d have a legitimate beef.
Mel’s right.
And I’d rather have a job to support myself than be a bum living off the government tit.
I’m not saying all people on EI are bums, but those who abuse it certainly are.
If you don’t pass in one job application whilst on EI, you fall into the ‘bum’ category.
I like my job too. I don’t want to get laid off and I don’t think I should have to pay into EI so someone who makes 75k a year can draw it at the maximum on an annual basis without paying near as much into it than they draw out (i.e.: they’re stealing my money).
Depeche Mel, I have friends who are seasonal workers in both the agriculture and the tourism industries. During the spring, summer and fall months they bust their ass, usually working well over 50 hours a week. When they’re working they are hermits and devote themselves to their jobs. Once the layoff comes they’ve put enough money away to not be living hand to mouth over the winter. I see nothing wrong with this. They paid in their money and are now getting it back. I can see you have a big problem with this. As I said, you’re just jealous because you probably hate your job and wish you didn’t have to work a portion of the year.
Some of you need to drop your ridiculous pseudo-Calvinist conceptions about the virtue of work.
“paying in their money and are now getting it back”?!? That’s what banks are for, FFS.
What if everyone who paid into car insurance wanted it back? See the problem? Fuck ’em.
Um, i<3blastbeats, there's a cap on your EI contributions. And the percentage of deductions for EI is nowhere near the 55% you get when you draw.
Many of us also work 50 hours a week 52 WEEKS A YEAR where we bust our asses and make our contributions, but OH HAY a good portion will never even see that money they pay in because OH HAY we actually work year round and aren’t a bunch of government tit-sucking bums.
Like I said, I’ll rim suckers’ wrinkly tobacco-stained asshole if these people are paying in the same or more than they end up drawing every fucking year.
For fuck sakes, working 50 hours a week doesn’t make you a hero, and doesn’t entitle you to sit on your arse half the year because you’ve “busted your arse” for the other half of it. One of my best friends is an attending specialist at a hospital in Ontario and she sure as hell works more than 50 hours a week. That’s not even including her ‘on call’ hours. Doesn’t have much of a life either and sure as hell pays her premiums, but has she ever once drawn EI? Nope.
So fuck right off.
Also: right on, Crank!
Most people work hard at their jobs, that doesn’t entitle them to a public-funded REWARD/VACATION. I don’t give a fuck that it’s cold out , the rest of us risk getting mauled by cars on the road during snowstorms to make it into work and believe it or not, there are people who work outside ALL YEAR ROUND. My step father is one of those people. He works 20 days on, usually far away from home and then gets 10 days back home. He works anywhere from Newfoundland to Alberta, out-fucking-side. He doesn’t sit on his ass at home because there isn’t a job for him to do in his city. Do you know how cold it gets in Alberta in the winter? Like -30! And he’s out there, away from his family sand blasting and operating large machinery. Oh, he has rheumatoid arthritis btw, so I have no sympathy for healthy people sitting at home by the fire during the winter months because they feel it’s too cold out for them to work. They do have these inventions called coats and mittens made out of high quality materials to keep you warm… But I suppose the government should pay for those for you as well?
To follow up on PK (we agree again!):
Maximum employee-paid contributions are ~ 1.7% up to max. insurable earnings of $42000. Assuming seasonal workers earn $42000 during the period they work, they would contribute exactly $722.40. Mind, you, 15% of that amount can be put against any owed taxes. I’m pretty sure EI pays much more than that.
I’m still not convinced the reforms will make a difference. For most people who rely on this type of ‘supplementation’, a pay cut of 20% is probably still more lucrative than EI. If the jobs aren’t available, say in an area such as Cape Breton or elsewhere in rural NS, then the policy won’t have any teeth.
If the goal is actuarial fairness, then a sliding premium makes more sense: raise premiums for repeat users. Or include (or raise) a deductible, or reduce their benefit or weeks of entitlement, or make it more difficult to qualify. The problem with this is that if this really is a demand-side problem, then cutting EI will to more welfare users. That said, actuarial fairness may not be desirable. Inasmuch as industries rely on seasonal workers, employers themselves are dependent on the EI system as it is currently designed. Perhaps the employers could take on more of a role in financing off-season income supports.
You people are ridiculous, EI costs you a maximum of 720 dollars a year. Look at your paystub, it stops when you reach a certain dollar amount per year, and you get to use it when you need it. It’s fucking peanuts, my lifetime contributions to EI would not even equal 1 years pension for an MP. Everyone knows a story of some dickhead who wanted to be laid off to collect pogey, or someone who works under the table while on it, or collects it even though they don’t necessarily need it. That’s not the norm, and do we really need to add stress to an already overburdened economy? Maybe with some tweaks, something could be made of this, but, as it stands now, many deserving people will lose that lifeline because some chose to abuse it.
I come from a rural community where we rely on farming and fishing for revenue. You know, that pain in the ass stuff you need to support local business, pay for municipal taxes n stuff. You just can’t expect there to be jobs one day for everyone, and you can’t expect everyone to drive 1:40 mins every day to Halifax to work for 12 per hour. We need people to do the seasonal work, it’s our responsibility as a community to make sure there are people there to do the work, not shipping in migrant workers to work for less than minimum wage (who also don’t pay any taxes and have no benefit to the community). If you are going to attack a system that’s abused, and paid for buy “taxpayers”, settle your sights on SA where abuse is widespread, and seems to bridge from generation to generation.
PS; I am not a seasonal worker, never have been. I have collected EI twice, once for medical reasons and once for unemployment reasons. Do I begrudge people who do hard manual labour for the best part of the year a couple subsidized months in the winter? Not a chance! That doesn’t mean I condone douchebags that take advantage of it, but there’s someone taking advantage of someone, or something, where the effect is felt by someone much more profoundly than someone mooching off EI.
A whole lotta people pay into EI, SHITTY-D and adding up all those 720 bucks means we’re supporting the bums who sit on their arses and collect EI. I don’t care if you’re a seasonal worker or not, if I, and everyone else, has to job hunt while on EI, why don’t seasonal workers?
I sure wish my job was seasonal and I could sit on my butt for 6 months. Sleeping in and watching Maury every day would be *awesome*.
Also: why can’t these people go out west for a job while they’re on their off season? A family member worked at the New Page plant and as soon as it announced it was closing my family member got on a plane and went out west. If he can do it (at his age, at that and ties in NS), why can’t seasonal workers? He works 21 days and then comes home for 10. He makes so much money that he can afford to do that AND the companies he’s worked for have paid for his lodging.
So this whole seasonal labour thing is crapedy crap crap. If you can farm or fish or put a roof on a house, you can sure as hell go out west and make $$$ pressure washing heavy equipment (which is what another friend of mine did — he showed up in Cold Lake and two days later had a job making thousands/week).
From Hell? Get back there, cigarette!
I just want to point out that the Federal Government is NOTORIOUS for hiring seasonal/casual workers – they hire a casual for 90 days and then lay them off; why? Because by hiring them as a casual as opposed to a term position, the employee doesn’t get any benefits!
I know a lot of seasonal workers, especially in the Cape Breton area. I completely agree that people shouldn’t get to sit on their arses for 6 months out of the year and collect EI. At the same time, I understand that in certain regions, there aren’t enough (quality) jobs for these seasonal employees to take in their off months. And if they take a job in the off-months, say at a call centre, they just end up taking what could have been a full-time job from someone else.
These people can’t just up and move. And what if they did? Rural areas would collapse and then you’d have a shit-ton of people migrating toward the bigger cities, all competing for the same jobs, driving the prices up (ex: as real estate.)
As with any system, there are users and there are abusers. I, myself, have recently been laid off by the Federal Government. I’m working my ass off to find a job but I haven’t been successful yet. I hate to think that if these EI rules were in place, if I continue to be unsuccessful in finding a job over the period of, say, 6 months, that I would be required to take a job of lesser income and outside of my field. So I go from being a Human Resources professional to a Receptionist answer phones and fetching coffee – that absolute piss!
I don’t know if there is such thing as a perfect system – most likely not. And while I agree that some changes to the EI system may be necessary, I’m not so certain that the ones proposed by the Conservatives are going to be the most beneficial to Canadians.
I seem to remember that you were on EI, PK. Last year was it? As I remember, you complained about how shitty it was, and if you didn’t have savings and a supportive family you wouldn’t have been able to make ends meet. It pretty fucking hypocritical to think that you, living with your parents with no chance of eviction, no credit cards (seem to remember you bragging about that too), no mortgage, no car payments, really no real responsibility at all besides student loans actually thinks that life on pogey is all “sleeping in and watching Maury”, collecting big fat paycheques, and non stop funtime. How immature your views of reality are, so sit in your ivory tower and whip rocks at the peasants if you like, PK, it just makes you more annoying.
It’s a fucking insurance policy, not just for your job loss or seasonal workers. It’s an insurance policy for communities as far as revenue is concerned. For communities that rely on seasonal work, the revenue stream for that tax base will have some stability. Sure, we could all move out west, or miss our families growing up by being out west for 8 months of the year. But thanks to EI, The more fortunate communities pick up the slack for the less fortunate ones. There will always be someone to take advantage of something good, go to the sackville foodbank and watch all the new cars and trucks pull out of the parking lot with trunks full of “free” groceries.
from hell, daddy, is that you? why didn’t you tell me you had a pass to come back to earth. we could have made some fucking shit together for a bit. oh well, uncle adolph and saddam are coming up for a few days next month. but seriously tho, i agree with these new changes and think they should have been implimented a very long time ago.
i hear from fishers that work for a few months, make a killing, then sit back drinking the rest of the year out. and these are the honest ones. that report their earnings fully. not the half cash, half credit shit to them.yep, it’s been a long time coming.
Like I said, the jury’s still out on this one. It might have it’s merits particularly in urban areas but it definitely needs some tweaking. I also think the “abuse” is exaggerated and even if it wasn’t, it is far from the worst problem facing this nation.
..and what’s up with the Jack the Ripper signature “From Hell”? Some metaphor for the underclass getting their throats cut?
Easygoing Gal, got hit by the SSO getting shipped to Miramichi or were you in another department? I don’t have much info on how bad the cuts have been outside of NRcan.
I have to agree with what you said. While the system does need a fix, it doesn’t seem like what has been decided is the best solution. Penalizes the honest users as much as the abusers.
EI contributions in 2011 maxed out at $787.
Cut the BS about ‘just getting back what I put in’
Stevie, I agree with you on this one. EI is there if we need it; we pay into it at the rates we do so that, if we need it, we can draw from it. That evil bastard in Ottawa decides that we down east are too fucking lazy for his liking and so he decides to start messing about with EI. I know what he’s aiming to do, people, and nobody’s going to like it when he does it and it’ll take a fucking crowbar and a few tons of dynamite to put it back the way it was. That asshole is looking to keep us at each other’s throats while he takes our EI premiums and throws them into general revenues, then brag his ass off about balancing the budget while thousands of rejection letters get printed and mailed. Funny, Chretien didn’t have a problem balancing the budget (hell, got surpluses out the wazoo that brought down the principal on the national debt) while keeping law and order (for the most part), maintaining our international obligations and making sure the far larger numbers of unemployed at least could draw EI.
And for those talking about the “freeloaders” spending _your_ money: get a fuckin’ life, will you please? It ceases to be your money alone when you pay your EI premiums; it becomes part of a pooled resource that ensures that you and anyone else who may need it can draw from it. Last time I looked around, the money had our sovereign and some dead prime ministers on it and a maple leaf still hung from the flagstaff. Don’t believe the Faux News hype spewing forth from our Fearless Leader; our EI and pension funds were fine before he got his greedy fascist fucking mitts on it.
So a person pays a max of $787 or thereabouts and gets EI at how much a week these days, over $4-500, so they get their contributions back within a month, then the rest of us have to “donate” our money so you can live the rest of the year after you made how much during your seasonal work. And don’t say you’re poor, I’ve seen many of the houses along the coast and in the valley and they don’t shout decrepid.
HalKell: that’s the thing — most seasonal workers don’t NEED EI.
Please tell me how making 75k fishing how many months during the year means you NEED EI the other how many months. I’m interested in hearing your wisdom here.
What these people NEED, if they’re so “hard up” when they’re not working, is some budgeting lessons.
Everyone else has to show that they’re actively looking for jobs while on EI — what makes seasonal workers so fucking special?
Also: what bro tim said.
And realistically, if anyone crying about the reform on EI actually educated themselves on the actual reforms, they’d realize that it’s not really going to do shit to change anything.
If someone fishing lobster, for example, is making 50k (let’s make this conservative) and draws EI every year, the MOST they’d have to take is a job making 70%. 70% of 50k is 35k… how many 35k/yr jobs are there in these fishing communities? And even if there are, how many are there to go around?
So uh… I doubt shit’s going to change for anyone who does seasonal work. The jobs are just not there to push them into accepting a job during their claim period.
Therefore: stfu and pull your panties out of your crack.
Should point out that not all seasonal workers will contribute $720. Say they make $20,000 over the season, then they only contribute $350.
That said, and assuming there are about 10,000,000 tax payers in Canada, I don’t mind paying ~1/10,000,000*$12,000=$0.0012 per year per EI abuser if it means I get near-locally sourced seafood and produce and a social safety net to boot.
I should point out that it takes 10,000 free-loaders to cost you $12 annually – so a six-pack, maybe a pack of smokes (?), a lunch for 2 at your neighborhood fast food chain. It’s certainly not going to make or break the bank.
As others have said, even with the reform, most of those affected will not be able to get new jobs at 70% of their pay because -they don’t exist in their areas.
So, is it worth whining about the poor and implementing ineffective reforms all for an extra $12/year?
Side note: I’m sure my $12 estimate is imprecise – maybe it’s higher or lower. The point is, it’s small, so why all the fuss?
Also, if you are worried about that small amount the seasonal workers are costing you, you should be enraged by the fact that the government bailed out the big Canadian banks during the 2008 recession. Each Canadian contributed about $3400 to bailing out those ‘free loaders’!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012…
Which one of our resident Harper-haters is missing a foot this morning. As a symbolic gesture I give you full props. It’s a show stopper.
“I seem to remember that you were on EI, PK. Last year was it? As I remember, you complained about how shitty it was, and if you didn’t have savings and a supportive family you wouldn’t have been able to make ends meet. It pretty fucking hypocritical to think that you, living with your parents with no chance of eviction, no credit cards (seem to remember you bragging about that too), no mortgage, no car payments, really no real responsibility at all besides student loans actually thinks that life on pogey is all “sleeping in and watching Maury”, collecting big fat paycheques, and non stop funtime. How immature your views of reality are, so sit in your ivory tower and whip rocks at the peasants if you like, PK, it just makes you more annoying.”
I’m not talking about everyone on EI — Maybe I didn’t make that clear enough for your little pea-sized brain. I’m talking about seasonal workers who make buttloads of cash during their working season than sit on EI for six months when they really don’t have to. I have all the respect in the world for those on EI trying to find work, but when you choose to work seasonally, make a decent living (the same as someone who works all year!), and then mooch off the system…. well that’s where I have a problem. But I really don’t expect you to grasp that concept, SHITTY.
And Easy Going Gal — I’m pretty sure most benefits run out in 6-ish months. So by that time, if you haven’t found another job, answering phones or serving coffee could mean the difference between living under an actual roof or living on the street so don’t knock it. Once you’re off EI, the government can’t force you to work at all, so you can hold out and eat air and live in a cardboard box with your income of zero instead of lowering yourself into a job you’re clearly above.
Canned — it’s not so much what it’s costing me — I’d be permanently rageful if I let that keep me up at night — it’s the hypocrisy of the fact that when I was on EI and if I ever end up on EI again, and if anyone I know who works all year round goes on EI (or has been on EI), THEY’LL have to actively search for work, while seasonal works don’t have to. It’s not a ‘safety net’ to them it’s a source of guaranteed income, which is something EI was never meant to be. It’s a supplement to their income (when A LOT don’t even need it). Can people really not see where the problem here is? And really that doesn’t even get to me — it’s the whining over the fact that these moochers might have to actually follow the same rules as everyone else. The SET-ish whining pisses me off. Especially when the changes aren’t really going to change anything when it comes right down to it, and a lot of people bitching about it don’t even know the specifics. They just know that big bad harper is ruining their lives. If this was a liberal or NDP initiative, no one would say shit.
Maybe next time y’all get off your arses and actually go out and vote so we don’t have a majority government with 30 something percent of Canadians voting for them.
Not sure if you’re referring to me.
In any event, I don’t -hate- Harper. But I fail to see the logic, if any, behind many of his policies. This is true for many politicians, not just conservatives (or members of the now defunct Christian, er Canadian, Alliance Party for that matter).
I also like to point out the irony of complaining about a few dollars each year (to support members of their own ‘provincial’ community) when people are being robbed of much more than that by the financial sector. Be careful not confuse my dislike of corporatism for hating Harper.
SET=self-entitled twat IRCC.
In any case, people use the term ‘entitlement’ quite derisively on here. Yet, to what do these greedy individuals feel entitled? My guess: not much.
Not many people in the seasonal industry make $72,000 per year. I’d imagine most make a small fraction of that. I would understand, and even participate in, the disgust over entitlement if people were living lofty lifestyles on the backs of tax payers (as many politicians do) but the fact is most of these individuals do not have uppity lifestyles.
And your point about EI being a supplement to some workers is well taken. However, that’s a problem with all social safety nets. Every public program is subject to over-use and free riding. Efforts are made ensure that the benefits to most Canadians exceed the costs of such abuses. My point is that the cost of EI freeloaders is probably minimal from the perspective of an individual tax payer. In other words, we’re doing a pretty good job of minimizing the inefficiencies of the program. It’s worth noting that the EI program produces net surplus over the business cycle – that is, from peak to trough of the economic cycles.
More importantly, is it worth instituting politically controversial – and highly divisive – policies that are unlikely to produce any change in program take-up?
Nobody specific. Just someone who refuses to “toe” the line and thinks the Conservative Party could use a little more “sole”
To put it even more succinctly, PK: your frustrations are well taken, but your Rage Against the SETS seems a bit overzealous relative to the magnitude of the actual problem.
Nah, I wasn’t referring to you, Canned. I was referring to all the people who bitch about harper, but couldn’t get off their duffs to vote.
I’m not rageful over this, canned. It’s hard to tell a tone while reading words on a page, but I can assure you that I don’t spend my life pissed off over anything, really. I don’t care about much these days, enough, to get angry. I just think those whining about all these reforms should a) educate themselves a bit more and b) realize that they’re bitching is ridiculously stupid given the situation.
My initial post was in reference to Ivan’s.
Fair enough & sorry for misreading. I’ve just seen some of your arguments used overzealously by uneducated conservatives (not Conservative Party members) who think everyone on welfare/EI is lazy/source of all the world’s problems and therefore should be sent to labour camps.
I’ve paid into UI/EI for over 35 years, I’ve only drawn UI once, in 1978 for 3 months.
Did I get one penny when I left the military….No.
Fuck the abusers, limit the pay out, and like somebody suggested, run it like a business. The more you use it, the more your premiums cost.
I’d also like to see EI and walfare recipients, screened for the “ability to work”. Those that are able to work… must do so to keep their benefits. Sorting at the recycle plant, picking up garbage, that sort of thing.
I agree with your points to a point, Hugo.
The whole point of EI is to be able to spend time finding meaningful work and I think that since EI *is* something you pay into (it’s an insurance program — the government does invest the money if I’m correct) and I think that social assistance recipients should be put to work as you’ve suggested before EI recipients.
Canned, since it is such a small amount, I want everybody in Canada to send me the cents portion of what’s in thrie bank accounts. Don’t worry it won’t be over 99 cents (BTW why isn’t there a cent symbol on keyboards?) and you really don’t need it, so I will happily take it off your hands.
To expand on Canned’s point about the small amount we’re subsidizing — what about people who’ve contributed their whole working lives and have never drawn? My mom’s never drawn, and until dad’s employer left the province, he hadn’t drawn EI, but had contributed for 45+ years.
canned… the lobster fishermen are ‘attempting’ to hold out for 5.50 a lb so that they can make ends meet THESE DAYS.
back a decade ago when it was 10, 12, 14 a lb… and everything back then was also cheaper…
how much do you think their bottom lines were?
all of em in my community were buying new trucks, building houses, buying atv’s…
and collecting EI half the year.
don’t fool yourself…
they may not be living lavishly anymore, but their lack of planning and saving should not constitute an emergency on everyone else’s part.
Had they not been dickheads and spent all their cash every year on booze and toys and like, they would be just fine now.
@ Fire. The fisherman struggling today is not necessarily the fisherman from a decade ago. You can’t blame the plight of a current group based on the actions of an earlier group. That would be like blaming retirees 30 years from now for Baby Boomers draining the retirement income security system.
@ Bro Tim, we already do that, every single fucking day. It’s called fractional reserve banking, you dipshit.
@ PK, (1) the EI program mostly consists of transfers between the currently working and currently unemployed. You can think of your parents old contributions has subsidizing today’s EI users but more of their contributions went to subsidizing the unemployed at the time of their contribution.
(2) As long as we are ‘risk averse’ (most people are, except for gang members and stock brokers), we are better off having paid into EI even with the free-riding than we would be if there was no EI and hence no free-riding. This is because risk averse people prefer a guarantee of slightly lower wages with less risk than slightly higher wages with more risk. Of course, if risk averse people -really hate- seeing poor people free ride, then they may be worse off. My willingness to pay for EI is much higher than the premium I actually pay, because I enjoy not being worried about what will happen if I become unemployed.
Also, back to Bro Tim’s earlier comment:
“So a person pays a max of $787 or thereabouts and gets EI at how much a week these days, over $4-500, so they get their contributions back within a month, then the rest of us have to “donate” our money so you can live the rest of the year after you made how much during your seasonal work”
Another well-established Canadian institution does this: universal health care! The healthy subsidize the sick, even the sick who actively disregard their health – live an unhealthy lifestyle, if you will. We might even call them free riders. But we rarely chastise them for draining the banks of the middle class, as we often do to those on welfare or those who repeatedly make use of EI.
“what about people who’ve contributed their whole working lives and have never drawn?”
That’s a stupid argument, PK, and I love it when people bring it up. It’s employment “INSURANCE”, just like car INSURANCE or household INSURANCE. Many people pay into those their whole lives and never have claims either, and I am willing to bet the rest of my lifes paycheques that the total paid in those INSURANCE premiums far exceed what’s paid in EI premiums (I know what I pay in combined insurance premiums will be 100’s of times, possibly thousands of times what my EI premiums will ever amount to, for a lifetime total). So basically our premiums pay for other peoples misfortune, an if you make a claim, someone elses premiums will pay for your misfortune. Maybe you all need to revisit the definition of INSURANCE.
“Insurance is defined as the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another, in exchange for payment”
I might add that fraud on other insurance is a chargeable offense under the criminal code of Canada, so why not have the EI investigaters go out and do their fucking job and find fraudsters, and make them accountable both financially and criminally?
“I’m talking about seasonal workers who make buttloads of cash during their working season than sit on EI for six months when they really don’t have to. “
Why do you make it sound like it’s their fault they get paid a decent salary? They pay taxes on it, high taxes if it’s a high income. In the case of fishermen, the government TELLS them when they are allowed to fish, mostly due to conservation. It’s not like they have a choice. PK, and anyone else for that matter know anything about which you speak, or are you just swallowing the bait and shooting from the hip with your ignorant bullshit? It’s ok for the bus drivers to make 25% more, on top of their regular salary, for finding a loophole in overtime, but it’s not ok for people to collect a few measly dollars of INSURANCE they pay into, for a couple months year.
PK, your such a fucking SET, it’s not even funny.
You are SUCH a clueless moron, SHITTY. You couldn’t analyze, comprehend or think your way out of a box. You simply don’t understand anything not written out in crayon.
You’re just a typical moron who can’t grasp concepts even remotely complicated so instead you criticize with “omg ur arguments are so dum!”
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, though, because you can’t help if you’re dumb as a pile of bricks.
I get how you can attempt to argue with those points in your last post, but you clearly have no concept that the situation is far more complicated than that and you just don’t have the intellect to understand that.
Plus your head is planted really far up your arse soooo….
Good argument, PK. I have the intellect to know a cunt when I see one. Cunt!!
If I claimed against my car or house insurance every year, I’ll guarantee my premiums will be in the stratosphere. They don’t do it with EI but maybe they should.
I have to ask you Canned. Are you an economics major or just well versed on this kind of topic? You seem both succinct and informative, which is a rarity.
Yeah I have a background in the field. Bitching at bitchers about financial issues is a bit of an outlet.
“Good argument, PK. I have the intellect to know a cunt when I see one. Cunt!!”
Thanks for the compliment! You’ve far exceeded my expectations with your “yeah, well, well…. you’re dumb!” retort. Keep up the good work. *pats SHITTY on the head*
Also: Bro Tim’s got it.
So now it turns out that Luca da Rentboi also tried to give the Liberals a “hand”
I’d like to think he sent Mulcair the arsehole, but that would be redundant, wouldn’t it.
A LITTLE HISTORY LESSON
Contrary to what the Harper-Haters maintain, the recent legislation on EI is absolutely benevolent compared to that of times past. Presently, all that is required is that EI claimants be a little less choosy on the jobs they are willing to take depending on their claim experience and how lomg they have remained on benefit. Frequent users would be expected to to take a job paying as little as 80% as much as their previous employment, dropping down to 70% after sx weeks. If no such jobs were available then they clould carry on as usual with the same benefits for the same duration and with the same frequency.
By contrast, under the Liberals, the Axworthy reforms of 1996 established the “intensity rule” whereby from the standard 55% of insurable earnings a point was reduced for every 20 weeks of benefits received in the previous five years to a maximum of five percentage points, i.e., EI was ratcheted downward to 25% of insurable earning. (The Axworthy reforms were abandoned after the Liberals lost 20 seats in – guess where – Atlantic Canada in the 1997 election.)
The Mulroney years saw the “annualizing” of benefits, basing them on the claimant’s earnings over an entire year rather than the few weeks that he might have been working – a sharp incentive to work longer before claiming benefits or accept sharply reduced benefits.
What had begun as a strictly insurance program in the 1940s began to go off the rails with the Trudeau reforms of 1971 and the introduction “Lotto 10/42”: 10 weeks of work funded 42 weeks of benefits, depending on the type of job and where you lived. Unsuprisingly, EI claims spiked when the 10 week minimum was attained but when the minimum was raised to 14 weeks work, the spike in claimants moved along with it. It was now “Lotto 14/38.”
Of course, EI premiums don’t come out of the magician’s hat. They come from other workers in other sectors and in other regions who do not rely on EI benefits but whose premiums nonetheless go to finance those who do. Those on benefit are famously in Atlantic Canada and particularly in the fishery. This “culture of dependency” as Harper called it while in opposition has continued but, in spite of the Harper-Haters rhetoric, his reforms are not going to seriously disrupt it. Indeed, they are mild to the point of benevolence.
So, let’s hear it from the Harper-Haters. All together now, “We love you Stephen!”
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
I’d gladly take a job making 80% of what I make now because that 80% is a lot more than the, what, 55% EI pays.
But perhaps that’s just because I don’t feel sitting on my buns at home not having any money for anything is a great time.
And if you really look at the terms of the ‘reform,’ not much is going to change for seasonal workers, because a lot of them are in rural areas where there simply aren’t or aren’t enough jobs at any wage to sustain the community. Yarmouth for instance, is primarily a tourist industry town. With the CAT being shut down, jobs have been dwindling. Surrounding little communities are basically made up of fishing industries. There are no jobs on the off season for the majority of residents, so chances are even if they’re expected to travel to Yarmouth for a job, it’s not like they’re going to find one at any wage and they’re not going to find one making even 70% (which is the lowest wage you’ll ever have to accept on this new plan).
People make it seem like we’re all going to be forced to work at Subway. Well guess what? 70% of my salary is still a lot more than min wage, and many others are in the same situation so it’s not exactly going to force everyone to work minimum wage jobs.
So get your panties out of your cracks.
I think we desperately need some new bitches up in here. (Preferably ones that aren’t about EI reform.)
PK – shut up.
No, PK. It’s not “how it is”. There is no proof about how this all works in practice, this is just someones theory on how to revamp a system that is prone to abuse. There are legitimate concerns dealing with local economies and labour markets across the country. Your simple “suck it up and go find a job you lazy bastards” attitude is just immature.
There is a whole other side to this, these changes basically mean that government is forcing all jobs to be filled, taking the onus off of the employers to provide competitive wage packages and benefits, and forcing people to work for undesirable companies just because a job in a certain industry is available.
Do I think that something needs to be done about curbing abuse? Absolutely, without question. With this government constantly supporting corporate interests and legislating private sector unions back to work, an attack on labour has been waged and I don’t feel comfortable supporting another way to “legislate” people to work, regardless of wether or not it’s good for an individual or community. It smells a bit like modern day slavery to me, and minimum wage is it’s whip. When you have MP’s quoted saying, “no job is a bad job” in the media, it really makes you wonder what the actual motivation behind this really is. Maybe they’re just really, really bad salespeople, but I highly doubt it.
PS; PK, I went and read all my comments on this thread, and not once did I call you stupid. I don’t know where you get this stuff, maybe that stomach full of anti-depressants is making you paranoid. I did, on the other hand, call you annoying, a cunt, and assessed your attitude to be, in my opinion, “immature”. I do stand by those assessments. Learn to articulate yourself without calling people who don’t agree with you “stupid”, “clueless morons”, or “typical morons” (don’t quite understand your higherarchy of moron status) or anything else regarding someone elses intelligence (perceived by you), it makes you look a) unintelligent, and b) like a psycho.
I was using an analogy, you idiot.
I have a dictionary if you need to look that word up.
Big Labour and the N.D.P. have been in bed together for so long that neither side can recognize where cock ends and asshole begins. So when the unions start to believe that they too are part of the official opposition and turn labour disruptions of key economic sectors (the mail, airlines, railroads) into a political act – sabotaging the economy in order to discredit the government of power- they deserve everything the government hits them with. Fuck ’em.
Good job again, PK. Resorting to school yard taunts and name calling, again. Don’t you think it time to switch it up a little and get some new material. My nephew has a saying, “I know you are but what am I?”, perhaps he’ll let you borrow it for the right price.
I say ‘go fuck yourself, nob-gobbler’.
she can borrow that if she wants.
And SHITTY calls me the hypocrite.
*chuckles*
Thanks, zed! That’s a popular insult in lakeside.
Well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit! I agree with SHITD and disagree with PK and Cranky, though PK, you are sending mixed messages. You wrote “I’m not saying that all on UE are shiftless bastards” (paraphrase) but it kind of sounded like you were there…
IMO, Certain jobs have to be seasonal, and that’s all about it. In resort towns, the off season is called that because no one wants to visit then, so no one has a job. I moved between resorts in Vermont and Florida when I was a professional waiter, but I had to pay two rents during ‘high season’ when everything was more expensive. Not everyone can afford to move with the seasons for work! (at a very exclusive castle I was asked where the chef goes in the winter?–on the dole I almost said!)
Anyway, the whole argument is spurious. It is similar to the ‘I’ve paid car insurance/CAA coverage/house insurance and never had an accident/breakdown/fire.” argument. (and if you’re going there, PK, I might reply that I’m pretty sure that my family has availed itself of fewer Health Canada resources than yours has…)
C’est la vie!
Yes I do, PK. Cause you are a hypocrite. You judge people you don’t know anything about, their circumstances, their character, their morals, let alone walked a mile in their shoes. But, it’s ok for people like “you” to collect unemployment, because you are obviously smarter and morally superior to the vast majority of people who receive EI (at least a demographic of EI collectors vast enough to warrant such swift change, lest we bankrupt the system). Someone who knows little of your situation might say that you don’t need to claim it, because you don’t need it to “survive”, and perhaps you should not qualify because you made too much.
This “abuse” issue is meant to elicit an emotional response, using a stereotype to fuel anger about being “taken advantage of”. Then blame it on a bunch of poor people struggling to get by, instead of a bunch of greedy politicians raiding that account and stealing 54 billion dollars and mismanaging it. Just imagine the interest that would have been payed to EI through interest payments over the last 10 or 15 years, the interest payments alone would have paid a significant amount of the operating costs on an ongoing yearly basis. It’s pathetic to think that the supposed 1% of the people affected by these changes are responsible for the demise of the entire system. Fuck, retail stores forecast a 2-3% loss due to theft. how do you explain the profitability of private insurance companies, what’s their projected percentage of loss due to fraud?
“Cause you are a hypocrite. You judge people you don’t know anything about, their circumstances, their character, their morals, let alone walked a mile in their shoes.”
AHAHAHAHAHA and you don’t.
“HAY Mr. Pot! Meet Mr. Kettle!”
Keep on coming with these gems, bud. I need my daily dose of ‘LOL.’ The kind of ‘LOL’ only a clueless idiot can provide.