Unemployment changes?

[Type_S1]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/05/15/flaherty-no-bad-job.html

Seems like a good step to me...I think the EI program should be voluntary :D

You don't contribute, you don't get help when your unemployed. This way all the hard working Canadians don't get screwed by funding lazy people....

[Modelexis]

"We need to get rid of disincentives in the employment insurance system to people joining the workforce."

On the bright side, the politicians are starting to see that when you rob a productive class to provide to a less productive class you find yourself with a disincentive ridden super cancer.

It's just unfortunate that their solution is more complex laws and rules and force. They don't ever go back to the foundations of the problem and look at where this strong disincentive has risen from.

This was similar to the trouble that Copernicus had trying to come up with new theories about the solar system while working with a flaw in the fundamentals.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[FraserB]

But at the same time, as the article points out, it is not a government funded program. We all paid into it and some people are having to pull out of it.

Lets say that someone is employed as a mechanical engineer and gets laid off. They start to collect their maximum EI benfits while they look for another engineering job. At the same time, 7-Eleven says they will be hiring 1,000 workers in the engineer's province. Do you think it would be right for the government to force that engineer to stop getting the benefits they paid for and be forced to take a job making $10 an hour?

I'm all for hard work, but at the same time, the government really has no right to set this kind of legislation. No one here is going to say "Well my EI benefits pay me $50,000 a year but I'll take a job making $20,000 becuase its work" and the government should not be able to force that on someone.

[nzwasp]

I didnt see anything in the article that mentioned that they would change the program to make it voluntary. I wish that as an employee I could opt out at a certain age, the only time I needed it and had been paying into it for 3 years they wouldnt let me use it which was BS.

[e31]

Nash pointed out that EI is not a government funded program, but an insurance policy paid for by employers and workers.

I personally have a huge disdain for wasteful gov't programs & social welfare projects. However I realize that if people were given a choice, nobody would pay into this program; sooner or later this would give way to a massive systemic failure (such as what is seen in the US). Keeping the masses housed and fed ensures docile subjects. I couldn't imagine what Forest Lawn would look like without social assistance...

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by FraserB
the government should not be able to force that on someone.

Can you humor my devils advocate question and explain why they shouldn't be able to force that on someone? They're already forcing people to pay into the program, why is it all of the sudden bad to use force?

[-relk-]

Originally posted by FraserB
But at the same time, as the article points out, it is not a government funded program. We all paid into it and some people are having to pull out of it.

Lets say that someone is employed as a mechanical engineer and gets laid off. They start to collect their maximum EI benfits while they look for another engineering job. At the same time, 7-Eleven says they will be hiring 1,000 workers in the engineer's province. Do you think it would be right for the government to force that engineer to stop getting the benefits they paid for and be forced to take a job making $10 an hour?

I'm all for hard work, but at the same time, the government really has no right to set this kind of legislation. No one here is going to say "Well my EI benefits pay me $50,000 a year but I'll take a job making $20,000 becuase its work" and the government should not be able to force that on someone.

Agreed.

But you can always work at the 711 while waiting for that new engineering job. From my understanding of the topic though, are they forcing people to take jobs that they would never apply for? How the hell would they do that? Isn't the idea behind this that if you are offered a lower pay grade job and decline it, you can be taken off EI?

[Seth1968]

There's no way they could practically enforce these new "laws". In addition, anyone can easily circumvent them.

[codetrap]

Another view on the topic...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/15/matt-gurney-canadians-who-wont-work-shouldnt-get-ei/



Matt Gurney: Canadians who won’t work shouldn’t get EI

Though there is much we still have yet to learn, based just on what Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has already said, the Conservative plan to reform the Canadian Employment Insurance (EI) program is the right idea.

Ahead of a House of Commons vote to further passage of the government’s budget implementation bill, Mr. Flaherty spoke with reporters about a particular section of the bill, which removes exemption criteria for those seeking EI. Under the Employment Act, as currently written, someone can be disqualified from receiving benefits if they have “not applied for a suitable employment that is vacant.” Not suitable work is defined as ” either at a lower rate of earnings or on conditions less favourable” than would be expected from a good employer, or if the job is “is not in the claimant’s usual occupation and is either at a lower rate of earnings or on conditions less favourable than … the conditions that the claimant usually obtained.”

In other words, if you lose your job, you don’t need to take any job to make ends meet. You can hold out for a job as good or better as the one you previously had, or even pass on equally well-paying work if it isn’t what you would prefer to be doing. The Tories intend to change that. ““There’ll be a broader definition and people will have to engage more in the work force,” said Mr. Flaherty. “I was brought up in a certain way. There is no bad job. The only bad job is not having a job.”

Mr. Flahery isn’t the first Conservative cabinet minister to speak on similar themes of late. Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, in a meeting with the National Post editorial board last month, spoke of his fear that “basic work and the trades” had been devalued. He told us that he worried that young Canadians today considered themselves above certain kinds of jobs and would refuse to apply to them even if unemployed. This leads, Mr. Kenney believes, to the bizarre reality of regions of Canada with high local unemployment also needing to import temporary foreign workers to fill local job vacancies. There are jobs … there are unemployed Canadians … what’s the problem?

Mr. Kenney is almost certainly right that basic work has been devalued in our society. But it’s not just because the schools have taught students that, in Mr. Kenney’s words, “the only good job is at a desk with a computer.” It also reflects an unemployment insurance system that rewards staying out of the job market for extended periods. In some of Canada’s 58 EI regions, barely 10 weeks of work can get you EI for 32 weeks. The EI system is astonishingly complex, but in short, favours workers in parts of the country where seasonal work is the norm, and punishes those in areas where long-term, year-round work is more common.

There is concern among many experts that the availability of generous, long-term benefits in areas where seasonal work is common has in fact begun altering how jobs are handled in those regions. Employers can afford to pay workers a higher wage, for a shorter time, than they otherwise might, and the workers are OK knowing they’ll be let go because EI will then kick in to replace some of their (possibly inflated) wages. These workers have little reason to seek jobs after they hit their minimum number of hours. That’s why foreign workers are needed to fill the job shortages in those regions — the Canadians have already hit their threshold for EI.

Canadians value their social safety net, and won’t mind helping a fellow citizen who falls on hard times. But that citizen must then hold up their end of the bargain by only taking public money if absolutely necessary and only for as long as is necessary. If there’s a job in their community that they are qualified for, it is entirely reasonable to stop paying them for refusing to take it.

Times are tough and many industries are in flux across the country. That won’t be changed by federal fiat. But if a government program has become part of the problem, it’s incumbent upon the government to fix it. While full details of how the government intends to rectify this problem aren’t expected for several months, restoring the value of work to the system is a good place to start. The Conservatives would do well to make rolling out these changes a priority.

National Post

[FraserB]

Originally posted by -relk-
[B]

Agreed.

But you can always work at the 711 while waiting for that new engineering job. [B]

For $20k a year versus the $50k that you would get out of EI, since you DID pay into it for your whole working life



From my understanding of the topic though, are they forcing people to take jobs that they would never apply for? How the hell would they do that? Isn't the idea behind this that if you are offered a lower pay grade job and decline it, you can be taken off EI?

I think it might be the case where it would be the lower pay grade one. It would be pretty hard to enforce otherwise. Probably more along the lines of them seeing you rejecting an offer that paid 75% of your old salary and them kicking you off.

[Feruk]

You guys make it sound like living on EI is a cushy alternative. EI is capped, so somebody who loses a job paying them $7K a month, isn't gonna get $7k/month in EI benefits... I don't remember what the max is, but it's something crazy low like $1600/month. As well, EI only pays you for a certain length of time, not necessairly until you get a new job. The illusion that most people have that EI is some sort of cushy lifestyle is totally incorrect. They give you enough to survive on while you find a new job.

I find the argument that a laid off engineer should go work at 7-Eleven silly. Where's the benefit in that? The engineer's gonna have less time to devote to looking for a real job and upgrading his/her skill/education (which should be the focus), and the company's gonna waste money training someone who doesn't wanna be there and won't be there long. This is a lose-lose, aka bad business.

I think as long as you've got restrictions on the amount EI can pay and the length of time a person is eligable (which Canada does), there isn't an issue with EI. I don't think you should be able to opt out either regardless of age as the goal is to support those searching for a job and not necessairly just yourself. Better to give them some money than force them to result to robbing you. If there's one government program which we should be able to opt out of, it's the CPP, not EI.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by FraserB


For $20k a year versus the $50k that you would get out of EI, since you DID pay into it for your whole working life



EI only pays $25g a year. Not $50g.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Feruk
and the company's gonna waste money training someone who doesn't wanna be there and won't be there long. This is a lose-lose, aka bad business.

It wouldn't even get to that point, as given your valid points, the busines wouldn't hire such a person.

[FraserB]

Should probably make it so seasonal workers are ineligible though. The BS I used to hear from landscapers was ridiculous, work for 5 monhts and the go on EI for 7 and take cash under the table for working in the winter.

[speedog]

The first problem with EI is that it is not an "insurance" plan - it truly is a way of transferring some income from those that have regular employment (and the companies that employ them) to those Canadians who don't. I worked for TELUS for 26.5 years, paid into EI for all of those years as well as TELUS paying into this supposed "insurance" plan and will never see one red cent out of it. Did my premiums drop because I had steady employment over those years meaning I was less of a "risk" to this "insurance" plan - nope.

New rules may help, but it needs to be transformed into a true "insurance" plan where there is an incentive to remain employed - if you've proven to be a risk to the plan's assets, then you pay considerably higher premiums. And there should be reduced premiums to those that remain steadily employed as well as the companies that provide this steady employment - why penalize those that are not part of the problem?

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by nzwasp
I didnt see anything in the article that mentioned that they would change the program to make it voluntary. I wish that as an employee I could opt out at a certain age, the only time I needed it and had been paying into it for 3 years they wouldnt let me use it which was BS.

^ this.
It would never really occur to me to draw EI, just not something I would do. But my wife did once when she was laid off. The government says it’s not a tax and that is an insurance program and that it’s your money BUT the second you need it the government sure as hell treats it like their money. I hate paying into the program; I think it sucks that I can't opt out of it. I am able to save every month twice what I have been forced to put into EI so far this year. I am never going to use it and even if I wanted to the government would likely tell me to get lost or make me go through so many hoops that by the time I got the first payment I would have another job already.

That said, I would gladly purchase a privately run EI program or something similar. I pay for mortgage insurance. If I lose my job or get injured the bank will make my mortgage payments for me for a period of time. Same with my car loan. I pay a small premium for two months’ worth of payment deferment in case I am temporarily out of work. A lot of people have these private programs to assist in case of job loss or temporary disability. I would gladly pay for a private job insurance program where I get x amount of dollars if I lose my job without an insurance agent going balls deep into my life to see if I really need it.

[flipstah]

... Does that mean we get our previous contributions refunded if we never had to use it? *knock on wood*

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by FraserB
Should probably make it so seasonal workers are ineligible though. The BS I used to hear from landscapers was ridiculous, work for 5 monhts and the go on EI for 7 and take cash under the table for working in the winter.

Thats what all the fisherman in newfoundland do. When its not fishing season they sit on their asses and collect while living in 4000sqft houses, flying around on their skidoos every day.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[JfuckinC]

Originally posted by FraserB
Should probably make it so seasonal workers are ineligible though. The BS I used to hear from landscapers was ridiculous, work for 5 monhts and the go on EI for 7 and take cash under the table for working in the winter.

lol i have friends who work all summer then dont do shit in winter but snowboard and vacation... i couldn't do it.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


That is an excellent point... a large percentage of people are idiots and would opt out of EI so they can get at the extra cash, and not so they can save it for a rainy day either. They would be completely fucked without it, and it would just turn into a big "occupy" protest until the government caved.

That doesn’t mean that all people are idiots though, lots of people (particularly those that work in industries like O&G that are subjected to frequent instability) are smart enough to have some kind of rainy day fund set aside to weather the down periods. What needs to happen in my opinion, is some kind of accurate system of recognition for people who have done this, and an option to opt out of EI. Same goes for CPP, lots of people are not counting on it being around when we retire and saving up accordingly, so why the fuck are we still paying into it?

I think a great idea is to be able to opt out if you have hit your max TFSA contribution. They want to encourage people to save right? Being able to opt out of IF you hit your max TFSA amount would be a good added incentive to use the program. But I guess it would be a nightmare to keep track of when people are pulling cash out of it.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by -relk-
How the hell would they do that? Isn't the idea behind this that if you are offered a lower pay grade job and decline it, you can be taken off EI?

Don't know how they would enforce it.

I think the PC is indeed quite insulting when it comes to EI recipients.

$1400/mth isn't a lot of money, and an engineer would probably got bills to pay that would be eager to get back into his/her trade than collecting EI. And that's roughly what you get for working @ Micky D full time anyway.

Now I'm not saying there isn't any abusers but there are rules to keep that to a minimum.

I think EI is a crucial social stability program. Although I think a lifetime limit should be set.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[baygirl]

The way it stands now you can be asked to provide the government with names and phone numbers of anyone you contacted regarding a job, proving that you conducted a reasonable job search. After a set amount of time they will ask if you are prepared to remove any restrictions, including seeking different work at a lower rate of pay and to change the location(I believe has of now they consider 45 mins to be a reasonable commute). And they allow you to earn a certain amount per week before they start deducting from your EI wages.

[Seth1968]

There was a time when the "Social Safety Net" was personal responsibility, and in worse case scenarios "family".

I find it ludicrous and insulting that I have to financially support drug addicts, alcoholics, lazy people, and all others that deliberately steal my money while I work for it.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

The other thing is, the entire system is almost entirely held up by people who don't use it... it might just collapse if you remove the responcible people out of it.


Exactly. :devil:

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
I disagree; if you are working, then you are contributing to society rather than leeching off it, which greatly increases the likelihood the economy would improve. Less government debt, more productivity... win win situation for everybody.

EI is crucial because of CMHC. We should never allow people who doesn't have 20% down to own houses in the first place. Now if these people default, we are all screwed. EI will help out.

That's why I want something in the middle. You should be able to enjoy up to 1.5x of what you put into EI. You put in $3K in it so far? You can take up to $4.5K out of it (roughly 3 months @ max rate). So you can collect EI til your lifetime contribution or 10 months, whichever runs out first.

This will reduce the abuse.

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by e31
I couldn't imagine what Forest Lawn would look like without social assistance...

:rofl: :eek: burning tires and Somalians running around with AK's??

[colsankey]

Originally posted by Modelexis


Can you humor my devils advocate question and explain why they shouldn't be able to force that on someone? They're already forcing people to pay into the program, why is it all of the sudden bad to use force?

Since when is it OK to use force?

[msommers]

Man if I could opt out of CPP and EI I would in a heartbeat. I'm perfectly fine with the government not being responsible for me if I need money. I'd even sign a waiver today.


Originally posted by Sugarphreak
The other thing is, the entire system is almost entirely held up by people who don't use it... it might just collapse if you remove the responsible people out of it.


My thoughts exactly. If there are jobs and you don't want to work them because they're not up to your standards, go fuck yourself.

Technically my work is "seasonal" but I wouldn't be caught dead taking EI money, despite me paying into it. It's just immoral.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by colsankey
Since when is it OK to use force?

Good answer,
I like the way you think.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by colsankey


Since when is it OK to use force?

It's not, but that's exactly what are government does.

Social and health programs should be voluntary. If we don't opt in, we don't get to use it. Now that is truly a characteristic of a free society.

[Nufy]

Originally posted by frizzlefry


Thats what all the fisherman in newfoundland do. When its not fishing season they sit on their asses and collect while living in 4000sqft houses, flying around on their skidoos every day.

I hope you're kidding because thats some of the dumbest shit I have ever read on here...

[littledan]

shieeeetttt. fuck CPP and FUCK EI. so many lazy people abusing the system for sure. guys working summer and EI winter or vice versa depending on what season they work. meanwhile the gov't is raping me for 3k/year to feed all these fuckers.

i'm an engineer and for a while in '10 i wasn't working. did I go on EI? hell no. I fucken delivered pizzas to avoid draining down my savings. if i didnt have to pay into EI that I will never see a dime from that woudl be an extra 150 bucks a month in my savings compounding interest and saving the gov't from ever having to pay my ass welfare in the future.

Cliffs: FUCK EI

[gretz]

Originally posted by Nufy


I hope you're kidding because thats some of the dumbest shit I have ever read on here...

Really? Nufy is insulted by Newfie freeloaders? lol...

I know a number people in Quebec that work the bare minimum so they can go on EI (and snowmobile / go home to their nice houses out of fishing season lol)

[Sugarphreak]

...

[clem24]

LOL there is so much misinformation out there.

Each employee pays a MAXIMUM of $840 this year to EI, and that's assuming you made at least $46k. If you made less, you'd pay less. Remember there's also the employer portion which the employer pays.

The maximum for benefits is $485/week for up to 42 weeks less 2 weeks (again assuming your old salary was at least $46k). So the max you'd get is about $20k.

Honestly, if you paid into EI, there's no reason why you shouldn't receive it if you lose your job AND you're in a position to find new work. Now, if you get laid off and decide you want to be a bum but keep collecting EI anyway, well that's another story. Otherwise, it's your money. And don't forget things like mat leave. That comes out of the EI fund as well.

CPP.. Well that's another story.

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


CHMC is a whole other bag of worms, it shouldn't even really exist at all.

Agree'd with everything you said in this thread except for this. CHMC should exsist but in VERY VERY VERY limited circumstances. It shouldn't be the wild west buying homes with 5% down like it is right now.

As for EI...scrap the whole program...make people fend for themselves. If you can't save your own money them go broke...see ya later. Why are responsible people paying for individuals who can't save money themselves? CPP is ridiculous as well...no comment on how retarded it is.

[KrisYYC]

Does the EI program as a whole take in more money than it gives out?

[nickyh]

My husband was on EI for the 1.5years when he was laid off in the 2009/2010 recesion, almost the whole time he had benefits.

It was tough on him emotionally as he was capable and willing to work anywhere to make an honest wage but people would not hire him as he was simply over-qualified for the work or they wanted someone who was green in the work force and did not understand labour rights (of course they'd never admit this).
He felt like a free loader but he'd also been paying into a fund for many many years that now was protecting the house we were trying to keep.

He applied as far away as BC and Manitoba but more often that not his applications were never met with a response.

Then - the real sh_t kicker moment, eventually he found a job with a few months left on his ei benefits and the company was unable to meet payroll obligations or even purchase toilet paper for the washrooms ..... so he reported he was working thus ending his benefits and got royally screwed over working for free.

Yeah, there are people who abuse the system but it's never a black or white arguement as to which is better.

[clem24]

Originally posted by nickyh
My husband was on EI for the 1.5years when he was laid off in the 2009/2010 recesion, almost the whole time he had benefits.

How? Seeing as the maximum is about 9.5 months. Unless he worked in between collection periods.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by Nufy


I hope you're kidding because thats some of the dumbest shit I have ever read on here...

Not kidding at all. I used to live there.

Article (http://www.aims.ca/en/home/library/details.aspx/369?dp=aXM9NQ__)

Newfoundland has almost 140 fish plants, and up to 20,000 fish plant workers. Although some of the plants are highly automated, highly efficient operations that produce year-round. (National Sea's Arnold's Cove plant and Beothuck Fisheries’ Valleyfield plant are examples of a modern year round fish processing industry.) Many of the rest were put there for political reasons, often paid for by tax dollars, an often barely able to give their workers the 420hours needed to qualify for 34 weeks of employment insurance.

I went to a one of "the bays" with the family of the girlfriend I was dating at the time. They had a really nice house (no mortgage), two trucks, snowmobile etc. Hung out there for a week and over supper one night I asked if everyone took the week off for our visit. Her cousin snickered and replied "Can't fish now buddy". They were on their annual EI vacation.

*edit* I should add that it is not really a "vacation" for some of them. There was a fair amount of "under the table" work being done while they collected EI.

[clem24]

Originally posted by frizzlefry
*edit* I should add that it is not really a "vacation" for some of them. There was a fair amount of "under the table" work being done while they collected EI.

LOL fuck that's rubbing salt in the wound.

[Nufy]

A 10 year old article doesn't really reflect the state of things there now...

No mortgage is easy when land is dirt cheap and labor is next to free...

I would bet that they didn't pay a contractor to have their house built.

Fishing can be lucrative but most boats these days operate as part of a co-op and are individual businesses. Much like contractors here in Calgary and elsewhere I guess...

When fishing is good there is money to be made but like most other stuff, boat payments have to be made even when there is no fish...

You have to fuel and carry insurance even if you don't catch anything...

Most of those 140 plants you noted are now closed or are offering minimal work...


Not the picnic you described at all....

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by Nufy
A 10 year old article doesn't really reflect the state of things there now...

No mortgage is easy when land is dirt cheap and labor is next to free...

I would bet that they didn't pay a contractor to have their house built.

Fishing can be lucrative but most boats these days operate as part of a co-op and are individual businesses. Much like contractors here in Calgary and elsewhere I guess...

When fishing is good there is money to be made but like most other stuff, boat payments have to be made even when there is no fish...

You have to fuel and carry insurance even if you don't catch anything...

Most of those 140 plants you noted are now closed or are offering minimal work...


Not the picnic you described at all....

And EI should pay all those off-season burdens? If you choose seasonal work you should be responsible for making the money last all year. Teachers don't get EI during the summer. Not trying to knock the newfs. And you are right, things are different now. The newfoundland of 15 years ago is just a prime example of how EI is used more like welfare by some people and how the govt KNOWS its being used like welfare but still blab on about how its not a social welfare program that you are forced to pay into.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by KrisYYC
Does the EI program as a whole take in more money than it gives out?

In 2008 the surplus for the program was 57 billion. Thats a fair chunk of change being removed from the economy. Lots of wiggle room for some opt-outs I figure.

[speedog]

Originally posted by frizzlefry
In 2008 the surplus for the program was 57 billion. Thats a fair chunk of change being removed from the economy. Lots of wiggle room for some opt-outs I figure. Not exactly correct, but the surplus did accumulate to $57 billion in 2010 which was reduced to a $2 billion dollar surplus by some creative book keeping by our federal government - see more info at the bottom of the article at this link (http://www.mowatcentre.ca/opinions.php?opinionID=49). Really, it was so very nice of the government to basically take my (and many others) hard earned monies and redirect what it should be used for - no thought whatsoever that maybe the people (and companies) who paid premiums that created this surplus might like to see that money back.

[nickyh]

Originally posted by clem24


How? Seeing as the maximum is about 9.5 months. Unless he worked in between collection periods.

They had extended EI benefits during that time to 2 years if you qualified thanks to massive layoffs that were going on (ie: had worked a certain period of time without prior claims). So he qualified.
He lost his job Sept 2009 and had benefit coverage through to Jan2011 -sorry I guess not 1.5 years, certain dates are a bit fuzzy.

There was a period of time he did not collect anything because he went back to school so he no longer was available to work.

[Maybelater]

I'm not motivated to read this whole thread right now, it is late and I just got off from another long day of overtime.

I couldn't imagine making EI a program that is optional, the fact everyone and their dog is drowning in enough debt that losing work for a few months puts them in default proves majority of peoples lack of preemptive planning for economic uncertainty. People would end up in the streets similar to the great depression, but this time every day they'll be losing substantial sums of money to interest they can't pay.

I agree that it is unfair to force people into jobs they are over qualified for simply because they are available. Looking for a job itself can be a full-time job, with interviews and writing proper cover letters and resumes for prospective employers. Instead of simply trying to force them into a job, the government should try to force the long-term and constantly unemployed into re-training.

I don't think many employers are willing to hire people who are simply looking for a temporary provision to their situation. I left a job I held for three years to return to school because I had to relocate. I figured with my strong references and long-term dedication I wouldn't had to much trouble finding a job to couple with school. Turned out I was wrong. Spent almost three months trying to find a job, after the first month I tossed out all my expectations and applied at everything I could get and still couldn't find anyone who was welcome to working with my schedule. At one point I almost had a job at a gas-station working nighttime relief shifts but when the manager introduced me to the owner he spent the whole time questioning how I planned on working nights while going to school and living on less hours and less money, basically he knew I was going to quit the second I got a better offer. I think majority of employers would act the same way when the person is obviously looking for a provision.


Originally posted by speedog
Not exactly correct, but the surplus did accumulate to $57 billion in 2010 which was reduced to a $2 billion dollar surplus by some creative book keeping by our federal government - see more info at the bottom of the article at this link (http://www.mowatcentre.ca/opinions.php?opinionID=49). Really, it was so very nice of the government to basically take my (and many others) hard earned monies and redirect what it should be used for - no thought whatsoever that maybe the people (and companies) who paid premiums that created this surplus might like to see that money back.

Returning the surplus in the form of a tax credit/refund to people who made no claims for the year would something I'd love to see.

[clem24]

Originally posted by Maybelater
Returning the surplus in the form of a tax credit/refund to people who made no claims for the year would something I'd love to see.

Good luck. The surplus is just a "paper" surplus...

[codetrap]

Originally posted by clem24
Good luck. The surplus is just a "paper" surplus...

No, it doesn't appear that it was a paper surplus. It appears that there was 57B in the account, and that the Gov't took 55B out of it into general revenue.

[speedog]

Originally posted by codetrap
No, it doesn't appear that it was a paper surplus. It appears that there was 57B in the account, and that the Gov't took 55B out of it into general revenue. Yupp, $55 billion of Canadian's (and Canadian companies) premiums - quietly moved while many of us continue to pay into a system we may not ever collect from or see reduced premiums from because of being good plan participants.

[firebane]

One thing that happens with people on EI that a lot of people don't take into consideration is the taxes.

I had to owe one year to taxes simply because I was on EI for a period longer than I wanted to.

[davidI]

Originally posted by Nufy
A 10 year old article doesn't really reflect the state of things there now...

No mortgage is easy when land is dirt cheap and labor is next to free...

I would bet that they didn't pay a contractor to have their house built.

Fishing can be lucrative but most boats these days operate as part of a co-op and are individual businesses. Much like contractors here in Calgary and elsewhere I guess...

When fishing is good there is money to be made but like most other stuff, boat payments have to be made even when there is no fish...

You have to fuel and carry insurance even if you don't catch anything...

Most of those 140 plants you noted are now closed or are offering minimal work...


Not the picnic you described at all....

I've got a lot of buddies in PEI who fish crab and tuna season and that's it. They do around 2-3 months of work a year. They spend the rest of the year golfing and drinking off EI benefits.

Why am I working my ass off so that someone else can golf 150 times a year when there is a huge need for skilled works in the West?

I think a lot of the pressure behind this is to actually get people to move to where the work is. Canada shouldn't be supporting people getting a free-ride in one part of the country while another needs good workers. Why seek immigrants internationally when you can do it domestically?