Lets reform Employment Insurance

mit

Electoral Member
Nov 26, 2008
273
5
18
SouthWestern Ontario
Our current Employment Insurance system is broken - Although it has a huge surplus - this surplus goes in to general government revenues and the surpluses of the last few years have been part and parcel of the low unemployment rates.

First - we must set a standard for the time between a person being laid off and their first cheque. With electronic submittal of separation papers and our employment records being tied to our Social Insurance number it should not take longer than 3 weeks (The standard waiting period + 1 week) to get a cheque in the hands of the newly unemployed. Currently a smooth application can take 6 weeks to get your cards and another 2 weeks to get a cheque. This forces the unemployed to dig in to savings or whip out the credit card to survive for 2 months.

Second - we must allow the unemployed to supplement their income to a percentage of their previous wage without clawbacks. 75% of previous income for the allowable weeks will encourage people to go and find temporary work - keep their bills paid and as a side benefit expose them to other work places and perhaps appreciate the fact that others are trying to survive on much lower wages. We could even go further as to allow their previous employers to offer supplements to the laid off workers to keep them available for a return to work. The autoworkers have an SUB plan that is allowed by EI where they get up to 70 or 80% of their pay during a temporary layoff. "This would not be mandatory and at the discretion of companies"

Third - EI offices need to become transition offices not peddlers of training programs that oversupply labour markets with workers that drive down wages and quality of employees (Truck drivers are a good example - the government will pay an exhorbitant price for your training and then you find out there are so many truck drivers out looking for work that the wages have dropped) - Online education for the unemployed and the employed wishing to upgrade should be at low cost or no cost and provide a home link or onsite link to the program with testing done at the EI office.

Fourth - Review the training and funding programs to see how much bang for the buck we are getting. Should red seal trades (Apprenticeships) allow for mature persons to get credit for life experience? - Example - many maintenance persons also do plumbing - electrical - hydraulics and yet even though they may be competent and have years of practice must start at the bottom of the ladder to get a licence. A test could easily be done that would show their knowledge and skill and give them a one or 2 year credit on their apprenticeship hours. The schooling would still be required but the licence could be had in 3 years at a higher wage rate.

Fifth - Allow people to transfer from one region of unemployment to sek work in another without having to reapply to the EI system because you moved out of a region. This will allow a mobile workforce that can keep wages stable in areas of low unemployment and not cause strains on the social costs of areas of high unemployment.

Sixth - Vacation pay should not be clawed back and should not affect the waiting period. It can be used as a financial bridge to when the EI cheques start coming.

Most of us pay in to this system and like most insurance plans it seems that they only want our premiums and put up roadblocks to paying out claims. If Harper or the Coalition want to make some cost effective economic stimulus this is a good place to start. It is self supporting, gives a little dignity to the unemployed and helps out the economy as this income is taxed and allows people to spend money and stay out of food banks and other social agencies. Banks and credit card companies can get paid still and offers the unemployed a legal and taxable source of income. :idea:
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Our current Employment Insurance system is broken - Although it has a huge surplus - this surplus goes in to general government revenues and the surpluses of the last few years have been part and parcel of the low unemployment rates.

First - we must set a standard for the time between a person being laid off and their first cheque. With electronic submittal of separation papers and our employment records being tied to our Social Insurance number it should not take longer than 3 weeks (The standard waiting period + 1 week) to get a cheque in the hands of the newly unemployed. Currently a smooth application can take 6 weeks to get your cards and another 2 weeks to get a cheque. This forces the unemployed to dig in to savings or whip out the credit card to survive for 2 months.

Second - we must allow the unemployed to supplement their income to a percentage of their previous wage without clawbacks. 75% of previous income for the allowable weeks will encourage people to go and find temporary work - keep their bills paid and as a side benefit expose them to other work places and perhaps appreciate the fact that others are trying to survive on much lower wages. We could even go further as to allow their previous employers to offer supplements to the laid off workers to keep them available for a return to work. The autoworkers have an SUB plan that is allowed by EI where they get up to 70 or 80% of their pay during a temporary layoff. "This would not be mandatory and at the discretion of companies"

Third - EI offices need to become transition offices not peddlers of training programs that oversupply labour markets with workers that drive down wages and quality of employees (Truck drivers are a good example - the government will pay an exhorbitant price for your training and then you find out there are so many truck drivers out looking for work that the wages have dropped) - Online education for the unemployed and the employed wishing to upgrade should be at low cost or no cost and provide a home link or onsite link to the program with testing done at the EI office.

Fourth - Review the training and funding programs to see how much bang for the buck we are getting. Should red seal trades (Apprenticeships) allow for mature persons to get credit for life experience? - Example - many maintenance persons also do plumbing - electrical - hydraulics and yet even though they may be competent and have years of practice must start at the bottom of the ladder to get a licence. A test could easily be done that would show their knowledge and skill and give them a one or 2 year credit on their apprenticeship hours. The schooling would still be required but the licence could be had in 3 years at a higher wage rate.

Fifth - Allow people to transfer from one region of unemployment to sek work in another without having to reapply to the EI system because you moved out of a region. This will allow a mobile workforce that can keep wages stable in areas of low unemployment and not cause strains on the social costs of areas of high unemployment.

Sixth - Vacation pay should not be clawed back and should not affect the waiting period. It can be used as a financial bridge to when the EI cheques start coming.

Most of us pay in to this system and like most insurance plans it seems that they only want our premiums and put up roadblocks to paying out claims. If Harper or the Coalition want to make some cost effective economic stimulus this is a good place to start. It is self supporting, gives a little dignity to the unemployed and helps out the economy as this income is taxed and allows people to spend money and stay out of food banks and other social agencies. Banks and credit card companies can get paid still and offers the unemployed a legal and taxable source of income. :idea:

The biggest fault I've ever found with E.I. (although I've never been on the receiving end of it myself- just paid the premiums) is the people getting it even though the nature of their work was seasonal. E.I. (in the old days at least) was meant as relief for people who unexpected lost their jobs - not for situations like women getting pregnant.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
I really dislike that EI is clawed back (delayed) by severence. To me when you're done you're done. EI should kick in regardless of the final termination settlement.
 

Lester

Council Member
Sep 28, 2007
1,062
12
38
63
Ardrossan, Alberta
That would make sense Kreskin, UI as it was called when I was young and rowdy , hopping from job to job trying to get enough weeks for pogey (things were slow in the eighties).Medical Should be addressed, people only get 15 wks coverage including the waiting period if they get sick- I mean what if somebodys' been at the same job for 20 years. Shouldn't they get the same as anyone else would.
 

barney

Electoral Member
Aug 1, 2007
336
9
18
Why bother with EI at all? Introduce GUI (Guaranteed Universal Income) which will free up funds by making redundant a number of other inefficient and bureaucratically nightmarish programs.

(The logic being that if the rich are still getting richer but don't want employ, let them pay taxes and maintain the unemployed--and themselves, should they by some miracle lose their fortunes.)
 

mit

Electoral Member
Nov 26, 2008
273
5
18
SouthWestern Ontario
I was reading a news article that a Quebec union has taken the government to court over the EI surplus (over 50 Billion bucks) being put in general funds. Their goal is to have the money returned to those who paid it. PM Harper has plans to set up EI as a Crown Corporation - Maybe then he can sell it to the highest bidder - Something that generates Billions of Dollars in surplus should draw quite an offer - I am sure China would like it!
 

mit

Electoral Member
Nov 26, 2008
273
5
18
SouthWestern Ontario
The problem with governments is that they think in order to make changes they either have to pass new laws or spend more money - Allowing people to supplement their income does not cost the EI program a dime - Making EI more efficient likely will result in cost savings - Having an in house standardized training system will save 100's of millions in not paying out to these fly by night or non-accredited colleges that promise you are trained using their accelerated method which by coincidence is the length of time EI will pay for a course.
The government is being scammed - students are being scammed and we as taxpayers are being scammed.
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
The biggest fault I've ever found with E.I. (although I've never been on the receiving end of it myself- just paid the premiums) is the people getting it even though the nature of their work was seasonal. E.I. (in the old days at least) was meant as relief for people who unexpected lost their jobs - not for situations like women getting pregnant.

Jlm

I couldn't agree more. It is an "emergency fund" for workers who lose their "permanent" jobs and covers the time for them to find new ones.

Case in point. A Lobster fisherman rakes in ~$100,000 during the "catch" and then goes on EI. Does that make alot of sense. Commerial Fisherman pull the same con.

They could possibly put a "ceiling" on your ability to collect say $60,000. If you make more than that you are not eligible. You should have been bright enough to put a few bucks in the bank during your working career
 

mit

Electoral Member
Nov 26, 2008
273
5
18
SouthWestern Ontario
Folks - I am not sure what the ceiling is but there is a line on your tax return where if you collected EI and made over a certain amount for the year you must give back the EI - I think it is less than $60,000 now - Also Jean and Paul made some changes to the EI system 10 years ago atleast where eligibility and length of time you can collect are determined by the employment rates in your area - Also not all areas get the same weekly allowance.
As far as those who say they have never collected it so they see no value in it - I have paid home and property insurance for over 2 decades and never claimed a dime - I am not about to cancel my insurance - I am lucky not to have had to collect.