EI whistleblower suspended without pay

[taxslave]

You're a 1%er now, eh?.... That's it, I'm cancelling your membership to the Occupy BC rallies... We even offer coupons fro discounts of tofu burgers if you drive to the event with at least one other person.

Check your iPhone for the Occupy Deal of the Day before you gas up on the way to the next sit-in

Sorry don't have an iPhone. Got a regular phone though. Even has voice mail. Got an old fashioned cell phone that takes text, just no cell reception where I WORK.
Too busy earning a living and paying taxes to do a sit in anyway unless they pay good. IN Cash. No cheques.

 

[darkbeaver]

Too busy?

 

[Tonington]

There has to be more to this since they cannot arbitrarily cut off an EI claimant. What they do is deny your claim until you can prove certain things like you are looking for a job. Also certain job positions are singled out for special scrutiny while others get a free ride.

You're right, this would be unheard of. It explicitly states in my student loan agreement where the information will be held. Certainly the government could not then have made copies of my information on another device and lost it. Oh wait...that's exactly what happened.

You're not the type of fellow I would expect to be so naive about government incompetence and worse...

 

[captain morgan]

Got an old fashioned cell phone that takes text, just no cell reception where I WORK.

Sorry bud, but if you're working, that disqualifies you from the Occupy membership, and I'm pretty sure that you won't be allowed an iPhone.

Rule #3 explicitly states that no member shall have meaningful employment, potential for employment or any income whatsoever outside of a weekly allowance from Dad.

 

[Cliffy]

Sorry bud, but if you're working, that disqualifies you from the Occupy membership, and I'm pretty sure that you won't be allowed an iPhone.

Rule #3 explicitly states that no member shall have meaningful employment, potential for employment or any income whatsoever outside of a weekly allowance from Dad.

Still pimping....

 

[lone wolf]

Sorry bud, but if you're working, that disqualifies you from the Occupy membership, and I'm pretty sure that you won't be allowed an iPhone.

Rule #3 explicitly states that no member shall have meaningful employment, potential for employment or any income whatsoever outside of a weekly allowance from Dad.

How do you come to know what any rules state? Closet member?

 

[taxslave]

You're right, this would be unheard of. It explicitly states in my student loan agreement where the information will be held. Certainly the government could not then have made copies of my information on another device and lost it. Oh wait...that's exactly what happened.

You're not the type of fellow I would expect to be so naive about government incompetence and worse...

It is not so much government loosing data which we all know happens. With EI they often ask for more info at a later date such as proof that you are actively job hunting and not just bikini inspecting. Spending time at the local job bank works as do letters from prospective employers that there are no jobs available for your skill set. Taking upgrading programs is always a good idea too. Mostly they are looking to eliminate the chronic abusers and the scammers.

 

[Tonington]

The government losing data is just an example of something they did outside of protocols. It was an example of something that a normal person would say is wrong, much like the allegations we`re discussing here. Eliminating chronic abusers and scams is something altogether different than a quota assigned to investigators.

 

[L Gilbert]

There is a lot of EI and welfare fraud going on in Canada. I think that there was a little more to this ladies job than just harassing legitimate claimants here.... On the other hand, if all she was doing was badgering legitimate folks, then maybe she deserved to be canned.

..... But this does make you wonder if she will get on the pogie-train

That what she says, right?... It's gotta be true, 'cause she said so - in fact, she was soooo confident in her statements, she 'anonymously' leaked the info to the CBC.

Sorry mate, there's no mutiny on my ship.... String 'im up boys - maybe a touch of the cat might get him to look beyond the simplest solution

It isn't what she "says", though. Didn'tcha read this part: "Therrien leaked documents to the media anonymously in the spring showing investigators were ordered to find $485,000 in savings each year by denying claims."?
Sayso is just sayso, but if documents provide evidence showing that the sayso is actually factual, then it's just a bit more than just sayso. See? Reasonable gov't would just recommend that investigators apply more diligence to their jobs. So unless gov't said those quotas were to be met by investigators just doing their jobs as they normally would, gov't is being unreasonable.

 

[relic]

Oh but wait,they weren't quotas,they were targets,big difference.christ!

 

[taxslave]

The government losing data is just an example of something they did outside of protocols. It was an example of something that a normal person would say is wrong, much like the allegations we`re discussing here. Eliminating chronic abusers and scams is something altogether different than a quota assigned to investigators.

Irrelevant. They cannot arbitrarily cut someone off EI just because they have a quota. There have to be valid reasons such as filing a false report. There are rules and an appeal process.

 

[lone wolf]

You have way too much faith in the integrity of government services. They're above the law and they'll break you to prove it. That's experience talking.

 

[taxslave]

You have way too much faith in the integrity of government services. They're above the law and they'll break you to prove it. That's experience talking.

Not really. I have fought with EI before and won. It can take time though which is what they bank on.

 

[lone wolf]

When you're struggling to survive and construction season is still a couple of months away, that time is all it takes....

 

[captain morgan]

Still pimping....

Only pimping you Cliffy... You're my #1 wh*re

It isn't what she "says", though. Didn'tcha read this part: "Therrien leaked documents to the media anonymously in the spring showing investigators were ordered to find $485,000 in savings each year by denying claims."?
Sayso is just sayso, but if documents provide evidence showing that the sayso is actually factual, then it's just a bit more than just sayso. See? Reasonable gov't would just recommend that investigators apply more diligence to their jobs. So unless gov't said those quotas were to be met by investigators just doing their jobs as they normally would, gov't is being unreasonable.

The difference here is that she omitted an interesting piece of information that CBC was also quick to omit as well in the title of the article... Even Mulcair caught the nuance: "Telling investigators that they each had to find half a million in fraud presumes that there is widespread fraud, that they're all a bunch of cheaters and criminals".

I think that we all know that there is serious fraud in the system, all teh way from working under the table, to collecting the EI payments whilst hanging out in Florida

So, it would seem that the target here is fraud - too bad that the Minsitry of Truth and Therrien accidentally forgot to focus on that tidbit

 

[lone wolf]

Do they actually go out in the field and investigate?

 

[captain morgan]

Couldn't tell you

 

[Tonington]

So, it would seem that the target here is fraud - too bad that the Minsitry of Truth and Therrien accidentally forgot to focus on that tidbit

They didn't omit it and neither did Therrien, it's in the very first sentence of the article:

A federal fraud investigator has been suspended without pay, after she leaked documents showing that investigators had to cut people off their employment insurance benefits in order to meet quotas.

In fact you don't even know with certainty that Mulcair was accurate in describing the quota as pertaining specifically to fraud. I've read government documents that are pretty vague. Maybe they meant it to only apply to fraud. That doesn't mean that's what is going to happen if it's not explicit in their role profile or in the prepared documents.

 

[L Gilbert]

The difference here is that she omitted an interesting piece of information that CBC was also quick to omit as well in the title of the article... Even Mulcair caught the nuance: "Telling investigators that they each had to find half a million in fraud presumes that there is widespread fraud, that they're all a bunch of cheaters and criminals".

I think that we all know that there is serious fraud in the system, all teh way from working under the table, to collecting the EI payments whilst hanging out in Florida

So, it would seem that the target here is fraud - too bad that the Minsitry of Truth and Therrien accidentally forgot to focus on that tidbit

Oh, I have no problem seeing the fraud part. But as seeking out the fraud is the investigators' jobs to begin with, why the pressure putting a minimum limit on investigating? Wouldn't it be possible that that might just pressure investigators to start denying claims on the slightest of reasons or maybe even making up reasons?
Hell's bells, I hear stories about EI investigators investigating where there's no reason to investigate already and yet the gov't wants more investigating done? It just seems to me that along with some decent ways of cutting costs, it's also adding unreasonable ways of cutting costs.

 

[captain morgan]

They didn't omit it and neither did Therrien, it's in the very first sentence of the article:

A federal fraud investigator has been suspended without pay, after she leaked documents showing that investigators had to cut people off their employment insurance benefits in order to meet quotas.

In fact you don't even know with certainty that Mulcair was accurate in describing the quota as pertaining specifically to fraud. I've read government documents that are pretty vague. Maybe they meant it to only apply to fraud. That doesn't mean that's what is going to happen if it's not explicit in their role profile or in the prepared documents.

So, what's the problem then?

If she's feeling guilty about things that's her problem. Maybe she's sh*tty at the job and is lashing out.

This 'news item' is a non-issue, unless the CBC wants to do some kind of expose on how moron employees voluntarily disregard their employment contracts by releasing sensitive documents to the public and then wonder why there are ramifications

Oh, I have no problem seeing the fraud part. But as seeking out the fraud is the investigators' jobs to begin with, why the pressure putting a minimum limit on investigating?

I'll wager that there are strong historical data sets that strongly suggest that there will be a certain percentage that will be fraudulent... Same for the insurance industry, WCB and welfare.

I'm guessing that the Feds are making it clear that they are cracking down on the abusers. For some reason, Therrien has her panties in a bunch over this and made a dumb decision to release internal documents to the public

Wouldn't it be possible that that might just pressure investigators to start denying claims on the slightest of reasons or maybe even making up reasons?

Anything is possible

Hell's bells, I hear stories about EI investigators investigating where there's no reason to investigate already and yet the gov't wants more investigating done? It just seems to me that along with some decent ways of cutting costs, it's also adding unreasonable ways of cutting costs.

I don't disagree, but it won't help a thing by questioning the boss when they have a bee in their bonnet for whatever reason