qualify for EI in 15 days?

a quebec MP is proposing that the number of hours needed for EI should be lowered to just 360. That could technically be done in 15 days working 24 hours.

Damn, that sure sounds like a good way to bankrupt the country eh?

http://www.winnipegsun.com/comment/columnists/brian_lilley/2010/09/23/15458086.html

The EI system should be set up such that if you work 30 hours the max payout is 30 hours. There should be a maximum payout per year (no work a month, claim a month, work a month, claim a month...).

The EI system should also be set up such that you pay a premium based upon what you earn, and the payout on a claim = normalish salary. Or "elect" the value of your premium...

Heh...“the 45-day work year” would add $2.4 BILLION to EI costs...but what the hell...it's only our money.

Deank wrote:a quebec MP is proposing that the number of hours needed for EI should be lowered to just 360. That could technically be done in 15 days working 24 hours.

Damn, that sure sounds like a good way to bankrupt the country eh?

I think this guy got in totally wrong, sounds like he wants to reward people who are not able to hold a job - should not be less than 65 working days. What needs fixing is at the the tail end, where workers who may have contributed for decades get cut off after a few months of benefits.

What needs to be done as well is that ALL the EI premiums should go into an account that is just used for EI. none of this borrowing to pay off debt and deficit and crap.

before the latest crisis employees and employers had paid in about 65 Billion more then what was taken out of the system. But instead of putting it away for a raining day the government kept taking the money.

65 BILLION makes 3.25 BILLION per year at a mere 5% growth rate.



Can you imagine us doing that, and then in another 20 years the fund being in the 200 BILLION dollar range? We would never have to pay EI again, as the system would support itself.

They should do away with EI completely.

Let the employee buy their own insurance and keep the Federal government out of the welfare business.

dunno about that. if they dont have insurance like that...they end up on welfare.

yup

Deank wrote:What needs to be done as well is that ALL the EI premiums should go into an account that is just used for EI. none of this borrowing to pay off debt and deficit and crap.

before the latest crisis employees and employers had paid in about 65 Billion more then what was taken out of the system. But instead of putting it away for a raining day the government kept taking the money.

65 BILLION makes 3.25 BILLION per year at a mere 5% growth rate.



Can you imagine us doing that, and then in another 20 years the fund being in the 200 BILLION dollar range? We would never have to pay EI again, as the system would support itself.

Agree incredibly strongly with this statements, as well as the one from EvilTroll regarding changes for workers who have paid into the system for decades and yet recieve the same benefits as those who have paid in the minimum amounts required to collect.

As far as JTF's comments, that's just absurd. Not the type of society I'd like to see where if your employer refuses to provide it, or you can't afford it your basically homeless. Not to mention the power employers could then hold over employees knowing they could do incredible financial harm to them if they so choose. Sounds like an awesome step back towards serfdom.

What's needed is some common sense in running the program, not a complete overhaul.

Talk about jumping to conclusions!!

Think the matter through thoroughly before making such absurd statements.

JTF wrote:They should do away with EI completely.

Let the employee buy their own insurance and keep the Federal government out of the welfare business.

I'm not for welfare, and the government supporting people randomly...but I do agree with EI (or UI where I come from).

In NJ though...(I don't know the rules here)...you can't quit your job and collect UI...you have to be fired, laid off, or the company has to go out of business. You also have to have worked at least 6 months for the company at more than 30 hours per week. (to clarify though, those were the rules 8 years ago...they may have changed since then).

In order to keep collecting, you have to be "ready & actively seeking employment", so whenever you fill an application or submit a resume, you have to fill out a form indicating to where you applied, including a phone number of the company. This way the UI department can call the company to verify if the application was received.

You were also cut off after 1 year (though the governor changed it to 18 months shortly after I moved here) at which time your UI benefits run out. Plus...you're only collecting 90% of what you were making at your previous job.

If someone loses their job (not quits), their should be a "safety net" to help people from actually dropping into the welfare system. Something to help them pay bills while they find new employment.

I even agree with helping someone reeducate to a new career choice, especially one of high-demand, or that may provide a better pay scale than the one they left.

I don't know what the procedures/policies are here for EI...but some of the NJ things should certainly apply. Being cutoff is one of the key factors, as the longer someone stays on a "system", the harder it is to get them off and into a working environment.

Dean. That's what EI was all about when it was started. lol

EI is nothing more than Federal welfare.

Bullshit. Not when people are paying premiums specifically for that reason.

As DeanK implied the premiums paid can create a self funding program. How is that welfare?

JTF wrote:Talk about jumping to conclusions!!

Think the matter through thoroughly before making such absurd statements.

I'd say the same to you. As Dean mentioned above, what happens if you can't pay or your employer won't provide coverage? Basically, your f''ed for lack of a better word. It would be a very similar situation to the millions who can't afford, or who's employers refuse to provide medical insurance south of the border. Basically, if they get sick they're f'ed. With no EI system, your employer decides to lay off or downsize for whatever reason and your on your own if they didn't provide you with insurance or you couldn't afford it. That sounds awesome for the average joe blow, and would do wonders for the economy in times of recesion. I wonder how many years it would take to recover from something like that? Hmmmm....come to think about it wasn't their no EI during the Great Depression? Gee that only took 10 years to recover from, owing it's recovery mostly to a WAR that broke out. Sounds awesome.

grumpy old man wrote:As DeanK implied the premiums paid can create a self funding program. How is that welfare?

Exactly. Had the EI fund not been raided for generations, there would be no (or very little) need for any new EI premiums to be paid.

What has EI become in Newfieland, if it isn't Federal welfare?

EI is exactly Federal welfare...only with a more gentility in the name.

It'd be much better if those fisherman just stopped fishing and all took up year long employment. Who needs seafood anyways right? Same with seasonal construction workers, not like we need anyone to fix our infrastructure. F' them too if they can't survive the 6 months of winter we have in this climate on the wages they earned over the summer.

Um...excuse me, but did everyone forget that the EMPLOYER pays 1.4 times what the employee does, so its really not just an insurance program. Nobody helps me pay for my house or life insurance.

I collected EI (maternity leave) for 1 year. So I guess I was on welfare? Pffftt...give me a break. I worked FT for 14 years and paid alot into EI.

grumpyrom wrote:It'd be much better if those fisherman just stopped fishing and all took up year long employment. Who needs seafood anyways right? Same with seasonal construction workers, not like we need anyone to fix our infrastructure. F' them too if they can't survive the 6 months of winter we have in this climate on the wages they earned over the summer.

I think that just supports JTF's statement about it being a form of welfare.

I thought that it was lower then 1.4 now?

I have no problem with it being insurance, but that means that whoever receives the benefit pays the premiums.

...and its insurance, not an entitlement. I've paid for fire insurance on my house for 30+ years, but I get nothing back unless it burns down, thats the nature of insurance.


BTW, I did collect EI years ago when I was between jobs.

Deank wrote:I thought that it was lower then 1.4 now?

There are ways to reduce the contribution based on what other benefits may be provided in the way of a short term disability plan. Bascially, if your employer provides an STD (clean it up, you know what I mean) in the form of paid sick leave for shorter term illness or injury, then the employer premium can be reduced. It's an individual business decision, and in our case, it would be quite expensive to offer the benefit vs the reduction in premiums.