Stricter employment insurance rules start

[NAB]

Stricter employment insurance rules start today

OTTAWA - Ottawa is forging ahead with contentious changes to employment insurance, announcing an implementation date of Jan. 6, despite heated opposition from unions and politicians from eastern Canada.

Starting in the new year, people on EI will face stricter, more complex rules for keeping their benefits, with the goal of getting unemployed workers back into the workforce sooner.

As Human Resources Minister Diane Finley initially announced last May, new regulations will encourage unemployed workers to take available jobs fairly close to home, even if they pay a bit less than their previous work.

"The regulatory process is complete now, so it's time to move forward and bring it into effect," Finley said in an interview.

"They're going to see a lot more in the way of support in helping them finding a new job. they're going to receiving more job alerts, and they're going to have access to supports in that regard. I think that's a huge improvement than what's in the past."

Finley spelled out the details on Thursday.

As always, EI claimants need to be engaged in a "reasonable job search" to find "suitable employment," but now, those terms have been defined more concisely.

Starting in January, a reasonable job search includes research job opportunities, preparing a resume, registering for job banks, attending job fairs, applying for jobs, and undergoing competency evaluations.

"Suitable employment" will be determined by:

— Personal circumstances, such as health, physical capability to perform work, family obligations, transportation options;

— Whether commuting time is within one hour of home, or perhaps more depending a claimant's previous commuting history and the average commuting time in the community;

— Whether the hours of the new job are compatible with the claimant's life;

— Whether the position in question is simply available because of a labour dispute;

— A person's qualifications and wages.

Eligibility will also be determined by whether a claimant is considered a long-tenured worker, a frequent claimant or occasional claimant.

"It's all going to be based on personal circumstances," Finley said.

"What was the individual's previous work pattern? How long was their previous commute? What kind of hours did they work? Day shift or night shift? Will they be incurring additional expenses for a new job such as travel or child care?"

At the same time, the government will be sending each claimant more labour market information — job postings and other information about the local job market. Plus, the government has pledged to strengthen the links between EI and the temporary foreign worker program, to make sure foreigners aren't being brought in to take jobs that Canadians need.

But unions and opposition MPs say the federal government is hurting seasonal workers and easterners, and will force people to take low-paying jobs.

"For workers in the Atlantic provinces, these reforms are catastrophic," said Wayne Lucas, Newfoundland and Labrador president for the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

"Their impact will be hardest on the thousands of workers in seasonal industries such as fishing, forestry, construction and tourism, including a high proportion of women."

Finley said she has listened to the concerns of seasonal workers.

"The opposition has portrayed the new guidelines as very regimental and without any flexibility. and that's absolutely not the case. It's all about common sense, and making sure the person is better off working than not."

[Merry]

I don't know a lot about these new changes, but some of the things I've heard are raising a few "red flags" in my mind.

For example, there's been a lot of talk about forcing people to take jobs that are within an hour's commuting time. Well, for those folks living in rural areas, an hour's commuting time in winter can be over some dreadful terrain. I can think of places where I wouldn't want to venture out of town at all in the wintertime, much less travel for an hour over icy roads to get to work. Many northern communities can be completely cut off in winter. Will people who live in such areas be forced to either risk their lives or face being denied benefits?

The other factor to consider is the price of gas relative to the amount the person is likely to earn. A minimum wage worker being forced to commute an hour each way every day in an area where there is no public transportation, could wind up with not enough money left to live on

Another part of the new rules that bothers me is the requirement to attend job fairs. The majority of such fairs are aimed at showcasing various careers to young people just starting out in the workforce. As such, they would rarely be of benefit to an older worker, yet it appears the government is now going to force unemployed older workers to attend these things. Given the cost of transportation to attend (many living in a small community would have to drive at least half an hour to the nearest large centre) is it a good idea to force people to go knowing such things are of limited value?

And of course, as with all rules, someone has to be appointed to make sure they're followed. In recent years a whole industry has grown up around ensuring unemployed folks are not abusing the system. But rather than saving money, I would argue that fees paid to those in this privately run "oversight" industry have only added to the overall cost of delivering the EI program.

[SurplusElect]

I


Another part of the new rules that bothers me is the requirement to attend job fairs. The majority of such fairs are aimed at showcasing various careers to young people just starting out in the workforce. As such, they would rarely be of benefit to an older worker, yet it appears the government is now going to force unemployed older workers to attend these things. Given the cost of transportation to attend (many living in a small community would have to drive at least half an hour to the nearest large centre) is it a good idea to force people to go knowing such things are of limited value?

This is like ICBC saying "You were t-boned and your car is a write off. We can give you a check to cover the damages to buy a new car but you must look over all used car classified ads and find a "good deal" so we dont have to pay out as much and you must be willing to accept 30% less value for your car."

EI is the reason I went into business for myself. I made a low wage, was laid off and my "insurance" gave me less money than someone on welfare makes and I was homeless in 3 weeks - and if I took a part time job that money was deducted from my EI. I paid into it for years and years and ended up homeless.

[Veovis]

The amount of people businesses see who are on EI and maintaining it by coming in for interviews (with the plan to blow it so they maintain not working.) is pretty bad. It's not just abuse but the EI system as it is does not encourage anyone to "try to get work" or "desire to be employed"...making it an pain to be on EI isn't a bad thing.

And seasonal workers that are off work for 4 month a year but still make 120,000 shouldn't need EI either, they need a monthly budget for their annual income, they just make it in a different way. (instead of every weekend off they get 3 months off then lots of work)

I don't see these changes as a bad thing.

[Merry]

The amount of people businesses see who are on EI and maintaining it by coming in for interviews (with the plan to blow it so they maintain not working.) is pretty bad. It's not just abuse but the EI system as it is does not encourage anyone to "try to get work" or "desire to be employed"...making it an pain to be on EI isn't a bad thing.

And seasonal workers that are off work for 4 month a year but still make 120,000 shouldn't need EI either, they need a monthly budget for their annual income, they just make it in a different way. (instead of every weekend off they get 3 months off then lots of work)

I don't see these changes as a bad thing.

While there may be SOME seasonal workers who make the kind of wage you refer to, it's hardly typical. I know of a seasonal worker (school secretary in another province) who only makes about $26,000 a year, gets laid off 2 weeks at Christmas, 1 week for spring break, and 6 weeks every summer. This saves the school board a lot of money, but puts the workers in a bit of a tight financial spot. Until now they've been able to claim EI for at least part of the time they are laid off, but under the new rules I doubt that will still apply. If all these workers are able to find new jobs, I have to wonder who will run the administrative side of our schools?

[Veovis]

There are many many worker that make that wage on the oil patch and were often claiming EI. Far more than there are school secretaries that want more paid vacation. No offence she makes 26K a year and you feel it's wrong that she is not getting paid to not be at work at christmas and the summer. At full time employment that would be 12.50 an hour and though not a good wage, by your words she takes Christmas holidays and the summer off that means her rate is likely much higher per hour of actual work. Why not get a summer job? You have 3 months. Why should it be free summer time paid for by EI? I can't ask for the summer off and get EI and nor should I.

Why do I also get the feeling she took that job after her kids got old enough and she wanted to be out of the house for a little bit?

The EI and welfare systems have always done nothing other than encourage people to stay at home and play the victim instead of getting people off there butts and trying to support themselves.

[ford150]

The EI and welfare systems have always done nothing other than encourage people to stay at home and play the victim instead of getting people off there butts and trying to support themselves.

And what makes you the EI expert?
I lost my job at one point when the company shut down. Employment Insurance kept my kids fed until I was able to find another job. That is what it is for and it is not voluntary. the comments above are mean and ignorant.

[Veovis]

And what makes you the EI expert?
I lost my job at one point when the company shut down. Employment Insurance kept my kids fed until I was able to find another job. That is what it is for and it is not voluntary. the comments above are mean and ignorant.

And I applaud you for that, that is exactly what it is for. (well and short term illness, maternity leave, pat leave etc) but it's purpose is to assist someone until they can get going again and that's what you used it for. Far to many do not. (we've also had far to many that came and obviously blew the interview on purpose, only to have EI call about a follow up a couple months later. Far to often they make a show for EI but have no plans to actually get employment)

I've also used it for it's intended purpose in the past as well. I also took jobs some people would deem "beneath them" because I'd rather have a job subsidized by EI than sit on my butt at home.

[twobits]

I know of a seasonal worker (school secretary in another province) who only makes about $26,000 a year, gets laid off 2 weeks at Christmas, 1 week for spring break, and 6 weeks every summer. This saves the school board a lot of money, but puts the workers in a bit of a tight financial spot. Until now they've been able to claim EI for at least part of the time they are laid off, but under the new rules I doubt that will still apply. If all these workers are able to find new jobs, I have to wonder who will run the administrative side of our schools?

I would wager that there are thousands of moms with kids in school that would love to have a dream job like that. Decent wage for hours worked, union perks of medical and pension, paid sick leave etc and always have time off when the kids are on school breaks. If she quit her job, there would be hundreds of applicants.

[Gone_Fishin]

Finally. Some proper rules to ensure that our tax dollars go to their intended purpose. EI tax has been long pizzed away by ineffective rules on many abusers. EI is there for those who need it for bona fide reasons, not as a paid vacation for someone who wants a few months off to get some skiing or beach time in.

[Merry]

Why do I also get the feeling she took that job after her kids got old enough and she wanted to be out of the house for a little bit?

The EI and welfare systems have always done nothing other than encourage people to stay at home and play the victim instead of getting people off there butts and trying to support themselves.

How wrong you are! She took that job shortly after graduating from college. Her first job lasted a year and then she got laid off. She was unable to find work, and wound up working as a supply secretary for the school board. She did that for about a year, before a full time vacancy came up, which she applied for and got. She would LOVE to work all year round because she needs the money, but the school board lays it's administrative staff off when school is not in session. And unfortunately, she lives in an area of high unemployment, so getting a different job is not easy.

But my point was, if every person in her situation IS successful in getting a different job (not likely, I know, but what if?), then who on earth would perform the administrative functions in our schools? Just a thought.

[Merry]

I would wager that there are thousands of moms with kids in school that would love to have a dream job like that. Decent wage for hours worked, union perks of medical and pension, paid sick leave etc and always have time off when the kids are on school breaks. If she quit her job, there would be hundreds of applicants.

Well that's as maybe, but the point is she can't AFFORD to quit her job; she needs the money. And as I stated in a different post, as she lives in an area of high unemployment finding another job is unlikely. But is it fair that when her employer lays her off due to lack of work, she is no longer entitled to claim EI like the rest of us?

[Rwede]

And unfortunately, she lives in an area of high unemployment, so getting a different job is not easy.

Yet we have to import workers to pick fruit in the summer because she and others like her won't take menial jobs, despite their need for the money. Make $10 an hour on EI, make $12 an hour to pick fruit - the choice always seems to come down to the easy way out, which costs us all more in the long run to subsidize those who get "money for nothin'."

[Analtude]

Do you guys know that EI is not just for collecting your payments every month? My spouse and I have been on EI several times in the past and we both took advantage of their 'subsidized training program'. I don't know if they're still doing it, but each recipient has approx $15,000 allocated to them for training. For example, if you feel your skill set is lacking or you want to try a different field of work you could get training and EI will pay for it. Mind you we're not talking about a College degree, but community colleges do have 'part-time' courses that can be used as a spring board. My spouse took a Digital Animation course at BCIT several years ago and got it mostly funded. We had to pay for the books and materials. You do have to go thru some 'hoop and loops' but I believe it was worth it. It's just a thought.

[cubafreak]

and now your spouse has a job doing what the training taught her/him? Just curious