There are no bad jobs, says Flaherty

[tenyardrambo]

I dont understand how the government/businesses complain about the amount of skilled workers. I know a handful of people who are early 20's and want to learn a trade but not many companies want a 'green' worker. I thought during the recession would be the best time to hire someone who is eager to learn a trade due to slower times.
Also, during the boom days people just ran to the money and not the skills, maybe when/if the economy goes nuts again people will take advantage of the work to build their skills and get the desired tickets. The more tickets you have the easier it is to find work.

[Azure]

The new rules create a sliding scale covering three categories of EI recipients in which Canadians will be expected to broaden their search the longer they remain on EI.

For “long-tenured workers,” defined as someone who received 35 or fewer weeks of regular or fishing EI over the last five years, will be allowed to restrict their job hunt to positions that pay 90 per cent of their previous earnings and are in the “same” occupation. After 18 weeks, they will be expected to accept jobs that pay 80 per cent of their previous salary in the same field.

A second category called “occasional,” defined as cases that fall between the definitions of long-tenured and frequent, can spend 18 weeks looking for a job in their “similar” occupation at 80 per cent of previous pay. After 18 weeks, those recipients will be expected to take “any work” at at least 70 per cent of earnings.

The third category is called “frequent” users, defined as someone who has made three or more regular or fishing claims and collected 60 or more weeks of benefits in the past five years. This category currently makes up 58 per cent of all EI claimants. Frequent recipients will only have six weeks to find a job in a “similar occupation” at at least 80 per cent of pay.

After that, EI claimants will be expected to take “any work that the claimant is qualified to perform (with on-the-job training, if required)” at at least 70 per cent of previous earnings.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ontent=2442261

[Tron_fdc]

This has got to be the only kind of "insurance" that doesn't penalize habitual users.

I'm with CC on this one. It's there as a safety net in the case that you can't find work for some reason. It's not there as a source of income to be enjoyed when your seasonal work ends, enabling you to take 6 months off to go skiing.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Azure

At the end of the day, someone who is 50 years old and is trying their best to find a job is someone who should be able to collect EI.

But someone is abusing the system by doing seasonal work needs to be stopped. I actually find it sickening that people are purposely abusing the welfare system, when there are 50 year workers out there that can't buy a job and need to collect EI to pay for basic necessities.

Sickening is actually a nice way of putting it.

The system seems to be designed so that people in areas where there is large amounts of unemployment, or there is only seasonal work have much better benefits. How is it abusing the system if the system is designed that way?

It sucks that some places rely on industries that are seasonal, but not everyone can live in Alberta. Should EI not count just because you live in a ####ty place? I get that people could move, but then who would do the fishing (or whatever)? Are you expecting them to move to Alberta and work on the rigs, then go back and fish when the season starts?

I don't know, maybe I am over simplifying it.

Originally Posted by Azure

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ontent=2442261

That seems fairly reasonable. Requiring someone to take a job at 70-80%% of their previous income after 6-18 weeks, isn't like forcing them to clean toilets or dig ditches if that is the only thing available. Just clarifying, that is 6-18 weeks of benefits, not of being unemployed right?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Rathji

It sucks that some places rely on industries that are seasonal, but not everyone can live in Alberta. Should EI not count just because you live in a ####ty place? I get that people could move, but then who would do the fishing (or whatever)? Are you expecting them to move to Alberta and work on the rigs, then go back and fish when the season starts?

I don't know, maybe I am over simplifying it.

We have employees who do. Some of them work the winters in Alberta and go home to farm/fish/whatever. Funny thing is though that a lot of them will ask if they can be laid off before they go home. We won't lay them off, but they always seem shocked when we say no.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by Azure

The third category is called “frequent” users, defined as someone who has made three or more regular or fishing claims and collected 60 or more weeks of benefits in the past five years. This category currently makes up 58 per cent of all EI claimants. Frequent recipients will only have six weeks to find a job in a “similar occupation” at at least 80 per cent of pay.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ontent=2442261

58% of current EI claimants have collected more than 60 weeks in the last 5 years? Aka, in the last 5 years they've spent less then 4 years working?

Yup, these reforms seem downright reasonable. Even the sliding 90-80-70% of previous earnings seems more than fair as well. I don't buy the fear mongering "experienced engineers are going to be forced to work at Tim Horton's" argument either.

It sounds like reasonably if you've paid into the system for years you'll have 4-4.5 months to find a job that pays 90% of your previous earnings... that actually does give you the option of being a little picky. While nobody wants a paycut I'd say most reasonable people & employers would not consider a gap of 10% +/- in salary negotiations to be a deal breaker.

[Slava]

Does anyone know if the premiums are reducing to coincide with this reduction in benefits/savings?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Slava

Does anyone know if the premiums are reducing to coincide with this reduction in benefits/savings?

hahahahahaha.

hahahahahaha.

hahahahahaha.

Sorry, wait, was that a serious question?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rathji

hahahahahaha.

hahahahahaha.

hahahahahaha.

Sorry, wait, was that a serious question?

Well I guess I'm just tired of all these areas where the taxpayer pays more and more and the services are reduced but there is no benefit back. I know, its silly. I just figured that if the government is saving some coin here they should pass that along!

[Nufy]

Originally Posted by fotze

Does EI actually pay you 90% of your earnings? I thought it was capped at a maximum?

More like 55% I think...capped at a certain amount.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by fotze

Does EI actually pay you 90% of your earnings? I thought it was capped at a maximum?

No, EI does not pay 90% of your earnings. What the new rules say is that if you rarely collect EI (35 or fewer weeks over a five year period), then you're allowed to turn down work but still collect EI if the job offer is less than 90% of your previous salary. After a certain amount of time, you have to lower your standards and accept a reduced salary or give up your right to EI payments.

[burn_this_city]

$478/week is the maximum.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Itse

O&G make insane profits. If with all that money they are unable to get people to work for them, they are either idiots or not really trying. What ever the reason is that people are not coming to them, they could afford to fix it if they liked, and still make insane profits.

This. There is a difference between a shortage of skilled/educated workers, and a shortage of unskilled workers. For the latter, if the wage and benefits are high enough, you *will* attract enough workers. When companies say "we can't get enough workers in these crappy manual labour jobs!" what they are really saying is "we don't want to pay enough to make these jobs sufficiently attractive in the job market to draw people away from other alternatives."

Which is fine, just don't complain about it when that's the decision you make. That's how capitalism is supposed to work, where there is a shortage, prices go up, but it's amazing how many corporations and people think that should apply only when the shortage is in their favour.

[Wormius]

Seems like this is a windfall for employers. Start seeking out candidates who are on EI and expected to take a 10-30% paycut depending on how long the job searcher has been looking.

Are they going to start looking for EI recipients that have specifically been out of work for x weeks?

How can they legislate this though? Would a person need to request a formal rejection / acceptance letter for every job they apply to? Applications vs first / second round interviews. Seems like a beaurocracy make work program.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by fotze

Does EI actually pay you 90% of your earnings? I thought it was capped at a maximum?

Nope, WCB does though I beleive.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Seems like this is a windfall for employers. Start seeking out candidates who are on EI and expected to take a 10-30% paycut depending on how long the job searcher has been looking.

Are they going to start looking for EI recipients that have specifically been out of work for x weeks?

That seems like a bit of a stretch, I don't know of anyone who puts "IE recipient since X" on their resume. While an employer maybe to able to read between the lines and piece together part of the story (EG: Laid off X weeks ago) they'll still only have an employees resume to go on.

So unless their going to add another layer of complication to their hiring process I don't see many instructing their HR people to double check how the work history lines up with EI rules & only interviewing those candidates because "we can get them on the cheap"

I'm not saying it wouldn't happen at all, but I don't think it would be a "windfall" for employers to further complicate their hiring/interview process. We're talking about a world where resumes are just quickly scanned and a yes/no decision is made in the first 30 seconds.

[yads]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Seems like this is a windfall for employers. Start seeking out candidates who are on EI and expected to take a 10-30% paycut depending on how long the job searcher has been looking.

Are they going to start looking for EI recipients that have specifically been out of work for x weeks?

How can they legislate this though? Would a person need to request a formal rejection / acceptance letter for every job they apply to? Applications vs first / second round interviews. Seems like a beaurocracy make work program.

Seems like a good way to get an employee who will bolt the first chance they get. Besides how would they know how much a person was making in their last job?

[CaptainCrunch]

I think if you go on EI on a habitual basis that the government should be allowed to put you to work for two or three hours a day doing the really unpleasant jobs that no one wants to do.

Say scrubbing camp toilets in banff, doing anal inspections of cows, being underarm sniffers in government labs, corpse collection at forensic farms rubing old lady bunions at government retirement homes. As long as they do these jobs they can collect EI for the rest of their period of unemployment, but they get no sick leave, and if they don't show up for work their EI is cut off.

Its win win. The government finds someone to do really terrible jobs. The receipiant becomes really motivated to find another job.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I guess I'm just tired of all these areas where the taxpayer pays more and more and the services are reduced but there is no benefit back. I know, its silly. I just figured that if the government is saving some coin here they should pass that along!

I wish they would make EI optional. I don't want to pay premiums or receive EI cheques if I lose my job. I can put money away into a rainy day fund myself.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Fire

I wish they would make EI optional. I don't want to pay premiums or receive EI cheques if I lose my job. I can put money away into a rainy day fund myself.

Alot of people can't, whether for valid reasons or not. It's a necessary tax benefit we will have to live with no matter how stringent it gets.