There are no bad jobs, says Flaherty

[Wormius]

If EI is then something (for people abusing it) should they then just be exempt from ever paying into it again, knowing that they won't be able to benefit?

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Wormius

If EI is then something (for people abusing it) should they then just be exempt from ever paying into it again, knowing that they won't be able to benefit?

I'd rather the increase the premiums for seasonal employees who know their jobs are ending when the snow flies and make yearly claims. If no claim is made for a calendar year, premiums should reflect that as well.

If someone is getting $485/week Even at 14 weeks that's close to 7k. When the maximum amount of premiums paid by any canadian is only $839.97 for 2012, that's equivalent to collecting 8 full time employee contributions to the EI pool who may have never had to claim EI.

Hopefully that makes sense.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

I'd rather the increase the premiums for seasonal employees who know their jobs are ending when the snow flies and make yearly claims. If no claim is made for a calendar year, premiums should reflect that as well.

If someone is getting $485/week Even at 14 weeks that's close to 7k. When the maximum amount of premiums paid by any canadian is only $839.97 for 2012, that's equivalent to collecting 8 full time employee contributions to the EI pool who may have never had to claim EI.

Hopefully that makes sense.

That's actually a really great idea. When I was young I worked for a paving crew and they knew they were getting laid off the first time the temperature drops, and these guys idea of looking for a job in the winter was taking a swig out of a bottle of beer and taking a look out the window.

I like the idea that if you work overtime during the season that the overtime is banked and not paid on those paychecks and you can't collect UI until that banked time is depleted in the form of regular paychecks.

So if you work 80 hours a week for 16 weeks its equivalent to 40 hours a week for 32 weeks and you can't collect UI until that last paycheck is cashed at the end of week 32.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I like the idea that if you work overtime during the season that the overtime is banked and not paid on those paychecks and you can't collect UI until that banked time is depleted in the form of regular paychecks.

So if you work 80 hours a week for 16 weeks its equivalent to 40 hours a week for 32 weeks and you can't collect UI until that last paycheck is cashed at the end of week 32.

That sounds like a good idea but it gives a disincentive to working overtime. If I was working as a seasonal worker I'd be really inclined to not work overtime knowing that it would cut into my EI down the line.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Reaper

That sounds like a good idea but it gives a disincentive to working overtime. If I was working as a seasonal worker I'd be really inclined to not work overtime knowing that it would cut into my EI down the line.

They would make more money by working them overtime and having it stretch out then going on EI premiums that are a percentage of their average wage.

It would also be key for employers to lay out that overtime in that chosen field is required and if you don't want to work it then you can't be employed by X company.

I would be onboard with highly increased premiums for people that choose to work in seasonal industries and combine it with a reduced percentage on payout.

I would also want to put a limit on the number of times that someone can go on EI in a set time period.

If you go on pogey 3 times in three years then you can't collect for 5 years.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

If someone is getting $485/week Even at 14 weeks that's close to 7k. When the maximum amount of premiums paid by any canadian is only $839.97 for 2012, .

Not to nit pick, but as a employer, I pay 1.4X the amount the employee does, so for each employee who earns over ~45k a year ~2,000 is remitted to EI.

And the amount of people looking to scam EI annoys the piss outta me. I've gone as far to bring on people who wanna be paid in cash and on payday show up with their cash but still tell em I need their SS number for reporting to the government...

As far as I am concerned what they should do, is if you are caught filing a false EI claim, you are permanently barred from ever collecting EI again in your life, but you still are required to pay into it. Not as harsh as prison time but still quite the disincentive

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Wormius

That should be taken with a grain of salt. There are a lot of unscrupulous employers who would love to take advantage of being able to bring in somebody for minimum wage than paying somebody an adequate salary. How can you even tell though if foreign workers are being brought in to fill positions that EI recipients don't want? Is there a correlation between skill set and the workers being brought in? Are there some numbers showing what jobs EI recipients applied for or not?

I know that when we were considering hiring a nanny, the person who was running this organization said - put an ad in the paper and some stuff and pretend to interview a few people, then you can get a apply to allow a foreign worker to come and fil the position and pay them minimum wage (or less as the guy was suggesting).

That isn't quite true for the TFW part - that organization if caught doing that would lose their ability to recruit from abroad. There are certain rates you need to pay (around market rate as determined by region, job class, etc - you need the specific wage approved by the gov't) and you need to track how much / how many applicants you get and do it through the job bank website. You will be denied if they do any investigation and find fraud.

In particular there are still massive skill shortages with trades - get your pipe fitting or welding certificate and you're golden.

[Itse]

Putting pressure on people working cheap tends to be counterproductive in the long run. Cheap labour has a bad effect on companies interests to become more efficient. Also, trying to force people into doing what they don't want is usually a waste of resources. There is plenty of historical evidence on both.

The excuse of clamping down on abusers often ends up being a step in reducing everybodys rights.

If there would be genuine interest in filling those crappy jobs, maybe the companies should pay people more so they'll take do it. From this angle the companie will eventually work on getting rid of jobs that are getting expensive to fill. Most commonly this leads to use of new technology, better division of labour or something else that's generally beneficial for everyone.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

That isn't quite true for the TFW part - that organization if caught doing that would lose their ability to recruit from abroad. There are certain rates you need to pay (around market rate as determined by region, job class, etc - you need the specific wage approved by the gov't) and you need to track how much / how many applicants you get and do it through the job bank website. You will be denied if they do any investigation and find fraud.

In particular there are still massive skill shortages with trades - get your pipe fitting or welding certificate and you're golden.

I am not sure if this particular organization is still in business or not, but they basically instructed us to put some ads in papers looking for a nanny, interview some local candidates and then disqualify them for various reasons so they could have one of the people they represent in China brought over. They suggested just pay them whatever you want, they are just want to be able to immigrate later on.

I don't know if this is prevalent in any other industries though. I know in the business that I work in, people's salaries are not the main drain on money.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Itse

If there would be genuine interest in filling those crappy jobs, maybe the companies should pay people more so they'll take do it.

That rather simple aspect seems to be getting ignored. If people won't do a job for what you are offering, you aren't offering enough. It's not some sort of inherent modern laziness, as the implication seems to be.

If I want someone to clean my toilet for a nickel and can't find anyone to do it, whose fault is that?

Especially when it comes to this fruit farmer in BC whining that kids today won't do his grunt work for the traditional pittance he's paid in the past.

Well dummy, pay more, and they'll come running.

[Azure]

Wait, you're saying that oil companies aren't paying enough, and that is why they have a labor shortage?

[RougeUnderoos]

No.

I'm talking about the farmer in BC, so that's why I mentioned him. And the other stories about how they can't get people to work other crappy jobs in fish gutting factories.

As for the oil business, maybe it isn't the paradise on earth we all think it is? You couldn't pay me enough.

[Azure]

Except there is no labor shortage in the farming industry, and certainly no labor shortage in the fish gutting industry.

There is a labor shortage in the energy industry though, and the fact is that Canada has unemployment of 7.3%, which by all accounts is a bit high, and a labor shortage at the same time.

So obviously your point about not offering enough doesn't really apply. Obviously people won't work for pennies, which is understandable, but there is an apparent problem with the modern day Canadian or even American not willing to do dirty, physical work anymore. There is a reason the US couldn't function without the illegals, and there is a reason Canada is increasingly looking towards immigration to fill job positions.

As for the oil business not being a paradise, nobody ever said that. But it is better than EI.

[CaramonLS]

^ ^ Actually a lot of companies bring in seasonal workers to farm - especially when it is harvest season.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Except there is no labor shortage in the farming industry, and certainly no labor shortage in the fish gutting industry.

There is a labor shortage in the energy industry though, and the fact is that Canada has unemployment of 7.3%, which by all accounts is a bit high, and a labor shortage at the same time.

So obviously your point about not offering enough doesn't really apply. Obviously people won't work for pennies, which is understandable, but there is an apparent problem with the modern day Canadian or even American not willing to do dirty, physical work anymore. There is a reason the US couldn't function without the illegals, and there is a reason Canada is increasingly looking towards immigration to fill job positions.

As for the oil business not being a paradise, nobody ever said that. But it is better than EI.

I'm pretty sure the point about "you have to pay people decently if you want them to do your crappy job" still applies, despite that deft dismissal.

If you want the locals to do something, you have to pay for it. If the job isn't attractive to Canadians, it's because it doesn't pay and because it sucks.

Sure, people are less inclined to do sweaty, physical work. That's because sweaty, physical work is sweaty, physical work, and people would rather use their brain instead of their back to make a living. Who can blame 'em? I can't, because I'm the same way.

And the theory "we have to have illegals do jobs because we are not interested" is partly true, but don't forget the "we hire illegals instead of Americans, because we can exploit them and they won't tell anyone" angle.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

^ ^ Actually a lot of companies bring in seasonal workers to farm - especially when it is harvest season.

I know a few farmers that do that, and the only reason they have a job shortage is because like Rouge said, they tend to treat workers like crap and never pay them enough while the company turns a tidy profit every year.

Hardly the job shortage that the oil patch has though.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm pretty sure the point about "you have to pay people decently if you want them to do your crappy job" still applies, despite that deft dismissal.

Obviously it still applies. Still applies to the oil patch too, who has no choice but to pay very well if they want workers. They do, but still lack workers.

Sure, people are less inclined to do sweaty, physical work. That's because sweaty, physical work is sweaty, physical work, and people would rather use their brain instead of their back to make a living. Who can blame 'em? I can't, because I'm the same way.

And I say too frickin' bad. People shouldn't be able to collect EI simply because they don't want to do sweaty, physical work. If they wanted to work with their brain, they ought to have gotten a good education so they can get the nice, comfortable office job at The Bow pulling in 6 figures while still being able to go home to the kids every night, instead of having to put in 12 hour shifts in some of the dirtiest working conditions in Alberta.

Life isn't handed to you on a silver platter, and people shouldn't be allowed to life off of government welfare, or in more direct terms, the taxpayer just because they don't want to do some physical work.

And the theory "we have to have illegals do jobs because we are not interested" is partly true, but don't forget the "we hire illegals instead of Americans, because we can exploit them and they won't tell anyone" angle.

That is the right illegals give up by being illegal. Still doesn't change the fact that there is a huge demand for 'dirty' workers, and the illegals are filling those spots because Americans don't want to do that work.

There was an article recently about workers returning to Mexico because of the poor state of the American economy. Not surprising, but it just goes to show that the only reason they're in the US is because they seek work to provide for their family. Anyone of them would give their left nut to be able to make $30/h with minimal training. And yet we Canadians just merrily go along leeching off of government welfare because we're too wussy to do some physical work.

And the physical labor that Canadians don't want to do isn't all in the oil patch. I know many friends in Calgary that run construction businesses and are having a tough time finding good workers because the modern day Canadian simply doesn't want to do physical work anymore.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Azure

Except there is no labor shortage in the farming industry, and certainly no labor shortage in the fish gutting industry.

There is a labor shortage in the energy industry though, and the fact is that Canada has unemployment of 7.3%, which by all accounts is a bit high, and a labor shortage at the same time.

...there is an apparent problem with the modern day Canadian or even American not willing to do dirty, physical work anymore.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your argument.

What I'm getting is this:

"There is no work shortage in hard physical work industry A and hard physical work industry B, but there is a shortage in industry C, which tells you that people just don't want to do hard physical work."

That makes no sense.

Generally speaking, there is a major disconnection with the whole line of thinking.

"There is a shortage of labour in industry X.
People don't want to do hard work anymore."

That is not logic, that is an empty claim which might be true or not.

Since people and jobs are not all the same, one shouldn't make policy based on the idea that there is somehow this one dominating issue that somehow explains most of why people are not taking jobs. Very propably there's a variety of causes, some more common than others.

I worked full-time as an unskilled labourer for five years (11 if you count my time as a cab-driver) and had maybe 4-7 different jobs in that period depending on how you count them. So I feel like I know something about these jobs. Here's something based on my experiences:

The pay for unskilled labour is always essentially the same. If a company claims they pay well, they are propably lying, or at the very least will try to cheat you somehow (sick pay, holidays bonuses...)

There are however huge differences in how companies treat you. Some places everything is under control, organized, you have people to turn to if you have problems, they give you proper gear, you get your breaks, your paycheck is always on time, basic stuff like that. Those places need only limited amounts of new labour.

Then there's the places that are always looking. You learn to avoid them.

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.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think that people have forgotten that EI isn't a income alternative, its not suppossed to be there because someone doesn't want to do a job or doesn't want to work 6 months of the year..

Its there as a short term emergency supplement that's it.

So the fact that someone who doesn't have the skill set to work a office job or white collar job doesn't want to work a sweaty hard manual labor job is irrelevant.

EI isn't there to assist that kind of employment issue.

currently you can get it if you are laid off, not if you are fired or quit. Maybe the government needs to amend the definition of laid off.

Again I like the idea if you work in a defined seasonal job that you have to pay higher premiums, and if you continually go on EI then your premiums increase as you become a habitual user.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Not to nit pick, but as a employer, I pay 1.4X the amount the employee does, so for each employee who earns over ~45k a year ~2,000 is remitted to EI.

And the amount of people looking to scam EI annoys the piss outta me. I've gone as far to bring on people who wanna be paid in cash and on payday show up with their cash but still tell em I need their SS number for reporting to the government...

As far as I am concerned what they should do, is if you are caught filing a false EI claim, you are permanently barred from ever collecting EI again in your life, but you still are required to pay into it. Not as harsh as prison time but still quite the disincentive

Nitpick away, I had no idea this was the case. As for permanently barring someone from collecting EI, it might be better to tier the penalties if an investigation proves the employee has been doing it for years. I don't know how difficult that would be to investigate.

In the case of a friend, he does lawncare/tree removal/pruning etc for the summer and runs a snow removal business in the winter. Snow shouldn't stop people from working simply because they are too comfortable working 6-8 months of the year.