Federal study suggests relocating EI recipients

Federal study suggests relocating EI recipients
Misc CDN
Posted By:
2012-05-17 21:02:53

Interesting idea and I would one that is cheaper in the long term.

There was a time when many relocated to find jobs. They didn't expect the government to pay for it. They simply did it because they had the responsible attitude of supporting themselves and/or their families and did whatever it took.
I hear some actually still do that all on thier own! There is a saying that says, "If you don't work, you don't eat."

EI recipients? Who paid for that "insurance" themselves? No. Can you imagine? One parent on EI, other one working. "Yo, you, on EI. You, MOVE to this Timmies job 500 kms away." Don't think so.

Ah, the "I'm too good for that job" sentiment. Didn't take long for that to show.

Sorry, but that's stupid - just like Lorne Gunter's recent column;

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/15/ei ... -insurance

Why should somebody be forced to move to another city/region for work?

Not everyone in Halifax is skilled enough to work in a good paying job in say Toronto or even Alberta. So if you force them to move there for work, they'll wind up working at Timmies and not even have enough to cover rent and living expenses, nevermind support a family.

This sounds like a trial balloon - similar to the raise in OAS to 67 he mused about in January - but if Harper enacts this one, he'll get killed in the next election.

Ah, the "I'm too good for that job" sentiment. Didn't take long for that to show.
Is that what I am saying? I am saying that ripping apart families is NOT ok. Especially not for a low paid job.


God, do I have to spell EVERYTHING out here???

Ah, the "I'm too good for that job" sentiment. Didn't take long for that to show.
Is that what I am saying? I am saying that ripping apart families is NOT ok. Especially not for a low paid job.

God, do I have to spell EVERYTHING out here???

I highly doubt they'd be tearing families apart in a situation like this. You're exaggerating.

I highly doubt they'd be tearing families apart in a situation like this. You're exaggerating.
Am I? They are talking EI-recipients. You can be an EI-recipient while your partner is working.
Why is your assumption better than mine?

Unless it's another place the taxpayer got screwed over, there's a friggin' tax deduction for moving expenses when moving more than 50 miles for employment. It may still also allow the travel expense when going to a job interview as part of the moving expense, provided you actually get/take the job and move. IIRC it's also not one of those crappy non-refundable tax deductions, it's a full dollar for dollar deduction.
Admittedly, my info isn't exactly current

I highly doubt they'd be tearing families apart in a situation like this. You're exaggerating.
Am I? They are talking EI-recipients. You can be an EI-recipient while your partner is working.
Why is your assumption better than mine?

First off, it's proposed as an , not as a mandatory thing you must do to maintain your EI.

You're assuming that if you're on EI, they're going to force people, regardless of age, family status, etc to move. That's not going to happen.

Because people who are NOT on the dole are forced to move for work all the time?

Because people who are NOT on the dole are forced to move for work all the time?
Really?
"FORCED" to move by whom?

Because people who are NOT on the dole are forced to move for work all the time?

I'd argue most people choose to move - their employers may 'coerce' them with moving allowances, bonuses and other incentives, but most people choose to move to another city/region for work.

Most people who are farmers or fishermen or miners don't just pack up and move across the country to work somewhere else. That's who the government is targeting with this report.