Ottawa unveils rules to toughen EI eligibility | CTV Toronto

I notice though, that there is no reduction in premiums for those of us never having used the system, and EI funds still go to General Revenue.

I thought they had a special EI fund that would get raided from time to time. If the funds go to general revenue, then we see this is just a tax grab. I'm all for taxes, but progressive Income taxes, not regressive taxes on the lowest income. But that's the Reformacons for you.

I don't think there should be any reductions to what's being paid into it. You never know what you may need it.

One trick pony.

I don't like the sound of that - that means unemployed Calgarians/Edmontonians could theoretically find themselves forced to get jobs in Red Deer (which may or may not exist). With that kind of commute, you'd wind up earning way less than you would on EI ($800 bi-weekly isn't very much), as well as spend an extra two hours on the road each day.

An hour's drive is far too nebulous - it should be a set distance - like 50 km or something.

It all depends. Does the person have a car? Is there transit available? 50 km doesn't address that either. Somebody in a small town with no car and no transit 50km is insurmountable. OTOH, many people already commute 50km anyway.

They don't go to GR, they are in a separate fund. Surplus has been plundered in the past to pay down debt.

So the Harperites say this isn't meant to "save money" and are not promising to save any money from the changes. In fact, it's going to cost $21M to implement them. Why make them then? I don't see any real benefit to EI recipient. Getting 2 emails a day for the same useless jobs doesn't help anyone.

Why don't they demand results from the corporations who have already received $13 BILLION in gov't handouts in 2012? If these handouts "create jobs" as the conservatives like to say, wheres the proof? Where's the accountability? Cut off any company who is taking taxpayer money and not showing evidence that they are creating jobs. That would be a good start.

Second, if the problem is really that job searchers cant find jobs, make it harder for employers to dick around job applicants. I suggest the following:

1) Make it mandatory for all employers to advertise all jobs in the same place, such as the HRDC job bank website. The service already exists for free, employers just don't bother to use it for decent jobs so any search just pulls 100,000 hits for part-time shit-shovelers. Make the site more user-friendly so that people can actually search for what they want and not have to wade through a pile of crap results and jobs that are permanently vacant. If you really want workers back to work so fast, why make them surf to 80 different websites a day and read 6 different newspapers. Besides, they're probably cut back on the newspaper subscription and internet because they're now living on 55% of their former income (or less).

2) The pay range for every job should be included in the description. Alot of public sector employers do this I think it's great. They don't have to put the exact salary, but they could say "Salary Range $55k-$65k depending on qualifications and experience". That's useful info. There's nothing worse about going through a lengthy application and interview processes only to find out upon job offer that the job pays less than you made 5 years ago. If you really want the unemployed back to work fast, then quit letting companies waste their time.

3) Since they'rer so interested in providing "assitance servies" like resume writing, how about providing via website some tips for employers on how to write a job description. As in #2 above, nothing worse than wasting your time applying and interviewing for a job that turns out to be much less that it was made to seem in the ad.

I was concerned about that as well. It said the "hours drive" requirement could be higher, if you live in an area with a higher average commute time. But to Andy's point: Do they take into consideration whether or not you are able to commute or can afford to commute so far away? What if you don't have a car and there is no transit to that location? What if the commute time is one hour by car but 2 hours by transit? What if you have kids and can't leave your house an hour earlier and return an hour later? What if 70% of your former wage, less commute expenses, is less than your EI benefit?

I also don't like how they're not writing these rules in regulatory policy or parliamentary law, but instead it's all at Ministerial discretion. That's a trend that has to stop with this government. "Well just make up the rules and change them at our whim whenever we feel like it, no parliamentary review or tribunal hearings". Harper's penchant for rule-by-decree government is a real concern.

I think this will mostly accomplish diddly squat. Forcing people to take a job that earns less money seems like a good idea - But I doubt there's many people who were earning 50k who will now be forced to accept a 40k job who would have preferred to stay on EI and get the max of 25k a year. Forcing people to take jobs far away will just create hardship. In Vancouver people already live a long ways away from their jobs, because the housing prices in Vancouver are so high. To tell somebody they need to take a job 50 km away if they have no car means they would have a daily 4 to 5 hour commute - doesn't seem right. Instead the govt should help people find jobs in low unemployment areas and help them to re lo.

I don't think there should be any reductions to what's being paid into it. You never know what you may need it.

After I've paid into it all I can collect, my contributions should be zero. Any more just ends up being a slush fund for government waste.

We need more immigrants then who won't suffer from those hardships.

That's an interesting concept. But if you stop paying once you've paid in approx 25k, what if you then use it, get a new job and lose that one before you've paid in your 25k again - you'd have to get less benefits.

I think they should quit calling it insurance - it's income support. And fund it from general revenue rather than this regressive payroll tax.

When we reduce or keep taxes on par with personal income taxes, is that a "handout" to the general working public?

FWIW, 58% of EI recipients are repeat users.

When we reduce or keep taxes on par with personal income taxes, is that a "handout" to the general working public?

FWIW, 58% of EI recipients are repeat users.

Well I wasn't referring to tax rates, but the various cash hand-outs, including tax credits and write-offs, given out to invidual businesses.


Regarding "repeat users", I'm not sure what you're implying. A "repeat user" is a program abuser and therefore needs a good ol'fashioned whip-cracking?