Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • CCPA in Europe for CETA speaking tour October 17, 2017
    On September 21, Canada and the European Union announced that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), a controversial NAFTA-plus free trade deal initiated by the Harper government and signed by Prime Minister Trudeau in 2016, was now provisionally in force. In Europe, however, more than 20 countries have yet to officially ratify the deal, […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Twelve year study of an inner-city neighbourhood October 12, 2017
    What does twelve years of community organizing look like for a North End Winnipeg neighbourhood?  Jessica Leigh survey's those years with the Dufferin community from a community development lens.  Read full report.
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Losing your ID - even harder to recover when you have limited resources! October 10, 2017
    Ellen Smirl researched the barriers experienced by low-income Manitobans when faced with trying to replace lost, stolen, or never aquired idenfication forms. Read full report here.  
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CCPA recommendations for a better North American trade model October 6, 2017
    The all-party House of Commons trade committee is consulting Canadians on their priorities for bilateral and trilateral North American trade in light of the current renegotiation of NAFTA. In the CCPA’s submission to this process, Scott Sinclair, Stuart Trew, and Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood argue for a different kind of trading relationship that is inclusive, transformative, and […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Ontario’s fair wage policy needs to be refreshed September 28, 2017
    The Ontario government is consulting on ways to modernize the province’s fair wage policy, which sets standards for wages and working conditions for government contract workers such as building cleaners, security guards, building trades and construction workers. The fair wage policy hasn’t been updated since 1995, but the labour market has changed dramatically since then. […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

EI: It’s all in the details

What not to say in an interview if you’re on EI, and other nightmares

The latest detail to emerge about the recent changes to EI is from the Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles.  The Digest is a guide to enforcing Employment Insurance, with definitions of key terms, and elaborates on expectations of EI claimants and penalties for errors.

In Chapter 9, Refusal of Employment, Service Canada outlines several actions that are equivalent to refusing employment.

Section 9.2.3 states that “a refusal of employment occurs where the claimant advises the employer that they are available for only a limited period of time, whether by reason of a contemplated move to another area, pregnancy, a pending return to former employment or preferred occupation, or by reason of waiting for better employment to become available.” Seasonal workers should take care, as simply answering questions honestly is no defence.

Taking a look at Chapter 6 (specifically Section 6.5.7.2), Service Canada covers the consequences of leaving permanent employment for seasonal employment. This would affect frequent claimants who were forced to take employment at 70% of their previous wage. Let’s say for example that low-wage employment was permanent, and they leave it to return to their previous job.  If for some reason they find themselves laid off again, they may be disqualified from EI benefits.  How d’you like them apples?

Despite Minister Finley’s repeated claims that EI changes won’t affect seasonal or cyclical businesses, details such as this virtually guarantee that they will.

Employment Insurance is a program with many tricky details, separating claimants into different regions, different pilot projects, and different requirements for defining suitable employment.  It can make it difficult to develop a clear and understandable objection to any alterations in EI.  Any one detail that becomes a focus of opposition can be changed, leaving other equally terrible changes still in force.

But this time it’s different. There are a multitude of small changes, so that any working Canadian would be hard pressed to show that these changes didn’t make them worse off. Taken as a whole, the changes reflect a serious macro-economic misunderstanding of the role that employment insurance plays in stabilizing our labour market.

The undemocratic manner that the changes were introduced – in a mammoth omni-budget bill, with no stakeholder consultations, is outrageous in and of itself. Employers and employees pay for EI, and changing it without consultation is simply wrong. What’s worse, the lack of thought and consultation  is reflected in the many undesirable consequences of the bill.

The only option is to scrap the changes, and undertake a more thoughtful & democratic reform.

UPDATE: The consequence for refusing employment is a 7 to 12 week disqualification, depending on the circumstances.

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from serge boucher
Time: February 20, 2013, 8:50 am

Harper was elected and not by majority.He is selling canada as fast as he can to foreign byer’s with trade deals that are also secretive.It seems more like a dictatorship.Canada will not be the same if canadians dont stand up by the millions to fight this rape that is being forced on our country.EI reform should be scapped now!Vote NDP!

Comment from Todd
Time: February 24, 2013, 10:51 am

Angel wrote:

“Taken as a whole, the changes reflect a serious macro-economic misunderstanding of the role that employment insurance plays in stabilizing our labour market.”

I’d say rather that it reflects a real understanding of the role that EI plays in (barely) “leveling” the playing field of (bargaining) power between job-seekers and employers. Employers want job-seekers desperate enough to take any job at any rate of pay rather than having to “compete” with EI, and that’s what successive Canadian governments (most recently and, I think, most dramaticallty, the Harper one) have been doing.

Comment from Angella MacEwen
Time: February 25, 2013, 2:21 pm

Todd, that’s certainly the more cynical way of viewing these changes to Employment Insurance – whether intentional or misguided, the consequence is the same – downward wage pressure and less bargaining power for workers.

Comment from Purple Library Guy
Time: February 26, 2013, 2:15 am

There are times when cynicism becomes realism. So many policy initiatives by the Conservatives push in the same direction; for instance, the foreign guest workers program, apparently tailor made to ratchet down wages and worker rights. The hypothesis that all the different initiatives with the same kind of impact are just co-incidence becomes rather strained.
And this is after all an explicit policy goal for certain strands of economic thinking. They call it “workforce flexibility”.

Comment from Todd
Time: February 26, 2013, 8:33 pm

Angella, do you seriously believe that the Conservatives and the Liberals are really that ignorant about the consequences of what they’ve done and who benefits from the changes they’ve made?

Comment from Angella MacEwen
Time: February 27, 2013, 8:23 am

Todd, I didn’t say your view was incorrect! I think you and PLG probably have it right here.

Comment from Todd
Time: February 27, 2013, 10:17 am

I’m sorry. I think I must have been confused by your use of the word “cynical”.

Write a comment





Related articles