[Bruce_the_vii]

I wonder what broadening the 360 hour limit has to do with the recession. You'd think lengthening the time benefits pay would be more of the issue. The 360 hour limit is designed to support soft regional economies where seasonal work is the only thing available to some people. This is not the case in the rest of the country.

In any event when the low limit was introduced 30 years ago people in the regions took advantage of it with their employers assistance. It was not politically disasterous it was income support. Only an economist talking about the unemployment rate going up would say that is was economically a disaster.

[Curtman]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

I wonder what broadening the 360 hour limit has to do with the recession. You'd think lengthening the time benefits pay would be more of the issue. The 360 hour limit is designed to support soft regional economies where seasonal work is the only thing available to some people. This is not the case in the rest of the country.

There is no 360 hour limit currently anywhere.

$1:

Both Gray and Busby agree it's unfair and illogical to have 58 different requirements -- from 420 to 700 hours of work -- for qualifying for EI benefits, depending on local unemployment rates. And they agree in principle with Ignatieff's demand for a single national standard.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Ok, 420 hours requirement.

It makes sense to me, in Newfoundland EI is income support and not just unemployment insurance because there are no damn jobs. The Liberals proped up the maritime economy. It's simple enough to understand.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I had this thought. Ignatieff is going to go for an election, before the year is out. He'll put his imprint on the election platform and get the party in shape and say that's what I represent - now decide. The situation will really force him to take a stand. It's likely there'll be a Layton/Ignatieff minority.

[Curtman]

I doubt it.. More likely the EI panel will turn out to be a farce, and Iggy will be able to show Canadians how their government refused to help the people who were laid off during the recession that didn't qualify for benefits.

[Bruce_the_vii]

The EI panel makes sense, people are out of work.

[Curtman]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

The EI panel makes sense, people are out of work.

Sure it does, if it was somehow able to retroactively help the people who were out of work 6 or 8 months ago when the Conservatives began stalling this issue.

Meanwhile....

$1:

While the Harper Conservatives gather for a party at the Prime Minister’s retreat outside Ottawa, nearly 800,000 families are being forced to rely on Employment Insurance to put food on their tables, Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale said today.
...

“The sad reality is these numbers only scratch the surface of the hardships many Canadian families are facing,” said Mr. Goodale. “For everyone getting EI benefits, there’s someone else who’s lost their job but can’t access Employment Insurance.”

Among the provinces hardest hit, Alberta and British Columbia and Ontario have suffered the brunt of the recession, recording spikes in EI benefits of 236%, 115% and 100% respectively since May 2008.

[dino_bobba_renno]

Curtman Curtman:

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

The EI panel makes sense, people are out of work.

Sure it does, if it was somehow able to retroactively help the people who were out of work 6 or 8 months ago when the Conservatives began stalling this issue.

If you're referring to people such as the auto workers most of them had steady employment before the recession hit so it's not really necessary to worry about them being able to apply for poggie. Any of the new rules listed by Iggy would really only help a few people who were taking on temp jobs while their laid off from their full time positions, other than that it would mostly go to the people who were all ready to damn lazy to go out and find a job. Personally I don't see any great need to change the qualifications. If you didn't have a full time job before the recession when the economy was in full tilt and unemployment was at an all time low it was your probably your own damn fault.

By accepting the changes proposed by Iggy you are really only squandering the limited resources in the system where they are needed the least. Far better use of those resources could be achieved by targeting the needs those who were hit the hardest, the people who lost their full time jobs . Extending how long you can collect, the amount of money available for those who qualify, including seasonal workers, retraining programs, relocation allowances, etc, etc. All those suggestions would achieve better results for people who lost their full time jobs as opposed to throwing money at people who would rather put in the absolute minimum amount of time needed and then turn around and abuse the system if the hourly requirements are lowered.

[Curtman]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Any of the new rules listed by Iggy would really only help a few people who were taking on temp jobs while their laid off from their full time positions, other than that it would mostly go to the people who were all ready to damn lazy to go out and find a job.

You figure they would help people who already found new jobs, and everyone else is lazy. Interesting.

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

By accepting the changes proposed by Iggy you are really only squandering the limited resources in the system where they are needed the least.

People who have no job and no EI benefits need the money the least. Again, this is interesting.

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Far better use of those resources could be achieved by targeting the needs those who were hit the hardest, the people who lost their full time jobs.

Something to think about: When a company lays off workers, do they start with the fulltime employees who have years of loyal service under their belt usually?

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

I doubt it.. More likely the EI panel will turn out to be a farce, and Iggy will be able to show Canadians how their government refused to help the people who were laid off during the recession that didn't qualify for benefits.

At the same time, Ignatieff will only highlight his own failure.

He's the one who made the deal with the PM to have the EI panel. He's the one who could have forced an election.

Ignatieff opted this panel over going to the polls. If he's unable to get anything from the panel, that's on him and nobody else.

If EI was truly a massive issue that was vitally important to Canadians, he should have taken us to an election over it, not dither for months about it.

I find it amusing that the Liberals would highlight that Harper is gathering with his fellow Conservatives in CANADA.

Where's Ignatieff this summer?

Is Iggy speaking to these poor Canadians about EI?

Is Ignatieff traveling around Canada experiencing this Country and what this poor economy has done for these people he's fighting for?

Is Ignatieff spending time with his own party planning for the future?

No, he's spent the entire summer overseas, delivering a lecture in London, England and spending the rest of his time in Provence, France with his family.

[dino_bobba_renno]

Curtman Curtman:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Any of the new rules listed by Iggy would really only help a few people who were taking on temp jobs while their laid off from their full time positions, other than that it would mostly go to the people who were all ready to damn lazy to go out and find a job.

You figure they would help people who already found new jobs, and everyone else is lazy. Interesting.

Curtman Curtman:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

By accepting the changes proposed by Iggy you are really only squandering the limited resources in the system where they are needed the least.

People who have no job and no EI benefits need the money the least. Again, this is interesting.

That’s not what I said so please spare me the feigned outrage. Bottom line is that the people who were hit the hardest were fulltime workers. Iggy’s proposals does little for them directly. Is it better to retrain and relocate a out of work autoworker who has no hope of going back to the same field he was in or is it better to support your position and let him work a part time / seasonal job for a few months on road construction and then let him collect insurance employment or would you rather see the focus placed on retraining him for other fields of work where there is a need for workers?
Iggy’s idea is ignorant of the fact that there are many who do abuse the system. It is also ignorant of the fact that many of the jobs that were lost aren’t coming back. We need to invest in retraining and relocating people as well as allowing more time for those with what would normally be seen as good skills to reenter the workforce. Lowering the required hours only hampers those aims and rewards those who would rather put in the minimum hours required and sit back on EI as opposed to addressing the current needs within our work force. Explain to me how what you support addresses those problems. Also explain to me why someone who held down a full time job such as an autoworker had any difficulty collecting EI when they were laid off.

Curtman Curtman:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Far better use of those resources could be achieved by targeting the needs those who were hit the hardest, the people who lost their full time jobs.

Something to think about: When a company lays off workers, do they start with the fulltime employees who have years of loyal service under their belt usually?

Yes, they're the most expensive. Companies are free to let part time workers come and go whenever they feel like it, no notice necessary, just tell them they don’t have any shift time coming. You can work them as much as you need or as little if things are slow. Add to that no health packages or perks and usually lower wages. Welcome to the business world.

One other point, one cookie cutter mold for every province is foolish. Every province is unique in its needs. What the east coast provinces need may be and is vastly different from what down town Calgary needs on any given day. The provincial governments should be able to have a say in what requirements are needed, they are far closer to the problem than some bureaucrat in Ontario and can respond to their individual needs on a far faster and more necessity driven scale. Like the saying goes, one size does not fit all and imposing a burden such as “standardized” EI requirements it will only serve to make the system less efficient and slower since all changes will have to apply to provinces equally with out consideration for their special needs and circumstances.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

No, he's spent the entire summer overseas, delivering a lecture in London, England and spending the rest of his time in Provence, France with his family.

$1:

M_Ignatieff: In the "birthplace of our nation": it was in Gaspe that we first became Canadian #lpc
yesterday

Which sea is Quebec over?

[Curtman]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Iggy’s proposals does little for them directly. Is it better to retrain and relocate a out of work autoworker who has no hope of going back to the same field he was in or is it better to support your position and let him work a part time / seasonal job for a few months on road construction and then let him collect insurance employment or would you rather see the focus placed on retraining him for other fields of work where there is a need for workers?

You have already stated that you believe those fulltime workers are already eligable for EI. So do I. EI has will enable them to be retrained for any field they would like to pursue.

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Iggy’s idea is ignorant of the fact that there are many who do abuse the system. It is also ignorant of the fact that many of the jobs that were lost aren’t coming back. We need to invest in retraining and relocating people as well as allowing more time for those with what would normally be seen as good skills to reenter the workforce.

He's ignorant, but you aren't? EI is the program that helps retrain workers.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

No, he's spent the entire summer overseas, delivering a lecture in London, England and spending the rest of his time in Provence, France with his family.

$1:

M_Ignatieff: In the "birthplace of our nation": it was in Gaspe that we first became Canadian #lpc
yesterday

Which sea is Quebec over?

Good to see he finally came back "home". Perhaps now he can actually spend some time in Canada.

[leewgrant]

Curtman Curtman:

I doubt it.. More likely the EI panel will turn out to be a farce, and Iggy will be able to show Canadians how their government refused to help the people who were laid off during the recession that didn't qualify for benefits.

Realistically, if the Tories refuse to do anything - or at best tweak EI - is Iggy going to force an election? He can count on the Bloc and NDP to help bring down the government.

If 8% are unemployed 92% are working and many not be enthusiastic about a big tax increase to provide a benefit they more than likely will never have a chance to use.