|
Author
|
Topic: Making UI work for everyone
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 19 November 2003 04:13 PM
This website was referenced by the new CCPA monitor that just came out, and the report on E.I. and its failures is here.Furthermore, when I first cited the figure that only one-third of those unemployed now qualify for EI, my statement was initially dismissed as a statistical artifact or a mis-counting. I believe I am borne out by the table on page three of the PDF file which shows, in black and white, the percentages of unemployed Canadians considered eligible for UI after four rounds of legislative changes, as follows: Legislative Change
Bill C-21 (1990) Bill C-113 (1993) Bill C-17 (1994) Bill C-12 (1996)
% of Unemployed Receiving UI 74% 57% 51% 42% Since then, eligibility has dropped, according to the PDF file, to about 38% of those so unemployed. It sounds hard to believe, that as recently as 1988, around 80% of working Canadians, if they had become unemployed, would be considered eligible for UI. It sounds equally hard to believe that our government has become so parsimonious and cheap with the unemployment insurance fund that it makes people applying for EI feel undesired and unwelcome for doing so.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777
|
posted 20 November 2003 03:05 PM
Don't remember EI benefits ever being 85% of salary but I do remember back in the 1970's it being 2/3's of salary (that's what it was during my last prolonged period of unemployment!).I think in the early 1970's it may have been as high as 75%. In any case, before the Liberals came in workers who were on job training programmes used to be able to qualify for extended UI benefits. That was back in the "good old days" of Brian Mulroney. The Liberals eliminated extended benefits for workers on training programmes as part of their package of so-called "reforms" in the 1990's. That's one of the big reasons I've always considered the Liberals as being more right-wing than the Tories. Just another thought taking a brief look at the report, municipal and provincial politicians should be screaming over the EI cuts over the years. Billions of dollars in worker spending power has been taken out of provincial and local economies as a result of the Liberal EI cuts. Its absolutely scandalous considering the huge surplus in the EI fund. [ 20 November 2003: Message edited by: radiorahim ]
From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
babbler/dabbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4633
|
posted 20 November 2003 07:15 PM
Isn't "insurance" something you pay so that if you pay into it and then need it, you can make a claim?In the case of EI, since you have to pay into it. at a rate that is set by the Federal government who collects the premiums, that when the worker becomes unemployed through no fault of the worker, due to lack of work or injury, how can a claim be refused? Signed
Niaeve in Nova Scotia
From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 21 November 2003 02:21 AM
How else was the government going to balance the budget on the backs of workers without "raising taxes"?I've heard that it is actually illegal that money be removed from the EI fund to use on things other than EI. I've also heard that the government, under then finance minister Paul Martin, did exactly that. If so, why no arrest?
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
