[andyt]

What we really need is better communication with employers and potential employees. We had a warning in Vancouver from the mayor of Ft ST John (or some such place) While there was high demand for workers in the oil fields, there was little accommodation available and only specific skills were required, as well as the work being seasonal (hello EI all over again). He said people shouldn't just come out on spec but have all that nailed down before they go. So we need to facilitate hiring where the potential employee is living, as well as providing accommodation for them, etc.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

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.

When SBC bought Pacific Bell they gave their California administrative staff a choice: Move to Houston at their own cost and have a job or accept a layoff.

When I got laid off from Intel it was after they'd offered to let me keep my job if I moved to Costa Rica at my own expense and then if I'd take an 80% pay cut. Obviously, I did not take that 'great' offer.

That's been quite typical anymore. It's rather rare that relocation expenses are being picked up by anyone.

For many people they get the choice of move and have a job or stay and take your chances.

For the government to tell unemployed people to move to where the jobs are makes perfect sense unless you think the government should pay lifetime support to the unemployed who are unwilling to do what private sector people have to do all the time.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

For the government to tell unemployed people to move to where the jobs are makes perfect sense unless you think the government should pay lifetime support to the unemployed who are unwilling to do what private sector people have to do all the time.

Max length of EI benefits in regions of high unemployment is 50 weeks. What's this shit about private sector employees?

Brenda brought up a good point - it's one thing to say to a young guy with no roots that he should up sticks and move to where the jobs are. It's another to say it to somebody with a spouse who has a job locally and may not be able to find one in the new location, and sell the house, etc etc. The govt should be facilitating people moving, not forcing them.

And are the jobs there when they move? I doubt some guy from PEI has much oil patch experience, so the employer will rather import somebody than train a Canadian. We need a much better re-training system in Canada, so people laid off in dying industries can move to a new career instead of working at min wage.

[peck420]

I surprised this hasn't been said yet.

They can't do it, it would go directly against the freedom of mobility clauses in the Charter.

[andyt]

peck420 peck420:

I surprised this hasn't been said yet.

They can't do it, it would go directly against the freedom of mobility clauses in the Charter.

They won't send the cops to make you move. They'll deny you benefits because there is work available elsewhere. I don't think that conflicts with the Charter.

I guess we've just all read the headline tho:

$1:

One "concept is to reimburse moving expenses for unemployed people who have moved and found a permanent job in another region," says the final report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

The study did not explore whether the prospect of being cut off from EI benefits might also encourage a move to other regions, but focused instead on cost reimbursement.

Don't see how anybody can complain about that - it's a carrot, not a stick. Strange that Finley would distance herself from the idea.

[Lemmy]

No, I don't see this as a violation of Charter mobility rights. But what is EI? It's supposed to be payments to people while SEARCHING for work. If you're searching for work where there is none, then you're not really searching, are you? So, in one sense, if you refuse to move, you're not living up to your part of the bargain.

The only legal issue I see here is that, if the government is going to force these sort of conditions on users of EI, then citizens ought to be able to opt out of the program and refuse to pay the premiums. I'm not a big fan of insurance purchases being forced on people, which is a major failing with Obama-care in its present incarnation.

[dino_bobba_renno]

andyt andyt:

peck420 peck420:

I surprised this hasn't been said yet.

They can't do it, it would go directly against the freedom of mobility clauses in the Charter.

They won't send the cops to make you move. They'll deny you benefits because there is work available elsewhere. I don't think that conflicts with the Charter.

I guess we've just all read the headline tho:

$1:

One "concept is to reimburse moving expenses for unemployed people who have moved and found a permanent job in another region," says the final report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

The study did not explore whether the prospect of being cut off from EI benefits might also encourage a move to other regions, but focused instead on cost reimbursement.

Don't see how anybody can complain about that - it's a carrot, not a stick. Strange that Finley would distance herself from the idea.

Well, with out knowing all the details it doesn’t sound like a bad idea. So long as they’re not forcing people to move and from what you posted that it doesn’t sound like that is the intent.

I would imagine for someone who is unemployed say in Ontario who’s looked for work for a number of months without any success that cost moving might be a bit of an obstacle even if they are willing to relocate.

If that’s all there is to it then people are making way too much out of this.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

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.

When SBC bought Pacific Bell they gave their California administrative staff a choice: Move to Houston at their own cost and have a job or accept a layoff.

When I got laid off from Intel it was after they'd offered to let me keep my job if I moved to Costa Rica at my own expense and then if I'd take an 80% pay cut. Obviously, I did not take that 'great' offer.

That's been quite typical anymore. It's rather rare that relocation expenses are being picked up by anyone.

For many people they get the choice of move and have a job or stay and take your chances.

For the government to tell unemployed people to move to where the jobs are makes perfect sense unless you think the government should pay lifetime support to the unemployed who are unwilling to do what private sector people have to do all the time.

Well, that sucks Bart, and I feel for you, having been through a tough period in the past few years myself. But I still see no reason for the government to request/order you to move to another city to find work. In your hometown where you work, you probably have friends/family who can help you find work, support your familial needs (like say babysitting while you're job hunting), etc. Plus you already have a place to live - either a home or a leased apartment. If someone moves - they lose all of that and have to start over.

To me that makes little sense. Losing one's job is already difficult enough without heaping more crap on top of somebody's head.

Well, I don't know how UI/EI works in the US, but in Canada, it's for a maximum of 50 weeks - which they knock down if you get severance, a buyout or anything else other than your back pay/vacation pay. To re-qualify (get EI again), you need to log 900 hours with an employer and then benefits can be claimed if you are laid off (if you quit, you don't qualify for EI). As such, it's not lifetime support for anyone. Even if it was, it's such a pittance that nobody is living large while getting EI - the last time I collected, I received $800 bi-weekly - $20,000 a year if you qualify for 50 weeks. That was a far cry from the $42,000/year job I lost when I was laid off in 2009. FYI - it is NOT tax-free either.

I admit that some industries, like say fishing or smoke-jumping (fighting forest fires) are seasonal, so they work during the season and then get laid off due to lack of work in the off season, where they can claim benefits year after year, but for the majority of Canadians, EI is a temporary thing they get once or twice in their lives.

I could agree to some tweaking of the rules to prevent people from getting EI every yer (up the hours requirement, add a calendar requirement, or something like that), but asking a fisherman to move across the country to find work sounds ridiculous.

I, myself, have gotten it twice in my lifetime. Once in 2009 when I was laid off when the company I worked for changed technologies and my job was suddenly surplus. The other time was last year in between two temporary positions. All told, I received maybe $5000 - which was far less than I've put into the system over the years - and a pittance compared to what I will put into it in the coming years.

I think the biggest problem with EI is that because the benefits are low, most people hold out until they can find work in their sector (I did). If you do go get a job in retail or the service industry, if you work more than 35 hours, they stop your claim. If you earn more than $180 each weekly, they begin to claw back benefits, so if you earn $600 from your crappy job, your benefits end. Of course, if you do that, it's hard to find the time to find a job in your own sector, because you're so busy working at Timmies or the Gap. Then you're trapped in a crappy job instead of one related to your career.

So there is little to no incentive to work while on EI, or if you do, you only work a few hours so as to not stop your benefits. The government, IMHO, should reduce the clawback to allow people to earn a little more and maintain their lifestyle. If that happened, EI recipients might still be inclined to buy TVs, phones, cars and all the other stuff that drives our economy.

[andyt]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Well, with out knowing all the details it doesn’t sound like a bad idea. So long as they’re not forcing people to move and from what you posted that it doesn’t sound like that is the intent.

I would imagine for someone who is unemployed say in Ontario who’s looked for work for a number of months without any success that cost moving might be a bit of an obstacle even if they are willing to relocate.

If that’s all there is to it then people are making way too much out of this.

I think it's a very good idea - we need incentives to get people to move to where the jobs are. Don't see how anybody can complain about that. The other part of the equation is more training available for people to fill the jobs that are out there. This I where I think industry should also be stepping up, not just the govt. Since industry is unwilling to do it on it's own, I would increase the corporate tax rate the required amount to fund training in the fields we're perennially short of.

[Lemmy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I admit that some industries, like say fishing or smoke-jumping (fighting forest fires) are seasonal, so they work during the season and then get laid off due to lack of work in the off season, where they can claim benefits year after year, but for the majority of Canadians, EI is a temporary thing they get once or twice in their lives.

That's one aspect of EI that should be fixed. If fishermen want to collect EI in the offseason, they should be LOOKING FOR WORK. How come teachers can't collect EI in the summer then? Same thing, isn't it?

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

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.

When SBC bought Pacific Bell they gave their California administrative staff a choice: Move to Houston at their own cost and have a job or accept a layoff.

When I got laid off from Intel it was after they'd offered to let me keep my job if I moved to Costa Rica at my own expense and then if I'd take an 80% pay cut. Obviously, I did not take that 'great' offer.

That's been quite typical anymore. It's rather rare that relocation expenses are being picked up by anyone.

For many people they get the choice of move and have a job or stay and take your chances.

For the government to tell unemployed people to move to where the jobs are makes perfect sense unless you think the government should pay lifetime support to the unemployed who are unwilling to do what private sector people have to do all the time.

Well, that sucks Bart, and I feel for you, having been through a tough period in the past few years myself. But I still see no reason for the government to request/order you to move to another city to find work. In your hometown where you work, you probably have friends/family who can help you find work, support your familial needs (like say babysitting while you're job hunting), etc. Plus you already have a place to live - either a home or a leased apartment. If someone moves - they lose all of that and have to start over.

To me that makes little sense. Losing one's job is already difficult enough without heaping more crap on top of somebody's head.

Well, I don't know how UI/EI works in the US, but in Canada, it's for a maximum of 50 weeks - which they knock down if you get severance, a buyout or anything else other than your back pay/vacation pay. To re-qualify (get EI again), you need to log 900 hours with an employer and then benefits can be claimed if you are laid off (if you quit, you don't qualify for EI). As such, it's not lifetime support for anyone. Even if it was, it's such a pittance that nobody is living large while getting EI - the last time I collected, I received $800 bi-weekly - $20,000 a year if you qualify for 50 weeks. That was a far cry from the $42,000/year job I lost when I was laid off in 2009. FYI - it is NOT tax-free either.

I admit that some industries, like say fishing or smoke-jumping (fighting forest fires) are seasonal, so they work during the season and then get laid off due to lack of work in the off season, where they can claim benefits year after year, but for the majority of Canadians, EI is a temporary thing they get once or twice in their lives.

I could agree to some tweaking of the rules to prevent people from getting EI every yer (up the hours requirement, add a calendar requirement, or something like that), but asking a fisherman to move across the country to find work sounds ridiculous.

I, myself, have gotten it twice in my lifetime. Once in 2009 when I was laid off when the company I worked for changed technologies and my job was suddenly surplus. The other time was last year in between two temporary positions. All told, I received maybe $5000 - which was far less than I've put into the system over the years - and a pittance compared to what I will put into it in the coming years.

I think the biggest problem with EI is that because the benefits are low, most people hold out until they can find work in their sector (I did). If you do go get a job in retail or the service industry, if you work more than 35 hours, they stop your claim. If you earn more than $180 each weekly, they begin to claw back benefits, so if you earn $600 from your crappy job, your benefits end. Of course, if you do that, it's hard to find the time to find a job in your own sector, because you're so busy working at Timmies or the Gap. Then you're trapped in a crappy job instead of one related to your career.

So there is little to no incentive to work while on EI, or if you do, you only work a few hours so as to not stop your benefits. The government, IMHO, should reduce the clawback to allow people to earn a little more and maintain their lifestyle. If that happened, EI recipients might still be inclined to buy TVs, phones, cars and all the other stuff that drives our economy.

AFAIK, holiday pay is counted as work, ie your claim doesn't begin til you've exhausted your holiday pay. At least that's how it worked when I last collected, when it was still called UI. Employers would pay out your holiday pay one pay period before laying you off, so you didn't get this penalty.

EI was deemed as one of the best stimulus measures during a recession. A 1.67 multiplier, if I recall correctly. (Govt gets 1.64 dollars back for every dollar spent). It's a very quick way to get money in the hands of people, the bureaucracy is already in place and you don't get the sort of bullshit we saw with the stimulus money, where it goes to politically favored people.

EI should be a much more comprehensive program - not just paying out money to people, but sitting down with them and making a plan on how they can avoid EI in the future.

As for all the seasonal workers, not sure what to do there. We used to have fishermen making really big bucks in a few months, then sitting on pogey for the rest of the year. That's not right. But, what about the potato and lobster workers in PEI - doubt they pull in big money while they work. What are they supposed to do the rest of the year?

[bootlegga]

Lemmy Lemmy:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I admit that some industries, like say fishing or smoke-jumping (fighting forest fires) are seasonal, so they work during the season and then get laid off due to lack of work in the off season, where they can claim benefits year after year, but for the majority of Canadians, EI is a temporary thing they get once or twice in their lives.

That's one aspect of EI that should be fixed. If fishermen want to collect EI in the offseason, they should be LOOKING FOR WORK. How come teachers can't collect EI in the summer then? Same thing, isn't it?

That's why I suggested tweaking the rules in the next paragraph!

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

As for all the seasonal workers, not sure what to do there. We used to have fishermen making really big bucks in a few months, then sitting on pogey for the rest of the year. That's not right. But, what about the potato and lobster workers in PEI - doubt they pull in big money while they work. What are they supposed to do the rest of the year?

I don't know if they still exist, but a decade ago, the Maritimes was full of call centres. That provided half decent wages (better than EI anyways) to lots of people. Something like that might be a solution, put federal government call centres out there, provide incentives for companies to open them there, etc.

Other than that, I'd suggest more skills training to allow them to work in other occupations in the off-season.

[Regina]

Lemmy Lemmy:

How come teachers can't collect EI in the summer then? Same thing, isn't it?

Cuts into their golf lessons.

[martin14]

Lemmy Lemmy:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I admit that some industries, like say fishing or smoke-jumping (fighting forest fires) are seasonal, so they work during the season and then get laid off due to lack of work in the off season, where they can claim benefits year after year, but for the majority of Canadians, EI is a temporary thing they get once or twice in their lives.

That's one aspect of EI that should be fixed. If fishermen want to collect EI in the offseason, they should be LOOKING FOR WORK. How come teachers can't collect EI in the summer then? Same thing, isn't it?

Teachers sign a year - based contract.


Fishermen who are self employed, obviously dont qualify.

Deckhands used to sign a contract for months, not years, and therefore
qualified for EI.

It's an old trick, done for decades.
But, the fishing work still needs to be done, so moving these people
away wouldn't necessarily help the fishing industry.
Either compress a yearly wage into the contract, much higher fish prices.
or find a way to make fishing a year-round job.

Not easy either way.