[OnTheIce]

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.

You both are making things up as you go.

Nobody is talking about FORCING PEOPLE TO MOVE...it's offering those an incentive who are able and willing to relocate for better employment opportunities.

[Lemmy]

martin14 martin14:

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.

Of course. But that's a legal distinction only, not a reality-based distinction. The reality is that teachers make enough money that they can afford the off-season. Those in professions that can't shouldn't get special treatment by EI, in my opinion. If fishermen need support during the offseason, fine, let them go on welfare. Let's call it what it is. But they shouldn't be getting EI payments unless they're actually looking for work and prepared to take work if it's available.

martin14 martin14:

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.

That's a common error in economic reasoning. Demand drives wages and prices, not costs. Fish prices are a factor of the demand for fish, not the wages paid to fishermen.

Martin14 Martin14:

Not easy either way.

Nope.

[Brenda]

Lemmy Lemmy:

martin14 martin14:

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.

Of course. But that's a legal distinction only, not a reality-based distinction. The reality is that teachers make enough money that they can afford the off-season. Those in professions that can't shouldn't get special treatment by EI, in my opinion. If fishermen need support during the offseason, fine, let them go on welfare. Let's call it what it is. But they shouldn't be getting EI payments unless they're actually looking for work and prepared to take work if it's available.

Doesn't welfare have the same conditions tho?
And, if the fishermen pay into EI, they should have the right to take out too. Like everyone else. If they have to go on welfare for the off-season, then they should not have to pay into EI.

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

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.

You both are making things up as you go.

Nobody is talking about FORCING PEOPLE TO MOVE...it's offering those an incentive who are able and willing to relocate for better employment opportunities.

Guess you stopped reading as soon as you thought you had something to pick at. My whole post:

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.

[Lemmy]

Brenda Brenda:

Doesn't welfare have the same conditions tho?

No. Most people on welfare aren't unemployed.

Brenda Brenda:

And, if the fishermen pay into EI, they should have the right to take out too. Like everyone else.

If they're looking for work and prepared to take a job, then sure. Fishermen aren't though. They're just riding the brown envelope until the next fishing season.

Brenda Brenda:

If they have to go on welfare for the off-season, then they should not have to pay into EI.

I don't believe anyone should HAVE to pay into EI, but if they do choose to participate in the program they should have to prove they're looking for work EVERY DAY that they're on it.

[Brenda]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Brenda Brenda:

Doesn't welfare have the same conditions tho?

No. Most people on welfare aren't unemployed.

Explain that one?
For as far as I know, welfare is not a life long guarantee to a semi-livable income, nor does it come without restrictions. Don't you have to fill out a form on a (bi-) monthly basis to show where you have applied?

$1:

Brenda Brenda:

And, if the fishermen pay into EI, they should have the right to take out too. Like everyone else.

If they're looking for work and prepared to take a job, then sure. Fishermen aren't though. They're just riding the brown envelope until the next fishing season.

What about all the others on EI who are "looking for work" (but actually are not)?

$1:

Brenda Brenda:

If they have to go on welfare for the off-season, then they should not have to pay into EI.

I don't believe anyone should HAVE to pay into EI,

Fair enough

$1:

but if they do choose to participate in the program they should have to prove they're looking for work EVERY DAY that they're on it.

Isn't it "every week"?

[andyt]

For many people, especially in Atlantic Canada, it has become a form of guaranteed income, because they only have seasonal work. Maybe a misuse of insurance, but we don't really want them all going on welfare every winter either, do we? If they all move to find steady employment in other provinces, who will do the seasonal work? Is there really enough work in other provinces for all of them? Do they have the required skills/experience?

[Lemmy]

Brenda Brenda:

Explain that one?
For as far as I know, welfare is not a life long guarantee to a semi-livable income, nor does it come without restrictions. Don't you have to fill out a form on a (bi-) monthly basis to show where you have applied?

There are many types of welfare.

Brenda Brenda:

What about all the others on EI who are "looking for work" (but actually are not)?

They should be disqualified, IMHO. EI's purpose is to pay people while they're looking for work.

Brenda Brenda:

Fair enough Isn't it "every week"?

What it IS and what it SHOULD BE are two different things. It should "looking for work EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY while collecting". If the people collecting EI aren't making the search for work a full-time job, they shouldn't get EI payouts.

[Brenda]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Brenda Brenda:

Explain that one?
For as far as I know, welfare is not a life long guarantee to a semi-livable income, nor does it come without restrictions. Don't you have to fill out a form on a (bi-) monthly basis to show where you have applied?

There are many types of welfare.

Explain THAT one? I am not talking about disability payments, but just about people over the age of 15 getting living assistance, rent assistance. The typical welfare, $1000/mo.

[Lemmy]

Brenda Brenda:

Explain THAT one? I am not talking about disability payments, but just about people over the age of 15 getting living assistance, rent assistance. The typical welfare, $1000/mo.

I don't want to turn this into a debate about welfare. I'm just saying that a lot of the payments made in the name of EI really are welfare, not EI. I don't think that's right. I don't think a person should be able to collect EI benefits when they're not actively looking for work. That includes fisherman in the offseason and also people off on maternity/paternity leave. If we want to support those people, it should be through welfare, not EI. That's all I'm saying.

[Brenda]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Brenda Brenda:

Explain THAT one? I am not talking about disability payments, but just about people over the age of 15 getting living assistance, rent assistance. The typical welfare, $1000/mo.

I don't want to turn this into a debate about welfare. I'm just saying that a lot of the payments made in the name of EI really are welfare, not EI. I don't think that's right. I don't a person should be able to collect EI benefits when they're not actively looking for work. That includes fisherman in the offseason and also people off on maternity/paternity leave. If we want to support those people, it should be through welfare, not EI. That's all I'm saying.

You will have to give proof of job-hunting while on welfare too, afaik. AND accept employment.

I think maternity/paternity leave is a whole different discussion. That is certainly not something that happens every other season.

Also, I thought we were talking about the legal description of welfare, not about what you think should be welfare...

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

Guess you stopped reading as soon as you thought you had something to pick at. My whole post:

You mean, besides the part you quoted?

andyt andyt:

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.

That implies they're forcing you to go, otherwise, you get no money.

There's nothing about forcing people or denying people anything. Things in this topic are being made up and exaggerated every step of the way.

[martin14]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Brenda Brenda:

Explain THAT one? I am not talking about disability payments, but just about people over the age of 15 getting living assistance, rent assistance. The typical welfare, $1000/mo.

I don't want to turn this into a debate about welfare. I'm just saying that a lot of the payments made in the name of EI really are welfare, not EI. I don't think that's right. I don't think a person should be able to collect EI benefits when they're not actively looking for work. That includes fisherman in the offseason and also people off on maternity/paternity leave. If we want to support those people, it should be through welfare, not EI. That's all I'm saying.

I guessing most people would be confused as to the real difference between the two
programs for you.

EI is federal, Welfare is Province/City.

But the Provinces would need more transfer money if seasonal EI was cut off,
so the end result looks basically the same.

People might get a higher payment on EI than welfare, but what else
would be different for you ?

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

Guess you stopped reading as soon as you thought you had something to pick at. My whole post:

You mean, besides the part you quoted?

andyt andyt:

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.

That implies they're forcing you to go, otherwise, you get no money.

There's nothing about forcing people or denying people anything. Things in this topic are being made up and exaggerated every step of the way.

Couldn't read any further huh? Too much readin hurts your brain?

I also wrote:

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.[/quote]

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

Guess you stopped reading as soon as you thought you had something to pick at. My whole post:

You mean, besides the part you quoted?

andyt andyt:

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.

That implies they're forcing you to go, otherwise, you get no money.

There's nothing about forcing people or denying people anything. Things in this topic are being made up and exaggerated every step of the way.

Couldn't read any further huh? Too much readin hurts your brain?

I also wrote:

andyt andyt:

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.

Not nearly as much fun to pick at that part, I guess, so just ignore it.