Comments on: What you need to know about EI reform

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:23:16 +0000

Why not allow us to asses our risk(s) and buy the coverage we need for ourselves and our families. They keep making the rules and changing things as they see fit, as said before shouldn't we subscribe to the coverage we want and buy it ? If I want no waiting period, the ability to quit employment and move on as I see fit, be covered for up to 104 weeks, I should be able to buy that coverage. (like other insurances the higher the risk the more the premium costs)

By: Mark T = Loser

Mark T = Loser — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:48:29 +0000

Americans Suck is right.

If your going to go to the staes. JUST GO AND SHUT THE HELL UP.

I don't pay EI but i have a right to bitch about it… whiner.

By: Americans suck

Americans suck — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:45:39 +0000

Mark T said
" It is insurance why should it be mandatory"

Its insurance to know that it is there IF/WHEN you need it. when you pay ei premiums, those premiums are not set a side when when you need it, it's being used for people right now. Other people pay it so that if you need it in 10 years, then there is ( or rather should be) money there for when you need it.

If you were unemployed and didn't pay EI premiums, how much would you get from Pogie (IE) ? $0.00 just because you don't need it now, doesn't mean you won't need it in the future.

" Maybe I should say F**K Canada, take advantage of my dual citizenship and move to the States"

You are going to move to the US just because you don't want to pay EI premiums and admittedly you don't. how the hell does that make sence, IF YOU DONT PAY, WHY ARE YOU BITCHING?

Haha it's like those losers who don't vote yet bitch about who got into office.

If your going to the states, stop whining and go…friggin americans think the world owes them.

By: Mark T

Mark T — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:56:08 +0000

As a small business owner I will NOT ever pay EI premiums on myself, My employees yes, not me. I don't care if it becomes law F.U!
Years ago before I started my business I was working for company A. I got another job at company B for more money, Gave my notice and left A on Friday, started for B on the Monday. Absolutely no work interruption. Imagine my suprise in December when I found out I had lost all those hours from company A because I quit. What kind of system punishes you for leaving a job to make more money? That spring I opened my own Masonry and Snow Plowing business. I have no intensions of ever being on EI I work year round and will never submit to this blatant cash grab. The government can take me to court and I'll fight it all the way to the top. It is insurance why should it be mandatory, If a small business owner wants to pay it they should be able to, if they don't they shouldn't have to. Both of my parents were professionals who paid into EI but were ineligable to ever receive it. Now the next generation is going to get raped again, paying for something I will never see any benefit from! I guess this is my punishment for being successful in Canada. Maybe I should say F**K Canada, take advantage of my dual citizenship and move to the States, Kills me to say that as I've lived here all my life and never considered moving to That Country! If that is where I have to go to be a success and escape this crock of a socialist country, Blow it out your butt Canada I'm taillights down the road!
What ever happened to capitalism, if your company is not viable year round it should fold up and not be supported by governmental handouts. Why should my tax money go to keep a non successful competetor in business? Maybe my successful company would hire him as an employee next summer

By: MikeD1

MikeD1 — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:30:02 +0000

I have to say it again, as I,m disgusted.
I find it shamefully ironic that the 2 parties that raped and pillaged a 57 billion dollar surplus in EI now say it needs fixing .
The Liberals misappropriated 57 billion into General Coffers from the EI fund and the Conservative Reformers helped spend it . If the dam money had been left in the fund that it was collected FOR there would be more than enough to fix any problems that the recession had caused. I find it insulting to hear these people claim that a system that had a 57 billion dollar surplus needed fixing in the first place , it seemed to be doing what it was supposed to be doing by accumulating money to help people in times of need. . Waiting periods could be done away with , more people could be hired to run EI , more money thats needed for increased money could be handed out in benefits . If the fund had not been raped there was more than enough there for it to be self sufficient and I find it equally insulting to hear the 2 Parties responsible arguing over and saying this or that would be too expensive to fix . What was expensive was what they spent the missing money on NOT EI. The 57 billion misappropriated was more than the 50 billion they are estimating the deficit to be from the stimulus .
All they did was turn EI into a tax by squandering the surplus and using it for anything BUT WHAT IT WAS COLLECTED FOR.
SOMEONE SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS THEFT.

By: Raphael Alexander

Raphael Alexander — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 01:10:10 +0000

This is an outstanding article. Thanks for the information. An impartial assessment that is well-researched.

By: truemuse

truemuse — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:04:47 +0000

Well I'm not going to do this reporter's homework for him, but lets just say there are some inaccuracies and so you don't earn an A from me.

How do you manage to attribute our current system to the Liberals? Since 1941 there has been some kind of unemployment insurance iN Canada. The many changes to the act between 1974 and 1996 contributed in great measure to where we are today (there are some Mulroney days in there). ??

By: Andrew Coyne

Andrew Coyne — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:28:10 +0000

Nice piece, Philippe. Okay, I'm really just testing the comments system, but nice piece, too.

By: madeyoulook

madeyoulook — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:15:27 +0000

As long as people choose to live wherever they want we're pretty much stuck with such a system.

Well, as long as we continue to subsidize people to live where there are no jobs, we're pretty much stuck with such a system.

By: Bernito

Bernito — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 06:37:46 +0000

wml says it like it is

By: wml

wml — Sun, 31 May 2009 14:25:12 +0000

Here is a very simple formula:
If you pay the same premiums for unemployment insurance as everyone else, then why shouldn’t you receive the same entitlements as anyone else. What’s so complicated with that?

By: kc

kc — Sun, 31 May 2009 04:42:37 +0000

I think he said it “doesn’t” work like real insurance.
Anyway, a real insurance plan would be grossly unfair and simply nuts politically speaking. As long as people choose to live wherever they want we’re pretty much stuck with such a system.
Reforming the system to allow the self-employed to contribute would help to reduce the number of Canadians who presently fall through the cracks.

By: madeyoulook

madeyoulook — Sun, 31 May 2009 01:47:41 +0000

(In other words, the system works unlike any other insurance plan: the more likely you are to make a claim, the easier it is to make it.) Really? Show me a REAL insurance system where that happens. What you're describing is a sure-fire way to have the insurance company go belly-up. Your parenthetical sentence makes absolutely no sense. The more likely you are to make a claim, the more likely you will be refused coverage. The more likely you are to make a claim, the more likely you will be charged a higher premium if you qualify at all. The more likely you are to make a claim, the more likely there will be conditions applied to your coverage, in the insurer's favour, in order to prevent certain high-risk claims. Pregnancy & Maternity leave with no higher premium for fertile females? Easy access to benefits with no higher premium in seasonal industries that just manage to eke out the hours-worked requirement, with no astronomically higher premiums for this near-certain risk? That's not insurance. I said this a week or so back. When they changed Unemployment Insurance to Employment Insurance, they changed the wrong word.

By: Bernito

Bernito — Sun, 31 May 2009 01:17:22 +0000

i usually support the conservatives, but i wonder what is the deal with them trying to support the EI system designed by the liberals, maybe it needs a complete overall, it doesnt seem to make much sense to have this complicated system where the elegibility and benefits are so different all over the country, …why 58 regions? thats nuts, i would prefer one standard but if they have to have different ones get it down to a manageable number between 3 and 5

By: Chrystal Ocean

Chrystal Ocean — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:02:24 +0000

“In most circumstances under the current system, laid-off … workers need to have worked between 420 and 700 hours in the previous year.”

The 360-hour target proposed by the Liberals et al is too low. Why not choose the average between the current eligibility minimum hours requirement – i.e., 560 hours – and also enable the self-employed to contribute to EI?

That would treat all working Canadians equally and make more of us eligible in times of employment scarcity.