I detected a familiar ring to the explanation delivered Thursday for the changes to the federal Employment Insurance plan.
The subtext was that there are jobs aplenty for people willing to get off their butts and go to work. What EI recipients need to connect with them is some tough love in the form of a little (very little) more help for people looking for a job and a swift boot out the door for those deemed to be too fussy about what sort of employment they would accept.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty set the tone for the new rules earlier this week with his assessment that there is no such thing as a bad job.
When the new rules were finally announced, they were accompanied by statistics that showed the number of people in various provinces collecting EI while foreign workers were being brought in to take jobs unemployed Canadians with similar skills could have taken.
They included fish plant workers in P.E.I., farm workers in Ontario and food services workers in Alberta.
A decade ago, then-Premier Gordon Campbell's Liberal government set out to clear the malingerers out of the welfare system with a similar zeal.
The best social safety net, his minister responsible for trimming the welfare rolls declared, is a job. And jobs are everywhere. Even when the economy slows, new jobs are being created every day and could be filled by some of those folks who are ruining their own lives and burdening taxpayers by relying on welfare when with a bit of carrot and stick, they could be supporting themselves and their families.
The carrot was some help with finding a job. The stick was a meaner, leaner welfare system that required applicants to first strip themselves of most of their assets before they could qualify for the little bit of help avail-able. A helping hand of last resort, hard to grab and harder to hang on to.
For a while, the new rules seemed to be working.
They certainly had the effect of paring down the welfare rolls, continuing the trend that started in the mid-90s when the NDP initiated reforms when the fact that one in 10 British Columbians were getting social assistance despite a relatively healthy economy made it obvious to almost everyone that the system was broken.
By the time the Liberals took over, that number was cut in half. After the Liberal reforms, it continued to fall, especially among those who were expected to work. Then came the financial crisis of 2008. Jobs disappeared and the welfare rolls, even with the more restrictive rules, grew, although not nearly to the previous levels.
What was never clear was what happened to the people who moved off welfare. What followup surveys there were often were unable to contact former recipients.
Supporters of the Liberal approach argued that they had moved from welfare to work. Critics, eyeing the growing lineups at food banks, weren't persuaded.
It seems fairly certain that tightening up eligibility requirements for Employment Insurance will reduce the number of people who get it. It may force people to take jobs they would not otherwise have taken.
Less certain is whether they, or our communities, will be better off as a result.
If you are working full time at a minimum-wage job, it is pretty difficult to find the time and energy to acquire the skills necessary to move to one that pays more or that helps fill the skills gap we keep hearing so much about.
Where there are skilled jobs going begging in mining or the energy business, they can only be filled with skilled workers. They are not being handed out to anyone who shows up, even if they do have a strong back and a good attitude.
If we want to get serious in this country about using what demographers see as a looming labour short-age to reduce unemployment, we are going to put a lot more effort into making it possible for people who are unemployed or working at minimum-wage jobs to get the skills that employers will be looking for.
That may not be, strictly speaking, a job for an Employment Insurance plan.
But given the way that successive governments have used EI premiums as a de facto tax, raking in a $10-billion surplus since 2000 even with the recession, there is no reason why it shouldn't also be part of a plan to make work more productive for employees and businesses alike.
Original Article
Source: vancouver sun
Author: Craig McInnes
The subtext was that there are jobs aplenty for people willing to get off their butts and go to work. What EI recipients need to connect with them is some tough love in the form of a little (very little) more help for people looking for a job and a swift boot out the door for those deemed to be too fussy about what sort of employment they would accept.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty set the tone for the new rules earlier this week with his assessment that there is no such thing as a bad job.
When the new rules were finally announced, they were accompanied by statistics that showed the number of people in various provinces collecting EI while foreign workers were being brought in to take jobs unemployed Canadians with similar skills could have taken.
They included fish plant workers in P.E.I., farm workers in Ontario and food services workers in Alberta.
A decade ago, then-Premier Gordon Campbell's Liberal government set out to clear the malingerers out of the welfare system with a similar zeal.
The best social safety net, his minister responsible for trimming the welfare rolls declared, is a job. And jobs are everywhere. Even when the economy slows, new jobs are being created every day and could be filled by some of those folks who are ruining their own lives and burdening taxpayers by relying on welfare when with a bit of carrot and stick, they could be supporting themselves and their families.
The carrot was some help with finding a job. The stick was a meaner, leaner welfare system that required applicants to first strip themselves of most of their assets before they could qualify for the little bit of help avail-able. A helping hand of last resort, hard to grab and harder to hang on to.
For a while, the new rules seemed to be working.
They certainly had the effect of paring down the welfare rolls, continuing the trend that started in the mid-90s when the NDP initiated reforms when the fact that one in 10 British Columbians were getting social assistance despite a relatively healthy economy made it obvious to almost everyone that the system was broken.
By the time the Liberals took over, that number was cut in half. After the Liberal reforms, it continued to fall, especially among those who were expected to work. Then came the financial crisis of 2008. Jobs disappeared and the welfare rolls, even with the more restrictive rules, grew, although not nearly to the previous levels.
What was never clear was what happened to the people who moved off welfare. What followup surveys there were often were unable to contact former recipients.
Supporters of the Liberal approach argued that they had moved from welfare to work. Critics, eyeing the growing lineups at food banks, weren't persuaded.
It seems fairly certain that tightening up eligibility requirements for Employment Insurance will reduce the number of people who get it. It may force people to take jobs they would not otherwise have taken.
Less certain is whether they, or our communities, will be better off as a result.
If you are working full time at a minimum-wage job, it is pretty difficult to find the time and energy to acquire the skills necessary to move to one that pays more or that helps fill the skills gap we keep hearing so much about.
Where there are skilled jobs going begging in mining or the energy business, they can only be filled with skilled workers. They are not being handed out to anyone who shows up, even if they do have a strong back and a good attitude.
If we want to get serious in this country about using what demographers see as a looming labour short-age to reduce unemployment, we are going to put a lot more effort into making it possible for people who are unemployed or working at minimum-wage jobs to get the skills that employers will be looking for.
That may not be, strictly speaking, a job for an Employment Insurance plan.
But given the way that successive governments have used EI premiums as a de facto tax, raking in a $10-billion surplus since 2000 even with the recession, there is no reason why it shouldn't also be part of a plan to make work more productive for employees and businesses alike.
Original Article
Source: vancouver sun
Author: Craig McInnes
No comments:
Post a Comment