After ominous hints and mixed messages from the Harper cabinet, Human Resources Minister Diane Finley finally announced “reforms” to the employment insurance system on Thursday that are both milder, and murkier, than expected.
No jobless easterner will be forced to move to Alberta, nor will out-of-work teachers be required to staff the counter at McDonald’s. And illness, hours of work and family demands will be legitimate grounds for refusing work. At worst, EI recipients will be required to apply for jobs within an hour of their homes — with some variation depending on local commute times — and could end up working for 70 per cent of their previous pay.
Far from being onerous, such an opportunity — if any do exist — would be embraced by many long-unemployed forestry workers, suddenly jobless public servants, or experienced tradespeople whose manufacturing plants have collapsed beneath them.
It sometimes seems the only people slow to understand that the majority of jobless Canadians are not scofflaws, living the high life on their $485 (maximum) weekly benefit while “suitable” jobs go begging, sit in the Harper cabinet.
Finley has repeatedly advanced the hoary myth that EI benefits can be a “disincentive” to finding work. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, hearkening back to his days as a taxi driver and hockey referee, grumped that “there are no bad jobs.” And Jason Kenney, the hard-working immigration minister, seems to think the unemployed need to be prodded to drive to the next community to work, even though his home province is teeming with Maritimers who have left behind family and friends in pursuit of a paycheque.
In fact, senior federal officials predict fewer than one per cent of current EI recipients will be denied benefits as a result of these changes — which suggests “abuse” is hardly widespread. In that light, the Finley reforms look like a solution in search of a problem.
Even within cabinet, there were hints of disagreement over the tone, if not the details, of the EI overhaul, as confusion spread last week. Atlantic ministers, such as Bernard Valcourt and Keith Ashfield, were compelled to reassure voters than nothing draconian was in the works.
To stem mounting panic, Finley dropped the finger-wagging and adopted a sunny tone at her press conference, insisting the government wants nothing more than to match jobless Canadians with available jobs.
To that end, everyone receiving EI will get at least two email “job alerts” a day, advising them of interesting prospects in their region — prospects drawn not only from the government job bank, but, now, from the private sector, too. That’s a potential improvement on current bi-weekly notices.
The reforms also divide the unemployed into three categories: the 58 per cent who only apply a few times in their careers; another 25 per cent who work steadily, but in sectors prone to periodic shutdowns; and the 17 per cent of “frequent” claimants, mostly seasonal workers from Atlantic Canada and rural communities.
The rules are more forgiving for the first two categories — long-tenured claimants can hold out for 18 weeks, looking for the same job at 90 per cent of their previous pay, before lowering their sights to a “similar” job paying 80 per cent. Frequent claimants have only six weeks grace to find a “similar” job paying 80 per cent of their previous salary and, after that, must accept any job that pays 70 per cent.
As for agricultural jobs, often filled by temporary foreign workers, eligible Canadians will be informed of those positions — but not, as some feared, required to accept short-term work that barely pays a minimum wage.
But no matter how measured, or overdue, these proposals, they don’t solve a fundamental problem: you cannot encourage, or force, unemployed people to take jobs that don’t exist. In many rural communities, dying outports and devastated manufacturing towns, the problem is not that workers don’t know about alternatives, but that there are none.
Finley’s department is getting $21 million over two years to improve “job alerts”, but there are no plans to hire more staff to handle a more layered system and increased reporting requirements — job-seekers will be required to keep a daily record of their efforts, ready for random inspection. All of which, says the opposition, will further burden an already overtaxed department.
Like other elements of the sprawling “budget” bill, the EI measures, to take effect in 2013, seem hasty, driven by anecdote rather than evidence, much less face-to-face consultation with those affected. They will likely be marginal in impact, for better or worse.
When it comes to devising nuanced, workable policy — for EI, crime, military procurements, whatever — this cabinet is badly in need of skills development. There must be a program for that.
Original Article
Source: ottawa citizen
Author: Susan Riley
No jobless easterner will be forced to move to Alberta, nor will out-of-work teachers be required to staff the counter at McDonald’s. And illness, hours of work and family demands will be legitimate grounds for refusing work. At worst, EI recipients will be required to apply for jobs within an hour of their homes — with some variation depending on local commute times — and could end up working for 70 per cent of their previous pay.
Far from being onerous, such an opportunity — if any do exist — would be embraced by many long-unemployed forestry workers, suddenly jobless public servants, or experienced tradespeople whose manufacturing plants have collapsed beneath them.
It sometimes seems the only people slow to understand that the majority of jobless Canadians are not scofflaws, living the high life on their $485 (maximum) weekly benefit while “suitable” jobs go begging, sit in the Harper cabinet.
Finley has repeatedly advanced the hoary myth that EI benefits can be a “disincentive” to finding work. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, hearkening back to his days as a taxi driver and hockey referee, grumped that “there are no bad jobs.” And Jason Kenney, the hard-working immigration minister, seems to think the unemployed need to be prodded to drive to the next community to work, even though his home province is teeming with Maritimers who have left behind family and friends in pursuit of a paycheque.
In fact, senior federal officials predict fewer than one per cent of current EI recipients will be denied benefits as a result of these changes — which suggests “abuse” is hardly widespread. In that light, the Finley reforms look like a solution in search of a problem.
Even within cabinet, there were hints of disagreement over the tone, if not the details, of the EI overhaul, as confusion spread last week. Atlantic ministers, such as Bernard Valcourt and Keith Ashfield, were compelled to reassure voters than nothing draconian was in the works.
To stem mounting panic, Finley dropped the finger-wagging and adopted a sunny tone at her press conference, insisting the government wants nothing more than to match jobless Canadians with available jobs.
To that end, everyone receiving EI will get at least two email “job alerts” a day, advising them of interesting prospects in their region — prospects drawn not only from the government job bank, but, now, from the private sector, too. That’s a potential improvement on current bi-weekly notices.
The reforms also divide the unemployed into three categories: the 58 per cent who only apply a few times in their careers; another 25 per cent who work steadily, but in sectors prone to periodic shutdowns; and the 17 per cent of “frequent” claimants, mostly seasonal workers from Atlantic Canada and rural communities.
The rules are more forgiving for the first two categories — long-tenured claimants can hold out for 18 weeks, looking for the same job at 90 per cent of their previous pay, before lowering their sights to a “similar” job paying 80 per cent. Frequent claimants have only six weeks grace to find a “similar” job paying 80 per cent of their previous salary and, after that, must accept any job that pays 70 per cent.
As for agricultural jobs, often filled by temporary foreign workers, eligible Canadians will be informed of those positions — but not, as some feared, required to accept short-term work that barely pays a minimum wage.
But no matter how measured, or overdue, these proposals, they don’t solve a fundamental problem: you cannot encourage, or force, unemployed people to take jobs that don’t exist. In many rural communities, dying outports and devastated manufacturing towns, the problem is not that workers don’t know about alternatives, but that there are none.
Finley’s department is getting $21 million over two years to improve “job alerts”, but there are no plans to hire more staff to handle a more layered system and increased reporting requirements — job-seekers will be required to keep a daily record of their efforts, ready for random inspection. All of which, says the opposition, will further burden an already overtaxed department.
Like other elements of the sprawling “budget” bill, the EI measures, to take effect in 2013, seem hasty, driven by anecdote rather than evidence, much less face-to-face consultation with those affected. They will likely be marginal in impact, for better or worse.
When it comes to devising nuanced, workable policy — for EI, crime, military procurements, whatever — this cabinet is badly in need of skills development. There must be a program for that.
Original Article
Source: ottawa citizen
Author: Susan Riley
No comments:
Post a Comment