What is Employment Insurance and how long can unemployed persons collect this benefit? What are the limits of Employment Insurance?
It seems our employment insurance system is being mismanaged and these are some of the questions which must be answered to repair a broken program.
Employment Insurance should more accurately be called Unemployment Insurance, because that is what it really is. However it is labeled today, Employment Insurance (EI), is a benefit unemployed workers may receive when they have lost their current job to provide temporary financial support allowing the recipient to maintain a reasonable standard–of-living until they are able to obtain another position. Theoretically, the intended purpose or objective of the program is to help unemployed persons through a rough period when they are unable to support themselves financially. The program was not intended to be a permanent crutch for those who do not want to work, or only want to work for a particular period of time.
How long can a recipient collect EI? It appears that in some areas of the country which have greater levels of seasonal economic activity workers can begin collecting the benefits from the time the work season ends, and continue to collect until it begins again the following year. Oftentimes, however, even if a similar or associated position becomes available during the offseason, some EI recipients opt not to pursue them, going off the benefits and back to work only when their traditional employment begins again. How does one justify that, and how can they reasonably say they are respecting the privilege (not the right), of EI?
I would submit this becomes especially difficult when, for example, the Ocean’s Choice fish cannery in Souris, Prince Edward Island, has been forced to employ foreign workers, namely from Russia and the Ukraine, because local workers refuse to work there. Those individuals, to both their detriment and ours as well, have become so comfortable collecting E.I. for most of the year, they likely no longer feel the need nor the obligation to work full time for the entirety of the year.
This kind of thing constitutes a clear abuse of the system, preventing others from receiving the benefit who could really use it. It also compounds the pressure on the government to spend money on E.I. as opposed to other priorities of the public interest, such as medicare and the much-needed redevelopment of aboriginal communities.
The average employed Canadian pays approximately 1.83% of his or her annual salary into EI and they deserve to know their money is being well spent — spent on those who truly need the assistance.
In my opinion, individuals who have alternate options for off-season employment should be legally obligated to pursue them, or lose their eligibility for E.I. benefits altogether.
Also, should workers pursue and accept employment whose requirements fall below their level of education and qualification? Arguably, yes, if the employment situation for their traditional field of work just does not present any feasible opportunities, and perhaps long enough for them to obtain work in that traditional field, or find equally compensating work in another field. Obviously, someone like a registered nurse or a trained, experienced commercial fisherman should not have to take work flipping hamburgers or mopping floors. However, if their preferred work is available elsewhere, then arguably they should take steps to pursue those employment opportunities, even if it might require relocating across town, across the province, or even across the country. Further, workers should also look at pursuing additional education and re-training in order to broaden and strengthen their overall employment qualifications, so they can pursue employment opportunities in their own communities, as opposed to relocating, if that option does not appeal to them.
A good example of this kind of forward-thinking can be found right in the communities of recent immigrants to Canada, the “New Canadians,” many of whom are foreign-trained academics, technicians and professionals who are employed in minimum-wage level industries while they retrain and re-qualify to practice their chosen professions. These folks are not asking for employment insurance while they do this, and our citizens here shouldn’t be doing that either when other opportunities are available to them for full-time employment.
One local daily newspaper editorial stated recently it is unfair to compel unemployed Canadians to “leap at the first job available.” Arguably true, but they should be working at whatever employment they can obtain until something in their field of expertise becomes available, because after awhile it would appear the system is being misused and grossly so. And that hurts all of us in the end.
Are those who administer the program mismanaging the system? I would guess they misuse their position often if they tend to help those who do not want to work. Does this happen? Frankly I would not be surprised if it is happening. It is very convenient just to collect E.I. with the help of an administrator if one is not anxious to seek employment.
Should E.I. benefits be stopped? By no means, however, it should be made much more difficult to obtain E.I. when employment opportunities are available in similar fields with comparable salaries. There should be more stringent rules in place as to how long benefits are available before the worker must be back at work of some kind.
Why should we, as Canadian taxpayers, have to pay taxes to ensure someone collects E.I. just because they feel they are entitled to the benefits?
