# EI rules are just wrong.



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I read a story about a lady from Calgary who worked for 20 years, and then her job was eliminated but she was offered a "contract" job. She worked as a contract worker for 2 years and then her contract was terminated.

She can't collect any EI despite having paid into the fund for 20 years and not collecting any benefits.

There is a lot wrong with the EI system. We all pay into it and the government scoops off all the surplus cash. The government gets to decide the rules and can disqualify people at their discretion.

The EI should be a system where people pay into the fund, and it is untouchable by the government. Surpluses should be allowed to build up and benefits paid out according to the fund status.

Everyone should have their own "account" and each year of contributions should represent some benefit if needed in the future.

What kind of insurance is it..............when the insurer can simply decide they aren't going to pay ?

That is just plain wrong.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

It sounds fishy. It is always good to look into the other side of the story. the problem is that the EI people are allowed to talk about the details of any one person's case. People are not generally eligible for EI if they quit or are fired for cause. "Terminated" is vague. For example, was she terminated for putting her hand in the till?

It would be a lot more expensive if everyone had their own account and they could get their money back when they are unemployed or when they retire. A mutual insurance system depends on people who are in stable employment subsidizing those who aren't. Kind of like insurance companies who depend on people whose houses don't burn down subsidizing people whose houses do. 

What you are proposing is effectively self-insurance, which is prohibitively expensive for most people.

Although I do agree that the government should not help itself to EI surpluses, or, for that matter, use EI as the platform for other social programs not related to unemployment, which is what they sometimes do.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

I thought you were going to go the other direction - that EI pays out when it shouldn't. As an example, if someone is a seasonal worker and they always have 4 months a year off, they shouldn't be able to collect EI for those 4 months. This is a known fact of their job and not something unexpected that needs to be insured against.


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

sags said:


> The government gets to decide the rules and can disqualify people at their discretion.


Err, no, it's not arbitrary. There are specific criteria for qualifying for EI, either you do or you don't. One of the rules is that you have to have contributed to EI within the last 52 weeks and worked for minimum number of hours. In this case the lady had been out of it for twice that long, so she didn't qualify. This shouldn't have been a surprise to her, the rules are public and easily looked up. It's not like somebody just made up that rule on the spot when she tried to claim.

If I pay for home insurance for 20 years and then stop, and then my house burns down a couple of months after that, do you think I can collect insurance?



sags said:


> What kind of insurance is it..............when the insurer can simply decide they aren't going to pay ?


Every type of insurance has clauses in the contract where they don't have to pay. I can't set my car on fire and then collect my auto insurance. Again, you will get EI if you meet the qualifications. But the qualifications are not just what you personally would like them to be, they are what they are.

If you don't like the way it is currently run, you will have to get political, and hope there is a lot of support for your vision. I personally would question your math on an insurance that anyone can collect any time no matter how long they have not contributed to it. I do agree that the fund should be segregated from "general revenue" and should on average be balanced (avoid both deficits and surpluses).


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

Spudd said:


> I thought you were going to go the other direction - that EI pays out when it shouldn't. As an example, if someone is a seasonal worker and they always have 4 months a year off, they shouldn't be able to collect EI for those 4 months. This is a known fact of their job and not something unexpected that needs to be insured against.


I agree with this. If you can't make enough during your "season" to last the whole year, you should look for something that is needed in the opposite season. E.g. Maintain golf courses in the summer, drive a snow plow in winter.


----------



## Rysto (Nov 22, 2010)

I'm not very familiar with the precise rules here, but if you're doing contract work, don't you have to expend extra effort to no longer be covered by EI? I thought that you had to incorporate and then pay yourself via dividends instead of salary to avoid EI/CPP taxation.

(If my understanding of the rules is correct and if the lady in question did this, I have no sympathy for her whatsoever)


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

sags said:


> I read a story about a lady from Calgary who worked for 20 years, and then her job was eliminated but she was offered a "contract" job. She worked as a contract worker for 2 years and then her contract was terminated.


Yes that was a sad story, but EI is _insurance_ it is not a rainy day savings account.

If the woman paid her car insurance for 20 years and then one day decided she was going to self insure from now on, then got in a car wreck 2 years later, no one would be asking "hey how come her *old *insurance company isn't paying up and helping her out?"

This is the exact same situation, the only difference is the insurer is the government in this case. And since the government is involved there seems to be some expectation of sympathy, understanding, and making exceptions to the rules that wouldn't be required or expected of a corporate entity.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

^ Exactly. Key word as you say is *insurance *


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Lesson for the day............learn how to work around the system.

She could have collected EI, went on contract status but not paid herself until after the EI claim ran out, but she did the "right" thing and was penalized for it.

I said on another post that my son's girlfriend lost all child benefits when she moved in with him, so she moved back out to her parents and now happily collects 100% child benefits.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

It's not working around the system, but rather understanding the rules for the system. The rules are made public and should be no surprise. 

In terms of taking the contract, and not paying herself, she first would have had to incorporate a company. That would cost at least a thousand dollars. Then she could have done what you said of not taking a salary, however, she would not have any income in that time as there is a potential to clawback If you are over a certain amount. She would also be required to file seperate taxes at the end of the business year, which is at the least a hassle but if done professionally, more expensive. At the end, CRA could still deem her an employee of this is the only client she has, as they are cracking done, and she would have to pay back the do then, and be out of pocket. She didn't get penalized, she she got what she was legally entitled to under the rules.


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

sags said:


> Lesson for the day............learn how to work around the system.
> 
> She could have collected EI, went on contract status but not paid herself until after the EI claim ran out, but she did the "right" thing and was penalized for it.
> 
> I said on another post that my son's girlfriend lost all child benefits when she moved in with him, so she moved back out to her parents and now happily collects 100% child benefits.


I don't believe there was any absolute "right" or "wrong" thing to do. If I'm not mistaken, I believe she could have taken EI when she was fired, not taking the contract, and used the time she was on EI to find another job (I'm operating under the assumption that a "contract" is not seen as a regular "job" under EI terms, and therefore you can refuse it without being penalized). Or she could have taken the contract, but also looked for other work, knowing that the contract would eventually run out. As a contractor, she was essentially self-employed, so she shouldn't have relied on one customer.

Your suggesting of collecting EI while working full-time as a contractor is unethical and violates EI rules. If you are on EI, you are supposed to be "available for work", which she wasn't since she was full time on contract. Bottom line, she had options to work "within" the system, not around it.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

+1

What sags calls "working around the system" sounds like fraud to me. I don't know why someone "should" learn to lie. I am also surprised that the son's girlfriend would choose a hand-out from the government over having another adult to help raise her child. Maybe the son wouldn't be much help in raising the child. You never know. 

I find it sad that people focus on getting financial benefits over building their lives/careers, etc. I don't think those are the right priorities. Given how much people hear complain about taxes, I think that sags won't find much sympathy for his "more hand-outs for more people" arguments. The money has to come from somewhere.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

My son was happy to pay all the expenses, but she wanted her "own" money, and he doesn't earn enough to give her the lost child benefits for her personal spending money.

His girlfriend called up Service Canada when her benefit didn't arrive and they informed her that if she moved back home she would start collecting full benefits in 3 months.

So..........off she went. 

And I might add..........let's not pretend that people don't use the system in any way legally possible to benefit them personally.

We have had threads on CMF on avoiding OAS claw backs, as one example.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

sags said:


> And I might add..........let's not pretend that people don't use the system in any way legally possible to benefit them personally.


Indeed. Moral discussions around government taxes and benefits and how/when/who is using them and in what capacity are irrelevant.

If you are not put in jail or fined, then it is OK to do. If you are, then it wasn't


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

peterk said:


> If you are not put in jail or fined, then it is OK to do. If you are, then it wasn't


So it's okay for me to steal from Loblaws or my neighbour as long as I don't get caught?

Bullshit. It's not "okay" to break the law whether you get caught or not. Fraudulently claiming EI while working on contract is an abuse of the system, and rips off other contributors or taxpayers. 

Choosing to raise your child on your own in order to get children's benefits isn't illegal; it just shows questionable priorities.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I was not saying that, it has nothing to do with being "caught". Only, is it allowed or isn't it?

And stealing from your neighbor is not on the same ethical/moral spectrum as defrauding the government. But that is for a different discussion.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

I would say that almost all programs are not perfectly efficient. It's VERY difficult if not impossible to write ligislation that covers most people without getting WAY too complicated. As such, these will benefit some people a little more and hurt others with the hope that it will average out in the end.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

peterk said:


> I was not saying that, it has nothing to do with being "caught". Only, is it allowed or isn't it?
> 
> And stealing from your neighbor is not on the same ethical/moral spectrum as defrauding the government. But that is for a different discussion.


Yeah, that is what you said: _"If you are not put in jail or fined, then it is OK to do."_ So if you're not caught, you don't go to jail and aren't fined. I will take it that you didn't actually mean that and we are on the same page.

The government is your neighbours. The government is all of us. And I don't mean that in a hippy-dippy granola sort of way, but it a very real way that if the government needs more money to pay out more benefits, it will raise taxes. If it doesn't raise taxes, it will incur debt that next generations will have to pay. 

Government is not some third party that we can push expenses off to. "Let government pay for it!" means asking your neighbours or children to pay for it.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Davis said:


> The government is your neighbours.
> 
> ...
> Government is not some third party that we can push expenses off to. "Let government pay for it!" means asking your neighbours or children to pay for it.


No they aren't.

Don't get me wrong, that's what government _should_ be, and it _should_ be the same as taking from your neighbor.

But the government has lost the moral authority to be treated as a neighbor many decades, many tax percentages, and many unjustifiable government programs ago. There is no ethical justification for the current extent of government or the way it taxes, and therefore there is no moral obligation to provide funds to that government, other than what keeps you out of jail.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

^ That's true but that gets back to the rub that government programs designed for millions of people will have some inefficiency in them. Look at TFSAs - they're abused by rich people that stuff their 20 year old kids accounts to protect their own money. 

I agree with peterk - you can individually be noble about it but it won't make much difference. Only chance is to use your vote and hope the elected are able to write policy that isn't open to too much abuse.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

peterk said:


> No they aren't.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, that's what government _should_ be, and it _should_ be the same as taking from your neighbor.
> 
> But the government has lost the moral authority to be treated as a neighbor many decades, many tax percentages, and many unjustifiable government programs ago. There is no ethical justification for the current extent of government or the way it taxes, and therefore there is no moral obligation to provide funds to that government, other than what keeps you out of jail.


I'm not suggesting that anyone need _donate_ to government. I'm just pointing out that whether you consider government to be like your neighbour or not, if you rip off the government, it is other Canadians who will pay. Some people like to kid themselves by thinking that somehow it take money out of politicians' pockets, but we know that isn't the case. Cheating on taxes or benefits costs other Canadians.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

There really is a problem with EI, my son's girlfriend booked off sick from her job stress related had the medical note. Four weeks later the employer terminated her via letter, several weeks later she finally got her ROE from the employer , they checked off box K , what does that mean according to them she abandoned her job. Off to EI they are still reviewing the case so this has been since the end of Aug. I pointed out to her that since the employer did not have medical pay she is initialed to medical pay from EI for starters next even with the medical note from her doctor they can't claim she abandoned her job. But here she waits.

She was working for a major rental company as reception, they decided that part of her job would be to go around after hours handing out eviction notices, for a time they hired security to go with her than decided they didn't want to pay for that and told her that she had to do this alone. Not surprised why she booked off in the end.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

EI needs a complete revamping.

It is supposed to be personal insurance to provide income during times of unemployment.

The employee pays into it, the employer pays into it........but all the rules decided by the government.

It shouldn't even matter why a person is out of work. Everyone should pay into it, have a lifetime account of their contributions and be able to collect from it.

There should be a lifetime account from age 18 to 65. Employees should be able to go a little into negative and make it up later, and their contributions at age 65 should just go in the pot for people still working.

Cripes...........people are laid off and have no income. Jobs are scarce and people have enough to worry about. It isn't like anyone is getting rich on unemployment benefits.

As it is structured, the government scoops billions in surpluses and has the motivation to pay out as little as possible. That is a poor system.

The Harper government increased contributions and changed the rules for seasonal workers, so that they have to travel hundreds of kilometers looking for work.

That doesn't work well in Atlantic Canada for the tourism and fishing industries. If people leave and find another job...........they aren't coming back for seasonal work.

No wonder the PCs got wiped out in Atlantic Canada where there is a lot of seasonal work. 

The Liberals have pledged sweeping changes to the EI program. The Conservatives defended their dumb policies.

One more good reason that Trudeau is PM now.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-justin-trudeau-ei-reforms-1.3219056


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

So last year the federal government scooped $2.7 billion from the EI, but have the plan is that the EI fund will balance over a seven year cycle (starting in 2017). When unemployment is low, the surplus will go into general revenues, and in bad years, the government will subsidize the EI fund _as it has done in the past_. If the EI fund were to be balanced every year instead of over a seven-year cycle, then premiums would go up when unemployment is high and down when unemployment is low. That would aggravate the economic situation instead of improving it. As much as I disagreed with most of Harper's policies, this one makes a lot of sense. (The unemployment rate in 2014, when the surplus occurred, was 6.6%, which means that jobs were not scarce - we were around the natural rate of unemployment. The rate has gone up to 7.0% in October 2015.)

Turning it into a personal plan as sags suggests would mean that people who quit their jobs, or get fired for cause, or stop paying premiums while they work on contract, would be able to draw out of EI, and there would be less support for people who get laid off, because the EI fund does get balanced over time. It is easy to say "give more to some people", but for a self-financing program, that means take something away from other people who use the program, unless you think that the taxpayer should subsidize unemployment benefits. I don't think taxpayers should. 

Trudeau has not proposed giving EI to people who quit, are fired, or who stopped paying premiums. People who want to self-insure for things not covered by EI should be putting money away in TFSAs or RRSPs.


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

sags said:


> The employee pays into it, the employer pays into it........but all the rules decided by the government.


Who would you have set the rules, if not elected officials?



sags said:


> It shouldn't even matter why a person is out of work.


So I can just quite whenever I want for no reason and collect EI for whatever maximum time I can? In the meantime, those who are still working are the ones subsidizing me (at best, my entire previous year of contributions would not be more than $930, so it wouldn't even be a month before I'm living off everyone else's payments).



sags said:


> There should be a lifetime account from age 18 to 65. Employees should be able to go a little into negative and make it up later, and their contributions at age 65 should just go in the pot for people still working.


That's basically just a "rainy day" savings account, with a line of credit (for going "a little into negative"). I'd like to see the math how much you would have to save to make that work - I'm sure it would be much more than the maximum $930/year you put into EI. I'm completely unconvinced that your new plan would fund itself.



sags said:


> Cripes...........people are laid off and have no income.


Those people would get EI under the current system if they worked the minimum number of hours.



sags said:


> As it is structured, the government scoops billions in surpluses and has the motivation to pay out as little as possible.


In good years there are surpluses, in bad years there are deficits. The rates should be calculated so that on average it balances.



sags said:


> The Harper government increased contributions and changed the rules for seasonal workers, so that they have to travel hundreds of kilometers looking for work.


If you can't make that lifestyle work for you, you should do something else. Those who work year round shouldn't also have to subsidize those who work seasonally. How is it fair for one person to work 12 months a year, and another only 6 months?



sags said:


> That doesn't work well in Atlantic Canada for the tourism and fishing industries. If people leave and find another job...........they aren't coming back for seasonal work.


In northern Ontario and some of the Muskoka, tourism operators have figured out how to operate most of the year. In the summer, they cater to hiking, canoeing, camping, fishing, etc. In winter, they switch to skiing, snowmobiling, ice fishing, etc. The point is, they have figured out how to make "seasonal" industries work. I believe that in most cases, innovative people will find a way to make a living almost anywhere. But they will not have incentive when there is a government handout to support an industry that under it's current business model will never support itself.


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

Davis said:


> So last year the federal government scooped $2.7 billion from the EI, but have the plan is that the EI fund will balance over a seven year cycle (starting in 2017). When unemployment is low, the surplus will go into general revenues, and in bad years, the government will subsidize the EI fund _as it has done in the past_. If the EI fund were to be balanced every year instead of over a seven-year cycle, then premiums would go up when unemployment is high and down when unemployment is low. That would aggravate the economic situation instead of improving it. As much as I disagreed with most of Harper's policies, this one makes a lot of sense. (The unemployment rate in 2014, when the surplus occurred, was 6.6%, which means that jobs were not scarce - we were around the natural rate of unemployment. The rate has gone up to 7.0% in October 2015.)
> 
> Turning it into a personal plan as sags suggests would mean that people who quit their jobs, or get fired for cause, or stop paying premiums while they work on contract, would be able to draw out of EI, and there would be less support for people who get laid off, because the EI fund does get balanced over time. It is easy to say "give more to some people", but for a self-financing program, that means take something away from other people who use the program, unless you think that the taxpayer should subsidize unemployment benefits. I don't think taxpayers should.
> 
> Trudeau has not proposed giving EI to people who quit, are fired, or who stopped paying premiums. People who want to self-insure for things not covered by EI should be putting money away in TFSAs or RRSPs.


We should do away with EI. That is my opinion.

Also, I am of the opinion that if you have a legal way of not having to pay the government or getting hand out from it. Then do it. It's not a moral issue. If it is, then everyone who get a tax credit back because they paid into their RRSP should be shamed into giving those credit back. How dare you take advantage of the RRSP credit from government because you are rich enough to contribute into RRSP when the poor gets nothing back because they have nothing to contribute.

When I quit my last soul crushing job, I took the moral high ground and quit to start my own company, instead of pretending to underperform to get laid off like some other co-workers. Result is that the employer scheduled a profit sharing the day after I left and also I got no EI. When this is the exact type of situation where EI should come in. A great lesson was learned and subsequently, I read up all the rules about EI, OAS, CPP etc. 

In Germany, a tax accountant told me that as long as you follow the rules exactly, there are no "Interpretation" by the government. Whereas ours is a mess of "INTERPRETATION". You sometimes get denied, you sometimes get approved so, planning for anything is uncertain and this messes with people who plans ahead while rewarding impulsive people.


----------



## protomok (Jul 9, 2012)

Programs like EI and Welfare are there to help people in need but folks should also be building up their own safety cushion via TFSA and RRSP. Not to sound harsh but if after 20 years someone is laid off and neglects to save anything in their TFSA or RRSP they should not be blaming EI. The RRSP for example could be quite useful in the event of a job loss since you'd be paying a very low tax rate for withdrawal.

Turning the EI into some kind of individual bank account is ineffective and unnecessary, people should be using their TFSA/RRSP. Even a small monthly contribution adds up fast if invested done regularly over a long period of time.


----------



## relk19 (Mar 13, 2014)

I was under the understanding that you can pay into, and claim EI as a contractor. This would solve this issue, and make it much simpler, if she decided not to pay into EI when she was working on contract, she does not get to claim it.

An issue I have with EI is repeat offenders. I know of a friend of a friend who abuses the system by working the allotted time to receive benefits, and then ends up getting himself laid off (somehow through "no fault of his own") and goes on a 6 month "vacation" on EI. He has done this 4-5 times now apparently, and still pays the same amount as someone who has never claimed before. If you ask me, the system should be like car insurance, if you have had to make more than 1 or 2 claims in the past couple years, you should be paying more for it than the people who have never had to claim it.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

^makes total sense relk I agree that would be a better way to handle 'repeat offenders'.

Problem is, it would be the logistical nightmare. Can you imagine what a pita it would be for each employer to have to find the status of every employee before calculating the deductions? 

On the other hand I guess most employers do it with a computer program by now, so maybe not so difficult.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

^^ I would think that it wouldn't affect payroll, only the employees tax return in the spring. It would have to be only the employee portion of the contribution that was raised, otherwise how would anyone who's had an EI premium hiked ever get hired again? There would be a permanent unemployment line of hard-up workers living off the dole the rest of their lives because no business would touch them due to their high premiums.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

^^^ yeah perterk you're right, but when you put it that way, maybe the best way to do it would be with CRA doing it on their end and leave the employers out of it completely..

still a great idea


----------



## 0xCC (Jan 5, 2012)

Shouldn't it work on both sides of the employment spectrum though? Employees that somehow manage to find themselves out of work on a regular basis _and_ employers that seem to put employees on the street on a regular basis should have higher premiums and/or should be eligible for fewer benefits.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

^interesting OxCC, I'd be all for that,
except what about employers in certain sectors that have trouble finding people that actually work out for them, 

say for example in construction, you get 30 people that hit their thumbs and only one that knows how to handle a hammer, and a tape measure and can do simple math in his/her head

Should that employer be penalized because there is no easy way to find out beyond on the job?


----------



## 0xCC (Jan 5, 2012)

I don't know how to solve that issue. Maybe some sort of grace period related to the employee's probationary period (that I think is also used to allow for releasing an employee without cause and with little compensation).


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

CPP and EI work the same inasmuch as they are both payroll deductions and BOTH the ee and the er contribute.

One significant difference is that if you are a contractor you will actually end up paying the er's share of CPP when you file your taxes. Make sense because that is how CPP is funded. Several years ago my daughter did some contract work. She was audited by CRA for this exact reason. My accountant said that the audits were common and although initiated by CRA they are done the request of the CPP folks.

EI could probably be done the same way. Both sides of the EI payments would then be paid. The next question would be qualification.....contractors/self employed would be able to bend the layoff rules with impunity. Maybe this is why it has not been set up this way.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

When times are good and people are working...........the government scoops off the surplus

When times are tough and people need benefits.............the government changes the rules to keep costs down.

Maybe.........since it is the employer/employees money............the government should just stay out of it completely.

Let a board of employers/employees decide the contributions, eligibility and benefit factors and let the surpluses build for down times.

The Conservatives used EI as a political pawn...........and now the Liberals are reversing the changes as a political pawn.

It isn't a game. People pay into the fund so they have a small safety net if they get laid off. I would rather have a board of employers/employees make the decisions.

But there are billions of dollars of free money available to the government to spend............so it is unlikely we will see any real changes to the program.

Yes it can be abused by some people, but the benefits are so low it isn't a good life. There are those who earn big dollars the rest of they year.....so clawback EI if the earnings are above the national average.

Geez........if we can't manage to figure out a good EI plan, why bother attempting to plan for big problems.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

For high wage earners, people in the top tax brackets, EI is indeed clawed back since it is taxable income.


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

sags said:


> When times are tough and people need benefits.............the government changes the rules to keep costs down.


Exactly what changes are you claiming the government has made that have made it harder for people to claim benefits?

I've done a little research, and from what I can see changes to the program over the years have overwhelmingly been in favour to claimants, expanding eligibility and flexibility.

Changes up to 1996 (see the Appendix at the end):
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/1998002/3828-eng.pdf

Changes since 1996:
http://www.esdc.gc.ca/eng/jobs/ei/reports/mar2013/annex7.shtml


----------



## Charlie (May 20, 2011)

when I was much younger, before my working years, you could claim EI (then called UIC) when you quit. Hence the "Whistler UIC Ski Team" and other unofficial programs. But this was changed a long time ago. Well before Harper.

The self employed have never been able to claim. Recently they've added a maternity/paternity option you can opt into. But otherwise, and EI option for someone who is self employed is just too difficult to enforce. 

The EI system does cross reference to new incorporations/business applications. So just 'not telling them' is tougher to get away with than you'd think. And it's fraud.

And recent changes have attempted to address the frequent claimant (with exceptions for high unemployment areas). 

The 'wrong' rule here might have been allowing the contractor to be classified as self employed, instead of an employee. So cracking down on that may be the fix.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Pretty much sums it up.........in a conservative newspaper no less.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/pmo-oas-ei-changes-angry-response-0

Harper's EI reforms were a big issue in Atlantic Canada, and October 2015 was the first election that voters had a chance to display their displeasure over them.

Liberals = 37 seats (67% of the vote)

PC = 0 seats (15% of the vote)


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Look at it this way. EI is employment insurance. It is for people who are employed by employers.

Contractors typically earn more money than equivalent employees...at least the contractors we engaged did. The reason we paid them more was flexibility. Did not have to pay benefits, CPP, EI, or severance. No training costs.

Some people want to be contractors because they take home more money. The risk....they do not get severance pay, they don't get EI, they do not get benefits. It is a trade off that people make. You can't have it both ways.

There are many people who never collect EI. They work all their lives, retire, and that is it. Not that they feel cheated because they were fortunate never to have been unemployed. I paid in for years and only took EI after my severance package ended. And then, 39 percent of it was clawed back.


----------

