Clear Full Forecast

Federal budget – On the backs of unemployed workers

By Submitted Article

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 03:45 AM

 

By Peter Ewart

 

For unemployed workers across Canada, there has to be some cruel irony in the fact that the Federal Government’s entire “Economic Action Plan” that was just announced will cost a bit over $50 billion. This $50 billion in the Plan will be used for everything from bailing out banks, to tax cuts, to home renovations. Indeed, it is the federal government’s recipe for dealing with the current economic crisis that is sweeping across the country.

 

So, what is the irony about this $50 billion? Well, $50 billion is about the same amount that the federal government has looted from the Employment Insurance fund to use for other purposes. This fund was accumulated as a result of worker and employer contributions – there was no government contribution whatsoever. But that did not stop the federal government from scooping the funds.

 

Indeed, an argument can be made that the entire Economic Action Plan has been financed on the back of the unemployed workers of the country. That being said, what is in the Plan specifically for these workers? Not a heck of a lot.

 

We have entered an economic period that many claim, including representatives of the Federal Government, is unprecedented in our lifetime for the threats it poses to our jobs and economy. The Federal Government is forecasting that this difficult period could last as long as five years, i.e., it is predicting deficit budgets for that long. Clearly, having EI benefits that last for only 45 weeks, as currently the case, is not anywhere near enough.

 

So how much will EI benefits be extended for in the Economic Action Plan? Five weeks – for a maximum of 50 weeks. This is outrageous. There are forestry dependent communities across Canada that have been gripped by Depression level layoffs now for several years. And the same holds true for auto industry towns in Ontario and Quebec. What difference will five extra weeks make to a laid off worker in Mackenzie, BC, where all the major mills are shut down, or an auto worker in Windsor, Ontario, where over 20,000 are out of work? Very little.

 

EI work-sharing agreements have been extended by 14 weeks to 52 weeks. But again, for workers in many communities that are experiencing catastrophic levels of unemployment, 52 weeks is not enough by a long shot.

 

Funds have been increased for EI related training. For example, $500 million is slotted “to extend EI income benefits for Canadians participating in longer-term training” which, according to the Federal Government, will benefit “up to 10,000 workers.” But didn’t the government check its own unemployment figures? For example, in November of 2008, over 506,000 workers were collecting EI. That number was a 15,300 increase over the previous month alone. Providing funds that will assist 10,000 workers get retrained, doesn’t sound like that much when unemployment is galloping ahead at over 15,000 a month. And, as the Toronto-Dominion Bank has suggested, that figure could amount to over 251,000 newly unemployed by the end of 2009.

 

It should be noted that another $500 million over two years is targeted towards “individuals who do not qualify for EI training” and for “those who have been out of work for a prolonged period of time.” The total number of these workers is hard to pin down, but in some parts of the country, some analysts suggest that there could be as many as 2 or 3 times or more actually unemployed than the number registered for EI. In other words, as many as 1 million or more additional unemployed workers, for whom there is federal funding to train presumably another 10,000 workers.

 

Many people and organizations across Canada called for the Federal Government to eliminate the two week waiting period for EI benefits, to increase the amount of the benefits which are not enough for families to survive, and to extend benefits for up to two years. In addition, they called for structural changes so that regions in Ontario, British Columbia would not be penalized because they had relatively high employment in the past. However, none of these proposals were implemented.

 

Recently, the Federal Government pledged to “backstop” the Asset Backed Commercial Paper investors for $1.3 billion. How many investors were there? About 2,000, a lot of whom were wealthy financiers.

 

That’s about the same amount as the 500,000 to 1,500,000 unemployed workers across Canada will get in the Federal budget to extend and “enhance” their EI payments. It’s not hard to see who has the priority.

 

Peter Ewart is a writer, instructor and community activist based in Prince George, BC. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca


Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Instead of extending it 5 weeks they should of made it a MUST that people do not wait more than the 2 week waiting period before they get their first cheques. It is taking up to 2 months for some to recieve any monies. That is uncalled for!!! Your landlord or bank for your mortgage will not wait for their money. How many get so far behind that what little they get from UIC will not catch them up?? You have 50 plus people working in the Prince George UIC office. I bet they do not wait 2 months to get paid. Maybe if they did they would get their asses busy getting the paper work done!! IMO!!!
"EI work-sharing agreements have been extended by 14 weeks to 52 weeks. But again, for workers in many communities that are experiencing catastrophic levels of unemployment, 52 weeks is not enough by a long shot."

So how long is enough? 2 years? 3 years? 5 years? I have no problem if people are using their EI while they take some training or are honestly trying to find other work. I have a problem with people who use EI as an excuse to sit at home.

I totally agree with reducing the waiting period for the reasons mentioned above.
Our Government just tells us what we want to hear.I called E.I. today and they told me that the extension will apply to future claims.So what it seems to me is that they waited long enough so that 300+ people like myself ran out of E.I. on Jan 10. What a joke!!!!They don't seem to have a problem voting themselves a raise though,I don't know how much longer we will put up with stuff!!!There will be a breaking point eventually!!!!!
So dirtcheap, how does that help the ones who lost their jobs say last month. Are they actually going to nitpick and not give them the extra 5 weeks? Makes one so disalusioned about the people who are in charge of our children and grandchildrens future.
Also, can anyone tell me what the "breaking point" is for Canadians? I felt at that point 5 years ago, never mind today and tomorow. *sigh
re: the two week period.

I do not think that it is too long. In most of these layoffs people have been working for many years and have zero savings. Not having a savings of 2 weeks living expenses is grossly negligent. People are living beyond their means and need 2 weeks (Suze Orman says 8 months!!!) emergency living expenses. These savings need to come BEFORE owning a car, going to a movie, eating out, buying new clothes, getting a coffee at Tim Horton's, having cable TV.

How many people that have zero dollars in emergency expenses went on a vacation in the last year? Or one every year for the last ten years?


"Indeed, an argument can be made that the entire Economic Action Plan has been financed on the back of the unemployed workers of the country"

Given that the contributions to the fund were from employers and employees, wouldn't it be more correct to say that the Economic Action Plan has been financed on the back of EMPLOYED workers of the country? Besides, the unemployed workers are still entitled to what they always were, plus the extension tabled in the budget.

As an aside, I think having an allowable 2+ year EI period is simply goofy UNLESS the worker is actively involved in a retraining program that will take that long to complete or perhaps there are some sort of medical issues as to why the person can't return to the workforce.

If someone is able and they choose not to seek new work because they don't want to move or because that new work won't pay what their old job did, I have an awfully hard time understanding why the government should prop them up indefinitely. And let's be honest, when we're talking forestry that's what it could mean given the potential future of the industry.

EI should be there to bridge the gap for a laid off worker between when they get laid off and when they are able to find a new job. I don't think anyone ever envisioned it to be a total wage replacement program for people to use until their old job returned, nor would most people expect that ones standard of living while on EI would be the same as it was when they were employed.
NMG and Smooth have it right. One of the reasons put forward for having a two week waiting period for EI was that it would be an incentive for people who are laid off, to immediately start looking for work.

Some of these jobs that have disapeared will never return and that is the reality of the situation. Things are changing dramatically.

If we use the Auto Workers as an example I beleive that they get paid approx $50.00 per hour plus benefits, which would mean somewhere in the area of $100,000.00 per year. In addition some would have their wives working, so that they would have a good income over the past 15 to 20 years. If they havent paid off their houses, or put something aside for a rainy day, then they are part of the problem. Other workers income would vary, and be somewhat less than the Auto Workers, however the same principle applies.

The Federal Liberal Government, and Paul Martin then Finiance Minister skimmed $46 Billion out of the EI Revenues and applied this money to balance their budgets among other things. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that this was in fact illegal, as their was no legislation passed that allowed them to take this money. The court however cannot force the Government to put this money back.

A reverse argument put forward by the politicians was that when, and if we ran into a serious unemployment situation, the Federal Government would be responsible to ensure funds were available for EI payments. It seems we are now heading into this type of situation, and some of the **stolen** money will be repaid through EI payments. The Conservative Government passed legislation to ensure that this type of **skimming** can not take place in the future.

Historically people have these options:

1. Employment
2. EI Benefits
3. Welfare, and family help.

Some people will have to go to work for much less money than they made in the past, and that will be the reality. If they are lucky they might get some jobs that should be available for infrastructure, etc;

The next reality is the Government workers, Federal, Provincial, Municipal. these Governments are bloated beyond belief, and as Government revenues decrease, they will have to take a serious look at downsizing. So we could be creating infrastructure jobs on the one hand, and decreasing Government worker jobs on the other hand.

This situation was predictable for some time, however we choose to igore it. Now it is camped on our doorstep, and it will get much worse before it gets better.

A community of people has been able to sustain 1,000 workers for some 30 years. In order to tide people over as they transition from one job to another through no fault of their own, but simply because the nature of jobs in the community changes over the long period, they instituted an insurance program which recognized the fact that a transition period from one job to another would be required.

That worked fine until there came a time when the community was no longer able to sustain 1,000, but only had 900 jobs available with no replacements in sight.

The community got together and decided they had several options:
1. Those who lost their jobs were s.o.l.
2. The workers could increase the money they put into the system to sustain the 100 jobless people
3. The workers could do 2 in addition to taking some of their savings and investing it back into the community in an attempt to bring the community back to its previous level of sustainability.
The eventual consequence of 1 would be movement of people from the community to another, which would in turn cause further job loss until there was no longer a community.

The eventual consequence of 2 would be a new level of sustainability with a continuing higher level of unemployment and a lower living standard for those who continued employed.

The consequence of 3 would be the same as two, except that everyone keeps the “dignity” of having a job and they all bear the brunt of a lower living standard on a more equitable basis.

Obviously simplified a bit, but where people stand on the options defines their political leaning.

Oh, in case anyone is looking for the "right" answer, there is none.
EI should be no less then a 2-week waiting time based on the honor system as civilized fellow citizens who contributed to the 'insurance' plan.

If a problem arises payments can be stopped and the balance due before any future benefits could be received. Sure some times the system gets scammed by a person that will never recieve government benefits and thus never pay back the check they got away with.. But this total value not recoverable would be so small in the total value of the system that it just seems like common sense to treat people like people with some form of honor system knowing full well nobody is going to get away with anything anyways in the long run.

Some times I think its juvenile public servants that create these policies, because they see their job as one to create more paper shuffling empire building (verify everything on the check list before a dime leaks out(ie never take responsibility)), rather than an efficient service for the people whom they do work for.

In the end if we have a few overpayment's in collection, then I'm sure you can find ways to reduce that too without making the whole service some kind of lengthy privilege conferring process while people starve waiting for what then feels like a hand out.....
THERE IS A 2 WEEK WAITING PERIOD, YES. THE PROBLEM IS THAT MOST ARE NOT RECIEVING ANY MONEY FOR 6 TO 8 WEEKS. That is the problem....bill collectors do not wait 2 months for their money. Most can handle the two weeks but how many have 2 months worth of mortgage, utilities and grocery money saved up. Not many unfortunately. Maybe this is not right but it is the reality. Most people DO NOT or CAN NOT SAVE. IMO!
Shellshadow. I agree that people do not have enough money on hand to last 2 weeks without a pay cheque. Some of these people have been earning **big** money for years.

I personally know a few that would not be able to pay their rent if they missed a pay cheque.

They smoke, they drink, they gamble, they buy pick ups and recreational vehicles, go on grandiose holidays to Mexico, and live like there is no end to the Horn of Plenty.

Problem is their is an end, and the time comes when you have to pay the piper. It is easy for these people to blame the Company, and the Government for their problems, however they have to take some responsibility themselves.

Some of these people are in for a big shock to their systems, and although extending the EI Benefits will help a little bit, in the end it will run out, and they will have to start making some serious life time adjustments.

Some of us experienced hard times in the late forties and early fifties, and our parents experienced extremely hard times in the late twenties and eary thirties, and survived.

I hope things do not get that bad this time around, however people should start getting used to the idea, that the larder is now empty, and that any job is better than no job.

I once lost a high paying job, and had to take a security job that payed $8.00 per hour. I can tell you that I learned very quickly what it is like to live on that kind of wage, and I have a much bigger respect for low income workers now than I had before I took that job.

After all the crying, bitching, bellyaching, and complaining, we have to do what we have to do, we do not have too many choices.

The gravy train has pulled into the station.