Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Employment insurance hours

After reading this article, I have to agree with the Conservatives. That probably doesn't shock a lot of readers. As a libertarian, I tend to do that on a lot of issues. That doesn't mean that they are or I am wrong.

It is absolutely absurd that a person could conceivably, under the rules proposed and pushed by the opposition parties, work for 9 weeks and receive a full year of benefits. Quite frankly, it promotes dependence on the government, and promotes the idea of sitting on one's duff if they can't find the perfect job. Further, I believe that it's disingenuous to use the specter of a recession such as we've had to push a policy which won't help any person who has lost their job as a result of the recession.

I will agree with the opposition parties on one point though. The number of hours should be standardized across the country, however, I would suggest moving up the number of hours to something close to, I don't know, maybe 1600 hours in the year. If you work 40 weeks of the year, you should be entitled to full benefits for a year. Or perhaps move towards a model whereby the number of insurable weeks you work full time determines the number of weeks of benefits - to a maximum of 52 weeks for 2 years of service. The effect of this change will force more labour mobility whereby people have no choice to move back into the labour market, either by moving to a new place for a job, or by taking a lower paying steady job in order to keep eating and paying the bills.

No idea is perfect. Every idea will yield someone who it doesn't work for. The trick is to find something that is workable for the country as a whole.

No comments:

Post a Comment