|
|
|
|
||
|
LIBERAL EI REFORMS GREATLY EXAGGERATED
Special to PV
(This article is from the October 16-31/2000 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.)
CHANGES TO THE Employment Insurance system announced Sept. 28 by the federal government will do nothing to improve the chances of workers to receive EI payments, warns the Canadian Labour Congress.
The "reforms" include four main proposals. One is the elimination of the "Intensity Rule," which imposes lower benefits on workers forced to apply for EI on a regular or annual basis due to lack of jobs. Having campaigned against this rule, the CLC has welcomed the change.
The other proposals include some minor changes for parents re-entering the labour market, adjustments of clawbacks, and a government takeover of powers from the EI Commission, reducing the participation of labour and other sectors.
None of the proposals does anything to correct the main problem with the current system - the majority of unemployed workers are prevented from qualifying for benefits by an arbitrary and unpredictable set of formulas. Since the Mulroney Tories began undermining unemployment insurance over a decade ago, the percentage of jobless workers eligible for benefits has fallen from over 80% to just one-third.
One result of this shift has been a huge financial ripoff by the federal government, which has sucked billions of dollars out of the EI Fund into its general revenues. This trend is one of the key factors in the recent budget surpluses announced by Finance Minister Paul Martin, at the expense of the unemployed and their communities across Canada.
Rather than being reversed, this form of theft continues to speed up. For the first time this year, the majority of EI revenue from workers and employers will go to the government's general revenues rather than to the unemployed.
As the CLC points out, this means in reality that jobless workers are subsidizing the presidents of Canada's hugely profitable banks. A recent study by the Congress predicts that while $7.1 billion will go towards benefits for laid-off and jobless workers this year, an even larger $7.8 billion will flow out of the EI Fund into general revenues. The federal Liberals are busy debating how much of the resulting budget surplus will go towards tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals.
In the corporate media, the recent EI changes have been called a Liberal handout to "seasonal workers" in Atlantic Canada. Such terms are questionable, since there are only "seasonal jobs," while most workers prefer stable, year-round employment.
But even more to the point, the truth is that not a single extra jobless worker, in seasonal or other industries, will qualify for benefits under the new amendments.
And while the Liberal spin-doctors are busy claiming that the changes will help Atlantic Canada, the fact is that seasonal employment is not limited to any geographical area. The CLC points out that three-quarters of the EI payments to workers in seasonal jobs go to claimants in Ontario, Alberta, BC and Quebec.
"Under the guise of reform, the government has simply removed one truly odious measure cutting benefit rates and modified another clawing back benefits," says CLC President Ken Georgetti. "Both penalized seasonal workers for repeated layoff. The Liberals have in fact helped stigmatize the unemployed, perpetuating the myth that seasonal workers control their own hiring and layoff!
"These changes to the EI program fail to deal with the true needs of jobless workers and their families," according to Georgetti. "They correct only some of the inequities plaguing those who do qualify. There is nothing there for the multitude who contribute to the plan, yet never qualify when they are in need. The fundamental problem remains that two-thirds of the unemployed do not qualify for benefits, period. For these women and men, this `reform' means nothing."
|
|
|
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
