Unions sue for EI overhaul

Some interesting news on the bete noire of this particular blog (and a few others) today: Ottawa's egregious $54-billion Employment Insurance surplus.

Click here to read my previous thoughts on EI, but the latest chapter is that a number of powerful labour unions are taking Ottawa all the way to the Supreme Court to complain that the government is knowingly taking too much in EI premiums, and using the funds to pay for other government programs.

From the CBC's story:

"The surplus has been used to pay down debt, It's been used to give tax cuts to large corporations and oil companies, it's been used for all sorts of other purposes but not for unemployment insurance," said Byers. "That's money that comes from workers and employers for unemployment insurance. It's not an extra tax, it's not to be spent on other things."

I doubt this will lead to any sort of substantive change, but it's nice to see this issue maintaining traction in the media.

Don't get me wrong -- by and large, I like what Paul Martin did to overhaul the system in the 1990s. And in principle, it's a program I'm glad we have, to give people peace of mind for when life throws them that 10-ton bag of lemons every once in a while. So it's exactly the type of program I don't mind paying for, per se.

But based on the number of people I know who work, pay into the system, and then have their payouts denied or ridiculously delayed, it's clear something has gone amiss. It's not supposed to be another level of taxation imposed upon anyone with the audacity to hold a job. But with a $54-billion surplus that grows larger every day, that's exactly what it's becoming.

I sincerely doubt this lawsuit is going to result in Canadians getting some sort of lump-sum refund cheque, but anything that makes the system closer to what it's theoretically designed to be is OK by me. I'll keep you posted on future developments.

The claws come out

Apparently you can add the United Way and the Canadian Institue of Actuaries to the clamour of voices calling for a complete overhaul of Canada's Employment Insurance program.

And while you're at it, there's a new adjective at your disposal to describe the rules: draconian.

I must admit I'm a bit mystified as to why this is all happening now, but I guess somebody's getting some serious mileage out of their lobbying dollars.

The truly troubling thing in all this, to me, is that that $54 billion surplus isn't sitting in some bank account somewhere -- it's actually rolled over into government spending with the promise to pay it back if it's ever needed. Does that sound like a deal you'd like to sign up for? An entity taking $54 billion more of your money than it needs in exchange for a service, with the nebulous promise that it'll be reimbursed to you should the need ever arise? I don't think so. Why not -- oh, I don't know -- put a stop on more contributions until that surplus has been eaten into a little?

I can't wait to see who else steps up to kick EI in the teeth while it's staggering on the mat. My guess? The Canadian Taxpayers Federation. But I'd also bet the Libertarian Party of Canada is lacing up a steel-toed boot as we speak.

EI update

Last week, news that a think tank deemed Employment Insurance biased against women, and now, Toronto Mayor David Miller has a bone to pick with the program.

The rules are overly harsh against Toronto, the mayor says.

36 per cent of unemployed Montrealers qualify for EI, whereas only 22 per cent of unemployed Torontonians do, the mayor claims. Since those people are generally pushed on to welfare -- a program the city pays a part of -- it's not hard to see why Miller's complaining here. It goes with his long-standing beef that Canadian cities are paying more than their fair share of society's infrastructure.

An interesting story, but I wish the mayor -- or perhaps, more accurately, the story in the paper -- listed a few more specifics about how and why, exactly, the rules are unfair to Toronto, according to him. That more unemployed people in Calgary (there's an oxymoron) get EI than do in Toronto is largely irrelevant. I want to know the reasons for it, if there are any.

Maybe I'll see what else I can find on Miller's views on the Internets.

Is EI sexist?

I already have a feeling I'm stepping into a hornet's nest on this one...

Came across some interesting reading today -- especially pertinent considering Krystal's recent job loss and subsequent need to apply for employment insurance to tide her over until she's back on those field-hockey-playing feet of hers.


A report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives claims that EI, as it's currently structured in Canada, is biased against women. The report says that while 40% of unemployed men qualified for EI in 2004, only 32% of women were. The reason for this, the report concludes, is that unfair rules concerning how many hours your have to log to qualify are stacked against women. In the words of the report's authors: "it doesn't take into account the fact that women have to be out of the workforce for periods to look after their children and that may make it harder for them to qualify for benefits." (italics mine)

Is it me, or is that a curious position to take?

I won't dispute that women, the way our society is currently set up, do a disproportionately large amount of house and family-related work. And I imagine that certainly would put a damper on their career opportunities, or indeed any other aspect of their lives. But isn't it shooting yourself in the foot to set out on a feminist cause that something is biased against women, and then say "women have to be out of the workforce to take care of children" as one of your arguments at the same time? Is that not making a pretty large deductive leap that that's what all women want? Or worse, are worth?

To me, the real meat of this issue is the face that EI, as it's currently set up, is taking in far more money than it will ever pay out in premiums because of too-restrictive requirements to qualify. That's for everyone, whether you quit your job to have children as a man or a woman, or whether you're a seasonal worker somewhere. The cards are simply stacked in the casino's favour, here. I expect that sort of activity from a private insurance company, but not from a government entity allegedly doing this as a service to citizens. EI rakes in a $2-billion surplus a year, and currently is sitting on more than $51-billion since it was revamped in the 1990s. More than $51-billion or your money!

You can argue all you want that the EI system is unfair, but I'm having a hard time seeing the sexism. There's nothing that says women have to be the ones who stay home, or work reduced hours, to take care of kids, just as there's nothing that says men can't do the same. Under these rules, if a man left his job to raise children, wouldn't the system be just as unfair to him?

I get that there's a systemic inefficiency here. I'm just not seeing the sexism. The argument that we need to revamp EI so that women can go back to making babies seems like a ridiculous one to me on many different levels.

Food for thought, anyway. I'd love to hear feedback from women in the comments.