Proposed EI changes flout professed government objectives.
by Samantha Power
This week federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty declared in the House, "There is no bad job. The only bad job is not having a job." His fervent statement had more than a few Canadians scrunching their brows, thinking of those frustrating hours of servitude given to customers' demands, agonizing hours spent cleaning other people's toilets or putting up with unsafe environments.
Flaherty was defending the government's budget bill, which contains reforms to the Employment Insurance program. The bill will give the power to Cabinet to define "suitable employment" — which in turn will determine if a person qualifies for Employment Insurance. The NDP opposition has said this could potentially force Canadians into jobs they are overqualified for, or even force relocation in search of employment.
Now, we've all had crappy jobs: meaningless hours spent making coffee or driving others around the city or working for an employer we don't agree with. It's done with the understanding that hard work will bring rewards, that we will one day be able to move up the ladder, or pay for our education and get that job we do care about and that we're good at.
And granted, one person's crappy job is another person's perfect job — one may never want to interact with another customer, while another loves the idea of making and serving drinks, indulging in the tales of a customers' day — but what we hope and expect is that, in a society where the idea of opportunity is defined as a core value, we will have the ability to find that perfect job, the one that engages our best talents and is a benefit to the people around us.
While the definition of "suitable employment" has yet to be determined, the NDP and labour groups such as the Alberta Federation of Labour are concerned this program undermines the very purpose of EI — which is, in fact, not welfare but an insurance program paid into for the benefit of workers looking for new employment after losing their jobs.
EI is a program designed to serve that ideal of equality of opportunity. As AFL president Gil McGowan stated this week, "It's designed to give Canadians some breathing room so they can find a job that actually fits their skill set, as opposed to grabbing the first crappy job that comes along."
Creating a more restrictive EI program is not the answer to getting people into jobs. In fact, a 2007 OECD study shows that reducing the generousity and flexibility of unemployment programs actually reduces measured productivity. It found that a more generous system allowed workers the time to find a new job that better matched their skill set, and that better matching actually increased overall economic efficiency.
Not only is this current EI proposal a threat to the idea of opportunity, but it also contradicts the federal government's mandate. Conservative governments, including this one, have sold themselves to the electorate on the basis of their ability to create jobs and increase economic productivity. Yet again this government is attempting to implement policy that will accomplish exactly the opposite.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.