Conservatives want unemployed to fill jobs going to temporar

[RedDog]

The minister added B.C. to his list of anecdotes that he’s been hearing from farm managers across the country, noting that Okanagan Valley farmers can no longer find area high school and university students to work in their orchards in the summer...

On my sabbatical last summer I actually applied at a couple Okanagan orchards. There were dozens with postings. I figured - be in the sun all day; housing and meals included; sit around the fire at night with new friends. It sounded like a paid vacation to me with good exercise and a great way to spend the summer. I heard back from neither. I assume with my resume they didn't think I was serious. I most certainly was.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm sick to death of hearing people complain that 10 or 14 and hour isn't enough of an incentive to take a job. We paid off a house on less than that. In fact before hubby got sick he was making 12 and change after working for the same company for 39 years. It's not what you make but how you spend it that counts.

I've worked for 8 and change before on commission. As a delivery driver. Paid off half my school that way.

I left Canada after going 2 years without getting any job at all. I applied, but everyone said I should be on disability. f-word that. The only jobs I had was tutoring work, and writing work that I scrounged up myself. I applied for the minimum wage jobs, but guess what. They aren't interested in hiring educated people with degrees. So what's the point?

I've done all the right things, made all the right decisions and nobody, and I mean nobody was interested in hiring me. So f-word Canada. I went where I'm wanted.

[styky]

I'm sick to death of hearing people complain that 10 or 14 and hour isn't enough of an incentive to take a job. We paid off a house on less than that. In fact before hubby got sick he was making 12 and change after working for the same company for 39 years. It's not what you make but how you spend it that counts.

I've worked for 8 and change before on commission. As a delivery driver. Paid off half my school that way.

I left Canada after going 2 years without getting any job at all. I applied, but everyone said I should be on disability. f-word that. The only jobs I had was tutoring work, and writing work that I scrounged up myself. I applied for the minimum wage jobs, but guess what. They aren't interested in hiring educated people with degrees. So what's the point?

I've done all the right things, made all the right decisions and nobody, and I mean nobody was interested in hiring me. So f-word Canada. I went where I'm wanted.

Good for you just think where we could be as a country if everyone had that work attitude.

[MikeNB]

As left wing as BC might be, there is still a stigma to living off EI. I understand that the Maritimes is much like England - one is proud to be on the pogey.

You understand wrong. There is a pogey class of losers that go year to year to get their stamps but they are looked down on.

[styky]

I fail to understand how some can think that menial jobs are somehow not worth taking requiring we bring in foreign workers to fulfill these positions. Especially when you can from reports make $32 an hour pushing a broom.

[styky]

New EI rules could force unemployed into jobs they don’t want
BILL CURRY
OTTAWA— From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, May. 03, 2012 7:53PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, May. 03, 2012 7:55PM EDT
Conservative legislation restricting access to EI benefits risks forcing people into jobs they don’t want, but a national business group says employers will accept those headaches if it means fewer labour shortages.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is praising measures contained in the federal budget implementation bill that removes long-standing legal reasons for Canadians on Employment Insurance to reject certain jobs.

“We think it’s completely appropriate for government to give employees a bit of a nudge to get back into the labour force,” said Dan Kelly, the CFIB’s vice-president of legislative affairs.

The government’s sweeping budget implementation bill contains changes to EI that have never been formally announced or explained by the government. The budget bill would remove provisions of the Employment Insurance Act that allow EI recipients to turn down an available job if it is not in the claimant’s usual occupation, is at a lower rate of pay or involves “conditions less favourable than those … recognized by good employers.”

A spokesperson for Human Resources Minister Diane Finley said Thursday these conditions are being moved “from legislation to regulation.” That means cabinet can define the rules later without parliamentary approval.

Debate over the 425-page budget bill heated up Thursday after the government passed a motion to limit House of Commons debate on the measures.................http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... nt=2422102

[fourhorses]

that's why it's called WORK

[styky]

that's why it's called WORK

After reading some of the comments apparently they could be forced to take "non-union" positions without "pensions" and some without "benefits" Oh the horror.

[Lee Enfield]

The minister added B.C. to his list of anecdotes that he’s been hearing from farm managers across the country, noting that Okanagan Valley farmers can no longer find area high school and university students to work in their orchards in the summer...

On my sabbatical last summer I actually applied at a couple Okanagan orchards. There were dozens with postings. I figured - be in the sun all day; housing and meals included; sit around the fire at night with new friends. It sounded like a paid vacation to me with good exercise and a great way to spend the summer. I heard back from neither. I assume with my resume they didn't think I was serious. I most certainly was.

In order to bring in foreign workers, the employer has to prove that he tried to hire Canadians.
That requires a receipt, not interviews.

It is likely the employer already had the crew of foreigners lined up when he already placed the ad.
He never wanted a Canadian to begin with.

[LAR]

I fail to understand how some can think that menial jobs are somehow not worth taking requiring we bring in foreign workers to fulfill these positions. Especially when you can from reports make $32 an hour pushing a broom.

There's no shortage of Canadians willing to bush that broom. They're talking about doing away with those positions and paying so little to replace them they'll have to send to the third world for employees.

[Lee Enfield]

that's why it's called WORK

After reading some of the comments apparently they could be forced to take "non-union" positions without "pensions" and some without "benefits" Oh the horror.

A market is supposed to work based on supply and demand.

If an employer is no longer able to get workers with lower tier wages and working conditions, he is supposed to raise his offer, not bring in planeloads of foreigners.

Our government is selling our young people down the river.

Why should an employer give young people work experience running bulldozers, and backhoes, for instance,when all they have to do is spend $25 in advertising to prove that they could not find a qualified Canadian for that job and then bring in foreign workers?

[WestViking]

that's why it's called WORK

After reading some of the comments apparently they could be forced to take "non-union" positions without "pensions" and some without "benefits" Oh the horror.

A market is supposed to work based on supply and demand. If an employer is no longer able to get workers with lower tier wages and working conditions, he is supposed to raise his offer, not bring in planeloads of foreigners. Our government is selling our young people down the river. Why should an employer give young people work experience running bulldozers, and backhoes, for instance,when all they have to do is spend $25 in advertising to prove that they could not find a qualified Canadian for that job and then bring in foreign workers?

First, a supply and demand market is free of government interference such as an Employment Insurance plan that allows the unemployed to turn down an available job if it is not in the claimant’s usual occupation, is at a lower rate of pay or involves “conditions less favourable than those … recognized by good employers".

Second, no one is being sold down the river except employers who cannot offer the benefit packages major industries provide for unionized labour. Despite paying a large subsidy to EI, the owner of a computer sales and repair shop can't get reliable help because he cannot match the benefit package of his giant competitor downtown. The prices and repair rates of the giant competitor include the costs of that benefit package, so consumers pay for the benefits.

Many years ago, I had an acquaintance who was a construction carpenter foreman - and very good at his trade. He had earned a reputation and was never without work - if he wanted to work. He would usually start work about the end of April and quit work at the end of October. He lived on EI for the winter. I asked him how he managed that. He grinned and said constructions shuts down for the winter here. There is no demand for a carpenter foreman. I don't have to take a job outside my trade and class.

EI skews the labour market so badly there is no effective 'supply and demand' in operation.

[Lee Enfield]

that's why it's called WORK

After reading some of the comments apparently they could be forced to take "non-union" positions without "pensions" and some without "benefits" Oh the horror.

A market is supposed to work based on supply and demand. If an employer is no longer able to get workers with lower tier wages and working conditions, he is supposed to raise his offer, not bring in planeloads of foreigners. Our government is selling our young people down the river. Why should an employer give young people work experience running bulldozers, and backhoes, for instance,when all they have to do is spend $25 in advertising to prove that they could not find a qualified Canadian for that job and then bring in foreign workers?

First, a supply and demand market is free of government interference such as an Employment Insurance plan that allows the unemployed to turn down an available job if it is not in the claimant’s usual occupation, is at a lower rate of pay or involves “conditions less favourable than those … recognized by good employers".

Second, no one is being sold down the river except employers who cannot offer the benefit packages major industries provide for unionized labour. Despite paying a large subsidy to EI, the owner of a computer sales and repair shop can't get reliable help because he cannot match the benefit package of his giant competitor downtown. The prices and repair rates of the giant competitor include the costs of that benefit package, so consumers pay for the benefits.

Many years ago, I had an acquaintance who was a construction carpenter foreman - and very good at his trade. He had earned a reputation and was never without work - if he wanted to work. He would usually start work about the end of April and quit work at the end of October. He lived on EI for the winter. I asked him how he managed that. He grinned and said constructions shuts down for the winter here. There is no demand for a carpenter foreman. I don't have to take a job outside my trade and class.

EI skews the labour market so badly there is no effective 'supply and demand' in operation.

Canadians ARE being sold down the river because business will not hire people without experience for many jobs when they can get temporary foreign workers. That is the way the market has traditionally worked. Labour shortage? Train someone or compete with other businesses for the already trained.

Why does business recoil in horror at competing for workers? Workers have to be competitive, but employers do not?

Business pays a lot of those EI premiums because business benefits as well. At one time business used to be terrified of having to lay people off because they knew the employees would be gone. Today, an employer can lay people off for a couple of months and be comfortable that most , if not all of them will come back.

I support eliminating EI altogether, though, because I think workers were better off before it became commonly used.

The federal government likes EI because it is a cash cow. How much is that EI surplus? $40 billion? It must be big because the government no longer talks about it.

[styky]

that's why it's called WORK

After reading some of the comments apparently they could be forced to take "non-union" positions without "pensions" and some without "benefits" Oh the horror.

A market is supposed to work based on supply and demand. If an employer is no longer able to get workers with lower tier wages and working conditions, he is supposed to raise his offer, not bring in planeloads of foreigners. Our government is selling our young people down the river. Why should an employer give young people work experience running bulldozers, and backhoes, for instance,when all they have to do is spend $25 in advertising to prove that they could not find a qualified Canadian for that job and then bring in foreign workers?

First, a supply and demand market is free of government interference such as an Employment Insurance plan that allows the unemployed to turn down an available job if it is not in the claimant’s usual occupation, is at a lower rate of pay or involves “conditions less favourable than those … recognized by good employers".

Second, no one is being sold down the river except employers who cannot offer the benefit packages major industries provide for unionized labour. Despite paying a large subsidy to EI, the owner of a computer sales and repair shop can't get reliable help because he cannot match the benefit package of his giant competitor downtown. The prices and repair rates of the giant competitor include the costs of that benefit package, so consumers pay for the benefits.

Many years ago, I had an acquaintance who was a construction carpenter foreman - and very good at his trade. He had earned a reputation and was never without work - if he wanted to work. He would usually start work about the end of April and quit work at the end of October. He lived on EI for the winter. I asked him how he managed that. He grinned and said constructions shuts down for the winter here. There is no demand for a carpenter foreman. I don't have to take a job outside my trade and class.

EI skews the labour market so badly there is no effective 'supply and demand' in operation.

Canadians ARE being sold down the river because business will not hire people without experience for many jobs when they can get temporary foreign workers. That is the way the market has traditionally worked. Labour shortage? Train someone or compete with other businesses for the already trained.

Why does business recoil in horror at competing for workers? Workers have to be competitive, but employers do not?

Business pays a lot of those EI premiums because business benefits as well. At one time business used to be terrified of having to lay people off because they knew the employees would be gone. Today, an employer can lay people off for a couple of months and be comfortable that most , if not all of them will come back.

I support eliminating EI altogether, though, because I think workers were better off before it became commonly used.

The federal government likes EI because it is a cash cow. How much is that EI surplus? $40 billion? It must be big because the government no longer talks about it.

You're omitting the $54 billion the Liberals took from EI and never repaid. Even the Supreme Court ruled they had not right viewtopic.php?p=1669522#p1669522

[styky]

Did no one in the NDP take any economics course
Taking a job is squandering whilst sitting at home on the dole is a good thing according to the NDP. Are these people completely loopy.


Tories trying to impose ‘nanny state’ with EI reforms, NDP says

Mark Kennedy, Postmedia News May 15, 2012 – 1:50 PM ET
OTTAWA — Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has come under political fire for saying — as the government contemplates reforms to the employment-insurance scheme — that there is no such thing as a bad job.

The criticism came Tuesday from the NDP, which accused Flaherty of proposing a “nanny state” in which unemployed Canadians will lose their EI benefits unless they reluctantly accept jobs for which they are overqualified.

“Why would we squander the skills that we already have?”said NDP finance critic Peggy Nash.........................http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/15 ... -ndp-says/