Jobs Crisis and Broken EI system

That is a bit simplisitc  of an observation michelle.

It does me no good michelle, can't watch youtube, dial up sucks.

But thanks anyway.

The NDP have not supported anything as of yet that I can see, other than wanting to examine the Bill in committee, with expert witnesses, just as the Bloc does. Unlike the Liberals who just want to shove it through as is.

Are you unaware that the NDP has been pushing for improved EI access for years, KeyStone?

What Michelle is referring to is that I originally made a comment that it was liekly a bunch of employed people telling them unemployed that the changes were bad.  I removed that comment while she was making her post, because although it may have a point, I realized it may not be totally fair.

On one hand,  I was looking forward to an election this fall, if only to let off steam at a candidates meeting, and one of the pressure valves I was going to release was about E.I.

And, I think the Toronto Town Hall was a great idea, and I hope different juristictions and groups copy this kind of format.

However, I would not like to see E.I. to become THE issue in when ever the next election arrives.

The issue is the dissapearance of good paying jobs.  This economic catastrophe has only accelorated a trend begun with Free Trade.  The purposefull elimination of good paying jobs for working women and men.

The elephant in the room with all political parties is the FACT that of the jobs most recently lost, only a fraction, at BEST, will return with any economic recovery.   And, those that return will be temporary in nature.

When you map it all out, it's an attack not just on our jobs, but on our social programs, our education, and it's an attack on the hopes and aspirations of our children.

It has been an attack on our way of life.

It's been going on for some time, but they just cranked the temperature up too many notches for us frogs to ignore.

Michelle wrote:

Well, it may have a point if it were true - I would agree with you if it were a bunch of employed people telling unemployed people what to think.  But really, it wasn't that way.

Most of the town hall organizers didn't speak, so they weren't "telling the unemployed" anything.  Most of the people speaking at the event were unemployed and underemployed people who were invited by the organizers to talk about their situations.  And there was a long period of hearing from people in the audience too, many of whom were unemployed, underemployed, or precariously employed.

Exactly, and that's why I immediately edited and deleted that remark after originally posting it.    I do believe that the concern of "the employed telling the unemployed what to think" is pertinent to this issue (that was the intended nature of my original comment).  However, my writing was not precise, and on the screen it came out as if I that comment was about this event directly, which made the comment inaccurate and therefore I deleted it.  I only brought it back up to give your reply some context, and to be honest.

Mods, perhaps now that the venue is over, and the call for help is not required, and this thread has gone on, the title can be changed to reflect the on gpoing discussions your town hall has created for a movement in solidarity.

People should be formulating a concurrent movement, to publically get a push on to support the NDP and Bloc motions that are before the House, as they are all covering exactly what radiorahim indicted needed to be covered, in this thread, and so can one presume that the Town Hall speakers and hosts have that view point too. As such, it appears that most basically agree reform of EI needs to happen now.

It is my view, and others, that everyone's future would be much less precarious, should these motions get through, than it would be if an election is forced.

To see if there is the truth in this, one needs to look at the the dynamics of an election and weigh the possibilities of  the outcomes occuring, in order to find out what really needs to occur in this most serious socio-political climate.

1. Harper looks to be in the neighbourhood, of a slightly stronger minority, or keeping status quo.

This is the reality that has the most weight. The mood amongst Canadians has not changed too much, from a year ago. Except for a more hardened position that government needs to work to achieve something for Canadians in immediate need. But they still do not trust Haprer with a majority This leads to possibility number 2, should government not work and non-confidence is called, though its weight is less than point 1's.

2.  Harper gets a slightly stronger minority, and thus has more leverage to force his agenda, the opposition cannot again call immediate non-confidence, the public gave Harper another mandate. There again would be no public support for a coalition.

Should this occur, or status quo kept, there will be a melt down within the Liberal Party occuring, it is already occuring as a matter of fact. And even if there was public consensus for a coalition, there would be no unified opposition to form one, as the Liberals would be in further disarray. So...Harper could rule as if he had a majority. And nothing gets done on EI Reform and 100's of thousands more will slide into poverty and lose their homes and lives.

At that point, an ad hoc movement could occur, pushing for assistance, but how/will it occur? Harper could say "give me a majority and I will fix EI, the opposition is in disarray and government oposition is still not functioning" and a Harper majority, we would have. And if anyone thinks there will be EI reform happen, in those 4 years of a Harper majority, they would be sadly mistaken.

3. Harper gets a weak majority, if the they make no mistakes and the Liberals gain no traction, and no EI reforms will happen. Sure enough,  5 years from now the CPC would be thrown out, but what would life look like? Can we take that chance? No.

Thus we can see that any potential outcome, in the current state of political affairs, should an election happen, is not a good one for potential  EI reform, nor Canadians.

So then, we have to look at maintaining this government formation and see how it weighs in getting something done for both immediate and future needs of Canadians.

1. Immediate needs that will benefit 100's of thousands are met. And those in precarious positions, future will be safer, should this "recession" carry on further, if just this first measure passes.

2. No immediate election gives time for the Bloc and NDP Bills to proceed further and get passed, as pressure can be put, by a unified public movement, upon Liberal and Conservative MP's to support and fast track the  EI reform Bills currently before the House.

Town Halls, of the sort that started this thread, could held to make this movement grow. Radiorahim already gave the slogan, in the thread linked above, that has started circulating. If speaking out in support of the NDP and Bloc EI reform Bills started, it would force ALL political parties to put up and give Canadians what is theirs, as opposed to giving it to banks and corporations.

Unfortunately, if one was going to be partisan, one may not want to support this, because it gives time to the Liberals to get their shit together. Though of course conversly it could be also seen that it gives them time to completely emplode. But that is mitigated by time gained for them to get a new leader, that Canadians could possibly accept. Still other partisans would not want the Bloc and NDP to get the credit, so would be reluctant to support it, but those could be mitigated, if there was actual will to help to people, like they state they have.

It could be sold to the public as a 3 way opposition effort, driven by Labour, to force the Cons into EI reform. This could bring down the levels of public support for the Conservatives too, paving the way for better and less dangerous results for Canadians in the next election.

Said action, would also be selling the way a future coalition would look and work, should it be needed, if an election occurs on non-confidence later next year. And it most likely will be, as a matter of fact. The reality is the Liberals, in disarray and in the current poltical climate in Canada,  could not get a minority government and they could actually lose seats if  an election campaign went badly.  Thus we have another minority Harper government, but one that could be be brought down, and a coalition proposed, as people have viewed how co-operation between the opposition can occur..

Even if the Liberals could somehow get a minority government, should an election be called now and should the Con campaign go badly, it does not mean anything for EI reform, as the Cons could side with them against EI reforms, put forth by the Bloc and NDP. And an election would forestall any EI solidarity reform movement, nothing gets done and nobody gets helped.

As such, under any election scenario, we are faced with much, much time being wasted, and we will have 100's of thousands of more  suffering and still EI reform needs to occur.

As the most important thing is making sure the EI reform happens, it means that it must insured that the current reform Bills are passing through the House,  as such the current formation is the way to go. Immediate needs are met, and the Bills are in place and have a good shot for a go.

And even if the Liberals did not want to jump on the EI reform train, bewtween the NDP, Bloc and Labour, they would have to support them, or risk an election, when they do not want one, and could not win one. The negative messaging around their lack of support and supporting the Cons in blocking them, would not be a good PR for them. And they need all the good PR they can get.

Thus, it is  reasonable  to perceive that there would be more of a guarantee that EI reform results would occur from unified action, done in solidarity now, as opposed to  relinguishing power, and gambling on what an election could bring in the future.

Someone wanted a grand unifying issue, well here it is.

And it can be actioned in the now, instead of gambling on an election that will produce no change, at best.

remind wrote:

It does me no good michelle, can't watch youtube, dial up sucks.

 

Ever so slight thread drift...

If you're on dialup, what you can do is install the "Video Download Helper" extension for the Firefox web browser.

You can get it from here:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3006

It's a very very small download.

Then you can download videos from youtube and watch them on your local computer instead of streaming them.    Downloading a file may take a little while on dialup but at least you'll be able to watch youtube videos.

To play the files you should use "VLC Media Player".   VLC Media Player is one of the few players that'll play "Flash" (.flv) videos.

It's also "Free Software" licensed under the GNU General Public License.

You can get it from:

http://www.videolan.org/vlc

24 kbps?    Wow...that IS slow ... even for dialup.   Back in my olden days of dialup I used to get connections in the 42-48 kbps range with the old 56 kbps modem.

End of thread drift ;)

/ resumption of thread drift

I used to get 300 baud (thats [i]bytes per second[/i] for you youngsters) on my Commodore 64 modem - so there! I couldn't even view still pictures with that!

/ real end of thread drift

Michelle wrote:

I think you should just move to Toronto, remind.

Where's that "Flag as disgusting" button when we need it!?

ya, it is slow radio, though I take heart some days, as it is 26.4kbsp.

Now back to our most serious discussion of EI reform that some are apparently deflecting from. ;)

We need these measures to happen now, and it can be done.

Seeing as how Judy's job positiion is about to be rotated to some one else, in the near future, she could use these town hall mediums on EI reform, and other such endeavours, to launch herself a career in politics. If she even needs a job, as I doubt she is living paycheck to paycheck.

But if she did go for a political career, she could actually transform power, as opposed to just speaking and writing about it. I mean seriously, she could create a following and a movement, across Canada, especially within the young women demographics.

Of course, should she choose to become a Liberal and do so, she would be blocking her own initiatives, plus there would be a healthy amount of discrediting herself, going on too.

But easily, as either an NDP candidate, or as an Independant, she could make some serious waves in Ottawa and across Canada. National exposure would be great for a movement, as opposed to her presence just being isolated in Toronto.

Sometimes things are put forward when the time is not correct, and when they are put forward and actioned at a later date they work beautifully.

Though admittedly, I am not sure what it is you are referring to that Judy did, that scared the "crap out of the party establishement". And I do not want to get bogged down with the past, it is gone, so really it is not pertinent to my position.

We have a present now, that can be actioned, and things can be done, if there is just even a small joint and conserted effort.

If you are not a feminist in BC, you would not know who Rebick is. Thus her audience threshhold is lower, if she would be continuing to work outside of the political system, in order to transform power.

It does not matter how many angels you get to dance on a pin head in Toronto, there can only be so much exposure and gains made in transforming power. One needs a national audience, and then grow that to an international audience.

Affliation with the Liberals would useless, and do much harm to said movement in Canada, outside of the centre of the universe.

Frankly Judy would be a great MP, and a big fish in the smaller NDP sea.

I may have misinterpreted the tone of your post #28 thinking it sounded a bit snarky. Not sure about Judy's outside of Toronto profile - I think it may be higher than suggested - maybe not with youth. Also not sure where the liberal references come in. Just don't see that in the cards. I think we can agree that Judy would make a great MP. 

Wierd as it may sound, I'd privitize E.I. and take all but a watchdog roll away from government.  

E.I. is a deffered  wage.  Have your contribution and the employer's contribution put in a bank account that's only accessable when you get laid off or lose your job-- for whatever reason.

It should be  set up so that after about ten years of continuous work, you have a years wages in it.  Then the contributions are only to account for inflation and pay raises-- assuming pay raises become  fashionable again.

I'd regulate how the banks  could invest that money, say, money from the manufacturing sector couldn't be loaned out as capital in that sector, but would have to be invested in another.  

I know there's a ton of details in this, and I don't have the answer for every potential nuance.  

But E.I. is a deffered wage, and as long as we allow the government to get their hands on OUR money, they'll steal from it, as they have done, and they'll use it as a political sword of Damocles over worker's heads, as they are doing right now.

Don't extrapolate this to say that I'm for privatizing anything else, or whatever.  It's just that  in the case of E.I., we have to liberate our money from those assholes in parliament.

Respectfully, that would be useless tommy, not eveyone gets to work 10 years in a row, they would be left out, nor should we be forcing people to stay in jobs they hate so they can at some future point collect EI if they have.

It would be much easier to pass a law stating it can't be touched by any government of the day for anything other than job loss stategies and UI collection.

Let's deal with plausibles

[url=http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2009/09/18/ei-woes/][color=red]Sister Lana Payne[/color][/url] is the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Labour Federation:

Quote:

I am a UI/EI junkie. Just wanted to get that out of the way. I would like to add that [b]this proposal sets a dangerous precedent as it attacks and diminishes the principles of social insurance[/b]. Social insurance as we know is a lot different than experienced-based insurance. C-50 says an individual is entitled to extra benefits based on their experience with the EI system, how much they have collected in the past and how much they have paid in premiums. This is what the Liberals tried to do in the 1990s when they first introduced EI. At that time it was called the Intensity Rule and workers were penalized (with a lower benefit rate) for every 20 weeks of benefits they collected to a low of 50%, while everyone else got 55% of their average earnings.

Basing entitlement on past use of the EI system and how much you have paid into the system, changes the principles from social insurance to experience-rated insurance just the direction the Conservatives want. [b]They are using the economic crisis to damage what has been a long-standing and very important program for Canadian working people.[/b]

In addition to being offended by who is left out in this EI proposal, we must also denounce the dangerous precedent that this sets.

We were successful in getting rid of that nasty Intensity Rule, but it took tremendous fightback - [b]11 MPs (Liberals) in Atlantic Canada lost their jobs as a result of those so-called EI reforms[/b].

remind wrote:

Rally behind the Bloc's and NDP's EI Reform Bills in this government, this is a golden opportunity.

 

What are you saying? These are money bills, which can't be enacted without government consent. The House has already passed excellent motions, like that of Chris Charlton last spring, including sweeping EI reforms. Your proposal would accomplish nothing.

OK Unionist, how about the opposition parties just stop proposing Bills, especially ones on EI. And then the Liberals can get off the hook for doing anything or attempting to do anything. 

Yes Chris Charlton got the motion passed.  So what... it needs to be fullfilled. That is the purpose of the Bill.

I am SICK of the Liberals turning away from EI and yet using it as a platform during the summer to exploit those who lost their jobs.

Bloody Hell.  

Its the Liberals who stole $46 Billion from EI, and made all the CUTS to employment insurance that Charlton is trying to improve.

The Liberals took from the employees for 13 years and people are surprised that they walked away from EI reform in June.

Then people are suprised that the Liberals accomplished NOTHING on the blue ribbon panel during the summer.

Well I disagree. I think the Liberals accomplished everything they wanted to accomplish on EI.

And somehow the CPC are expected to have accomplished something over the summer by working with the Liberals? The party that thinks the Unemployed have it too lucrative.

If the NDP gets the EI reform bill passed, and the Conservatives choose not to fund it.... so be it.  Lets go to the polls.

Canada's unemployment rate dropped this month

Again it is up to Canadfians to get active and push for the Bills to go through just like SSM's passage, and the halting of C484

NDP are currently propping  up the Tories in the House ostensibly to help Canadian workers.