EI Watch: What is “reasonable”?

It was a busy weekend for news on Employment Insurance. On Friday, TD Economics released a report calling for changes to the EI system. Recognizing that some unemployed workers are being left to fend for themselves despite the economic climate, TD called for changes to the access rules, flattening the number of hours required to qualify so that there is more consistency across the country.

Following the Liberal leadership convention, Michael Ignatieff announced that the Liberal party was going to make EI a key demand in what remains of this parliamentary session: he wants to see changes implemented to the system before the end of June. The changes include a standardized access requirement of 360 hours.

This was followed by editorials in the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail, calling for EI reforms. Both endorse the analysis and recommendations of the TD report.

Today, all of the opposition parties brought this issue to Question Period, calling for concrete proposals for reform.

It’s encouraging to see the growing consensus emerge that EI is a broken system that requires fixing. Hopefully this momentum builds to a point where change is inevitable.

However, I’ve also noticed a trend recently in the use of statistics. When the issue was first raised in the House, the opposition used the number of 40% of unemployed Canadians who do not qualify for EI. The minister responsible for EI, Diane Finley, was using the number 80%. That’s a pretty shocking difference, and it seemed like one side must have their facts very wrong.

The TD report also uses this figure of 80%, but makes clear where it is coming from – the 80% refers to those “potentially eligible for EI.” Or, as the Globe and Mail put it, “those with a reasonable claim to EI.”

This figure, then, includes those who would be eligible for EI if they lived in another region with a shorter number of hours required for access.

It excludes those who are not eligible because they were self-employed or unemployed for a long time, as well as those who were guilty of “invalid job loss.” Invalid job loss means that they quit, instead of being fired. So these people, according to this point of view, did not have a “reasonable” claim to EI.

I find this unintentionally hilarious. So those who do not qualify for EI under the rules of the system lose their job and don’t get help, but that’s not problematic, because the system didn’t intend for them to be covered! That is the problem! The system excludes far too many people.

Among those excluded are those most at risk from job loss – those who are in precarious work on a contract basis. They apparently don’t have a “reasonable” claim on EI. Similarly, those who are self-employed are on their own if their venture fails. We could create a system that includes them, but because we didn’t, it’s “reasonable” that they’re excluded.

There are many valid reasons why someone might voluntarily leave a job, including abusive or exploitative conditions at work, responding to family needs, or the challenges of transportation. The system allows for this, but, as Service Canada says, “You may have an excellent reason for quitting your job but this does not mean that you are justified to do so.” In order to qualify for EI when leaving your job voluntarily, you need to prove that you explored all available alternatives and justify why you did not choose one of them. That’s a fairly high standard to meet. But is that standard really “reasonable”? Are wrong decisions never made by those adjudicating? Do some people give up pursuing EI because the burden of acquiring it is so great?

The whole point of an insurance system for unemployment is to provide some insurance for wages in case of job loss. That’s why people pay premiums, and it’s not just covered by taxpayers. So when the system is leaving some people who lose their jobs to fend for themselves, is that really “reasonable”?

Why would it be unreasonable to create a system that actually does protect all of the unemployed?

It seems to me that our EI system is an example of a broken social contract. People have agreed collectively that we will look after one another when someone experiences job loss. What we have instead is a system that only looks after 4 out of 10 workers when they lose their jobs. This is a broken system, and I think it’s entirely “reasonable” to demand that EI be reformed to become what is promised – a system that protects of all Canada’s unemployed.