I fully support the statements by Finance Minister Flaherty regarding the idea that there is no bad job, and that people on EI should have reduced opportunity to refuse to take jobs that are “unsuitable”.
It is ridiculous for Thomas Mulcair and Peggy Nash of the NDP to argue that “skilled workers” who have education and training should not be force to take “lesser jobs” simply because they can’t find a job in their field. The reason they can’t find a job in their field and region is that the free market doesn’t have such jobs. It means that these people made poor decisions on what education they obtained, or that the skills they obtained in prior employment are no longer in demand. Or it means that the jobs have moved to a different region.
First, we have clearly educated too many people in social sciences and humanities. We also have probably educated too many people in basic business, such as marketing or HR. The truth is that we need more people with STEM education (science, technology, engineering, math). We also need more people with medical training. For the NDP to argue that we shouldn’t have nurses and teachers driving taxis, then the right answer is to let the free market drive fewer people into those fields. It is also silly for them to use jobs that are primarily government funded – especially when many provinces are cutting spending and reducing the employment of such individuals.
Related articles
- EI rules need ‘teeth’ to get people to work, Finley says (cbc.ca)
- NDP accuse Tories of trying to impose ‘nanny state’ with EI reforms (news.nationalpost.com)
4 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Frances
16 May 2012 at 0:11 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I have conflicting emotions about this latest ruling. But then we were in Alberta when the NEP and subsequent world economic developments devastated the oil patch. We were fortunate in that no one in our family was laid off because the NEP and subsequent economic developments.; friends suffered. That being said, had layoffs hit our family, we’d all have turned to to keep the family afloat. That’s how it works. You adapt: you move, you go ‘contract’ and try to find enough takers, you take whatever’s on offer and keep trawling in the waters of the job you really want.
In all the anguish of this ruling, nowhere do the critics address the obvious: working at Timmies does not keep you from applying for work in your area of expertise. And should that job arise, you move on. If you’ve done your job properly, the Timmies owner will regret losing a valuable employee, but you’ve paid your way and made him money., and that is how it should be. Should you have trouble finding work in your ‘area of expertise’, you can at least find satisfaction in doing a not-great job well. With luck, you’ll have found new skills you didn’t know existed, as well as areas of non-expertise you now plan to seriously avoid.
Blame Crash
16 May 2012 at 7:14 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I’d of used the word “indoctrinated” rather than “educated” for whom many can be described as the “shovel leaners” of the so called “educated class”.
Unemployed
17 May 2012 at 12:00 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
This post seems uninformed and it relies on monolithic stereotypes. I suggest you read this post to inform yourself:http://www.cpj.ca/en/blog/chandra/ei-watch-unemployment-choice.
I found the idea of STEM education interesting, however it is kind of like telling you that soon, due to an Armageddon, and world-rebuilding, ITech will no longer be in demand but instead, midwifery and childcare will be the top professions. Because it’s that easy to spend thousands of dollars for retraining and trying to be good at something you have absolutely no aptitude for. Yes, it’s clearly my fault for not being good at math and instead, opting to enter a profession where I help save cultural heritage for future generations. Clearly, it’s my fault and not at all a faulty system that creates a demand for highly technical, and for some- unattainable, skills. Every day I wish for work, any work, where I would be respected as a team member. That is my only criteria at this point. Clearly, I am lazy and I’m enjoying my leisure time, nearly starving and unable to go out because I’m on a budget. I’m really enjoying sitting at home anxiously sending resumes out. I love to be busy and work, and I’m actually volunteering my time with a few non-profits. What are you doing to help society, aside from writing obnoxious self-centered blogs and helping some big corporation hoard its money? Wow.
Taliesyn
17 May 2012 at 18:00 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
The issue is not that your choice is necessarily bad – but the question is whether there is enough demand in the economy for people educated in “saving cultural heritage”. Your career choice is one that is not one in high demand by the free market – it depends on the largesse of the state. The problem today is that “the state” is broke. It spent money borrowed from the future yesterday, leaving massive debt, interest payments and an inability to fund everything that people once expected of the “the state”. Unfortunately for you, the electorate has higher demand for public funding of health care and pensions than it does for museums and archaeological digs (or whatever part of “saving cultural heritage” you happen to be involved in). SO things like museums and digs and research get cut because we don’t want to cut health and pension spending. Me – I like museums and think that saving historical knowledge is valuable to society. And considering that such costs are small compared to health care, education and pensions – I would prefer to save that stuff.
But the free market and the democratic demands of the majority override any individual desires.