EI reform: Jack Mintz piles on

I am pleased to report that another voice has been added to the public debate on whether the Liberals' proposals for EI are dumber than a sack of hammers or if they are simply pointless. Jack Mintz has written an op-ed for the National Post on the topic, and it starts thus:

Jack Mintz: 360 hours? EI-EI-no - We know political silly season arrives when some of the worst ideas start getting serious attention. The latest is the Liberal proposal to reduce the qualification working period for Employment Insurance recipients to 360 hours before claiming 50 weeks of EI benefits (a recent extension by the Conservatives in the January 2009 budget).

Under this proposal, someone could virtually work each summer (about 45 days) to claim benefits for the rest of the year. Maybe in Barney the Dinosaur’s world, in which people are only good, we would like to be generous to workers who barely work before claiming EI. But, shortening drastically the qualification period would encourage greater turnover of workers, result in a permanent rise in the unemployment rate and impose a high economic cost.

Comments

[NotAnEconomist]

One positive thing about the Liberal's proposal is that there is a chance that people will realize that more than 360 hours of work should be required to qualify for benefits everywhere. The current system with lower qualification requirements in regions with high unemployment gives people an incentive to stay in or return to areas without jobs. If the rules are the same everywhere, it should increase mobility of labour across the country compared to the current system, provided that there is work somewhere.