Well Earned Censure
For a refreshing change Jack Layton has pounced upon a situation that deserves singling out for censure. The pronouncement of a government cabinet minister that has betrayed an undisciplined, unsympathetic point of view toward the unemployed reminds me of the first time I'd ever heard the word "pogey" applied to employment insurance benefits. As though accepting an established government method of tiding people over between employment opportunities was something shameful.
I was shocked and disbelieving. This is a fund into which employers and employees regularly deposit payroll-deducted savings for the purpose of establishing a procedure whereby the unemployed may manage in the interval between jobs, to pay the most urgent of their living costs. It is not a generous living allowance, it does not represent social welfare payments, although the scheme is classified as social welfare.
Now here is Human Resources Minister Diane Finley repeating that old canard. She should surely know better? Her cavalier remarks during a press interview after the budget was unveiled - during which it was revealed that the Conservative government moved to extend Employment Insurance benefits by five weeks, while refraining from shortening the waiting period substantially, and raising maximum payments - had her questioned by the press.
Her response to the media queries was not too very well thought out and did no credit to her thought processes, her understanding of reality for many Canadian workers, and her communication professionalism. Does she really have that level of contempt for the unemployed, those Canadians whom her department is charged with looking to their best interests? "Our goal" she responded "is to help people get back to work and get back to work quickly in jobs that will last".
An obvious reference to the $4-billion being invested by government into job re-training programs over the next two years. And that was fine. In her interview with Canwest News Service she should have given full stop to her statement. However, she thought she would elucidate. "We do not want to make it lucrative for them to stay home and get paid for it, not when we still have significant skill shortages in many parts of the country."
Hard to believe that a sober, intelligent politician prefers to believe that people enjoy the stigma of drawing on EI, let alone the misery of unemployment. Certainly that remuneration doesn't represent the wherewithal for a lifestyle of ease and luxury? What could she have been thinking? Not of those regional laid-off workers whose working hours don't mesh with EI requirements.
Most certainly not of the many working women dependent on contract and part-time jobs unable to garner sufficient working hours to qualify for EI benefits to begin with. A minister with a low opinion of those whom she serves morally disqualifies herself for her position.
Noun 1. pogy - money received from the state
pogey, dole
public assistance, social welfare, welfare - governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need; "she lives on welfare"
Canada - a nation in northern North America; the French were the first Europeans to settle in mainland Canada.
I was shocked and disbelieving. This is a fund into which employers and employees regularly deposit payroll-deducted savings for the purpose of establishing a procedure whereby the unemployed may manage in the interval between jobs, to pay the most urgent of their living costs. It is not a generous living allowance, it does not represent social welfare payments, although the scheme is classified as social welfare.
Now here is Human Resources Minister Diane Finley repeating that old canard. She should surely know better? Her cavalier remarks during a press interview after the budget was unveiled - during which it was revealed that the Conservative government moved to extend Employment Insurance benefits by five weeks, while refraining from shortening the waiting period substantially, and raising maximum payments - had her questioned by the press.
Her response to the media queries was not too very well thought out and did no credit to her thought processes, her understanding of reality for many Canadian workers, and her communication professionalism. Does she really have that level of contempt for the unemployed, those Canadians whom her department is charged with looking to their best interests? "Our goal" she responded "is to help people get back to work and get back to work quickly in jobs that will last".
An obvious reference to the $4-billion being invested by government into job re-training programs over the next two years. And that was fine. In her interview with Canwest News Service she should have given full stop to her statement. However, she thought she would elucidate. "We do not want to make it lucrative for them to stay home and get paid for it, not when we still have significant skill shortages in many parts of the country."
Hard to believe that a sober, intelligent politician prefers to believe that people enjoy the stigma of drawing on EI, let alone the misery of unemployment. Certainly that remuneration doesn't represent the wherewithal for a lifestyle of ease and luxury? What could she have been thinking? Not of those regional laid-off workers whose working hours don't mesh with EI requirements.
Most certainly not of the many working women dependent on contract and part-time jobs unable to garner sufficient working hours to qualify for EI benefits to begin with. A minister with a low opinion of those whom she serves morally disqualifies herself for her position.
Labels: Human Relations, Realities, Whoops
posted by Pieface @ 6:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home