Careers

EI (Employment Insurance) discussion thread

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 17th, 2017 12:01 pm
Deal Addict
Sep 22, 2013
1418 posts
429 upvotes
WhatToDo wrote:
Jul 16th, 2017 3:16 pm
Here is the gov/EI page that provides acceptable reasons, and what is required before someone resorts to quitting: https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-soc ... t-job.html

She would (generally) have to provide evidence of her efforts to stay gainfully employed in the contract (see explanations in the link), and full justification for her actions though, eg. proof of the 'harassment' (or 'discrimination' or whatever). And then, even if she thinks she can provide that, they still might initially disqualify her (based on *someones* subjective opinion) ...

There is an appeal process (for whatever their decisions), but that is a long and stressful journey (see my prior post) too.
You don't have to keep throwing in the part about someone's 'subjective opinion'. We get it. Your claim was initially denied and you're upset. It happens.

EI is fairly black and white and the initial decision maker was doing their job based on daily best practices. The SST is a third party entity and they can allow or deny an appeal whenever they want even if it doesn't necessarily go with what happens regularly on a day to day basis.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 21, 2011
7769 posts
1252 upvotes
Edmonton
OldMarriedGuy wrote:
Jul 16th, 2017 7:15 pm
You don't have to keep throwing in the part about someone's 'subjective opinion'. We get it. Your claim was initially denied and you're upset. It happens.

EI is fairly black and white and the initial decision maker was doing their job based on daily best practices. The SST is a third party entity and they can allow or deny an appeal whenever they want even if it doesn't necessarily go with what happens regularly on a day to day basis.
Have some compassion. If not for all the people that have been wronged through subjective opinion, at least do it for the children. After all, every judge and jury should come to the same decision every time. Oh the injustice of our subjective systems. Compassion! The children!
Newbie
Oct 27, 2016
21 posts
3 upvotes
OldMarriedGuy wrote:
Jul 16th, 2017 7:15 pm
You don't have to keep throwing in the part about someone's 'subjective opinion'. We get it. Your claim was initially denied and you're upset. It happens.

EI is fairly black and white and the initial decision maker was doing their job based on daily best practices. The SST is a third party entity and they can allow or deny an appeal whenever they want even if it doesn't necessarily go with what happens regularly on a day to day basis.
clseea wrote:
Jul 16th, 2017 8:21 pm
Have some compassion. If not for all the people that have been wronged through subjective opinion, at least do it for the children. After all, every judge and jury should come to the same decision every time. Oh the injustice of our subjective systems. Compassion! The children!
So which is it?:

“Breaking news, interpretations differ from person to person” and “Oh the injustice of our subjective systems.”

Or is it:

“EI is fairly black and white and the initial decision maker was doing their job based on daily best practices”

The initial decision maker isn’t actually making a ‘decision’ if they are simply following their black and white instructions on ‘best practice’, are they?

But what about the ‘review’ and ‘appeal’ decision makers … are they just following the same daily best practices too, or do they have authority to subjectively analyze extenuating circumstances? It isn’t really only the tribunal that can make decisions based on ALL the facts, is it?

Judges and juries (in a court room) are required to analyze the circumstances of a case before they reach their decision, just like the tribunal will. I’m not sure if their judgements will set precedence for future ‘best practice’ @ EI (as they would in a court room), but I would suggest that they should.

I am not upset at anyone; it is not the fault of the workers @ EI. I just think that a system that has set up ‘best practice’ paper-pushers, behind keyboards and form letters, is too rigid on occasion. I also think there should be qualified people that can do a thorough analysis, during ‘live’ interviews, when there is room for interpretation. I would hope that this could lead to better and more informed decisions.

The goal is to get people back to work, and any added stress is not going to help people, or society as a whole. So long as people are left desperate, bad employers may continue to abuse their power. It should be a win/win if we hope to remain a functional society, and that would be showing compassion for the children.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 21, 2011
7769 posts
1252 upvotes
Edmonton
Wow, 'that' was alot of 'typing'. I'm kind of 'dizzy' from 'reading it'. Take 'it' up with 'your' MP.
Deal Addict
Sep 22, 2013
1418 posts
429 upvotes
WhatToDo wrote:
Jul 17th, 2017 2:34 pm
So which is it?:

“Breaking news, interpretations differ from person to person” and “Oh the injustice of our subjective systems.”

Or is it:

“EI is fairly black and white and the initial decision maker was doing their job based on daily best practices”

The initial decision maker isn’t actually making a ‘decision’ if they are simply following their black and white instructions on ‘best practice’, are they?

But what about the ‘review’ and ‘appeal’ decision makers … are they just following the same daily best practices too, or do they have authority to subjectively analyze extenuating circumstances? It isn’t really only the tribunal that can make decisions based on ALL the facts, is it?

Judges and juries (in a court room) are required to analyze the circumstances of a case before they reach their decision, just like the tribunal will. I’m not sure if their judgements will set precedence for future ‘best practice’ @ EI (as they would in a court room), but I would suggest that they should.

I am not upset at anyone; it is not the fault of the workers @ EI. I just think that a system that has set up ‘best practice’ paper-pushers, behind keyboards and form letters, is too rigid on occasion. I also think there should be qualified people that can do a thorough analysis, during ‘live’ interviews, when there is room for interpretation. I would hope that this could lead to better and more informed decisions.

The goal is to get people back to work, and any added stress is not going to help people, or society as a whole. So long as people are left desperate, bad employers may continue to abuse their power. It should be a win/win if we hope to remain a functional society, and that would be showing compassion for the children.
The system isn't perfect I get it. But people do the best they can. You cannot imagine how over loaded the program is.

Not everyone is always going to be happy and rules are in place for a reason. If everything was left up to interpretation then why bother having policy and guidelines in place?

Myself and many others have answered hundreds of questions and spent many hours reading and replying to posters on here.

To be honest, your comments and insuations (insults) to those that either work or have worked in the program make me wonder why I even bother...

I know there are people that are truly thankful for any help but really I don't have to 'waste' my time here if people are just going to fling insults because they didn't get 'the answer' they wanted to hear.
Newbie
Oct 27, 2016
21 posts
3 upvotes
clseea wrote:
Jul 17th, 2017 3:16 pm
Wow, 'that' was alot of 'typing'. I'm kind of 'dizzy' from 'reading it'. Take 'it' up with 'your' MP.
If you think that was dizzying, you ought to try following the EI rules as a layperson. And it’s not like ‘ignorance’ can be any kind of defense.

OldMarriedGuy, I’ve said repeatedly that I appreciate the solid advice that you have provided people here, and I mean that sincerely. Thank you!

I also appreciate how hard it must be to work in an over-loaded environment, and think that needs to be fixed.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 21, 2011
7769 posts
1252 upvotes
Edmonton
WhatToDo wrote:
Jul 17th, 2017 5:49 pm
If you think that was dizzying, you ought to try following the EI rules as a layperson. And it’s not like ‘ignorance’ can be any kind of defense.

OldMarriedGuy, I’ve said repeatedly that I appreciate the solid advice that you have provided people here, and I mean that sincerely. Thank you!

I also appreciate how hard it must be to work in an over-loaded environment, and think that needs to be fixed.
What did 'your' MP have to 'say'?
Newbie
Oct 27, 2016
21 posts
3 upvotes
clseea wrote:
Jul 17th, 2017 7:26 pm
What did 'your' MP have to 'say'?
Do you REALLY want that answer?
Deal Fanatic
Nov 21, 2011
7769 posts
1252 upvotes
Edmonton
WhatToDo wrote:
Jul 18th, 2017 11:44 am
Do you REALLY want that answer?
So 'you' haven't spoken to 'your' MP? REALLY?
Newbie
Oct 27, 2016
21 posts
3 upvotes
clseea wrote:
Jul 18th, 2017 12:19 pm
So 'you' haven't spoken to 'your' MP? REALLY?
It’s normally impossible to speak to a MP directly, especially within 3 hours. I know that there have been a number of times ITT where someone has recommended that the complainant get a hold of their MP to try to get some assistance with their EI case, but ….

Our MP’s are also sometimes filling federal Ministry positions, in addition to representing our communities. They aren’t just sitting there in their offices, waiting to personally respond to verbal citizen-concerns, within a few hrs.

In order to (potentially) get a constructive response out of a MP office, a person has to provide all the details (ideally in writing) in the hopes that (their assistants might pass it on to an incumbent, and) then perhaps the MP might read, prioritize, and be motivated/have enough time to do something about the issue.

Thanks for the prompting, but I probably shouldn't waste any more time on questions that will serve no useful purpose!

Bye for now ...
Deal Fanatic
Nov 21, 2011
7769 posts
1252 upvotes
Edmonton
WhatToDo wrote:
Jul 18th, 2017 12:55 pm
It’s normally impossible to speak to a MP directly, especially within 3 hours. I know that there have been a number of times ITT where someone has recommended that the complainant get a hold of their MP to try to get some assistance with their EI case, but ….

Our MP’s are also sometimes filling federal Ministry positions, in addition to representing our communities. They aren’t just sitting there in their offices, waiting to personally respond to verbal citizen-concerns, within a few hrs.

In order to (potentially) get a constructive response out of a MP office, a person has to provide all the details (ideally in writing) in the hopes that (their assistants might pass it on to an incumbent, and) then perhaps the MP might read, prioritize, and be motivated/have enough time to do something about the issue.

Thanks for the prompting, but I probably shouldn't waste any more time on questions that will serve no useful purpose!

Bye for now ...
Those seem like some pretty lackluster excuses
Newbie
Jul 18, 2017
3 posts
My husband is on E.I. just had a heart attack. Fortunately he is recovering well but thinks he will be unable to work for 2 or 3 weeks. He does office work so the physical demands are not that bad. The doctor is rather vague telling him that he should be able to work once he feels up to it. Will he be able to receive his regular E.I. while he is recovering? Does he have to open a new claim for sick leave? What medical reports will he need to supply to Service Canada? Is there some sort of guide as to how much sick leave they allow after a heart attack? I am worried that he may not be ready to get out looking for work as soon as he thinks he can. If anyone can assist me I would appreciate it.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 21, 2011
7769 posts
1252 upvotes
Edmonton
seabreezenb wrote:
Jul 19th, 2017 5:17 am
My husband is on E.I. just had a heart attack. Fortunately he is recovering well but thinks he will be unable to work for 2 or 3 weeks. He does office work so the physical demands are not that bad. The doctor is rather vague telling him that he should be able to work once he feels up to it. Will he be able to receive his regular E.I. while he is recovering? Does he have to open a new claim for sick leave? What medical reports will he need to supply to Service Canada? Is there some sort of guide as to how much sick leave they allow after a heart attack? I am worried that he may not be ready to get out looking for work as soon as he thinks he can. If anyone can assist me I would appreciate it.
He'll need sick benefits not regular, he can't work right now. His doctor should provide medical documentation stating he's unable to work. He can collect up to 15 weeks of sick.

If he currently has a claim for regular he (or you once he gives the ok on the phone) need to convert the claim to sick benefits.
Newbie
Jan 9, 2017
9 posts
hi

I have a question around reactivating or starting a new claim.

I was approved for EI in May (applied end of March) and received 8 weeks before I started a new job. the job is only a contract for 6 months. I still have 10 weeks remaining on my claim, so after 6 months should I just reactivate and have 10 weeks. or should I start a new claim and possibly get another 18 weeks (I would have worked the same number of hours again as my last claim).
If I reactivated my claim I assume it would be quicker to get the money, but would the hours I have worked in my current contract (will be over 1000) then be lost forever?

so would it be worth just starting another claim and getting the max weeks I can?

thanks
Deal Fanatic
Nov 21, 2011
7769 posts
1252 upvotes
Edmonton
Gtwin82 wrote:
Jul 20th, 2017 3:06 pm
hi

I have a question around reactivating or starting a new claim.

I was approved for EI in May (applied end of March) and received 8 weeks before I started a new job. the job is only a contract for 6 months. I still have 10 weeks remaining on my claim, so after 6 months should I just reactivate and have 10 weeks. or should I start a new claim and possibly get another 18 weeks (I would have worked the same number of hours again as my last claim).
If I reactivated my claim I assume it would be quicker to get the money, but would the hours I have worked in my current contract (will be over 1000) then be lost forever?

so would it be worth just starting another claim and getting the max weeks I can?

thanks
You should reactivate the old claim and use it up. Once it's finished you apply for a new claim with the hours from the 6 month job. It's not one or the other.

Top