Unemployment Benefits

Renee

New member
Do you think unemployment benefits should have a time limit?

For instance, do you believe that someone should only be allowed to stay on unemployment benefits for 12 months before they are cut off or do you believe that they should be allowed to stay on them until they obtain employment?
 
I think it depends on the economic time.  The rules should change depending on that.  If the economy is like it is now it should be until the person finds employment, as long as they can prove that they are actively searching.

If the economy is stronger and the unemployment rate is low then people should be able to find jobs more quickly.  If they don't find one in a year or a year and a half they probably aren't looking hard enough and that shouldn't be rewarded.
 
What about applying something like we have here in Australia, i.e. work for the dole? People who have been on benefits for an excessive period of time, are then required to partake in employment provided by the government in order for their employment benefits to be continually paid. However, here they are only required to do this for a few weeks.

Do you think it would be beneficial for people who have been unemployed for over 12 months, to be required to engage in govenment appointed employment, in order for their employment benefits to be continued? Until they obtain employment that is.
 
Renee said:
What about applying something like we have here in Australia, i.e. work for the dole? People who have been on benefits for an excessive period of time, are then required to partake in employment provided by the government in order for their employment benefits to be continually paid. However, here they are only required to do this for a few weeks.

Do you think it would be beneficial for people who have been unemployed for over 12 months, to be required to engage in govenment appointed employment, in order for their employment benefits to be continued? Until they obtain employment that is.

It would depend on the skill level of the person seeking employment I think.  I don't think it's beneficial for an out of work computer networker to start working for the city raking leaves in the park.  But if it's in the same field of expertise then sure.  Especially if it gets them back in the swing of things, it could be very beneficial psychologically I would imagine.  For someone who wants to work, being unemployed is very mentally taxing and can be very stressful and depressing.  The job search itself can be equally bad due to the repeated rejection that one comes across.  Add a family to provide for into the mix and it can be deadly.

Meh what am I telling you about psych conditions for? lol
 
Renee, good question and I gave never thought about it before. That is like making unemployment insurance like welfare.

There is a lot of debate these days here in Canada about this, given the bad economy. Some people have been on UI for over a year , still haven't found a job, and you wonder how long before they will. And the government can only keep paying them for so long.

Here it has become such a hot political issue that the Liberals have threatened to topple the minority conservative government unless coverage is extended.

I think it is better to put a
limit on coverage, otherwise people will not want to find a job, since it was hard to find one anyway.

Ashoor
 
I believe the model we have in Australia (no time limit) works well and I'm happy with it. I know sometimes people genuinely cannot find a job for years, not any job but a job in their field, so to try and take the employment benefits after a certain time is not fair.

This ultimately means less homeless people, less broken and dysfunctional families, and a healthier society.
 
ASHOOR said:
Renee, good question and I gave never thought about it before. That is like making unemployment insurance like welfare.

There is a lot of debate these days here in Canada about this, given the bad economy. Some people have been on UI for over a year , still haven't found a job, and you wonder how long before they will. And the government can only keep paying them for so long.

Here it has become such a hot political issue that the Liberals have threatened to topple the minority conservative government unless coverage is extended.

I think it is better to put a
limit on coverage, otherwise people will not want to find a job, since it was hard to find one anyway.

Ashoor

Ashoor i was layed off work and not because i wanted to be but had to and i collected money.
and while i was at home doing nothing i was out looking for jobs and i had 2 inteviews and they didnt even call back and or some didnt even call to say hey we hired someone else. its hard finding jobs as of right now not unless u know ppl who work there and they can get u in thats a different story.

but they should extend it not everyonme wants to by layed of of work.
may be komayee sure but most of us want to work.
 
I don't agree with the no time limit.  That alone can justify someone not working and getting paid for nothing.  The abuse factor grows exponentially.  I like a time limit of about a year but should be assessed based on factors like:  age/experience in field, are they obtaining newer skills, approving their work abilities, etc.
 
my last day at work is October 30th :/

im getting laid off  :ranting: :ranting: :ranting: :ranting:

and i've been applying everywhere and no luck
 
Barwarneta said:
my last day at work is October 30th :/

im getting laid off 

and i've been applying everywhere and no luck

I'm sorry to hear that, very bad news!

There is a glimmer of hope as markets are turning around and the level of recruitment should pick up in the next few months, so hang in there and keep looking, there are certainly move vacancies over here now than 6 months ago and I believe Chicago will not be too different.
 
Salem said:
I'm sorry to hear that, very bad news!

There is a glimmer of hope as markets are turning around and the level of recruitment should pick up in the next few months, so hang in there and keep looking, there are certainly move vacancies over here now than 6 months ago and I believe Chicago will not be too different.

from ur mouth to gods ears.

thank u azeza  :bigarmhug: i'm hanging and looking
 
Salem said:
I believe the model we have in Australia (no time limit) works well and I'm happy with it. I know sometimes people genuinely cannot find a job for years, not any job but a job in their field, so to try and take the employment benefits after a certain time is not fair.

This ultimately means less homeless people, less broken and dysfunctional families, and a healthier society.
You guys are so lucky, I should move there NOW lol

I like that no time limit, cause you will get less stress thinking of what to do after that.

rumrum, it's not like they are paying the same ammount when you are working, not sure about state but here they pay 55% only. Right now i am looking for a job and most of the jobs I found they pay less than what I use to get paid in my previews job, even less than what I am getting from the EI, do you think I will take a job that pays less than what I use to make or what I am making right now? I don't think anyone would like that.

 
Back
Top