|
Some of you will
be interested in the following article which appeared in yesterday's Globe and
Mail.
Ed Weick
UI Reform Hit Women Hardest,
Figures Confirm
DANIEL LEBLANC
Parliamentary Bureau, Ottawa The percentage of unemployed women who
qualified for unemployment insurance hit an all-time low last year, confirming a
conclusion the federal government had previously kept to itself: that its 1996
cutbacks had a disproportionate impact on female workers.
New Statistics Canada numbers, compiled on
behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress, show that the number of unemployed
female workers who managed to get regular UI benefits fell in 1998 in comparison
to the previous year, both absolute and relative terms. Men fared much better,
however, rebounding from the decade-long decline in coverage.
CLC economist Kevin Hayes said the numbers
tend to show that the decline in coverage under UI has bottomed out for men, but
maybe not for women.
The government was obviously uncomfortable
in January when its monitoring and assessment report of the 1996 changes showed
that the number of women who successfully claimed benefits went down by 20 per
cent after the changes were introduced, compared with 16 per cent for men. (That
report was based on earlier data than the CLC numbers appearing in this
article.)
An April, 1999, federal research document,
obtained under the Access to Information Act by the Public Interest Law Centre,
found an answer to the question that had been troubling the government:
"Why has the number of regular beneficiaries declined more among women than
men?"
It dismissed answers related to the
falling unemployment rate or the declining number of women eligible, pointing
instead at the Liberal government's most recent reform.
The change saved the government billions
of dollars in annual UI benefits, mainly by increasing number of hours of work
needed to qualify. As a result, the governments UI surplus has ballooned to
almost $30-billion. Government numbers predict that in 2000, the government will
pay out about $12.3-billion in benefits and take in $18-billion in
premiums.
The government makes no excuses for some
parts of its 1996 adjustments, mainly cutting off many young workers and
reducing payments to seasonal workers. But it admits that there were also
unintended consequences.
"Women are more likely than men to be
in part-time and other non-standard occupations and to interrupt their careers
for extended periods of time. Because of their different patterns of employment,
women are less likely to be potentially eligible to Employment insurance
than men are," the Human Resources Development document
says.
One of the most negative aspects of the
1996 changes for women was the penalty for staying out of the work force for
more than a year including for family reasons.
Critics say the measures are out of sync
with the times. They say the system favours workers who do overtime while
penalizing those in part-time jobs.
"Women will be very displeased with
the Liberals unless they do something about this,' CLC secretary-treasurer Nancy
Riche said.
The federal government's recent
$1.25-billion promise to change some UI rules in 2001 would not address this
falling coverage rate for women under regular UI benefits. In the Speech from
the Throne this fall, the governments only firm commitment was to extend
maternity and parental leave offered under UI to a full year, up from six
months.
Currently, only one-third of unemployed
women between 25 and 34 qualify for regular UI benefits. For most women, regular
benefits are easier to get than maternity and parental
benefits.
|
