What do you reckon a decent rate would be?
I think it should be 70-80%......and regionally take into account the cost of housing as a ratio of the average income.
I would like to see EI done a few different ways.
First, I would like to remove Parental Leave from the program and have it free-standing.
That is to say, I'm in favour of parental leave, but planned unemployment is different from being laid off.
We want to differentiate between socially desirable outcomes, and a real insurance scheme to cover bad luck/bad economy etc.
In respect of parental leave, I think the minimum leave would be the amount of time that is minimally recommended for breast-feeding (whether a couple chooses to go that route or not)......
Which is six months.
That portion of the leave should be 100% income replacement to ensure that it is taken.
Leave beyond that should drop; but remain at a level where its cheaper {to the state) for a parent to stay home, than to provide affordable childcare.
I haven't done the exact math on that, but I like the idea of 100% for the first 6 months, 75% for the next six months, 50% for the final six months.
Giving people a gentle nudge to consider returning to work; but leaving them an option.
*****
I would likewise hive off short-term disability coverage. If someone is in hospital or otherwise incapacitated temporarily, then I think income replacement should be on the high side.
The standard in most private, collective agreements or insurance is 75%; that strikes me as fair.
This is not perpetual insurance, but something for the 2-6 month range; and that requires a doctor's note.
*****
In respect of conventional unemployment, I think we need to first move from hours worked, to weeks worked, using the hours to calculate the amount of compensation, but not to determine eligibility.
That is to say, if you've worked 20 hours a week for six months and get laid off, I have no problem with giving you a temporary helping hand, proportionate to your income.
I don't want to reimburse someone laid off after 4 weeks.
But I don't want to deny a part-timer who hasn't worked for a full year.
****
I think temporary unemployment benefits; those intended generally to last for no more than six months, ought to start relatively high, say 75% income replacement, but drop after 3 months to 65%.
The idea being that in the short-term you're made closer to whole; while in the medium term you're being nudged back to work.
****
Finally, I would really like to see an education/training based EI benefit.
You would need to work for longer to qualify.
But you would be eligible for up to 2-years for retraining/upgrading, if your skills are deemed obsolete.
In that case, I would be ok w/75% income replacement for the entire 2-year term (if that's what the education program required)