An appeal letter to HRSDC about my EI claim

Today I opened a letter from the government telling me that my claim for benefits over spring break (actually, this is time I would use as part of the two-week "waiting period") had been denied because I was dumb enough to admit that I hadn't looked for work, instead of just B.S.ing. Here is my response:

To Whom It May Concern,

I wish to appeal the decision of HRSDC regarding my ineligibility for benefits for the week of April 30–May 4, 2009. The basis for this appeal rests on information provided to me verbally from an agent at your office, and on the illogic of the rules of Employment Insurance as it relates to seasonal employees of school districts.

I was informed by a source in your office (sorry I didn’t write down the name) that the core issue for qualification was whether I was available to be contacted and/or accept a job offer and return to work within 24 hours. As I explained to this person I most certainly could have made this hypothetical move if it were to arise. I had a cell phone with me the entire time and was near enough to an airport to return to Winnipeg, or any city in Canada for that matter if the need arose. However, as I shall explain below, there was really no need for this because I was set to resume work within the week.

The purpose of my original letter was to clarify the guideline that I must be actively looking for work in the period wherein I was laid-off, an action I was planning on, but failed to accomplish because I spent the time looking after my nephews instead of making phone calls. If you feel the need to deny me because of this I feel that you should do so with a better understanding of my situation because frankly your system was not set-up with workers of my kind in mind and I feel like this is just one example of how you fail to represent our interests.

I am an employee of a school division who experiences regular, predetermined layoffs due to the nature of my job. The government has graciously allowed people of my class to collect benefits during these periods, making what I consider to be a very important job a viable career alternative for a lot more qualified people. Without EI benefits our jobs would be harder to fill because we are paid on an hourly basis and do not get enough hours in a year to maintain a decent standard of living. Although summer jobs and part-time work are a possibility for some there are many employers who cannot work around the pre-existing commitment school workers have to their permanent “seasonal” jobs.

Despite the fact that I have a job I will be returning to in very short order I am expected to be looking for work over the brief periods in Winter and Spring where I experience mandatory lay-offs. I can’t think of any reason why I would leave a secure job I love half-way through the school year to work somewhere else, but your system is set up to assume that I would and should be considering this. The stipulation that I be: “ready, willing and capable of working each day, Monday through Friday during each week of this report” is irrelevant because there was no work available for me to engage in at that time.

I wrote to you to confess that I hadn’t the time to participate in this charade mostly out of fear that you would somehow discover that I hadn’t done it and fine me for it. But honestly do you want to punish me because I should have been out pounding the pavement over the March break knowing I’d be back at work in a week?

With the approval of your department our group of employees has been allowed to use the school breaks in December and March towards the waiting period we must serve before collecting benefits. In my mind this approved way of getting us onto the roles is a tacit admission that the nature of work is important to Canada economically and socially and that we are deserving of EI benefits. The stipulation that we be actively looking for work during these periods make no sense given the value of the work we produce. Would you want experienced Educational Assistants who have formed relationships with vulnerable students moving out of their jobs midway through the year to be replaced by people who may or may not be qualified?

You must grant me an exception for the week of April 30–May 4, 2009 because the stipulation you would use to deny my claim is counter to the spirit of the agreement held between your department and workers in my field. The fact that these stipulations exist in law can be traced to the impossibility of drafting legislation that can predict and protect the complex nature of seasonal work across our economy. Although the intent of the condition that workers actively continue their search for work is laudable it is an inherently illogical provision for workers in my circumstance. Most commonly school workers like myself simply agree to the statement with our noses held and hope not to get hassled about if a review of their claims should occur. We all know this requirement is a canard in our case, and quite frankly, so do you.

Please do not deny me the benefits I need and deserve because I was unable to look for work during the week I was off from a job that I had was expected to return to after a five day break, it is cruel and unjustifiable in light of the facts.

Bike scofflaws vs. car culture

As Published in Today's Free Press

By: Ryan Kinrade

5/07/2009 1:00 AM

There's been a lot of discussion lately about just where bikes belong in Winnipeg's future. The provincial and municipal governments have promised to add a corridor for cyclists along the new bus-way being built in south Winnipeg. Activists are upset that the route will be spliced by a dangerous four-lane underpass, but overall the inclusion of such amenities for cyclists shows that our city is forward-thinking. Or does it?

Currently, the idea of cycling in Winnipeg remains a risky proposition for the majority of would-be bike commuters. They are afraid for their lives because some drivers claim the road as their inherent right, and use intimidation to enforce their opinion. As a cyclist I have been cut off, told off and nearly sideswiped on numerous occasions -- not to mention the time I was dangerously assaulted with an ice-cream treat hurled from a vehicle at high speed. That incident might have caused permanent paralysis if the force from the projectile had not been absorbed by my helmet.

Recent comments online have provided some insight into why drivers feel as though their rights to the road are predominant, but for the most part their justifications are built on ignorance rather than fact. For instance, some drivers claim that their insurance and licensing premiums are paying for the roads and that permits them greater entitlement. But according to Manitoba Public Insurance, none of the licensing and insurance fees go toward infrastructure; rather, the fees are used to pay out claims and maintain reserve funds.

Other drivers believe the gas taxes they pay are the reason they should be given exclusive use of our roads, but this rationalization is indefensible. Would anyone argue that a person who smokes should be given greater access to hospitals because he contributed more to health care through tobacco taxes? When it comes to community property, we are all granted equal access with no regard for individual contributions. A cyclist is still a taxpayer and has every right to use the roads in all seasons without fear of retribution.

However, I must admit that some of the arguments made by indignant motorists are justifiable and point to areas where cyclists must accept the criticism and act to improve their behavior.

While every year sees more and more cyclists who follow the laws on Winnipeg streets, these individuals are still the exception rather than the rule. The majority of cyclists act as though the laws of traffic were written for someone else. They insist on the right to use the road only to blatantly abuse it, or seek amnesty on the sidewalks only to terrorize pedestrians.

It is unfortunate that cyclists cannot be held to a higher standard with respect to the laws they regularly violate. With cars we have the disincentive of impoundment, fines, increased insurance premiums and even imprisonment if the vehicle is being operated dangerously.

Bicycles are cheap to acquire, easily repaired without a claim and can be quickly ditched if they become a liability. There is simply not enough law enforcement available to really patrol bikes, especially since they constitute such a small threat to public safety in comparison to motor vehicles. Nonetheless it is essential that cyclists do obey the laws of traffic because it is the only way to claim true equality on the street.

Arrogant riders who regularly goad drivers and pedestrians make the streets more dangerous for all of us. Most drivers are annoyed to some extent when cyclists dart wantonly through controlled intersections or pass them along the curb at stop lights. To some people this is a clear indication that cyclists cannot be trusted on the streets and therefore are not welcome. Sadly, others use this disrespect for the law to justify the treacherous games of terror that they engage in when confronting riders on the streets.

It is no longer acceptable to cling to the tyranny of the motorized majority that has created such a powerful and presumptuous car culture in Winnipeg. Times are changing and drivers must recognize the right of cyclists to exist in Winnipeg in all seasons. But cyclists cannot demand equality without concessions of their own. Riders must grow up and acknowledge it is their responsibility to show the same manners on the road they demand from drivers.

Mutual respect must be the code adopted by drivers and cyclists going forward. It is wonderful that our city is finally building the infrastructure that will support a greater cycling community, but even with a vast network of trails, bicycles will still need to access city streets regularly. A course of civility is the only way to ensure that future harmony is possible among the currently divergent groups.

Ryan Kinrade is a Winnipeg writer.

I like to debate

This is my response to a letter published in today's paper. Here's the original letter:

How can you allow Gwynne Dyer to get away with false statements such as "by 1939 almost everybody agreed that the world had been wrong to blame the First World War on Germany."

It is genuine, recorded knowledge, that Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany approved "The Schlieffen Plan" in 1897. Look it up at the library; it's there for all to see.

The only problem with Germany's invasion of France, in 1914, was that the Schlieffen Plan called for German troops to march "unopposed, through Belgium" on their way to "invade and conquer" France, which Schlieffen had calculated they could do in two weeks time ifthey followed his plan. The recorded historical fact is that Belgium refused to comply with that request but the Kaiser and his boys ordered it to take place anyway, regardless of Belgium's opposition. That resulted in the 1914-1918 conflict.

Germany, most definitely, "started" the Great War of 1914 to 1918.

Ian C. Thomson

Winnipeg

RCK says:

Determining who started a war is not always as cut and dry as deciding who fired the first shot or mounted the first invasion. There were a complex set of factors that started WWI, and although Germany was responsible for it's fair share the rest of the Great Powers were also deeply committed to fostering the animosity that fermented into war. The statement that Ian C. Thomson labels as false is an opinion that is shared almost universally by historians—it's possible that he has been snooping around in the wrong part of the library.

Thought of the Day

This is a comment that came from the Winnipeg Free Press site on an article by Colleen Simard, and my rebuttal of that post.

Original Comment from an anonymous person:

Ms Simard, this column seems somewhat superfluous. Just another excuse to pick.

I agree there should be adequate education funding on the reserves.

But I don't agree we(government) should have to replace houses every time your people destroy them. We don't live in them, they do. If I destroy my abode, nobobdy's going to replace it for me.

Opportunities? Can nobody think on those reserves? Has nobody (aboriginal) got any ideas? How about building houses?

I agree there should not be a delay in implementing something as basic as hand sanitizers, but from what I've heard and read, even some of your leaders were concerned about the alcohol-based products being abused.

But let's just call a spade a spade. As far as you/your people are concerned, we(whites)/they(government) will never get it right.

I read a very interesting opinion a while ago, and I wondered why more isn't made of it. It was to the effect that first nations in fact don't (never did) 'own' this land, and shouldn't be demanding anything, treaties or no treaties. Why? Because, like us, their forefathers were settlers who immigrated from somewhere else too.

My Response:

Uh, nameless one? Do you really want to argue that First Nations have no right to this land because their forefathers settled here from somewhere else? All peoples from all nations settled their lands from somewhere else (except the very founding tribes of the human species who were themselves evolved from other pre-human groups). If you advance this opinion you are saying in essence that none of us has any right to our land.

Even without a written history of from where indigenous tribes originated and who (if anyone) their ancestors needed to battle in order to claim this land the fact is that THEY WERE ALREADY HERE when Europeans came to the Americas to resettle them. These First Nations possessed their lands as surely as any European nation owned theirs (although they mostly viewed this "ownership" to it in a completely different way).

This BS rationalization that you find "interesting" is untenable at it's very core and something only someone who wants to promote a racist agenda would dream up. It is bereft of reason and makes no logical sense, which is why no one has made anything of it and no one ever will.

A comment made on the WFP site

This is a rebuttal to an earlier comment I made on the WFP site here. My handle, in case it's too hard for you to figure out, is rck.

paket: The notion that the road is more yours because you pay for gas and licensing is ridiculous. First of all a lot of cyclists own cars and therefore pay for licensing (which in any case is used to pay for the bureaucracy of licensing and MPI, not, as far as I know, for infrastructure). As far as gas taxes go, some of them do pay for roads, but keep in mind that your vehicle is much heavier and therefore creates significantly more wear and tear than a bike. Cyclists are also tax payers and have the same rights to the road that you enjoy--the extra amount you pay for the privilege of driving is your choice, but does not entitle you to more of the road. If you are in a single passenger vehicle and I am one man on a bike we are, in my view, equals. I will do my best to speed you on your way, but I'm not willing to put my life at risk so you can beat me to the next stop light.

Like Diskdoctor I believe bike paths should be cleared year-round on a fairly regular basis. There are more and more Winnipeggers out there every winter who realize that it's not as impractical as it first appears to ride year-round (unless it is during or just after an intense snowfall). I've been doing it for years and see no reason to stop. Encouraging this behavior lessens the pressure on car traffic and crowded transit routes. An extended river trail would make particularly good (and cheap) sense because it is entirely free of traffic (and a wonderful ride!)

T-Rev: I too hate to see cyclists abusing the rules of the road because it gives people like you justification for taking my life lightly. Just try and remember that we are all people, but when we are on bikes we are especially vulnerable people. The games you play out of vengeance may end-up killing or mauling someone who was a courteous cyclist or otherwise innocent human, someone who may have children, or at the very least other living people who love them as much as you love the people in your life. Next time you feel the need to aggressively cut someone off to teach bike-rider-kind a lesson please ask yourself if it is really worth risking that person's life for.

Also: Bikes on sidewalks are much more likely to collide with vehicles because they don't stop at every street crossing and cars don't always either—it's a very dangerous and impractical solution, even in the absence of pedestrians. Bikes belong on roads, and until this city gets its act together to make safety a priority we are going to have to learn to live with each other.

Opinion on the Dominion Institute

This is a letter to the editors I submitted in response to today's Editorial "Manitoba among best of a bad lot at teaching history." The Dominion Institute is an organization that believes Canadian History should be a mandatory subject in Canadian high schools; every year it publishes a report grading the provinces on their curriculum based on a very loose set of standards.

I'm not sure that by not teaching Canadian History in high schools we are "putting our country's future in jeopardy." It is an assumption made by this report without any substantial quantification. Clearly it is important to know some of the details of how Canada came to be, but it is equally, if not more, important is to know where it is going. I think a province that chooses to teach civics, and/or courses that take World History into as much consideration as Canadian History is probably as well off (if not better) than one that only mandates secondary instruction in Canadian History.

The methodology of this survey is flawed, and its annual, almost universally unchallenged presence in the Canadian media is regrettable. Does it really matter if people can identify the year of our confederation or Canada's first PM? Is it not more important for example that they have an understanding of our charter and the historical movements and ideas that gave birth to it rather than the dates and personalities of Confederacy?

Buying into GM a Huge Waste

The government’s plan to buy a significant percentage of a dying auto maker strikes me as a most irresponsible and idiotic gesture. GM has been proved, in the fierce arena of the Free Market, to be a loser—an arrogant loser who made cars people didn’t want and dumped workers to enhance profits. Their end has been long predicted, and many analysts already speculate that the money our government has so wantonly promised is only a brief stay to GM’s ultimate demise.

In the final analysis the government made a decision to bail out this fallen Goliath because of all the people who would be crushed beneath its weight. But the billions they tossed after the broken business model, in an attempt to resurrect this giant, would have been better directed retooling the car dependent economies of Southern Ontario.

Prime Minister Harper said: “I wish there were an alternative but the alternative to what we're doing today would be vastly more costly and more risky.” Perhaps, but this is a situation that calls for a bit of risk and some creative thinking. The problem with the government’s stance on this matter is that it is based expedience and political necessity neither of which will serve the interests of GM or Canada in the long run.

We are betting a very scary chunk of our future on the hope that GM will be able to restructure itself after decades of indolence. The government is confident that the cobwebs be cleared from the boardroom, inefficiencies fine-tuned out of the designs and malaise swept from the factory floor. But before such things come to pass, if they do at all, the government’s mandate may well have expired, and we’ll still be paying for this grand experiment in social capitalism.

What this decision exposes to me is the knee-jerk instincts of governments who’s primary objective is to keep winning elections. Mr. Harper said the decision to pay GM’s ransom was “regrettable but necessary.” I say a leader with real vision would say: “We are very sorry to the families and communities who depend on this industry, but it is now as dead as the dinosaurs. We will spend $6 billion (plus another $3.5 from your provincial coffers) to develop new industries. While GM spins its wheels down south trying to become more “environmental” we will fund solutions that are not wasteful exercises in want over need…” or some thing to that effect.

GM has contributed greatly to our spendthrift North American lifestyles. It created vehicles with shelf-lives in order to ensure new orders. It created demand for fuel guzzling behemoths even as “energy security” was becoming more of an issue for its national government. I hate to say it, but it deserves to die. It should be sold off to the sharks and the uneatable parts should be recycled into something that will serve the national interest to a greater extent than the gas-sucking, break-down buggies so cleverly marketed by the magnates in Michigan.