Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Talizvar wrote:
I create systems with managers and then audit the health of those systems.

You have to reward the result and method you want.

To set a target to investigate X number of "suspicious claims" as per some outlined criteria would allow proper policing of the system.
It would reward completed investigations regardless of outcome as long as it followed procedure (subject to audit of all outcomes).

Great post. Explained the issue completely. Should pretty much wrap this thread up nicely.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Our only saving grace is you can get 60's of beer for around 10 dollars.

If 60 refers to 60oz bottles, than that's not much of a deal either, as we can get a 40oz bottle for literally pennies down here.

 rubiksnoob wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
Our only saving grace is you can get 60's of beer for around 10 dollars.

If 60 refers to 60oz bottles, than that's not much of a deal either, as we can get a 40oz bottle for literally pennies down here.

To be fair, good beer seldom comes in 40's.

I do like me some Old English though.

@Easysauce: While I'm in agreement with you that the EI system should be reformed to discount or at least decrease the level of benefits that can be awarded for seasonal employment (seriously, that's gotta stop), I think you're mixing a few things up and it reads a little like sputtering, misdirected rage.

Finding a case wherein abusers were not punished in no way correlates to the government creating quotes to discover fraud. Those are two unrelated issues, on par with saying that a murderer didn't go to jail so police need to make more arrests.

Also, wherever you got those quotes from, I guess you didn't bother to take note that the CCRA hasn't existed for 10 years now, so your information is badly out of date.

 daedalus wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
Good, too many EI bums leeching off the system, too many abuses going on for far too long.

Get a job, or save up for inbetween jobs,

Im sick of paying for other peoples entitlements.

EI is such an abused system, there are far too many people abusing it. If people are so worried about being unemployed they can buy private employment insurance instead of having other people pay into EI for 50+ years just so they can make 30k from a seasonal job and live off EI the rest of the year.

Welfare lite, and whenever people get cross examined for their free money they whine like its some nazi ideal to audit the money the welfare, err EI, users are getting.


Oh boo hoo, its my job to make sure we dont give free money to the wrong people, and I am measured on how well I do that.

more CBC conservative hate mongering

(this is coming from someone who has only ever voted liberal FYI)

Finally, someone said it.

If it's anything similar to Unemployment in the US, it's a broken system. Anything you can do to encourage leeches to find jobs and release the government nipple is a good thing.

"I, also, misunderstand how unemployment works."

Perhaps you could enlighten me, instead of firing off a childish reply?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


If it's anything similar to Unemployment in the US, it's a broken system. Anything you can do to encourage leeches to find jobs and release the government nipple is a good thing.

"I, also, misunderstand how unemployment works."

Perhaps you could enlighten me, instead of firing off a childish reply?

Okay. Provide an argument for why unemployment is broken that doesn't lambast everyone who's on it, so that I can craft a serious response.

According to the United States Department of Labor, the number of unemployment applications submitted dropped by 6,000. That is in line with other recent reports that indicate a moderate progress in the nation's hiring.

easysauce wrote:I am not making a blanket statement that everyone on EI is abusing the system, nor does this have anything to do with the conservatives, I love how you assume I support them despite voting liberal.

Nor am I saying that people get Ei without ever working, so stop putting words in my mouth.

I am saying that people routinly, as a matter of choice, work the minimum, or collude with employers to fake work hours, just so that they can repeatedly keep going back onto EI

Claims he is not making a blanket statement.
Makes a blanket statement.

To thing sbothe rme in this thread:

1. The idea that metrics are a solve for anything. They are not. They simply give you an idea of what the root cause COULD be. You need observation and analysis to find the real root causes.

Metrics are a tool and not the Alpha-Omega of a problem.

2. The idea that in order to "reform" a system, we must only focus on those who abuse it instead of looking at those it helps.

I'm willing to make a trade off on a system that helps more people than people take advantage of it. I believe tha actual rate of "fraud" in the Welfare/Unemployment system is miniscule (However, I'm sure some keyboard ninja can find the actual rate.) compare dto the numbe rof people who use the system legally.

Maybe that is just me being a bleeding heart or something.

 Easy E wrote:
To thing sbothe rme in this thread:

1. The idea that metrics are a solve for anything. They are not. They simply give you an idea of what the root cause COULD be. You need observation and analysis to find the real root causes.

Metrics are a tool and not the Alpha-Omega of a problem.

I think it's quite telling how the people who are in favour of metrics like the quota system applied, are also the people who are quite indifferent to the metrics of the rate of abuse in welfare systems.

To me, that's the root cause of most crappy metrics systems. They were designed without first using other metrics to figure out what the real problems are.

I mean, if you had a factory manager who decided that every quality officer had to find 300 faulty units a week, well you'd think that before that happened the company would have run metrics to determine if there are that many faulty units being produced, and if it was even a problem for the company....

I'm willing to make a trade off on a system that helps more people than people take advantage of it. I believe tha actual rate of "fraud" in the Welfare/Unemployment system is miniscule (However, I'm sure some keyboard ninja can find the actual rate.) compare dto the numbe rof people who use the system legally.

No, I think that's a pretty fair summary.

I mean, I think in most countries there's actually a fair bit of scope to reduce the size of welfare payments (it's supposed to get you by until you find a job, not provide an on-going sustainable living), so I'm hardly a bleeding heart on this issue. But every figure I've ever seen for welfare (and I've seen figures for a fair few countries, though admittedly I don't think I've ever seen Canadian figures) has shown the rate of fraud to be miniscule.

Simply put, if you want to save money on welfare, pay less in welfare. But that'll cost you votes and make you look mean when tv stations show single mums saying they can't pay the rent anymore. But if you want to make political noise about welfare without actually doing anything meaningful because it might piss people off, then you talk about welfare fraud.