From: at-banff (98/8/20)

> EI coverage would be possible if the clause had specific, measurable
> conditions attached that weren't met.  Like what?

 I don't think there are such "specific, measurable conditions" that would be
 both meaningful indicators of the overall working environment in MVA AND
 sufficient reasons to resign and collect benefits should they not be met (at
 least in the eyes of EI bureaucrats).  There simply aren't any "breach of
 contract" check box on those record of employments -- you quit or you're laid
 off.  So everyone would have to argue their case with the EI people on an
 individual basis.  And whether the EI bureaucrats would consider the fact that
 MVA didn't meet those "specific measurable indicators" a valid reason to
 and collect benefits would be a gamble in my opinion...

> But this isn't about EI, it's about people having the open option to
>leave  without
 burning bridges, as the case would be if people "arbitrarily" left
 I sympathize with the intent behind this "option to leave" clause.  I don't
 believe this clause offers any real protection.  Anyone using it would be
 burning bridges "de facto". -Anonymous