{"title":"Incentivising employment during the COVID-19 pandemic","authors":"P. Lord","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3573176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article considers government responses to unemployment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It analyses the two main legislative responses adopted by North American governments: a broadening of access to (un)employment insurance (EI) and the adoption of payroll subsidies for companies. It comparatively and critically assesses these two solutions, to eventually propose an alternative plan. Under this plan, access to EI would be broadened to cover those not traditionally covered by it, such as self-employed workers, contract workers, and those caring for a family member sick from COVID-19 or for a child who is at home due to school and day-care closures. Unemployed workers who have traditionally paid into the EI system would be rewarded through a tax credit. To avoid incentivising temporary layoffs, a payroll subsidy would be adopted. The subsidy would make it as attractive to keep workers on payroll as to lay them off so they can benefit from EI. It would also provide a more faithful picture of unemployment rates during the crisis. The plan would also address broader concerns regarding the unsustainability of public spending during the crisis by limiting access to both temporary layoffs and the payroll subsidy. Large and profitable companies, as well as companies with high revenue or cash reserves, would not be able to temporarily lay their employees off during the crisis or benefit from the subsidy. For companies that face liquidity issues yet are not eligible for the subsidy, short-term, interest-bearing emergency loans would be available.","PeriodicalId":42455,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","volume":"8 1","pages":"355 - 372"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3573176","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article considers government responses to unemployment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It analyses the two main legislative responses adopted by North American governments: a broadening of access to (un)employment insurance (EI) and the adoption of payroll subsidies for companies. It comparatively and critically assesses these two solutions, to eventually propose an alternative plan. Under this plan, access to EI would be broadened to cover those not traditionally covered by it, such as self-employed workers, contract workers, and those caring for a family member sick from COVID-19 or for a child who is at home due to school and day-care closures. Unemployed workers who have traditionally paid into the EI system would be rewarded through a tax credit. To avoid incentivising temporary layoffs, a payroll subsidy would be adopted. The subsidy would make it as attractive to keep workers on payroll as to lay them off so they can benefit from EI. It would also provide a more faithful picture of unemployment rates during the crisis. The plan would also address broader concerns regarding the unsustainability of public spending during the crisis by limiting access to both temporary layoffs and the payroll subsidy. Large and profitable companies, as well as companies with high revenue or cash reserves, would not be able to temporarily lay their employees off during the crisis or benefit from the subsidy. For companies that face liquidity issues yet are not eligible for the subsidy, short-term, interest-bearing emergency loans would be available.
期刊介绍:
The Theory and Practice of Legislation aims to offer an international and interdisciplinary forum for the examination of legislation. The focus of the journal, which succeeds the former title Legisprudence, remains with legislation in its broadest sense. Legislation is seen as both process and product, reflection of theoretical assumptions and a skill. The journal addresses formal legislation, and its alternatives (such as covenants, regulation by non-state actors etc.). The editors welcome articles on systematic (as opposed to historical) issues, including drafting techniques, the introduction of open standards, evidence-based drafting, pre- and post-legislative scrutiny for effectiveness and efficiency, the utility and necessity of codification, IT in legislation, the legitimacy of legislation in view of fundamental principles and rights, law and language, and the link between legislator and judge. Comparative and interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged. But dogmatic descriptions of positive law are outside the scope of the journal. The journal offers a combination of themed issues and general issues. All articles are submitted to double blind review.