• the Review claims that females, in total, represent a higher financial risk than do males although no explanation of how this conclusion was reached is indicated. In 1977, the average weekly U.I. benefit paid to females was $138 and to males was $180.

• the disentitlement rate for females is more than twice that for males. There are several grounds for disentitlement: (i) a worker who quits voluntarily is disentitled for 6 weeks. Women have a slightly higher disentitlement rate for voluntary quitting than men. In 1977 this was 24.5% compared to 21.6%.

(ii) a worker who is not available for work, refuses a job and/or conducts an inadequate job search is disentitled. Women tend to have a higher rate of disentitlement for this reason than men.

• over 95% of female claimants do not report dependents... "although no information is given on how claimants are asked to determine if they have dependents. The inference clearly is that females are not reported as having dependents unless they are the sole support of their families, whereas males would be considered to have dependents even if some other family members are in the labour force." 1

• the rate of drop-out is higher for women than men. In 1973 these rates were 20.1% and 9.4%. According to the Review "males were more successful/keener in finding jobs" while "females may have had more trouble finding jobs" because they "might not have actively sought jobs and/or might have dropped out of the labour market". No statistical data support this opinion.

• the Review examines the role of secondary earners in abusing the U.I. program. According to their definition, a primary earner is the one on whom the family depends for a living; a secondary earner is anyone else in the family receiving an income. This definition is most applicable to working wives. The Review goes on to state:

"The continued growth of secondary income earners with unstable employment patterns is likely to generate increases in U.I. benefit expenditures ²

"To the extent that secondary earners, with their lower incomes, are more likely to be exposed to the risk of unemployment and/or more prone to misuse of the program, it is not surprising that a substantial proportion (28%) of the benefits are paid to these families (i.e. with two or more earners and incomes over $10,000)."³

The Review does not provide data supporting the description, "unstable employment patterns", nor does it specify whether the U.I. benefits paid to "these families" go to male or female claimants.

^1. E. Rosen, op cit., p. 8

^2. Ibid., p. 11 .

^3. Ibid., p. 12