Author Topic: Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )  (Read 48515 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BeyondTheNow

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 65,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,100
Re: Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )
« Reply #250 on: May 06, 2019, 21:31:28 »
Indeed. Don't really understand how that would be lost on anyone, I don't see any indication that people are blaming the individuals working at recruiting centres for this...

Except the multiple instances in this thread where posters haven’t differentiated, they’ve simply stated ‘Recruiting’ or ‘recruiters’ in blatant, blanket fashion. I fully understand and feel the frustration. But it’s important to keep things in perspective, and just as I have with other trades, make sure (especially new and non-member) readers are understanding that there needs to be a clear separation.


Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 217,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,697
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )
« Reply #251 on: May 06, 2019, 21:52:10 »
If a recruiter was the one who told a male applicant "the trade is closed, sorry", does it absolve them of their part because "it was a direction from higher?

Serious question;  I'm curious what people think.

We ALL know that much more aggregious and unethical things are being done and said on ALL levels, regarding ANY number of situations from ALL ranks in ALL of CAF. There isn’t one area that’s immune. We ALL preach ethics and whatever else right from the get-go and usually within 5 minutes (sarcasm) after each lecture about it we see or hear something that shouldn’t be happening or we don’t agree with.

BTN:

I'd be careful claiming the entire CAF is full of unethical behaviour, in all ranks, commands and situations, etc, especially given your relatively limited exposure and experience to the CAF as a whole at this point in your career.  I don't know where you are currently posted, but I can happily state my Squadron and Wing isn't rife with ethical conflict and abuse.   :2c:

« Last Edit: May 06, 2019, 22:09:34 by Eye In The Sky »
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline BeyondTheNow

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 65,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,100
Re: Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )
« Reply #252 on: May 06, 2019, 22:10:25 »
If a recruiter was the one who told a male applicant "the trade is closed, sorry", does it absolve them of their part because "it was a direction from higher?

Serious question;  I'm curious what people think.

BTN:

I'd be careful claiming the entire CAF is full of unethical behaviour, in all ranks, commands and situations, etc.  I don't know where you are currently posted, but I can happily state my Squadron isn't rife with ethical conflict and abuse.   :2c:

I’m glad you’re part of an excellent posting, and many members are. However, I’m confident in my statement that no area is entirely immune. It only takes a very little effort of find evidence of this at different times, regardless of thorough screenings and training and PERs/PDRs and whatever else. It happens. It’s unfortunate, but it does. Which also brings me to the other point I raised of the many CAF members who are working hard to ensure more and more situations remain positive as much as possible. 

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 217,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,697
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )
« Reply #253 on: May 06, 2019, 22:15:21 »
Which also brings me to the other point I raised of the many CAF members who are working hard to ensure more and more situations remain positive as much as possible.

I'd say that more so now than ever, members (especially junior members) are more comfortable raising concerns about situations they are uncomfortable or unsure of.  I see this as a positive change, regardless of the minor growing pains that might come with it.

Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline BeyondTheNow

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 65,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,100
Re: Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )
« Reply #254 on: May 06, 2019, 22:17:53 »
I'd say that more so now than ever, members (especially junior members) are more comfortable raising concerns about situations they are uncomfortable or unsure of.  I see this as a positive change, regardless of the minor growing pains that might come with it.

Agreed.

Online Throwaway987

  • Guest
  • *
  • 790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12
Re: Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )
« Reply #255 on: May 06, 2019, 22:30:05 »
If a recruiter was the one who told a male applicant "the trade is closed, sorry", does it absolve them of their part because "it was a direction from higher?

What’s the recruiter (or any of us) to do though? Is it a manifestly unlawful order? Is he going to rock the boat and risk his career over this issue? He has very few viable options to voice his concerns. Perhaps this is why threads like this are so cathartic.

I’d argue that it would be short sighted to fault the individual recruiter since this is more of a system issue rather than an individual issue.

I'd say that more so now than ever, members (especially junior members) are more comfortable raising concerns about situations they are uncomfortable or unsure of.  I see this as a positive change, regardless of the minor growing pains that might come with it.



Isn’t this the true irony and/or success of the CAF ethics program? We have empowered our employees to advocate for what they believe is right even when it is against the goals of the organization.

If the whistleblower who leaked these documents is caught, should they be praised or punished?

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 288,531
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,778
Re: Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )
« Reply #256 on: May 06, 2019, 23:12:21 »
Umm, okay. Let’s get off our soap-boxes about “Recruiters” and “recruiting” being unethical and liars and whatever else. We ALL know that much more aggregious and unethical things are being done and said on ALL levels, regarding ANY number of situations from ALL ranks in ALL of CAF.

Respectfully, you're confusing a soap box with the high ground. I'm not lying to someone's face. I make a habit of telling the truth regardless how uncomfortable that truth is, in point of fact.

The fact unethical stuff happens in other areas of the CAF, while true, doesn't absolve recruiters of championing a lie.

Recruiters are the first point of contact in the CAF for many applicants. That they'll lie (or mislead them if that feels more comfortable) says a lot about the CAF.

Sorry but recruiters don't get a pass from me because they're just following orders. The ethical thing to do here is to be upfront and honest with applicants, full stop.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2019, 06:31:58 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 248,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,900
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )
« Reply #257 on: May 06, 2019, 23:20:35 »
That right there.

I don't mind you screwing me so much, as long as you tell me you're screwing me.
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 27,387
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 405
Re: Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )
« Reply #258 on: May 07, 2019, 03:31:46 »
Except the multiple instances in this thread where posters haven’t differentiated, they’ve simply stated ‘Recruiting’ or ‘recruiters’ in blatant, blanket fashion. I fully understand and feel the frustration. But it’s important to keep things in perspective, and just as I have with other trades, make sure (especially new and non-member) readers are understanding that there needs to be a clear separation.

I said recruiters, and I stand by it based on what the recruiter is quoted as having said in the article. If even the recruiter(s) find it distasteful enough to go to the media about it, I think it's fair to point it out again.

It's bad enough that recruiters lying is a "joke" commonly known about joining the military. Those of us already in know the truth, recruiters are often doing the best they can with the limited knowledge they have of all the occupations in the CAF. I know my recruiter didn't know anything about my trade apart from the fact we do weather, and some sail on ships. (He was a MARS officer)

If the recruiter sitting across the desk from the applicant doesn't know that the trade is locked out for EE applicants only, and tells a non-EE person that they need to apply for somethign else, it's not the recruiters fault.

If the recruiter sits across the desk from an applicant and lies to their face about a trade being closed, regardless of whether or not it's the direction from on high, it's wrong and the recruiter isn't blameless. 

We expect our leaders to do the right thing, not simply 'follow orders". A bad PER or two, and a posting back to an in-trade position is about the worst a recruiter would encounter for being honest. They aren't going to be kicked out for telling the truth... Imagine the National Post/Globe and Mail headlines over that.

Lastly, while I applaud your concern for the image of recruiters, and the CAF, circiling the wagons while jumping to the defence of bad decisions isn't going to help the CAF in the long run.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2019, 13:04:20 by Furniture »

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 65,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,756
Re: Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )
« Reply #259 on: May 07, 2019, 12:13:09 »
>We ALL know that much more aggregious and unethical things

The ethics modules I received on my (reserve) courses never taught that unethical behaviour was excused if I could point to some unethical behaviour elsewhere.

The proper and liberal COA has already been identified: explain to applicants (or any aspirant to anything - promotion, appointment, etc) exactly why they are being denied entry to <whatever>, so that they have complete information with which to make their decisions.  When you give a person incomplete, inaccurate, or false information and it influences his decision, you have inflected his decision with your own prejudices and oversights.  Don't allow anyone or any policy to lie or obfuscate, starting from the top.  And allow no "exigency" to intrude: if disclosing information might lead to a Charter challenge, the GoC and the rest of us should welcome the opportunity to settle a question in law.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline BeyondTheNow

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 65,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,100
Re: Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )
« Reply #260 on: May 07, 2019, 13:47:00 »
>We ALL know that much more aggregious and unethical things

The ethics modules I received on my (reserve) courses never taught that unethical behaviour was excused if I could point to some unethical behaviour elsewhere.

The proper and liberal COA has already been identified: explain to applicants (or any aspirant to anything - promotion, appointment, etc) exactly why they are being denied entry to <whatever>, so that they have complete information with which to make their decisions.  When you give a person incomplete, inaccurate, or false information and it influences his decision, you have inflected his decision with your own prejudices and oversights.  Don't allow anyone or any policy to lie or obfuscate, starting from the top.  And allow no "exigency" to intrude: if disclosing information might lead to a Charter challenge, the GoC and the rest of us should welcome the opportunity to settle a question in law.

Not once did I ever state blatant, unethical behaviour should be excused through means of misdirection, or otherwise. My point with that post was bringing home the fact that, whether intentional or not, an entire trade was/is being painted with the same negative brush at various times which is not fair, nor accurate. Additionally backing up my point in that post, with all the issues CAF is facing even on a basic level at the moment, I haven’t read any posts indicating, or implying to any degree, that an entire trade, or division or whathaveyou is responsible. Persons or perhaps chains at a stated level? Yes. But not an entire area.

No one here can speak for how *every*single*CAF*recruiter conducts their interactions with applicants, period. While that article opened an entire can of worms, I’m quite certain that there are Recruiters out there who have never straight-up lied to any hopefuls. Maybe I’m too optimistic, but I think many deserve the benefit of the doubt here. I personally don’t envy their positions. They essentially have to be sales people, and with that comes all the crap that comes with sales. (Anyone who’s been in a sales position knows what it can be like.)

Again, I’m not excusing anything. I’ve made my stance on the issues raised by that article pretty clear and I don’t advocate for any type of questionable means by which to get applicants through the doors. But I personally believe that (most) Recruiters are trying the best they can with what they have. Also, as stated by me earlier, clearly more evaluating in many areas is needed—at least by how it’s being viewed by outsiders and those not doing the job.

Offline BeyondTheNow

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 65,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,100
Re: Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )
« Reply #261 on: May 07, 2019, 13:51:01 »
Respectfully, you're confusing a soap box with the high ground...

You’re correct. I had two trains of thought going on at the time. ‘Lead with one train, but ended up going with the other...

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 25,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 761
Re: Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )
« Reply #262 on: May 07, 2019, 15:31:54 »
Let's just call a spade a spade, you're deliberately doing everything you can to not answer to the very straightforward question about lying, which clearly has enough information available to comment on. Your comment is not in anyway relevant to whether or not we should be lying to recruits about it.

As for the crap in yellow... in the US, the argument was that women didn't need to be allowed to apply for the infantry because there were plenty of other jobs in the Army / Marines that they were allowed to do .They weren't being disadvantaged or harmed by having that opportunity denied to them based on their gender, because there were lots of other open jobs. No big deal, right? You're agreeing with that position then? Sure sounds like it... otherwise, you're a hypocrite.



I can deal with support for this stuff if people want to make an argument for this based on how it will make us a more effective fighting force, or something other than "discrimination is okay," then there's a worthy debate to be had. But if they're going to literally make the exact same arguments that society used to oppress women, minorities, etc, and pretend it's not just as wrong to do it now to white men as it was back then to do it to women, minorities, etc, then they are just as unethical as all those old rich white males they despise so much.

So it's crystal, the lying about it is wrong. If CFRG is going to do this, be up front about it.  I doubt that kind of details filters down to the recruiter levels, and is probably something someone comes up with on a spreadsheet that pushes the outputs down. I think it's a pretty poor position to put the front line recruiters in, but expecting them to lie is dirty pool, and a cowardly way to approach it.

So what's the actual policy?  Are we talking about having 50 positions open to anyone, with an additional few extra positions that they are holding for EE candidates? 500 open positions? More? I have no idea what the order of magnitude we are talking about, because it's a black box.

Bottom line if you are a strong candidate you'll still get in.  But you are basically cold calling the CAF when you stop in, so you may need to wait if you want to be considered for a specific trade.  If you are unwilling to wait, or are a borderline candidate that doesn't make the cut, don't think that's because you are the wrong colour.

In any case, don't have anything else to add unless some new info comes up, so will leave it at that.  :cheers: