Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )

[Jarnhamar]

Pretty interesting article and thread. Reaction seems split between who $&%ing cares and $#&*ing bullshit   ;D

I'll come back to it at the end but this is a double standard of course. [warning:white man tears]. Because it's white males on the receiving end of the discrimination (?) it's not really viewed as a big deal, is it? "But it's a policy"  True. Can you imagine if a minority woman was lied to about a job and it given to a white male as a matter of policy? Even if it was just one case in 10'000? People would shit their pants while running over it.

Looking at this as a small picture you have a man and woman applying for a very cool trade. The very cool trade has spec pay, fast career progression and great posting spots. The guy is told the trade is closed and pushed towards a couple mediocre trades instead. The woman enters the recruiting office, asks about the very cool trade and she's green lighted to apply for it and gets it.

That doesn't seem fair or right to me.

That our recruiters lie (in a mealy mouth politician kind of way) is pretty shitty too. White males should be straight up told if and when they don't meet the criteria for the trade because of their gender and race. Lets see if they want to stick around and pick a different trade or tell the CAF to pound salt. We follow the policy, we should own it.

Agreed it probably doesn't have a big impact to the CAF.


When I read or hear about white supremacists I struggle to wrap my head around where and when they start believing the shit they do. What starts them on the path of being angry or feeling blighted and, I don't know, screwed over by other races. Maybe EE and affirmative action play a part, plant shit seeds that grow into shit trees.

Maybe the CAF needs to look at updated ways to attract women to join.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Pretty interesting article and thread. Reaction seems split between who $&%ing cares and $#&*ing bullshit   ;D

I'll come back to it at the end but this is a double standard of course. [warning:white man tears]. Because it's white males on the receiving end of the discrimination (?) it's not really viewed as a big deal, is it? "But it's a policy"  True. Can you imagine if a minority woman was lied to about a job and it given to a white male as a matter of policy? Even if it was just one case in 10'000? People would shit their pants while running over it.

Looking at this as a small picture you have a man and woman applying for a very cool trade. The very cool trade has spec pay, fast career progression and great posting spots. The guy is told the trade is closed and pushed towards a couple mediocre trades instead. The woman enters the recruiting office, asks about the very cool trade and she's green lighted to apply for it and gets it.

That doesn't seem fair or right to me.

That our recruiters lie (in a mealy mouth politician kind of way) is pretty shitty too. White males should be straight up told if and when they don't meet the criteria for the trade because of their gender and race. Lets see if they want to stick around and pick a different trade or tell the CAF to pound salt. We follow the policy, we should own it.

Agreed it probably doesn't have a big impact to the CAF.


When I read or hear about white supremacists I struggle to wrap my head around where and when they start believing the shit they do. What starts them on the path of being angry or feeling blighted and, I don't know, screwed over by other races. Maybe EE and affirmative action play a part, plant shit seeds that grow into shit trees.

Maybe the CAF needs to look at updated ways to attract women to join.

This. Right. Here.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I don't know much about EE and recruiting, but what I do know is that two of the women I most trust in the world (one still serving, one formerly a CF Officer) have both reacted to this article today (more or less) along the following lines:

"Thanks, CFRG, for setting women and minorities back 30 years. Now, once again people will look at us and wonder if we made it on merit or EE..."

I realize that anecdote, is not evidence....

 

[OceanBonfire]

Sadly, some sees EE as a literal discrimination towards "white males" and hiring of the most incompetents from the diversity. In this day and age, affirmative action, whether strongly or lightly implemented in the public and/or private sector, still doesn't counter the prevalent discrimination in job hirings (French articles linked):

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/563586/etude-discrimination-embauche-montreal

https://journalmetro.com/actualites/national/81070/mieux-vaut-avoir-un-nom-quebecois-pour-trouver-un-emploi/

http://journalmetro.com/local/saint-laurent/actualites/726369/discrimination-a-lemploi-plus-de-100-cv-jamais-convoque/

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Thanks, CFRG, for setting women and minorities back 30 years. Now, once again people will look at us and wonder if we made it on merit or EE..."

Basically that's a problem shared with everyone admitted to anything on some variation of "affirmative action" (eg. academically-demanding post-secondary education programs).

There's a related problem: through all phases of progression, people with lower aptitudes will tend to wash out at higher rates and top out at lower levels than people with higher aptitudes; if selection at each level isn't strictly by whatever relevant merit can be measured, resources are wasted and the candidate pool for advancement thins more rapidly as you move up the ladder.  (Again drawing from academics, some students who might do well in an average program struggle when admitted to a prestige program.)  I doubt the CF is dealing with large enough numbers of favoured entrants for this to be a problem (ie. the cost is bearable given the political exigencies) except where the total number of people in a particular specialty is small.

It's a failure of leadership to rely on "stick" (denial of entry) instead of "carrot" (attractive factors, including removal of unreasonable deterrents - eg. social prejudice is unreasonable, career expectations and hardships are not unreasonable).

If women (in particular) are over-represented in some professions and occupations (eg. medicine, law, education) then by definition they will have to be under-represented in others.

 

[mariomike]

I'm not a lawyer obviously but I'm not sure the Employment Equity Act gave the government legal authority to literally deny applications based solely on race/gender.

I'm not a lawyer either, obviously. But, I read this from Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

It’s honestly not that surprising. Maybe it’s a bit surprising that someone has actually confirmed what we’ve all known all a long, but otherwise, yeah, it’s not surprising.  :dunno:

This sort of thing isn’t rare in many areas of public service.

Well said, BTN. "...what we’ve all known all a long,"

It came as a bit of a surprise ( perhaps even a shock, to some ) when it was introduced over 30 years ago.

But, I thought that would have worn off by now.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Funny the most competent females I know despise any form of affirmative action. While there was a case for it 20 years ago, that does not exist today. Affirmative action create suspicion that anyone in that group got help/easy path to position they hold. It actually is now harms those groups.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

Funny the most competent females I know despise any form of affirmative action. While there was a case for it 20 years ago, that does not exist today. Affirmative action create suspicion that anyone in that group got help/easy path to position they hold. It actually is now harms those groups.

Agreed. I’ve spoken more than once on this forum about where I stand on female representation/diversity in the workplace, and the fact that I support positions being filled by the best candidate for the position—period. If they happen to be something other than Caucasian and have whatever between their legs, then fine. I’m also quite confident that I didn’t make the cut because I have a vagina, so it doesn’t really bother me.

My point with my post is simply what I said—that it’s not surprising. While I applaud my fellow female colleagues and it’s nice to see some diversity, I don’t want to work with anyone who hasn’t earned their position by their own merit. That being said, I know what the reality is and I know what hiring practices are in place at certain times in many areas, especially in the public sector. As has been stated in earlier posts, this isn’t a new thing.

A side note, however, is I feel that the title of this article was purposely worded the way it is to create division between the sexes. While yes, the article speaks of specific situations where women are the focus, it also speaks of ethnicity in general being the focus of certain initiatives.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Spillage from another thread that touched on this issue.

This is what I despise. A system that will be pushed up more due to someone's political preferences over the merits of a person and what they truly can provide for our nation.

While this doesnt affect me (I'd hope, as it just said white males), I wouldn't be surprised if this extended to Asian males, or males in general in the future.

What a joke of a thinly veiled, politically motivated, PC culture lie.

I'll grant you some leeway as you are still (legally) a child and have a little time to develop into a thinking adult, but if you believe that expressing such opinions will endear you to the average military member or those who frequent this site, then you may be disappointed.  On reflection, I wonder if you actually read the link in Loach's post or analysed the responses in that thread.  Perhaps you could explain (in the other thread, to keep it on topic) why this is "a joke of a thinly veiled, politically motivated, PC culture lie".

I'd have thought that the story would (as it should) elicit a "so what, old news" but I guess there are still those around who haven't changed with the times.  By the way, I served back in the days of yore when this was an actual issue, thankfully we (the CF as an organization) grew up.  Maybe it hasn't reached the optimal stage yet when measures such as described remain necessary but it's getting there.  If there are applicants (especially those who want to be officers) who can't accept the law or understand the measures needed to implement same then perhaps they should seek another line of work.

And the challenge to my post.

I'm not legally a child nor am I in another line of work. Please, don't grant me any leniency, let me know how you really feel. I can't wait to hear how discrimination is okay as long as it's towards white males, and how diversity is great because you get a variety of viewpoints, unless of course those viewpoints don't align with your own then we should just go find another line of work.

If you can't see the difference between positive action and explicit, government-sanctioned discrimination towards a particular skin colour / gender, and you think everyone who can simply shouldn't be in the CAF, perhaps it's you who should join the other thread and speak up... rather than lipping off about it all over here to someone who is legally a child.

Actually, I see nothing discriminatory (legally speaking) about the practice raised in Ms. Blatchford's article.  Since the initials "EE" are featured as the secret code on the sheets that Ms. Blatchford's surreptitiously received let's look at the purpose of the Employment Equity Act.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-5.401/page-1.html#h-2

Purpose of Act
2 The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.
⦁ 1995, c. 44, s. 2;
⦁ 2017, c. 26, s. 19(E).

But surely it would be discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act?  Well, not necessarily.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-6/page-2.html#docCont

Special programs
⦁ 16 (1) It is not a discriminatory practice for a person to adopt or carry out a special program, plan or arrangement designed to prevent disadvantages that are likely to be suffered by, or to eliminate or reduce disadvantages that are suffered by, any group of individuals when those disadvantages would be based on or related to the prohibited grounds of discrimination, by improving opportunities respecting goods, services, facilities, accommodation or employment in relation to that group.

Now, that sounds like a bunch of lawyerly babblespeak, but I take it to mean that it is permitted to give an advantage or priority to a group if  it is based on reducing the effects of a prohibited grounds of discrimination for that group.  Seems that is what CFRG did.

But surely, the time has passed since enactment of the Employment Equity Act (33 years) that such "special programs" are no longer necessary?  You would hope so, but the Canadian Forces has never met the targets envisioned as reasonable.  What does the act consider a reasonable target measurement?

https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/equal-employment-opportunities-0

The Commission’s Role
The Canadian Human Rights Commission conducts audits to determine if employers are meeting their legal obligations to offer equal employment opportunities to four designated groups : women, Indigenous persons, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities.
In certain organizations, if representation of the four designated groups is lower than market availability in a specific industry, employers must implement practices that to demonstrate they are doing all they can to achieve equality in the workplace and fill gaps in representation.
Above all, employment equity is a matter of dignity. It offers everyone an opportunity to work and contribute to society. At the same time, employers benefit from a diversified and competent workforce, one that promotes inclusion in the work place.

In the course of researching for this post (which began before the posts from the other thread), in various OAG audits, CF Ombudsman reports, CHRC reports and some of the latest government defence and security policy documents, a common "official" position of the CF over the years discuss the woes of meeting Employment Equity targets and in the last few years indicate (in various descriptions) that "special programs" will be instituted to help meet the goals, especially that of recruiting more women.  However, no specific details were provided as to how they would function.  My assumption is this temporary prioritization of women only applications for specific occupations is included in these latest CFRG administrative trivia.

The CF is not the only large government body to do so.  The other organization specifically mentioned on the Employment Equity Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) seemingly has been doing similar for decades.  I remembered stories from the late 1990s (?) and in my googling came across other reports from the 2000s and the early to mid 2010s with tales of individuals being told that if they were a white male don't bother applying because priority was being given to women and visible minorities.  On some other forums, the (unofficial) report is that women and visible minorities have to meet a lower score on their testing in order to get an employment interview.  I wasn't however able to find any "official" announcement of this RCMP policy.  If it does work that way, there must have been someone who officially complained as previously suggested in this thread.

I very sincerely hope someone challenges this as a violation of their Charter or Human rights.  . . .

I looked through Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) decisions to see if there were any complaints that touched on the points discussed here - none.  Similarly, I found nothing on any of the other court decision databases and a general google of the topic revealed no reports or discussion of anybody who officially challenged such a policy.  Either potential applicants to the RCMP are too lazy (unlikely) or the legal merits of such action would preclude anyone from being supported in their case by the CHRC or being successful in a venue other than the CHRT.  My search skills of case law may be (probably is) deficient so I would gladly be disabused of my assertion by someone with better search skills.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>if representation of the four designated groups is lower than market availability in a specific industry, employers must implement practices that to demonstrate they are doing all they can to achieve equality in the workplace and fill gaps in representation.

Must be a pain in the ass for the companies that pump septic tanks.

 

[OceanBonfire]

...

But surely, the time has passed since enactment of the Employment Equity Act (33 years) that such "special programs" are no longer necessary?  You would hope so, ...

Exactly this.

Bravo on all the research you've done there in the post.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

A question for our medical profession folks.  Are there hiring practices in place so that men are scored higher then women to try and get a 50/50 balance in nursing?
A serious question....

 

[Blackadder1916]

A question for our medical profession folks.  Are there hiring practices in place so that men are scored higher then women to try and get a 50/50 balance in nursing?
A serious question....

Are you referring to the CAF only or the profession of nursing in general?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>A serious question....

Truly?  Surely it hasn't escaped everyone's notice that over-representation (of special groups) in jammy jobs is not an issue worthy of discussion.

 

[mariomike]

I know what the reality is and I know what hiring practices are in place at certain times in many areas,  especially  in the public sector.

During my career in the municipal public sector, all of my work partners were white males. From the day I hired on, to the day I retired.

It wasn't planned that way, it was due to seniority.

Although I never had an "EE" partner,  if the department had confidence in them, so did I.

( 5'10" or taller with 20/20 vision was also required back then. Although those standards were relaxed around the time of EE, as also discriminatory. )

Seems funny to remember now, but when the first women starting coming on the job, some of the wives put up an awful fuss.

Unlike police or fire stations, it was just the two of you alone together in a cozy little room ( fridge, stove, a table for two, a TV, and two couches ) on those 12-hour night shifts. If the bells didn't go off, your time was your own.

So, under the circumstances, I can understand why some of the wives were concerned.

And of course, it was years before stations had female washrooms, showers and locker rooms.

So, I guess you could say, it took some getting used to.

 

[Jarnhamar]

During my career in the municipal public sector, all of my work partners were white males. From the day I hired on, to the day I retired.

What job was that?

 

[mariomike]

What job was that?

See my profile.

 

[Jarnhamar]

See my profile.

Sorry just confused a little. You say "all of my work partners were white males. From the day I hired on, to the day I retired" but when we discussing working with females on this forum in the past didn't you say that one of your partners was a female? If I recall correctly she went on to be your boss or supervisor?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

That is a neat trick.  You have preemptively dismissed anyone who does not agree with you.  Nice.

You sound surprised. That door swings both ways around here.

 

[Teager]

A question for our medical profession folks.  Are there hiring practices in place so that men are scored higher then women to try and get a 50/50 balance in nursing?
A serious question....

My wife is graduating from her nursing program next month at the RPN level. There are 145 graduates and maybe 8 are male. So to go back to your question even if there was a practice in place for a 50/50 split it would still be a struggle to find enough qualified males as the majority of students taking nursing are still female.