Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )

[Eye In The Sky]

So the short answer is, the Employment Equity Act has been enshrined in federal Canadian law since 1986 (amended 1995).  For over three decades,  it has required federal employers to engage in proactive employment practices to increase the representation of women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities.

Forgive me if I don't get worked up today by DND doing something that has been legally mandated for 33 years.  However, should anyone wish to light torches and storm some castle, or start a harshly-worded petition, you can get some useful bits from "Canada, Justice Laws Website, 'Employment Equity Act (S.C. 1995, c. 44)',"  https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-5.401/ -- it specifically mentions Canadian Forces, CSIS, and RCMP.

Bare with me some here;  I'm far from being even an amateur on law and legalities.

The EE Act purpose includes "treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences".

This seems to jive with that purpose [quotes from the NP article].

Scenario 1

Other occupations, though, were still identified as those where “priority is given to EE applicants. Non-EE may apply.”

This seems to cross the line:

Scenario 2

For instance, a sheet from July 26 last year clearly shows that spots in 17 jobs (ranging from armoured and artillery officers, ammunition technicians and medical techs to postal clerks) were designated EE and were then “accepting applications from females only”.

Does the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 also not have to be taken into consideration?

2. The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Prohibited grounds of discrimination

3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered

Discriminatory policy or practice

10 It is a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee organization or employer organization
(a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or
(b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospective employment,

that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

***Applicant A is a white male, and wants to apply for Trade B.***

If Scenario 1 from above was the action applied, that seems to balance the requirements of both the EE and CHR Acts.

If Scenario 2 from above was the action applied, does that not take the EE Act purpose/requirements too far and infringe on the CHR Act?

Sabourin agreed that in practice, it means that if a white male was applying for a job that was temporarily open only to EE candidates, he would be informed the occupation was full and other job possibilities discussed.

Why not tell the applicant the trade is "closed to male applicants"?  Are we not bound to be truthful?

Statement of Defence Ethics

Ethical Principles and Expected Behaviours

1. Respect the Dignity of All Persons

At all times and in all places, DND employees and CAF members shall respect human dignity and the value of every person by:
•Treating every person with respect and fairness.
•Working together in a spirit of openness, honesty and transparency that encourages engagement, collaboration and respectful communication.

Specific Values and Expected Behaviours

1. Integrity

DND employees and CAF members shall serve the public interest by:
•Acting at all times with integrity, and in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny; an obligation that may not be fully satisfied by simply acting within the law.
•Adhering to the highest ethical standards, communicating and acting with honesty, and avoiding deception.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I'm not really sure what all the outrage is about

Private prejudice is not equivalent to institutional government prejudice.

With respect to means used to achieve quotas, there's a gulf of difference between "attraction" and "denial".

 

[PuckChaser]

So the short answer is, the Employment Equity Act has been enshrined in federal Canadian law since 1986 (amended 1995).  For over three decades,  it has required federal employers to engage in proactive employment practices to increase the representation of women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities.

There's clearly a difference between "this trade isn't open to you because you're white" and "EE candidates go to the top of the pile".

Non-EE candidates in this case were told the trade was closed, which implied its closed to everyone. If CFRG wasn't trying to hide something, why wouldn't they process all candidates and let the EE Act do its job?

Another interesting tidbit:

The CFAT – which has been frequently tested for bias and found to have none — as well as a personality traits test results in a score which is then used on a Priority Control Line by recruiters.

The PCL used to be what determined how applicants were prioritized, but now, as the sheets say, “PCL does not apply to EE applicants.”

Though on the sheets the terms are used in a confused fashion, in the military, Tattersall said, EE includes visible minorities, Indigenous people and women.

What used to happen is that those who scored high on the CFAT and had certain traits (which indicate that they tend to perform well in the military) would be processed.

But since late 2017 and early 2018, when the CF formally responded to a parliamentary report on recruitment, the military has increasingly focused on diversifying its work force.

Its one thing to hire qualified EE candidates ahead of qualified non-EE candidates, its absolutely another to hire potentially unsuitable candidates just because they check an EE box. Why even bother having EE candidates write a CFAT and do the personality traits test? Just provide a job offer on the spot and ship them off to basic the next day. Don't even need to do a medical, that would just show some sort of bias towards non-EE candidates.  :facepalm:

 

[ballz]

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

Nope, you can find plenty of (locked) threads where I was willing to have the debate despite being slandered as a sexist. Still willing to have that debate, I just genuinely don't want *this* thread going down that path, I'd rather we just unlock one of the other ones so we can do the same song and dance for a week before locking it again.

This thread has its own important topic.

 

[Infanteer]

That's a great theory but one hell of an assumption to base social re-engineering off of. I'll be the arsehole here with the glaringly obvious example, if we manage to make the infantry corps 50% women, without having increased its size because we're limited on that, it's going to be a weaker corps than it is currently is.

That example is unrealistic hyperbole.  Having taken part in seeing how the SIP is designed and managed, this simply wouldn't be the case.  The article quotes the official goals as females from 15 to 25% across the CAF, and other groups (Aboriginals and other visible minorities) up a percentage point or two.

I'm not privy to the exact nature of how this is being managed by CFRG, but I would imagine we are looking at occupations that have a couple dozen available vacancies for the fiscal year, and chose to specially manage their intake for a few weeks to try and get some targeted recruits into some of those vacancies.  We're not talking about reshaping the CAF to conform to some social experiment.

I do share an unease with Puckchaser about changing entry standards.  I can understand if person A and person B are both qualified, and EE is used as a selection measure for some of the intake, but I have trouble with taking someone who is unqualified over someone who is.  I guess I'd want to understand the impacts of this decision making and who is accepting this risk on behalf of the institution.  In some cases, it is likely worth it, and hence why it is being done.

 

[Throwaway987]

EE seems reasonable when there’s two applicants of equal potential. What happens if the EE applicant is not equal? 

If we assume that EE and non-EE applicants have similar normal distributions of potential, won’t the smaller EE pool have a smaller pool of people at any potential cutoff level?

How much potential is the CAF willing to sacrifice to meet an EE target?

What are the cognitive and/or physical requirements of CAF members? Do we just need bodies to fill the ranks? Are we happy with just the minimum?

There may be long term risks to the organization if we don’t maximize the potential of our applicants. The CAF can’t hire externally so the applicants of today will one day be the senior officers and NCOs of the future. Every high potential member who doesn’t join or chooses to VR mid-career only makes the CAF gene pool shallower.



Edit: Doesn’t EE assume that the lack of existing diversity/role-models is the major barrier to future EE applicants?

What if a larger reason was the real or perceived low job quality of the CAF? i.e. Women and minorities aren’t joining the CAF because this profession doesn’t meet their expectations with respect to compensation, quality of life, cultural beliefs regarding the military, lack of patriotism, etc.

Given all the other threads about the CAF’s retention issues, is it possible that EE groups just have better employment prospects and simply choose other careers?

 

[ballz]

EE seems reasonable when there’s two applicants of equal potential. What happens if the EE applicant is not equal? 

If we assume that EE and non-EE applicants have similar normal distributions of potential, won’t the smaller EE pool have a smaller pool of people at any potential cutoff level?

How much potential is the CAF willing to sacrifice to meet an EE target?

What are the cognitive and/or physical requirements of CAF members? Do we just need bodies to fill the ranks? Are we happy with just the minimum?

There be long term risks to the organization if we don’t maximize the potential of our applicants. The CAF can’t hire externally so the applicants of today will one day be the senior officers and NCOs of the future. Every high potential member who doesn’t join or chooses to VR mid-career only makes the CAF gene pool shallower.

Exactly. This idea that "they both meet the minimum requirements, therefore we can pick the one that fits our EE targets" is a flawed idea, particularly given just how low our entry requirements are. The truth is in a lot of tough trades, we are relying on the training system to weed out the ones that can't cut the mustard, because the minimum requirements don't. But, when you flood the pool with those who have just barely met the minimum requirements, instead of those who were selected because they were the best amongst a pool of "qualified" applicants, the training system inevitably ends up letting people through that it would not have normally.

All you've gotta do is look at what happened to the PLQ when they started throwing PRes Musicians on the same PLQs as combat arms. What squeaked through was a lower quality, and those who wanted to keep the standard high were ridiculed for failing too many candidates.

I do share an unease with Puckchaser about changing entry standards.  I can understand if person A and person B are both qualified, and EE is used as a selection measure for some of the intake, but I have trouble with taking someone who is unqualified over someone who is.

We don't know who is "qualified" at the recruiting point, they've still got a long road to go. If anything, the recruiting system has proved incapable in it's current form of predicting who will be a capable candidate due to the use of "minimum requirements" (which don't even include fitness) which is demonstrated by the 40-75% failure rates on some trades training.

Looking at two people who meet the minimum entry requirements as both equal candidates is literally dumbfounding.

 

[ballz]

That example is unrealistic hyperbole.

It demonstrates the point. Somewhere, between 0% females and 100% females (or any other given demographic) in any given trade, there is undoubtedly an optimized mixed, and there are ends of the spectrum that would adversely affect it.

Randomly picking "25%" as a "target" and then trying to re-engineer it through literally denying demographics the opportunity to enter the trade seems like throwing shit at a wall and hoping it sticks.

It also completely destroys the whole premise of "equality of opportunity" in exchange for "equality of outcome" which doesn't take much scrutiny to see the flaws.

 

[Throwaway987]

I totally agree with your concerns about “equality of outcome” for EE groups. I’d argue that lower standards for EE groups would cause more long term harm than any short term benefits in diversity optics. 

The decision to have separate entry standards for EE groups could in fact cause the very stereotypes that we are trying eliminate. e.g. CFAT waiver or differences in the average CFAT scores of EE vs non-EE groups

What if our lower standards for EE applicants leads to a subgroup of lower performing CAF members?

Even the general awareness of different standards could lead to the negative perception or stereotyping of EE members.

This would be the most unfortunate disservice to any currently serving EE member. EE members used to be rare and may have had to deal with discrimination. Now they may have to deal with this added stereotype as well. Yikes.

 

[Infanteer]

How much potential is the CAF willing to sacrifice to meet an EE target?

I think this is losing sight of the forest for the trees, and the article can be guilty of triggering a bit of a chicken little effect.  I'm willing to bet that this isn't a very high percentage of the overall annual intake.

But, when you flood the pool with those who have just barely met the minimum requirements, instead of those who were selected because they were the best amongst a pool of "qualified" applicants, the training system inevitably ends up letting people through that it would not have normally.

Any proof that the percentage of CAF enrollments are people who "just barely meet the minimum requirements?"

 

[PuckChaser]

Any proof that the percentage of CAF enrollments are people who "just barely meet the minimum requirements?"

Been to CFLRS lately? Anecdotally we're recruiting people with mild autism and mental health conditions making them completely unfit for service...

 

[Infanteer]

Been to CFLRS lately? Anecdotally we're recruiting people with mild autism and mental health conditions making them completely unfit for service...

Are those exceptions, or the norm?  Are you taking isolated examples and extrapolating a general trend?  What percentage of recruits have developmental issues or mental heath conditions?  What's the failure rate at CFLRS?  Is it higher than historical norms?  Lower?  Why?

Before anyone tells me that the standard of recruit has dropped, I want to see proof.  I say this because "today's recruit is much poorer than when I went through" is probably one of the most common and inaccurate statement commonly made as a general fact by people who don't really have any proof to back the statement up.

While I haven't been to CFLRS lately, I've commanded soldiers who've come out of the pipeline, and the kids are all right.  This pipeline was, from my point of view, sound.

 

[PuckChaser]

To be super honest, I don't think the proof you're asking for exists. Not because its true/false, but because that would require the CAF to do a deep-dive into its recruiting/training problems, more than just appointing some GBA+ advisers.

Instead of lowering the bar (that proof exists, EE members skip the PCL created by CFAT and traits test), the CAF needs to find out why they are not an attractive option for EE candidates. Is it socially acceptable for a first generation Canadian not from Europe to be a military member? Do women feel like we've made strides to fix the "overblown" (IMHO) sexual harassment problem trumpeted by the media? Why is ALOY, or Black Bear not as popular as it could be?

 

[ballz]

Any proof that the percentage of CAF enrollments are people who "just barely meet the minimum requirements?"

No but, as I stated the problem is the minimum requirements mean nothing which is part of the problem. Perhaps I'm taking attention away from my own point and should have worded it more like this:

Exactly. This idea that "they both meet the minimum requirements, therefore we can pick the one that fits our EE targets" is a flawed idea, particularly given just how low our entry requirements are. The truth is in a lot of tough trades, we are relying on the training system to weed out the ones that can't cut the mustard, because the minimum requirements don't. But, when you flood the pool with people simply because they met the minimum requirements, instead of those who were selected because they were the best among a pool of "qualified" applicants, the training system inevitably ends up letting people through that it would not have normally.

As an example, the minimum requirements to be selected as an Infantry Officer under ROTP are what exactly? A high school diploma and a pulse? We aren't exactly good at screening people to ensure we're picking those who will be successful. Proof is in the failure rates.

Before anyone tells me that the standard of recruit has dropped, I want to see proof.  I say this because "today's recruit is much poorer than when I went through" is probably one of the most common and inaccurate statement commonly made as a general fact by people who don't really have any proof to back the statement up.

I am not arguing the standard of recruit has dropped. I'm arguing it will if you're going switch from selecting based on merit to based on "minimum requirements + diversity factor." Pretty hard to see how it could be possible that it wouldn't drop.

This idea that human resources are just nuts and bolts in a machine and as long as they are the right specs that's good enough is insane. Find a private company, where success matters, who hires the first person who shows up with a resume that meets the minimum requirements in the job ad. Minimum job requirements are a tool to filter out applications, they're not the basis of selection.

 

[Infanteer]

No but, as I stated the problem is the minimum requirements mean nothing which is part of the problem....

As an example, the minimum requirements to be selected as an Infantry Officer under ROTP are what exactly? A high school diploma and a pulse?  We aren't exactly good at screening people to ensure we're picking those who will be successful. Proof is in the failure rates.

What should minimum requirements mean?  What do we need in recruits (not officer candidates) prior to entry?  The military is designed to be entry-level employment.  I don't know what you're expecting them to be able to do.  Remember, minimum entry requirements are only used to pick people to then enter a one to two year training pipeline.

I am not arguing the standard of recruit has dropped. I'm arguing it will if you're going switch from selecting based on merit to based on "minimum requirements + diversity factor."

But that's not what happening - you're again resorting to hyberbole.  Read the article.  Its a policy that is being selectively applied to a relatively few number of occupations on a week-by-week basis.  Nowhere does it suggest that a large majority of recruited members are still selected by the standard meriting process (which you don't seem to have much faith in anyways).

Find a private company, where success matters, who hires the first person who shows up with a resume that meets the minimum requirements in the job ad. Minimum job requirements are a tool to filter out applications, they're not the basis of selection.

McDonalds?  Hiring for entry level employment needn't be too onerous, as an effective training system can provide the desired employee.

 

[Infanteer]

As an example, the minimum requirements to be selected as an Infantry Officer under ROTP are what exactly? A high school diploma and a pulse? We aren't exactly good at screening people to ensure we're picking those who will be successful. Proof is in the failure rates.

What's the failure rate?  What is the problem with those who don't succeed as potential infantry officers?

I ask because I talk to the Infantry School on a weekly basis and I have a good grasp of where the issues are.  When it comes to officers, you need to factor that a two-year training system exists between enrollment and OFP.  Two years is a lot of time to develop a candidate.

That being said, the Army would likely benefit from a screening board similar to what the Navy does.  Something like this is being discussed.

 

[PuckChaser]

That being said, the Army would likely benefit from a screening board similar to what the Navy does.  Something like this is being discussed.

Will EE candidates get to skip the board like they do with recruiting?

 

[Infanteer]

Will EE candidates get to skip the board like they do with recruiting?

Not too sure - I couldn't guess how the two policies would be managed.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Is there any feedback loop from the training system (and beyond) back to recruiting group to let them know how they did?  It would give an opportunity to reset the bar(s) and get better end result.

 

[ballz]

What should minimum requirements mean?  What do we need in recruits (not officer candidates) prior to entry?  The military is designed to be entry-level employment.  I don't know what you're expecting them to be able to do.  Remember, minimum entry requirements are only used to pick people to then enter a one to two year training pipeline.

Minimum requirements should mean "we're not even going to look at your application if you don't have them."

But that's not what happening - you're again resorting to hyberbole.  Read the article.  Its a policy that is being selectively applied to a relatively few number of occupations on a week-by-week basis.  Nowhere does it suggest that a large majority of recruited members are still selected by the standard meriting process (which you don't seem to have much faith in anyways).

I understand what they are saying in the article. There are right and wrong ways of doing things, I think this is wrong, and so the fact that it is not pervasive (yet) doesn't mitigate the fact that it is the wrong direction.

McDonalds?  Hiring for entry level employment needn't be too onerous, as an effective training system can provide the desired employee.

Even McDonald's or Tim Horton's, if they only have one vacancy at a store is going to look at more than one person and do an interview, just to see if there is anything blatantly off. In fact there is no high school diploma required but I guarantee you if a 17 year old without a high-school diploma and a 20 year-old that has one both apply, they're going with the 20 year old, not the application they received first.

I get where you're coming from that the CAF is entry level employment but I disagree with that. It's the entry level point of a career, such as applying to be a junior accountant or starting a first-year apprenticeship. That company is going to invest in you, your training is going to take longer than a one-day orientation, and they will most definitely *not* take the first person that walks in the door. This is quite different from McDonald's where they're going to give you a one-day orientation and if you're junk, they'll fire you by the end of the 30-day probation period. We are expecting "trained" people to be able to do a lot more than a "trained" McDonald's employee.

What's the failure rate?  What is the problem with those who don't succeed as potential infantry officers?

I ask because I talk to the Infantry School on a weekly basis and I have a good grasp of where the issues are.  When it comes to officers, you need to factor that a two-year training system exists between enrollment and OFP.  Two years is a lot of time to develop a candidate.

That being said, the Army would likely benefit from a screening board similar to what the Navy does.  Something like this is being discussed.

It's been a while since I've seen the figures but last I saw was 1 in 13 recruited as Infantry O's actually become Infantry O's. The failure rate alone on DP1.1 alone, as you know, is right around 50%. There have been serials in the last 10 years that had over 75% failures. And it's not just failures, it's medical releases, it's OT's, etc. There is another thread where we discussed this and the lack of available stats seems ridiculous to be quite honest, and I often wonder if they actually track any of these things.

Two years? 15 weeks BMOQ, 10 week CAP, 13 weeks DP1.1, 13 weeks DP1.2? Even though one year is a relatively long time, those courses are more of a weeding out process than developing anyone. Obviously you learn a lot about stuff but that's different from "developing" on a personal level. I've been saying after DP1.2 it would be nice to have a 5th course, a no-fail course, where the instructors actually can focus on developing instead of weeding people out. A place for candidates who have now proven themselves to be *actually* tested, and fail at stuff, without repercussions. That's sort of the Battalion's job but the Battalion's