Shwa

So why do large organizations do that then? Go out of their way to design and implement unbiased tests and questions?

I see lone female police officers out all the time. A couple of months ago, one stopped us on the main drag because she noticed our plate tag was out of date. Now if she were a male, I am certain the out-of-date tag would have been spotted much sooner, from much farther way, you know, seeing how men are much more phsycially stronger with their eyesight. And when she pulled us over, it was probably difficult for her to put on the brakes of the police car, but would have been much easier - and safer I might add - had a man done so - especially a cream-of-the-crop more qualified white male. Never mind about her actually opening that big he-man like cop car door and physically walking all those 4 yards to the driver's side of our car. But she did and if she stuggled, she didn't show any pain because women seem to be able to handle pain much easier than men. But that doesn't count. Now she didn't struggle with the physical requirements of opening the ticket book, even though her fingers were probably weaker and she managed to write out the ticket with those weaker fingers too. How she did all this work that was intended for cream-of-the-crop more capable white male is beyond me, but it still cost us a hundred bucks. But I can say something about gender differences. She was pretty sweet about it all.

So you don't know what questions organizations ask, or what their interviews are like, but maintain they aren't biased. Hmmmm...

Really now. So before the "newer, relaxed rules" black men were not hired as RCMP officers? How is a firefighter an example of a general condition? What we do know is that any woman is more than capable of doing your job isn't that correct? Or are we talking about the 185 lb dummy sitting on a chair all day? (sorry, couldn't resist. ) Whose to say we are talking about a "Black cop from Trinidad?" What an absurd thing to say. Oh, so I see now, there are actual exceptions to the rules now. And making 30% or 20% quotas for new recruits is equal to hiring them "en masse" is it? No. What I will explain is that females are just as capable as males in all those occupations. You seem to have this weird problem with language where you confuse "equal" with "better than" or "more capable than." So did someone elect you spokesman of "us" like Prime Minister or something, or when you say "us" you are referring to a powerless and out-moded group of people that have been left behind by evolution? Because really, if you had any power at all, you could actually change the employment equity laws. I think your "us" us a small majority of people who confuse equal with unequal - am I correct? You know, think that "equal" somehow means "better than" or "more capable of." That sort of thing. It is about hiring whomever is best - all things being equal. And they are not, or we would not even have employment equity in the first place. Like duh-uh. So you are saying that sure they can do some things better, but not all things, just like men can do some things better, but not all things. So do you have some list or something that tilts the occupational requirements in favour of men somehow? You know, ride a horse better, drive a car better, type a report better, shoot a gun better or something like that? You know, some generic list of things that men can do better than women. Please... do share. So are you saying that before EE, there were no non-white-males serving in police forces?

Well you tell me how biased a panel interview question and answer could possibly be. Are you saying that all situational questions are unbiased? Are we talking about Mounties or do you have the data to show that women make up an equal proportion of all sectors in all branches of public service. I mean, did you not say that you worked in EE, so you must know what a sector is.

WOW! As an example of what bloodyminded was getting at in the OP, perfectly done there Oleg, by drawing 'racism' and 'political correctness' into the same orbit. Perfectly done my man! We have come full circle, so to speak. By the way, you forgot to address those who might otherwise be known as 'OUR project WHITEs' and 'OUR project BROWNs.' Plenty of them throughout the projects of Toronto and other cities. Do they factor in your thoughts too and, if so, how? Do you mind editing out the word 'death' please? It is a little too harsh, a little too hyperbolic and really not all that accurate. You might use the word 'end' or 'finish.' Thanks!

Yes we have! Mostly because of people who have an appreciation of Canadian values.

Fundamentally I agree with this principle providing the means to measure such apptitude and qualifications are also based on non-racial or ungendered concepts of merit. Are they?

I wonder though if it was general incompetence or some sort of unwritten policy to discourage white males from applying to the RCMP. I have a step-brother who was also discouraged even though he was athletic, strong as an ox and a very bright young man. I would have thought he would have made a fine RCMP officer. Unless my SB and scribblet's kid went to the same school in East Ottawa in the late 80's.

Sure. Because they qualify. The counterpoint is why not hire Black officers? Sure there are, in some pockets and neighbourhoods, absolutely, and with a growing culture of their own. You call them "Black areas" below. There might be advantages for sure, especially when it comes to racially charged optics or undercover work. Sometimes, yes, of course. Of course not, no one is suggesting that. Because she/he is qualified. Already explained above. Of course not. Can't see any harm in it can you? Undercover; detective investigations; major fraud; computer forensics; border investigations; etc., etc., etc., practically every position in the RCMP. To reflect the demographic of the community they work in. Oh now I get it. It isn't about 'equality' you see EE in terms of 'better than.' Or am I misreading something? Tell me how the 'weaker sex' is going to be at a disadvantage in undercover work; detective investigations; major fraud; computer forensics; border investigations because of their "physical inferiority." Would they have to ride side-saddle in the musical ride or something? Sorry Argus, you trying to paint a Dudley Do Right picture of the RCMP might fun for a cartoon, but is ridiculous in practice.

Close, but no cigar: The Core (federal) Public Administration (CPA) refers to the federal government employees excluding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Canadian Forces and separate agencies such as the Canada Revenue Agency. So saying that "Women now hold the majority of jobs in the public service" is inaccurate. I was kind of hoping that you could supply the data that shows that women hold the "majority of jobs in the public service." Do you have that data or not? I am not sure what he means by that.

If the sex, drugs and rock 'n roll don't get 'em, WalMart will.

Obviously you have no clue how Employement Insurance benefits work do you?

It's the cleavage you see, which is not much to see actually, but works well with such a pretty face. Her outfit looks like a 60's cocktail waitress, which is retro-sexy. Can't have that screwing up those little minds. For the rest of us: SNL katy perry elmo clip

OK, that's a fair opinion, but why do we have Employment Equity in the first place then? It is one thing to say so, but quite another to ensure. So I guess what I was asking that if do not have Employment Equity, what would you put in its place so that race-based preferntial treatment doesn't happen? (and no, closing our eyes and clicking our heels three times while wishing we were in Kansas doesn't count. ) Hmmmm... are you trying to say here that since we already have discriminatory "resources" we don't need anymore? So is a high apptitude scoring white male from nice comfy suburban Nepean the best qualified candidate to go undercover in the Vietnam drug trade or man the station in Grise Fjord? Do you have a report or something you can share to back this up?

Really? I find that hard to believe without extra circumstances. According to the table here, the person would have easily qualified: EI Hours required There are many factors that affect someone from getting EI benefits - getting fired for misconduct; making a false claim or some other current or previous attempt to scamming EI; or an ineligible qualifying period. Did you ask her if she appealed the denial and if so what the outcome of the appeal was?

Not so drastic: Bill-308 An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act Employment Insurance Regular Benefits How they voted The basic minimum to qualify is dropping 60 hours from 420 to 360 which is basically targeted at areas with high unemployment; and they are dropping the qualifying period from 52 to weeks to 12 so that if you worked 360 hours in a 12 week period in live in an area of high unemployment, benefits will be made available. This will impact on seasonal workers quite a bit. I believe the rationale is that in areas where work is higher to obtain, benefits can fill the gaps between jobs. It is not like you can work 360 hours, which is roughly full time for 9 weeks, and then take a year off. The benefit period is usually tied into the amount of time that the insurance premiums were paid into. With the government phasing out some of the temporary benefits and programs to address the recession, this appears to be a measure to ensure that areas where the effects the recession are most acute are addressed. Seems pretty reasonable.

Until such quotas are met you mean? Yeah, sourcing old stuff can be a hassle, but I am still trying to figure out how the above is a "no whites males policy" when it says no such thing and that white males continue to be hired in the RCMP. Seems pretty fussy to me. It also does not say that there is any 'relaxing' of the tests, just that they will take the cream of the crop when it comes to white males. I would expect that once the demographics in the RCMP are met, the playing field will level off. So you are basically saying that employment equity is no good? Then what alternative would you put in its place to ensure fair hiring practices?

Recruitment targets are set, with attrition factored in, and are designed to reflect the community demographic f a particular area where possible. "Overhiring in favor of certain groups..." is likely the result of the rapidly changing urban demographic landscape to compensate. I am sure testing does some weeding out, but it would be more useful to weed out the boneheads out from the active membership. It is much more difficult to weed out when the recruit or probationary member is on their best behaviour.

Where on this page does it say that white males have to score higher to get an interview? It doesn't. It also does not say that they will relax the aptitude test for women - they even have a picture of a female RCMP officer on the page. Can you supply a little more information about how the RCMP relaxed entrance exams for everyone else, but required white males to score higher to be considered? You say you don't know "if they still do it" but I think it important to establish that they did it in the first place or people won't believe you. Yes. And according to your OP story they have: "Under new hiring benchmarks set this month..." Give what job? They are talking about a yearly slate of recruits, not "jobs." I understand your concerns, but in this case I believe you are making much ado about nothing. There is no "reverse discrimination" going on here, simply an orientation of the recruiting campaign for the RCMP. Big deal.

If you don't mind, what years were you getting 10 to 14 percent and what sector of the public service were you in? Do you recall the size of the debt and to whom it was owed?

I guess it was inevitable wasn't it? Our "subjective" interpretations of Canadian culture traditions are being watered down by "objective" foreign influence complete with rules and a PR machine. That argument is about as intelligent as the crap about fighting with weapons. Intellectually dihonest, irrelevant, and pointless. Have you no shame? Naw, it is all based on your subjective interpretation and representation of my argument, nothing more. Thus fair is fair: hitting a man while he is down is gutless, cowardly and unmanly.

WIN!!! Although, if not wikipedia then where else? Rob Ford's website? Well it does have a sense of truthiness...

Right. After the gutlessness has been acted upon. Right, because boxing is a "punching competition." Right, because he might get back up and be on equal footing to resume the fight. Like real men do. Which reminds me of another gutless and cowardly act - that of turtling. Ask any hockey, football or lacrosse player about players who turtle. Shameful and dishonourable. Seems to be a lot of turtling going on in MMA. For some reason, you can't seem to grasp these concepts. Obviously your parents have failed you.

Hmmmm... so Canadian cultural traditions have been reduced to a "subjective code" now. I suppose it was only a matter of time. They have been around for a couple of centuries and is usually coupled with the shame of beating women. How do you feel about that "subjective code?" Maybe put some women in the cage with the men and, so long as they are under the same objective rules, men can legally beat on them?