Woman Denied Gov't Job Because of Race

[scribblet]

I knew this was going on but maybe not so blatently, reverse discrimination or affirmative action is wrong, what happened to qualifications and meritocracy?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/07/20/14772656.html

OTTAWA - A stay-at-home mother trying to re-enter the workforce after nine years away says she can’t understand why the federal government would stop her from applying for a job simply because she is white.

Sara Landriault, a sometime family activist, says that with her kids in school full time she decided to start looking for work outside of the home.

While surfing on the federal government job website, Landriault says she found a position at Citizenship and Immigration Canada she felt she was qualified for but was blocked from submitting her resume because she was not an aboriginal or visible minority.

“I was flabbergasted,” Landriault said in a telephone interview from her home in Kemptville, Ont., just south of Ottawa. “It was insane. I’m white, so I can’t do it?”

Landriault says she has seen job postings in the past that encourage certain groups to apply.

“Which is fine, it’s an equal opportunity position,” Landriault said. “But an equal opportunity employer does not stop one race from applying.”

A CIC spokeswoman takes a different view.

“We are under-represented by aboriginal employees in our work force,” said Melanie Carkner. “At this point in time, the department does meet requirements for visible minorities; however, given the department’s mandate, we make a concerted effort to hire individuals in this group.”

The Employment Equity Act, first introduced by the Mulroney government in

1986 and updated by the Chretien government in 1995, allows for certain groups to be favoured when it comes to hiring.

The federal government’s policy on employment equity states that the goal is to “ensure that designated group members achieve equitable representation within the public service.” The policy also says that hiring should respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that “every individual is equal before and under the law,” but also contains a clause allowing for affirmative action programs.

Some prominent Conservative MPs, including Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl, have spoken out against this kind of discriminatory hiring practice in the past. In 2005, then public works minister Liberal Scott Brison called his department to task for issuing a memo stating that only certain groups would be hired.

"I support the whole policy of inclusion, but I do not support discriminating against any group in hiring practice,” Brison said at the time.

[capricorn]

I knew this was going on but maybe not so blatently, reverse discrimination or affirmative action is wrong, what happened to qualifications and meritocracy?

The merit principle used to be the cornerstone of hiring and promotion in the public service. It went out the window when bilingualism, affirmative action and employment equity programs were adopted by the federal government and supported by successive administrations. These programs are so entrenched in the bureaucracy, it would be almost impossible to remove all their tentacles.

[Hydraboss]

Any guesses where they get the stats to implement Affirmative Action???

The Canadian Census. So fill out your forms people.

[capricorn]

Hydra, the public service agency that oversees hiring and promotion also have a database of the public service workforce, as I'm sure all agencies and departments also maintain. That database allows them to build profiles around the ethnic groups already represented in the public service, by agency and department. This profile is compared to the representation of those ethnic groups in the general population. The aforementioned also applies with regard to persons with disabilities. From there, quotas are assigned and integrated into the hiring and promotion processes. They'll deny the use of quotas, but that's BS.

Edited July 21, 2010 by capricorn

[Shwa]

The merit principle used to be the cornerstone of hiring and promotion in the public service. It went out the window when bilingualism, affirmative action and employment equity programs were adopted by the federal government and supported by successive administrations. These programs are so entrenched in the bureaucracy, it would be almost impossible to remove all their tentacles.

Did you ever ask yourself why the "merit principle" went "out the window?" Seems to me that bilingualism, affirmative action and employment equity programs were brought in to correct the flaws of the "merit principle" in the first place were they not?

Furthermore, I believe the operative principle is still merit in the federal public service.

[capricorn]

Did you ever ask yourself why the "merit principle" went "out the window? "Seems to me that bilingualism, affirmative action and employment equity programs were brought in to correct the flaws of the "merit principle" in the first place were they not?

In a nutshell, the merit principle went out the window due to ideology on the part of past governments, notably Turdeau, and the quest for votes.

Furthermore, I believe the operative principle is still merit in the federal public service.

Shwa, read the excerpt you posted more closely.

"As part of the Commission's role in setting policy related to merit, the Commission will require that the guiding values of fairness, transparency, access and representativeness assist organizations in the appointment process."

Representativeness being the operative word.

[Shwa]

In a nutshell, the merit principle went out the window due to ideology on the part of past governments, notably Turdeau, and the quest for votes.

Perhaps it was an ideology that deemed inclusiveness in government employment a meritable principle by which to act. But trust me, the programs are designed to correct, not hinder.

Shwa, read the excerpt you posted more closely.

"As part of the Commission's role in setting policy related to merit, the Commission will require that the guiding values of fairness, transparency, access and representativeness assist organizations in the appointment process."

Representativeness being the operative word.

Cherry picking. You forgot to include:

Fairness

•Decisions are made objectively and free from political influence or personal favouritism; policies and practices reflect the just treatment of persons.

•Persons have the right to be assessed in the official language(s) of their choice in an appointment process.

Transparency

•Information about strategies, decisions, policies and practices is communicated in an open and timely manner.

Access

•Persons from across the country have a reasonable opportunity to apply, and to do so in the official language(s) of their choice, and to be considered for public service employment.

then Representativeness. You can see how Representativeness sort of fits with Access.

[William Ashley]

Did you ever ask yourself why the "merit principle" went "out the window?" Seems to me that bilingualism, affirmative action and employment equity programs were brought in to correct the flaws of the "merit principle" in the first place were they not?

Furthermore, I believe the operative principle is still merit in the federal public service.

(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.

Canada. The equality section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly permits affirmative action type legislation, although the Charter does not require legislation that gives preferential treatment. Subsection 2 of Section 15 states that the equality provisions do "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." The Canadian Employment Equity Act requires employers in federally-regulated industries to give preferential treatment to four designated groups: Women, people with disabilities, aboriginal people, and visible minorities. In most Canadian Universities, people of Aboriginal background normally have lower entrance requirements and are eligible to receive exclusive scholarships. Some provinces and territories also have affirmative action-type polices. For example, in Northwest Territories in the Canadian north, aboriginal people are given preference for jobs and education and are considered to have P1 status. Non-aboriginal people who were born in the NWT or have resided half of their life there are considered a P2, as well as women and disabled people.[8] See also, Employment equity in Canada.

I think all this is an issue - and really each individual should be looked and and asked about - can this person do the job? Can they do it better than another person. Each job of course may need to have individual points on what qualities are sought - there is no reason why qualities cannot fall into affirmative action type traits - but I don't think that all jobs would necesitate it - nor would all jobs - eg. someone in a wheel chair applying for fire fighting position, or as a beat cop - likewise, a pregnant woman may not be well suited for a job in a situation that endangers her fetus. Or someone with HIV in a surgical position, etc.. I don't support affirmative action on generic hiring percentage quotas, but I do support a mixed work environment where the backgrounds of individuals can be utilized for the best team to handle missions. I think this is unfortunate - I think YES this person should still be able to apply and be put to what is being sought - and what if NO ONE applies of a specific background.. well that whitey could be the next best thing. Even if only on a probationary contract while the job search for a permanent member is in progress.

Edited July 21, 2010 by William Ashley

[Bonam]

Just more racism. I've long maintained that affirmative action programs are nothing but racism, and of the worst sort. Institutionalized, branded as righteousness, and enacted to the detriment of a specific racial group.

Glad to see some other people are starting to catch on with this reality. Few are those who can continue to spout nonsensical politically correct rhetoric in the face of this growing inequity.

[DogOnPorch]

Plus in no way are many of these so-called minorities actually minorities on this ol' planet of ours.

[Bonam]

Plus in no way are many of these so-called minorities actually minorities on this ol' planet of ours.

And indeed many of them are no longer really minorities even in the places these racist programs take place. Whites are well on their way to being the real minority in Canadian cities like Vancouver and Toronto.

[DogOnPorch]

And indeed many of them are no longer really minorities even in the places these racist programs take place. Whites are well on their way to being the real minority in Canadian cities like Vancouver and Toronto.

I'm sure it's all for the best as our leaders thought this through long and hard...

[Shwa]

Just more racism. I've long maintained that affirmative action programs are nothing but racism, and of the worst sort. Institutionalized, branded as righteousness, and enacted to the detriment of a specific racial group.

Glad to see some other people are starting to catch on with this reality. Few are those who can continue to spout nonsensical politically correct rhetoric in the face of this growing inequity.

I agree heartily, but until someone comes up with something better, this is what we have to live with. Do you have a better way to suggest Bonam or do you think the original cause of these programs has sufficiently disappeared from the employing public so that we can merely strike down the equity laws and policies?

Or will we need a period of Equity-from-Employment-Equity legislation?

[Shady]

I agree heartily, but until someone comes up with something better

There is something better. It's called not discriminating based on race. Allow all people to apply for jobs.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Shady

[Bonam]

I agree heartily, but until someone comes up with something better, this is what we have to live with. Do you have a better way to suggest Bonam or do you think the original cause of these programs has sufficiently disappeared from the employing public so that we can merely strike down the equity laws and policies?

Yes, merely striking down such laws, removing quotas, and abolishing affirmative action programs, is what I would advocate.

[nicky10013]

There is something better. It's called not discriminating based on race. Allow all people to apply for jobs.

The fact that there's still race and gender pay equity issues suggest that unfortunately, affirmative action is needed. People decry the situation as simply being not fair, but how is scrapping the program fair to women and minorities who historically have had a MUCH tougher time finding work? If we're going to be completely honest, if people are denied work in government jobs because they're white, they have a much larger avenue to find work down the road, something that can't be said of women and minorities.

So really, Shwa's question really does stand? What are we to do in affirmative action's absence? Just allow employers to discriminate? Let that happen and poverty in those communities go up along with crime rates.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... If we're going to be completely honest, if people are denied work in government jobs because they're white, they have a much larger avenue to find work down the road, something that can't be said of women and minorities.

But that is not completely honest, as "women and minorities" do have other/many opportunities.

So really, Shwa's question really does stand? What are we to do in affirmative action's absence? Just allow employers to discriminate? Let that happen and poverty in those communities go up along with crime rates.

Employers must be able to regard merit hiring over government social engineering.

[Handsome Rob]

The fact that there's still race and gender pay equity issues suggest that unfortunately, affirmative action is needed. People decry the situation as simply being not fair, but how is scrapping the program fair to women and minorities who historically have had a MUCH tougher time finding work? If we're going to be completely honest, if people are denied work in government jobs because they're white, they have a much larger avenue to find work down the road, something that can't be said of women and minorities.

So really, Shwa's question really does stand? What are we to do in affirmative action's absence? Just allow employers to discriminate? Let that happen and poverty in those communities go up along with crime rates.

The premise of this though, is that only white people are capable of such discrimination? I'm a white visible minority at work, not that I have any problem with that, for the most part my industry does not participate in EEA, but it's easy to see the blatant racial polarization in the workplace.

People with purple skin prefer to work with people with purple skin, people with green skin will band together to stop those annoying people with pink skin. People are attracted to that which is familiar, and turned away from that which is foreign. It's human nature. You're far more likely to be friends with somebody that speaks your home language, eats the same food. You're also far more likely to give preference to these groups.

No amount of social re-engineering is going to change human nature, which is why affirmative action hasn't worked and just further pissed people off.

[capricorn]

The fact that there's still race and gender pay equity issues suggest that unfortunately, affirmative action is needed.

It's common for affirmative action to be lumped in with pay equity. The two are completely different concepts and subject to different pieces of legislation. Pay equity legislation requires that predominantly female jobs be paid the same as predominantly male jobs within a given organization where it can be proved that they are of equal value. Affirmative action, that aims to increase the representation of minorities, used to be known as employment equity. The term was changed because it was thought it would be more widely accepted.

So really, Shwa's question really does stand? What are we to do in affirmative action's absence?

I believe in a level playing field when it comes to hiring and promotion in the public service. In terms of hiring, the pendulum has swung too far in favour of minorities. It's high time the whole system be re-examined in view of the gains made by minorities since employment equity/affirmative action was brought in during the 80s.

I do believe though, that what should be examined is whether minorities in lower paying jobs are getting equitable treatment in matters of promotion. It seems to me that official languages policies are heavily weighted in the selection of employees for career advancement and promotion. As someone once observed in my workplace, bilingualism has been the most effective affirmative action plan ever in increasing the representation of francophones in the public service.

Just allow employers to discriminate? Let that happen and poverty in those communities go up along with crime rates.

This is nothing but rhetoric. Words that sound good but mean nothing.

[Shwa]

I believe in a level playing field when it comes to hiring and promotion in the public service. In terms of hiring, the pendulum has swung too far in favour of minorities. It's high time the whole system be re-examined in view of the gains made by minorities since employment equity/affirmative action was brought in during the 80s.

Sensible. The only problem I see is that this whole issue was caused by am EE target not being met where it should have been. That would seem that it had already been examined to a degree, at least in this specific instance. Are you saying that targets should be re-examined and re-adjusted to reflect the demographics?

I do believe though, that what should be examined is whether minorities in lower paying jobs are getting equitable treatment in matters of promotion. It seems to me that official languages policies are heavily weighted in the selection of employees for career advancement and promotion. As someone once observed in my workplace, bilingualism has been the most effective affirmative action plan ever in increasing the representation of francophones in the public service.

Again, very sensible and reasonable. As a public servant once observed, when you take your comments to the Director, I am firmly behind you. But mainly so I don't trample over you when the scat hits the fan.

[Borg]

I knew this was going on but maybe not so blatently, reverse discrimination or affirmative action is wrong, what happened to qualifications and meritocracy?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/07/20/14772656.html

Been happening for years - the RCMP used to be quite blatant about it - nothing new here - it is what it is - racism

Borg

[charter.rights]

Been happening for years - the RCMP used to be quite blatant about it - nothing new here - it is what it is - racism

Borg

That is hardly accurate. The RCMP is pretty much still struggling with racism within its ranks.

Discrimination finding against RCMP upheld

RCMP officers sue force, allege racism

These are not isolated cases....

[Borg]

That is hardly accurate. The RCMP is pretty much still struggling with racism within its ranks.

Discrimination finding against RCMP upheld

RCMP officers sue force, allege racism

These are not isolated cases....

I was not looking to jack the thread - so back off and tell us another story

Like - to joint eh RCMP a few years ago you went to the top of the pile - but only if you were an indian

Fact is federal and provincial jobs go to those who have colour (white is not considered a colour any more - unless it is to be something bad) rather than quality many times

In the end I applaud this lady for making it an issue - it takes a bit of guts to do this - I am sure she will be receiving hate mail as soon as her email is leaked

Borg

[charter.rights]

I was not looking to jack the thread - so back off and tell us another story

Like - to joint eh RCMP a few years ago you went to the top of the pile - but only if you were an indian

Fact is federal and provincial jobs go to those who have colour (white is not considered a colour any more - unless it is to be something bad) rather than quality many times

In the end I applaud this lady for making it an issue - it takes a bit of guts to do this - I am sure she will be receiving hate mail as soon as her email is leaked

Borg

Fact is the pendulum of prejudice and inequity has not yet swung far enough in the direction of minorities. If it had there would be no need for quotas and affirmative action.

[Shwa]

I was not looking to jack the thread - so back off and tell us another story

Fact is federal and provincial jobs go to those who have colour (white is not considered a colour any more - unless it is to be something bad) rather than quality many times

With facts like that it is difficult to get the sense that you aren't looking to jack the thread. How about you provide some sources to back up your "Fact?"