Mounties to Recruit for Women and Minorities

[scribblet]

Most of them also have strong "equity" programs.

Funny thing about the word equity - it really means inequity, treating people differently.

Indeed it does, I worked with it for a few years when it first came into effect, I can tell you how some of it went when they didn't get the desired results.

So if you're a white male you need to get basically perfect marks in high school, perfect marks in the preparatory security courses you will take at college, volunteer for a dozen different jobs which will gain you experience you can cite on your resume, then get nearly perfect marks on all the RCMP entrance exams, both psychological and physical. You need, in short, to spend years of effort to prepare.

Don't forget it was around the mid 90s that the RCMP did instigate a hiring freeze on white males which they caught a lot of flak for as eventually they didn't have enough applicants.

One thing these EE programs can't always get around is the lack of applicants, many target groups don't want to be police officers.

This brings to mind hiring practices at the same time for some fire depts, St. Catharines was one. They actually required white males to have higher marks on the tests and did hire someone with lower marks, I remember about it. Not much of this stuff is on the net now so no links.

Outreach and attempting to recruit from target groups is admirable, but all things should be equal across the whole playing field.

[Michael Hardner]

Let me put it to you in raw numbers (which I've pulled out of my ass but which are certainly adequate for the situation)

Number of positions open to black women 100

Number of black women wanting those positions - 3

Number of positions open to lesbians 100

Number of lesbians wanting those positions - 5

Number of positions open to 5 ft tall asian men - 100

Number of asian men wanting those positions - 2

Number of positions open to white men 100

Number of white men wanting those positions - 100,000

So if you're a white male you need to get basically perfect marks in high school, perfect marks in the preparatory security courses you will take at college, volunteer for a dozen different jobs which will gain you experience you can cite on your resume, then get nearly perfect marks on all the RCMP entrance exams, both psychological and physical. You need, in short, to spend years of effort to prepare.

If you're a black woman you just have to show up. "Which side of dis gun ting do I point at ju, mon?"

If those are the numbers, then I can understand the perception that`s out there. Also, thanks to Scriblett for sourcing articles from the NPost confirming this.

I would point out, though, that if the demand is that skewed then applying for such a position is a crapshoot, and would be even in the program didn`t exist.

Mathematically, your chances as a white male are 50% what they were before EE.

[Molly]

Yes, at one point it was thought that a muscular six foot 3, two hundred and thirty pound male could break up bar fights more easily than 110 pound, five foot tall women. But they've since learned that you can make up for that by simply sending ten squad cars instead of one or two. So there was really no point in hiring burly, muscular men.

Yes. We are all familiar with how effective 'muscular six foot 3, two hundred and thirty pound males' are at dealing with distraught polish-speaking airline passengers who are making a fuss (among so many other situations that could be brought up here with the same degree of sarcasm).

Scribletts quote from the NP:

For too long, many good potential recruits have not even bothered to apply for RCMP positions, knowing that since they were not one of the favoured groups being sought by the sensitivity guidelines of the moment, their chances of being accepted were slim to nil.

is a double-edged sword. Those 'good potential recruits' is intended to indicate white males, but part of the reason that minorities are hard to recruit now is because that profession was so hostile to anyone but white males for so long that anyone worth their salt would have to question whether the heirarchy is actually over it and prepared to deal with them fairly even yet.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Molly

[Shwa]

Of course they are not going to say anything on their pages about how target groups are treated, or to admit that their hiring is quota driven, anyway you look at it they have been and will try to tilt the scales in favour of target groups.

Until such quotas are met you mean?

There was discussion some time ago about hiring practices and I can find many references to newspaper articles, but links often go stale. This piece references a 2005 article about the EE policy.

“As the National Post reported on June 27, 2005, the so-called shortfall of qualified applicants to the RCMP academy was due to its gender and racial hiring quotas that required white males to score 20% higher than women and 33% higher than visible minorities on aptitude tests in order to be accepted. For a while in the mid-90’s, with unmet racial and female recruitment targets co-existing with a five year backlog of Caucasian male applicants, the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) had a quiet “no white males” policy.

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.

http://thesheaf.com/2010/03/16/white-male-for-hire/

The Link (Concordia University)

Racially targeted hiring results in it's own problems, so race and ethnicity should not be factors in hiring decisions, only merit, skill sets and abilities.

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?

[scribblet]

.....

is a double-edged sword. Those 'good potential recruits' is intended to indicate white males, but part of the reason that minorities are hard to recruit now is because that profession was so hostile to anyone but white males for so long that anyone worth their salt would have to question whether the heirarchy is actually over it and prepared to deal with them fairly even yet.

I disagree with that, the hierarchy has been dealing very fairly with it for a long time, and has been shown, somewhat over zealously. Ever since Judge Abella's report on EE around the mid 80s and subsequent legislation in '86, the implementation of it has been very aggressive, but still hasn't reached the goals. We are talking about over 20 years here and still they haven't attained their goals - there have to be more reasons than simply discrimination in hiring, because IMO that is rare these days, and I would say non existent in large companies.

I remember when Toronto City Hall would only award contracts to minority companies but got a lot of flak over it, but minorities companies are again 'demanding' that they be given contracts based on race or disability, that they be given preferential treatment during the process - how does that keep the playing field level for all bidders. What would that do to the tender process, how fair and economical would that be !!

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/09/15/15364206.html#/news/torontoandgta/2010/09/15/pf-15364206.html

[scribblet]

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?

I'm saying that the playing field should be level, ALL people should be treated equally based on merit, skills, education and so on. Race based preferential treatment has no place in our society.

We have laws against discrimination, we have HR tribunals which are usually slanted in favour of minorities so there are many recourses allready in place to be used instead of discriminating against one group in order to favour another.

Maybe someone should do a study comparing applications and qualifications for various jobs, the names on the application forms and tests etc. should be marked out. Often there is a panel interview where each interviewer scores the applicant, they too should be part of the study. They could see who was the best qualified and who actually got the job.

ETA: Did you know that women now hold the majority of positions in the public service and hold about 43% of executive positions. Should they still be a designated target group?

Edited September 26, 2010 by scribblet

[Wilber]

Most of them also have strong "equity" programs.

Funny thing about the word equity - it really means inequity, treating people differently.

Depends on what you mean by equity. If you have large ethnic populations it is important to have sufficient police officers who understand the language and culture and departments are fully justified in trying to fulfill that requirement. There is also a need for female officers. It's odd but around here there have been several high profile cases of harassment concerning male and female fire fighters. For some reason it seems to be a non issue in police forces. Hiring policy should be dictated by the requirements of the force, not optics.

[Michael Hardner]

I remember when Toronto City Hall would only award contracts to minority companies but got a lot of flak over it

I expect that this never happened - ONLY minority companies ? So I guess the city didn`t buy vehicles, paper, etc. etc.

Look, you and others on this thread have opened my eyes somewhat to what the complaints are about, but for both sides to have a good dialogue here, we have to be careful about our facts.

FACT: There is no reason for anybody to say that they don`t hire white males, or there are absolute bans on hiring, or issuing contracts to white males because that`s clearly not so.

ON THE OTHER HAND

FACT: White males do face twice the challenge due to these restrictions, and on top of that more competition so the backlash against EE is understandable and should not be dismised.

[Shwa]

I'm saying that the playing field should be level, ALL people should be treated equally based on merit, skills, education and so on.

OK, that's a fair opinion, but why do we have Employment Equity in the first place then?

Race based preferential treatment has no place in our society.

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. )

We have laws against discrimination, we have HR tribunals which are usually slanted in favour of minorities so there are many recourses allready in place to be used instead of discriminating against one group in order to favour another.

Hmmmm... are you trying to say here that since we already have discriminatory "resources" we don't need anymore?

Maybe someone should do a study comparing applications and qualifications for various jobs, the names on the application forms and tests etc. should be marked out. Often there is a panel interview where each interviewer scores the applicant, they too should be part of the study. They could see who was the best qualified and who actually got the job.

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?

ETA: Did you know that women now hold the majority of positions in the public service and hold about 43% of executive positions. Should they still be a designated target group?

Do you have a report or something you can share to back this up?

[scribblet]

Employment trends

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-621-m/11-621-m2007053-eng.htm#n5

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Revisit+protection+women+watchdog/2903003/story.html

Women now hold the majority of jobs in the public service, filling about 55 per cent of all jobs. They also have a firm hold on senior jobs, holding about 43 per cent of all executive positions.

This guy has a good point, as far as Toronto and Vancouver go, visible minority would not be non whites.

http://communities.canada.com/VANCOUVERSUN/blogs/thesearch/archive/2010/03/17/has-the-term-visible-minority-outlived-its-usefulness.aspx

The last entry in Statistics Canada's dramatic 78-page report on the future ethnic face of Canada might be the most important part of it. It was the glossary.

The Stats Can report, which made front-page headlines after it was released last week, was titled Projections of the Diversity of the Canadian Population.

It predicted that Metro Vancouver and Toronto would be more than 60 per cent "visible minorities" by 2031, and explored how Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism are by far the country's fastest-growing religions.

But I had to go to the last sentence of the report, which was the last entry in the glossary of terms, to see how the phrase, "visible minority group," was actually being defined.

This is what StatsCan said:

"The Employment Equity Act defines visible minorities as 'persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race on non-white in colour.'"

Am I alone in thinking this definition of "visible minority" has outlived its usefulness in Canada?

When I am travelling through Burnaby, Vancouver, New Westminster and Surrey on the Skytrain, I look around the train car and I do not see an obvious visible minority.

[scribblet]

That was for a short period of time back in the mid 90s, there was a backlash over it, of course they bought vehicles etc. but it did happen. I don't remember the exact wording, in fact I do think it was more to do with only giving contracts to companies who hired a certain percentage of minorities. I remember listening to talk shows about it at the time, one caller was a bidder who ran a family business, he didn't have any other employees minority or otherwise, therefore he was out of the process.

Much of this nonsense stopped when Mike Harris ended the EE (legally) but large companies and gov't still practice it.

Again, we all abhor racial discrimination but we should all have a level playing field.

I expect that this never happened - ONLY minority companies ? So I guess the city didn`t buy vehicles, paper, etc. etc.

Look, you and others on this thread have opened my eyes somewhat to what the complaints are about, but for both sides to have a good dialogue here, we have to be careful about our facts.

FACT: There is no reason for anybody to say that they don`t hire white males, or there are absolute bans on hiring, or issuing contracts to white males because that`s clearly not so.

ON THE OTHER HAND

FACT: White males do face twice the challenge due to these restrictions, and on top of that more competition so the backlash against EE is understandable and should not be dismised.

[Michael Hardner]

Employment trends

Thanks for sourcing that.

I'm also glad to hear from that article that the Federal watchdog is calling for EE programs (now successful) to be re-examined.

[scribblet]

You are welcome. I was involved with the EE program quite heavily before I retired, I could tell you some stories about what was done to manipulate hiring practices in order to get the quotas up - but I won't... -

ETA it wasn't with the RCMP -

Edited September 26, 2010 by scribblet

[Argus]

Depends on what you mean by equity. If you have large ethnic populations it is important to have sufficient police officers who understand the language and culture and departments are fully justified in trying to fulfill that requirement.

The only place this works, in practice, is hiring aboriginal officers for the reserves. Think about it. What is the point, exactly, in hiring Black officers? Is there a "black" community with a common cultural or ethnic makeup in Canada? No. Is the Black officer somehow better at policing Black areas than White officers? If you say yes would that not mean that White officers would be better in policing Whites? Do we keep the Black officer assigned only to "black" areas? If not, then what's the point in hiring him in the first place? What need are they fulfilling? If we hire an east indian officer is he going to be required to only work with east indians? Can he never be sent to say, northern Ontario or PEI because those are "white" areas?

There is also a need for female officers.

What need? Where? There are already plenty of female officers. What is the need you speak of? Aside from investigating sexual assaults I don't see why a female officer is likely to be better than a male officer at anything, and can easily see where their physical inferiority would lead to problems.

[Mr.Canada]

Everything Argus said above is spot on.

Hiring should always be based on merit, end of story.

If people here are going to argue that would lead to an all white police force then you people obviously don't have a positive view of minorities in this country. As you'd think they unable to make it without help which is untrue.

If we're to all be equal people need to stop treating non white males differently. Treat everyone the same and let the cream rise to the top.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Wilber]

The only place this works, in practice, is hiring aboriginal officers for the reserves. Think about it. What is the point, exactly, in hiring Black officers? Is there a "black" community with a common cultural or ethnic makeup in Canada? No. Is the Black officer somehow better at policing Black areas than White officers? If you say yes would that not mean that White officers would be better in policing Whites? Do we keep the Black officer assigned only to "black" areas? If not, then what's the point in hiring him in the first place? What need are they fulfilling? If we hire an east indian officer is he going to be required to only work with east indians? Can he never be sent to say, northern Ontario or PEI because those are "white" areas?

I never said hiring should be done by race or colour. Police departments need personnel who can best function in the society they are required to police. If you have a large South Asian community, a department will need a certain number of officers to fill that roll. Simple logic tells you the majority of qualified applicants for those positions will be South Asian.

What need? Where? There are already plenty of female officers. What is the need you speak of? Aside from investigating sexual assaults I don't see why a female officer is likely to be better than a male officer at anything, and can easily see where their physical inferiority would lead to problems.

50% of the population is female? The male police officers I know have no issues working alongside female officers. I personally know two female sergeants in our local force who are very highly regarded by their male peers, got their present positions solely on merit and don't take crap from any male, physical or otherwise.

[Shwa]

Employment trends

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-621-m/11-621-m2007053-eng.htm#n5

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Revisit+protection+women+watchdog/2903003/story.html

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?

This guy has a good point, as far as Toronto and Vancouver go, visible minority would not be non whites.

http://communities.canada.com/VANCOUVERSUN/blogs/thesearch/archive/2010/03/17/has-the-term-visible-minority-outlived-its-usefulness.aspx

I am not sure what he means by that.

[M.Dancer]

Yes, of course. I'm sure white males will still make up very close to 50%.

Now... that makes one scratch one's head as to why everybody would tell Scriblett's son not to bother applying... unless there were mitigating factors here.

Yes, a councillor who is incompetant.

[Shwa]

The only place this works, in practice, is hiring aboriginal officers for the reserves.

Sure.

Think about it. What is the point, exactly, in hiring Black officers?

Because they qualify. The counterpoint is why not hire Black officers?

Is there a "black" community with a common cultural or ethnic makeup in Canada? No.

Sure there are, in some pockets and neighbourhoods, absolutely, and with a growing culture of their own. You call them "Black areas" below.

Is the Black officer somehow better at policing Black areas than White officers?

There might be advantages for sure, especially when it comes to racially charged optics or undercover work.

If you say yes would that not mean that White officers would be better in policing Whites?

Sometimes, yes, of course.

Do we keep the Black officer assigned only to "black" areas?

Of course not, no one is suggesting that.

If not, then what's the point in hiring him in the first place?

Because she/he is qualified.

What need are they fulfilling?

Already explained above.

If we hire an east indian officer is he going to be required to only work with east indians?

Of course not.

Can he never be sent to say, northern Ontario or PEI because those are "white" areas?

Can't see any harm in it can you?

What need? Where?

Undercover; detective investigations; major fraud; computer forensics; border investigations; etc., etc., etc., practically every position in the RCMP.

There are already plenty of female officers. What is the need you speak of?

To reflect the demographic of the community they work in.

Aside from investigating sexual assaults I don't see why a female officer is likely to be better than a male officer at anything,

Oh now I get it. It isn't about 'equality' you see EE in terms of 'better than.' Or am I misreading something?

and can easily see where their physical inferiority would lead to problems.

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.

[Shwa]

Yes, a councillor who is incompetant.

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.

[Shwa]

Everything Argus said above is spot on.

Hiring should always be based on merit, end of story.

If people here are going to argue that would lead to an all white police force then you people obviously don't have a positive view of minorities in this country. As you'd think they unable to make it without help which is untrue.

If we're to all be equal people need to stop treating non white males differently. Treat everyone the same and let the cream rise to the top.

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?

[scribblet]

Since EE and quotas any employers who where involved with and practiced EE went about designing and setting up applications, tests and interview intended to be non discriminatory and non biased. One of those outcomes was the panel interview with set questions for each applicant who is scored by each interviewer. How biased can math be, how biased can asking a simple question on how you would handle a particular situation.

As I said before, the RCMP did at one point in the mid 90's put a hiring freeze on white males which led to a shortage of applicants, they had to rescind it. A school counselor at that time would have known of their policy.

The target groups need to be readdressed or redefined as women for instance are no longer under represented in gov't and probably large organizations. What is a 'minority' in Toronto or Vancouver now, maybe white males should be a target group now

[Argus]

Because they qualify. The counterpoint is why not hire Black officers?

That's an artificial and disingenuous answer. They "qualify" under the newer, relaxed rules designed to ensure they qualify. And even under the newer, more relaxed rules they still aren't as qualified and so have to be jumped over the higher placing white men.

As an example, potential firefighters used to have to pick up a 185lb dummy in a fireman's carry, and bring it down a ladder. But that was too hard for most women and a lot of smaller visible minority types (ie asians) so they changed the test. Then you only had to carry it across a flat surface. But even that was too hard for a lot of women. So now you only have to drag it across the floor.

So now they qualify! Yaayyy! And does that make them as physically capable as men? Well, no, but it's not politically correct to say so.

Sure there are, in some pockets and neighbourhoods, absolutely, and with a growing culture of their own. You call them "Black areas" below.

Leaving aside whether we ought to be "growing" foreign culture areas in Canada, who's to say the Black cop from Trinidad has any more insight into a Somalian neighborhood than the white cop from Vancouver?

There might be advantages for sure, especially when it comes to racially charged optics or undercover work.

In certain cases, in certain investigations, yes, but that's no reason to hire en masse in an attempt to artificially increase the number of those minority groups and women in the work force.

Undercover; detective investigations; major fraud; computer forensics; border investigations; etc., etc., etc., practically every position in the RCMP.

Please explain in what way females are more capable than males in any of those jobs.

To reflect the demographic of the community they work in.

Ah, now we come to the real reason. But most of us don't feel that's terribly important, not to the extent of having police recruiters basically draped around the legs and shoulders of every Black woman who stops by their booth to ask directions to the bathroom. 'Oh please come and work for us! Please! We'll give you a gun!'

Oh now I get it. It isn't about 'equality' you see EE in terms of 'better than.' Or am I misreading something?

It's about hiring whoever is best, not whoever has a womb or different skin colour.

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?

Whether you wish to admit it or not they ARE the weaker sex. Case closed, hands down. Absolute physical fact. Can they still do the work? Sure. Can they do anything better than men can? Not that I can think of, really, other than sexual assault cases. Can men do anything better than them? Yes, anything which requires physical force - which can be quite important to a police officer at very important moments in time.

Plus, the fact is that masses of young white men want to be cops. So many that the police can pick the very cream of the crop, only the best. Meanwhile they desperately attempt to entice just about any woman or minority who shows an interest, regardless of qualifications.

[Argus]

50% of the population is female? The male police officers I know have no issues working alongside female officers. I personally know two female sergeants in our local force who are very highly regarded by their male peers, got their present positions solely on merit and don't take crap from any male, physical or otherwise.

That's nice, and either one would almost certainly get their ass kicked up and down the street by just about any burly man who knows how to fight. I'm not saying there aren't some strong women who know how to fight who could kick my ass. But the fact is that all things being equal, a large man beats a large woman 10 times out of 10. Men have more upper body strength, bigger muscles and more weight behind them. Most RCMP officers never get out of uniform and their job is ultimately to keep the peace. Sometimes that means the application of force, and men are just better at that than women.

[bloodyminded]

That's nice, and either one would almost certainly get their ass kicked up and down the street by just about any burly man who knows how to fight. I'm not saying there aren't some strong women who know how to fight who could kick my ass. But the fact is that all things being equal, a large man beats a large woman 10 times out of 10. Men have more upper body strength, bigger muscles and more weight behind them. Most RCMP officers never get out of uniform and their job is ultimately to keep the peace. Sometimes that means the application of force, and men are just better at that than women.

Yes, that's why we're deluged with stories of female officers failing in real-world physical altercations, and continually getting their asses kicked.

?