Affirmative Action Explained

[Pliny]

No it doesnt. In fact merit is the whole consideration behind AA. It has nothing to do with equality and nobody expects an equal outcome for all people. They just want the outcome to be based on merit, instead of factors like skin color, religion, or gender.

Sarcasm, right?

Pure fantasy. Collective rules are the central contruct in human society. You can accept that and still support private property. You appear to be taking this argument to silly ideological extremes.

My concern is that society drifts to silly political ideological extremes.

Unfortunately, collective rules do not support private property. All collective rules will affect the actuality of, and concept of private property. The number of collective rules will be proportional to the degree of effect upon the actuality and concept of private property. Essentially, there is either private property or there is not. We live with a concept of private property not an actuality of it.

[dre]

Sarcasm, right?

My concern is that society drifts to silly political ideological extremes.

Unfortunately, collective rules do not support private property. All collective rules will affect the actuality of, and concept of private property. The number of collective rules will be proportional to the degree of effect upon the actuality and concept of private property. Essentially, there is either private property or there is not. We live with a concept of private property not an actuality of it.

No its not sarcasm. Nobody has every expected that AA would result in equal outcomes for all people. Theres still going to be successes and failures, and epic successes and epic failures. Supporters of AA just seek to ensure that theres isnt barriers to success that are based on other things besides intelligence, creativity, enginuity, etc.

Its not wonder you vehemently oppose it if you think the goal is equal outcomes... everyone getting the same paycheck, living in the same house, driving the same car. I would to! But thats not what its all about. Its about removing institutional barriers that exist only for certain subsets of society.

Unfortunately, collective rules do not support private property. All collective rules will affect the actuality of, and concept of private property.

That just isnt true. The government has a few programs that are loosely aligned around social justice but the vast majority of what the government does is protect private property rights. Thats why we have the police, courts, and military. In fact we have built a society where aquiring private property is almost the sole factor apon which success is judged.

Edited January 13, 2011 by dre

[kimmy]

Well these statistics here seem to show that the more education you have the more employable you are - and top of the list is a university education.

Employment rates, by educational attainment

Not only more employable, but earn more income too:

Average employment income...by education level

So this data - at a glance - would contribute to a 'widely held view' that university education is desirable to get a job.

It was a much bigger edge in 1990 than in 2005. Your table shows that from 1990 to 2005, the employment rate for people with university degrees dropped from 86.8% to 82.6%. While during the same period, the employment rate for "postsecondary diploma or certificate" remained virtually constant at about 81%.

So the "widely held assumption" appears to have been much more justified in 1990 than it is in 2005. The advantage for a university degree vs other post secondary has gone from significant to virtually nonexistent.

In case the Smith/Johnson scenario doesn't work, go to the StatsCan tables.

Well, the data you supplied indicates that the 4 Smith kids we have data for should have an employment rate of about 73% (2 university graduates at 82.6% plus 2 highschool dropouts at 63% = 72.8%)

And the 4 Johnson kids we have data for should have an employment rate of about 81.4% (one university graduate at 82.6% plus 3 with trades or tech diplomas at 81%).

So while the 40% of the first group has university degrees and just 20% of the second group does, we'd expect the second group to have an employment rate nearly 10% higher than the first group.

Which I think perfectly illustrates the difficulty of trying to assess the employability of groups based on the number of university degrees alone, as Ms Tran attempts to.

The law doesn't say "institutionalized racism" is allowed.

The Charter says that employment equity programs are not unconstitutional. That would be the case regardless of how many people felt it was "institutionalized racism".

And since it has no traction - anywhere - as such, it is likely because it isn't. Now, if enough people got behind the idea that it is, presented their case to MP's like say, de-indexing old age pensions, then perhaps it might have traction. But even the MP's say nothing, because the idea that Employment Equity is "institutionalized racism" is a nothing idea.

I myself am not particularly invested in the notion that EE is "institutionalized racism" (I just have yet to see any information that convinces me it's needed.)

However, I disagree with the premise that we can tell it's a "nothing idea" because it's not a significant political cause right now. If that were the case, we could probably look through history and find times when many ideas we take for granted (say, womens' suffrage) could be likewise proven to be "nothing ideas".

-k

[Shwa]

It was a much bigger edge in 1990 than in 2005. Your table shows that from 1990 to 2005, the employment rate for people with university degrees dropped from 86.8% to 82.6%. While during the same period, the employment rate for "postsecondary diploma or certificate" remained virtually constant at about 81%.

So the "widely held assumption" appears to have been much more justified in 1990 than it is in 2005. The advantage for a university degree vs other post secondary has gone from significant to virtually nonexistent.

No, it is still and widely held idea and the statistics more or less prove it. That the advantage for a degree over a dimploma or certificate has been slipping is true, but you are more likely to get a job with a university degree than a certificate or diploma.

Not only are you more likely to be employed, but the second table shows you are likely to be paid more and, over the longer term, much more.

So the advantages for the university degree are very apparent.

Well, the data you supplied indicates that the 4 Smith kids we have data for should have an employment rate of about 73% (2 university graduates at 82.6% plus 2 highschool dropouts at 63% = 72.8%)

And the 4 Johnson kids we have data for should have an employment rate of about 81.4% (one university graduate at 82.6% plus 3 with trades or tech diplomas at 81%).

So while the 40% of the first group has university degrees and just 20% of the second group does, we'd expect the second group to have an employment rate nearly 10% higher than the first group.

Which I think perfectly illustrates the difficulty of trying to assess the employability of groups based on the number of university degrees alone, as Ms Tran attempts to.

It would be if your sample was 8 people.

The Charter says that employment equity programs are not unconstitutional. That would be the case regardless of how many people felt it was "institutionalized racism".

The Charter can be challenged and the Supreme Court can make decisions based on such challenges including whether a challenge has merit in the first place.

I myself am not particularly invested in the notion that EE is "institutionalized racism" (I just have yet to see any information that convinces me it's needed.)

However, I disagree with the premise that we can tell it's a "nothing idea" because it's not a significant political cause right now. If that were the case, we could probably look through history and find times when many ideas we take for granted (say, womens' suffrage) could be likewise proven to be "nothing ideas".

The reason I am saying it is a nothing idea - and where the concept diverges from women's suffrage - is that by definition, employment equity is not institutionalized racism.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Shwa

[Oleg Bach]

I am taking care of two dogs at present - they have a nice bed on the floor....but when I am out they sneak up on to my very comfortable bed....My daughter dropped by for a nap today...the dogs belong to her...I enter the house and find the adult child sleeping in MY bed - with both of HER dogs cuddled up on MY clean bed!!! awh........! If MY daughter had her was she would launch a suit or appeal to the Human Rights Commission...and plead on behalf of the mutts that they SHOULD be able to lay in MY bed...and that I am denying the dogs human rights....damn....the mutts are getting smarter and soon I will be sleeping on the floor...and I will sneak up on the bed when the dogs are out....being human is so difficult - to come from a species that is not loyal to their own is tedious.

[kimmy]

No, it is still and widely held idea and the statistics more or less prove it. That the advantage for a degree over a dimploma or certificate has been slipping is true, but you are more likely to get a job with a university degree than a certificate or diploma.

The difference is so marginal that attempting to discuss the employment rates of two groups based on the proportion of university degrees alone is nonsensical. You need additional information, particularly regarding other post-secondary education.

The tables you've provided show us that the most valuable information in assessing the unemployment rates among two groups isn't the number of university degrees in each group. The most valuable information we could have would be how many members of each group didn't finish highschool.

The employment rates for university, diplomas/certificates, some college, and highschool grad are all within 8% of each other. Then there's a 12% drop to "some highschool", and a 30% drop to "grade 8 or less".

It would be interesting to know how many of the recently-arrived visible minorities who are out of work don't have the equivalent of a Canadian high school diploma. It would be interesting to know how many do not have the equivalent of a Canadian grade 9 education.

We're ultimately trying to figure out why 9.9% of recent visible minorities are out of work, vs 6.3% of Canadian-born non-visible minorities. So we're most likely talking about the least qualified members of each group.

Not only are you more likely to be employed, but the second table shows you are likely to be paid more and, over the longer term, much more.

So the advantages for the university degree are very apparent.

As Ms Tran focuses almost entirely on employment rates, income isn't relevant to the discussion.

It would be if your sample was 8 people.

You do realize you've just gone from supporting an argument that is based on information about less than 30% of its sample, to objecting that having information about 80% in our sample is not sufficient to come to any conclusion.

The point, I think, is obvious.

The Charter can be challenged and the Supreme Court can make decisions based on such challenges including whether a challenge has merit in the first place.

The Charter can be challenged?

I've heard of laws being challenged as being contrary to the Charter, but never of the Charter itself being challenged. On what basis could it be challenged in court? The constitution is the final legal authority in our country, and the Charter is part of the constitution.

The reason I am saying it is a nothing idea - and where the concept diverges from women's suffrage - is that by definition, employment equity is not institutionalized racism.

By definition?

-k

[dre]

The Charter can be challenged?

I've heard of laws being challenged as being contrary to the Charter, but never of the Charter itself being challenged. On what basis could it be challenged in court? The constitution is the final legal authority in our country, and the Charter is part of the constitution.

The court might rule on whether or not provisions in the charter conflict with one another, but thats about it. Its the law of the land and the courts cant change it.

[Shwa]

The difference is so marginal that attempting to discuss the employment rates of two groups based on the proportion of university degrees alone is nonsensical. You need additional information, particularly regarding other post-secondary education.

Is it a widely held view though? Because that is what the point is boiling down to. Regardless if the differences are shrinking or not, the view is widely held and bears up under a large statistical sample.

The tables you've provided show us that the most valuable information in assessing the unemployment rates among two groups isn't the number of university degrees in each group. The most valuable information we could have would be how many members of each group didn't finish highschool.

Or how many foregn students come to Canada to study plumbing and framing. (see chart 8)

The employment rates for university, diplomas/certificates, some college, and highschool grad are all within 8% of each other. Then there's a 12% drop to "some highschool", and a 30% drop to "grade 8 or less".

Yeah, so you and I know that. I tell my kids this. However, not only are your chances of employment better, so are the chances of getting a better job.

It would be interesting to know how many of the recently-arrived visible minorities who are out of work don't have the equivalent of a Canadian high school diploma. It would be interesting to know how many do not have the equivalent of a Canadian grade 9 education.

We're ultimately trying to figure out why 9.9% of recent visible minorities are out of work, vs 6.3% of Canadian-born non-visible minorities. So we're most likely talking about the least qualified members of each group.

You might think so, but sometimes the Timmies stays open while the plant closes.

As Ms Tran focuses almost entirely on employment rates, income isn't relevant to the discussion

.

Are you dismissing the fact that a university education will result in a better income, but is not a motivating factor for "a widely held view?"

You do realize you've just gone from supporting an argument that is based on information about less than 30% of its sample, to objecting that having information about 80% in our sample is not sufficient to come to any conclusion. The point, I think, is obvious.

It's not the percentage of sample, but overall sample size. For example, in your sample, what neighbourhoods do those families live in? 30% of a million is a little more significant than 80% of 10 don't you agree?

The Charter can be challenged?

I've heard of laws being challenged as being contrary to the Charter, but never of the Charter itself being challenged. On what basis could it be challenged in court? The constitution is the final legal authority in our country, and the Charter is part of the constitution.

Everything is up for grabs providing there is a will toward it.

By definition?

What race is a "visible minority?"

[Pliny]

No its not sarcasm. Nobody has every expected that AA would result in equal outcomes for all people. Theres still going to be successes and failures, and epic successes and epic failures. Supporters of AA just seek to ensure that theres isnt barriers to success that are based on other things besides intelligence, creativity, enginuity, etc.

Right. Equal representation according to population. The government should be comprised of a 50-50 gender base and equal representation of all minorities according to their percentage of the population. It isn't about individuals at all. If the playing field is made equal socially then individuals are served.

Its not wonder you vehemently oppose it if you think the goal is equal outcomes... everyone getting the same paycheck, living in the same house, driving the same car. I would to! But thats not what its all about. Its about removing institutional barriers that exist only for certain subsets of society.

It isn't about individuals whatsoever. It's about social engineering and what is considered "social justice". It means the governement has already lost concept of the individual and only caters to special interests. If it were about individuals no law would exist and the best person for the job, as deemed by the hiring entity and not government quotas, would be the successful applicant for a job.

Since it isn't, the individual for his success depends upon the whim of government fiat. But really, through some stretch of the imagination, all individuals are deemed to be made equal in the process of the soical justice fairness doctrine.

That just isnt true. The government has a few programs that are loosely aligned around social justice but the vast majority of what the government does is protect private property rights. Thats why we have the police, courts, and military. In fact we have built a society where aquiring private property is almost the sole factor upon which success is judged.

Every law enacted where it can sieze your "private property" violates that concept, income tax being the largest in a series of encroachments. Canada has never been a place where private property rights exist. The United States is the only place, in western society where all individuals ever had any equally and exclusive private property rights. Canada and other democratic nations only granted conditional property rights. Which means from the outset that private property rights never really existed in the full sense of the term except in the US. Obviuosly, the US is as busy as any universally democratic state eroding that right.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Pliny

[bush_cheney2004]

What race is a "visible minority?"

!= #FFFFFF

[Shwa]

!= #FFFFFF

Wrong.

[kimmy]

Or how many foregn students come to Canada to study plumbing and framing. (see chart 8)

That data pertains entirely to university studies, and I'm not aware of any universities that teach plumbing or framing.

You might think so, but sometimes the Timmies stays open while the plant closes.

The data you provided a couple of posts back shows pretty convincingly that the least qualified people have much lower employment rates than people with highschool and better.

Are you dismissing the fact that a university education will result in a better income, but is not a motivating factor for "a widely held view?"

I'm dismissing its relevance to the argument Ms Tran presents.

It's not the percentage of sample, but overall sample size. For example, in your sample, what neighbourhoods do those families live in? 30% of a million is a little more significant than 80% of 10 don't you agree?

Knowing that two of the Smith kids didn't finish highschool is more important than knowing that two of them have degrees if we're trying to assess why a higher-than expected number of Smith kids are unemployed.

Ms Tran can tell us that 40% of visible minorities have university degrees, but if she wants to understand why a higher-than-average number of recently-arrived visible minorities are out of work, she needs to address the opposite end of the educational spectrum.

If she did, she'd discover that a higher than Canadian average proportion of recently-arrived visible minorities also don't have the equivalent of a Canadian highschool diploma, and that a higher than Canadian average proportion of recently-arrived visible minorities have very poor literacy in either official language, and that a higher than Canadian average proportion of recently-arrived visible have poor fluency in either official language.

And that result would be very much in keeping with "the widely held view" that education makes you more employable.

Everything is up for grabs providing there is a will toward it.

I would think that if politicians decided that EE was immoral, they would be more likely to just repeal EE rather than go through the dauntingly difficult process of attempting to amend the constitution.

But regardless, that brings us back to the notion that if EE was wrong then there would be a political will to change it, and that premise is a proven non-winner.

What race is a "visible minority?"

The same logic says that White Power Front isn't racist because their list of undesirables includes Jews and gays and the mentally retarded as well as brown-people.

If being the wrong race makes you "undesirable", it's racism. That EE also manages to mix in some other "-isms" doesn't change that.

-k

Edited January 16, 2011 by kimmy

[Jack Weber]

I am taking care of two dogs at present - they have a nice bed on the floor....but when I am out they sneak up on to my very comfortable bed....My daughter dropped by for a nap today...the dogs belong to her...I enter the house and find the adult child sleeping in MY bed - with both of HER dogs cuddled up on MY clean bed!!! awh........! If MY daughter had her was she would launch a suit or appeal to the Human Rights Commission...and plead on behalf of the mutts that they SHOULD be able to lay in MY bed...and that I am denying the dogs human rights....damn....the mutts are getting smarter and soon I will be sleeping on the floor...and I will sneak up on the bed when the dogs are out....being human is so difficult - to come from a species that is not loyal to their own is tedious.

Your daughter drops by for naps???

Either she's not fond of your company or is she homeless?

[Scotty]

Why police should all be six feet four

Bystanders save officer

[bloodyminded]

Why police should all be six feet four

Bystanders save officer

You damned verticalist.

[Oleg Bach]

You damned verticalist.

If you were going to have some guards...to keep law and order and keep the castle walls from being breeched you would not hire a bunch of 5 foot - 120 pound semi-stupid...people - Just because you wanted to be NICE to EVERYBODY...some times you have to do what is right and what works - for instance - and don't get me wrong..but some big ass black chick with a grade eight education should not be in charge of security at the typical America airport.....instead of affirmative action granting freedom and security for all - it has the opposite effect....It's kind of like letting Uncle Eddie play bass in your band...just because he is your relative and you want to be NICE to him - so Eddie has no musical talent ... and me makes the band sound terrible - and everybody fails because some person wanted to be NICE - to everybody.

[Shwa]

That data pertains entirely to university studies, and I'm not aware of any universities that teach plumbing or framing.

Exactly, foriegn students aren't coming here to take plumbing or framing. Why is that? If there is a marginal employment difference between univeristy and, say, an apprenticeship, why aren't more foreign students coming here to work on their plumbing skills? Now, a bit of a stretch using table #8, but it seems to me more of them are coming here for university. Why?

The data you provided a couple of posts back shows pretty convincingly that the least qualified people have much lower employment rates than people with highschool and better.

Of course, but the least qualified still get jobs.

I'm dismissing its relevance to the argument Ms Tran presents.

I dunno. I would say that the prospect for a better paying job would make a significant contribution to a view that university education is the way to go.

Knowing that two of the Smith kids didn't finish highschool is more important than knowing that two of them have degrees if we're trying to assess why a higher-than expected number of Smith kids are unemployed.

Sample size and scope Kimmy. The Stats Can stuff is a large sample over a wide geographic region. M.s Tran is trying to infer more general reasons than something specific to any region or area.

Ms Tran can tell us that 40% of visible minorities have university degrees, but if she wants to understand why a higher-than-average number of recently-arrived visible minorities are out of work, she needs to address the opposite end of the educational spectrum.

If she did, she'd discover that a higher than Canadian average proportion of recently-arrived visible minorities also don't have the equivalent of a Canadian highschool diploma, and that a higher than Canadian average proportion of recently-arrived visible minorities have very poor literacy in either official language, and that a higher than Canadian average proportion of recently-arrived visible have poor fluency in either official language.

Do you have some data to back this up?

And that result would be very much in keeping with "the widely held view" that education makes you more employable.

Agreed

I would think that if politicians decided that EE was immoral, they would be more likely to just repeal EE rather than go through the dauntingly difficult process of attempting to amend the constitution.

They might. But if EE was immoral, they might also look at the implications of such ameliorative programs for others across the board because EE get's its legitmacy from the Constitution. Although we both know that this form of discrimination is not immoral enough to cause widespread concern.

But regardless, that brings us back to the notion that if EE was wrong then there would be a political will to change it, and that premise is a proven non-winner.

But what IS proven is that there was a political will to enact it in the first place.

The same logic says that White Power Front isn't racist because their list of undesirables includes Jews and gays and the mentally retarded as well as brown-people.

If being the wrong race makes you "undesirable", it's racism. That EE also manages to mix in some other "-isms" doesn't change that.

If you want to discuss the logic of the White Power Front against the backdrop of EE, please feel free. But you are missing the point that the term 'visible minority' is entirely discretionary and something one chooses for themself. I hardly think this sort of categorization is applicable to gays, mentally retarded people as well as brown-people.

[kimmy]

Exactly, foriegn students aren't coming here to take plumbing or framing. Why is that? If there is a marginal employment difference between univeristy and, say, an apprenticeship, why aren't more foreign students coming here to work on their plumbing skills? Now, a bit of a stretch using table #8, but it seems to me more of them are coming here for university. Why?

Well, personally as someone who does work with tradesmen frequently... I haven't actually met a visible minority tradesman. Granted I work in a very "white" community, but the law of averages says that there should be *some* here, and I haven't met them yet.

I am guessing cultural factors are at work. I am guessing that a lot of immigrants who come here with the idea of making a good life for themselves or their children are of the view that professional employment is prestigious and that trades and other non-university options are for a lower class of person.

I am also guessing that a lot of the people we're discussing here are people who already had their credentials before they came here. (ie, they came to Canada as "economic class" immigrants because their particular university degree made their file a high-priority one at Immigration Canada.) It might be that Immigration Canada puts a high priority on certain university degrees, and that trades/skilled labor/technical backgrounds do not have the same priority. (there might be good reasons why, as we already discussed-- perhaps a computer science graduate from India is employable immediately, while an electrical tradesman from India would need to start from square one.)

Of course, but the least qualified still get jobs.

...at a significantly lower rate than everybody else.

I dunno. I would say that the prospect for a better paying job would make a significant contribution to a view that university education is the way to go.

She's not discussing what's "the way to go," she's discussing why recently-arrived visible minorities have a higher unemployment rate than Canadian-born white people. But the information she volunteers is not adequate to make the point she suggests.

Sample size and scope Kimmy. The Stats Can stuff is a large sample over a wide geographic region. M.s Tran is trying to infer more general reasons than something specific to any region or area.

Of course. And a broader look at the educational statistics would have been a great way to do so. She declines to do so and restricts her argument to university degrees. Why would she do that, in your opinion?

If she did, she'd discover that a higher than Canadian average proportion of recently-arrived visible minorities also don't have the equivalent of a Canadian highschool diploma, and that a higher than Canadian average proportion of recently-arrived visible minorities have very poor literacy in either official language, and that a higher than Canadian average proportion of recently-arrived visible have poor fluency in either official language.

Do you have some data to back this up?

Well, we already discussed language and literacy issues, which you agreed was a likely reason why recent visible minority immigrants may struggle in the job market, so I don't think you actually doubt what I'm saying here. If you can't speak an official language fluently, your job opportunities are basically limited to doing telemarketing for the Royal Bank or telephone tech-support for Telus.

As well, Table 1 in this report shows 10.4% of visible minorities have less than Grade 9 education, vs 6.2% of the general population. That information is based on just Greater Vancouver, but I don't see a good reason to assume that other major centers are getting a better-educated class of immigrant than Vancouver.

They might. But if EE was immoral, they might also look at the implications of such ameliorative programs for others across the board because EE get's its legitmacy from the Constitution.

Are you saying that politicians might want to amend the constitution because there could be other programs that are legitimized by the same clause? I don't think so. It sounds to me as if the clause in question was written specifically to allow EE to survive a Charter challenge. What else would there be?

I doubt anything except a national unity crisis will ever get anyone to attempt to amend the constitution again.

Although we both know that this form of discrimination is not immoral enough to cause widespread concern.

I don't think the issue is that it's "not immoral enough" to cause widespread concern. I think it's that jobs are plentiful and that most employers are not actually obligated to participate in EE.

If the unemployment rate was 17% instead of 7%, and if every employer was obligated to participate in EE, I think EE would be a real issue instead of a philosophical discussion.

But what IS proven is that there was a political will to enact it in the first place.

Maybe there was a good reason for it at the time. Or maybe those enacted it, like today's supporters, take it on faith that EE/AA type programs are necessary to create a fair society, with only the vaguest evidence that there's actually a problem that needs to be solved, and no reason to think that EE/AA is the right way to solve it if there is one.

But you are missing the point that the term 'visible minority' is entirely discretionary and something one chooses for themself.

Is this discretionary self-identification available to everyone? If not, who is excluded?

And if you're one of those included, all you have to do to get preferential treatment is answer truthfully. Who'd lie?

-k

[Wild Bill]

***ALERT! ALERT! ANECDOTE! ANECDOTE! ALERT! ALERT!***

Now that that's out of the way, I thought a personal anecdote based on some real world experience might be useful here.

Like Kimmy, I too once worked in construction. I still have many friends and acquaintances in the field who offer me the benefit of their perspective. When Kimmy says there are a dearth of visible minorities among construction workers, it's absolutely true! Personal observations overwhelmingly bear this out. Eppur si muove! If you want to argue against this you are arguing against what anyone can touch or see for themselves. Taking an official survey would only prove the obvious.

There ARE a large number of East Indians and Pakistanis, but they almost always are engineers or technicians. Almost never are they "grunts". While their drive to better themselves is commendable, there's more to the reasons why they are not found to be better represented across the spectrum.

Here's the elephant in the room, that no one politically correct wants to mention. It's cultural! They don't like to do hard physical labour!

Everyone who works with this cultural group soon finds this out. What's more, the fact that it only is strongly evident with newcomers and first generations is even more proof that it's cultural. Second and third generation workers seem to have lost much if not all of this cultural trait and are usually indistinguishable from any other demographic in the work force.

There's a strong tendency in society to think that all cultures are the same. I vividly remember the irony of Canadian girls who worked at a local coffee shop run by "old world" Greeks. These girls were just typical young Canadians. They would laugh and flirt with us boys, sometimes sitting for a moment in our laps and then they'd be up and off to buss a table or whatever.

The old Greeks who hung around would see this and there would begin a problem. In their culture, there were really only two categories of women - family and whores! They instantly assumed that these Canadian girls must be whores so when they got the chance they would rather aggressively put the moves on them!

The girls of course were horrified! Many just quit, others vigorously defended their honour. It got so bad that the local police got in the habit of coming in at random over the night shift and poking their noses into the back kitchen, just to be sure the girls were all right.

All cultures are NOT the same! What's more, sometimes cultures clash! I invite anyone who thinks my example was merely a generalization to let their own daughter take a job in a similar environment.

My own elderly Italian-born mother-in-law caused a diplomatic problem with the local taxi company. Whenever she needed a cab to go get here groceries, she would always say (in an Italian accent so thick as to be hard to understand) "I want no Pakis!"

By this she meant she didn't want an East Indian driver. The dispatchers were always horrified and told her that she was wrong to make that request. She didn't care in the slightest! None of them ever asked her WHY she was taking that position, but I did.

It was quite simple and had nothing to do with simple racism. It was purely cultural. She was very old and when she got home she needed help getting her groceries in the house. East Indian drivers were the only ones who consistently refused to help her! They always had some excuse like "Sorry! I have a bad back!" They would sit in their cab while she struggled to get her groceries out of the trunk, with the meter running!

I don't know if it was a cultural attitude towards women, a sense of status as to who was the driver and who was merely the fare or simple male laziness. My mother-in-law didn't think that deeply about it and didn't care. All she wanted was help with her groceries!

Sadly, the taxi company eventually took the position that they would NOT let her have any choice in drivers. She would have to take whoever she got. Sounds very fair and non-racist but to her it left her with no choice. She could no longer use a cab to get groceries on her own. She had to get someone in the family to drive her and help her with the carrying, when they were available.

Employers today have the problem of being fair in hiring while at the same time minimizing cultural conflicts amongst their workforce. Conflicts based purely on race obviously should not be allowed but what about cultural habits?

Edited January 24, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Oleg Bach]

Feel kind of guilty...every site that I write on seems to slowly get destroyed...hope I am not responsible for the up and coming demise of Mapleleafweb....I guess I am off topic here...as per usual.

[bloodyminded]

Here's the elephant in the room, that no one politically correct wants to mention. It's cultural! They don't like to do hard physical labour!

If it were strictly "cultural" then it wouldn't be an unassailable fact that the majority of workers in the developing world do only physical labour--at a per capita rate that presumably eclipses our own.

At any rate, there is a lot of mockery about physical labour right here in Canada...right here on this board...almost exclusively by self-labelled conservatives, interetingly enough. (However, they seem to base their mockery less on physicality than on wage--so unskilled labourers are a pathetic joke, apparently. To our conservative, elitist, top-down class warriors, I mean.)

[Bonam]

If it were strictly "cultural" then it wouldn't be an unassailable fact that the majority of workers in the developing world do only physical labour--at a per capita rate that presumably eclipses our own.

At any rate, there is a lot of mockery about physical labour right here in Canada...right here on this board...almost exclusively by self-labelled conservatives, interetingly enough. (However, they seem to base their mockery less on physicality than on wage--so unskilled labourers are a pathetic joke, apparently. To our conservative, elitist, top-down class warriors, I mean.)

In the developing world they have no choice, it tends to be labour or starve. Here, that is not the case. Coming from a place where physical labour is all but forced, I could certainly understand an aversion to it when it is no longer necessary.

[bloodyminded]

In the developing world they have no choice, it tends to be labour or starve. Here, that is not the case. Coming from a place where physical labour is all but forced, I could certainly understand an aversion to it when it is no longer necessary.

Very, very few Canadians, strictly speaking, choose physical labour. That is, if the opportunities for non-physical labour, with commensurate wages, were equally available, very few would choose the former. Some would, yes, but that's true of any culture, and has nothing to do with the relative culturally-induced aversion to physical work (or whatever the hell was being implied in the post to which I responded) of third worlders.

And like I said, if it's such an integral part of canadian culture, why would Canadian conservatives, here on this board, be so quick to mock it? Unskilled physical labour is often some of the hardest work around.

Edited January 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bonam]

Very, very few Canadians, strictly speaking, choose physical labour. That is, if the opportunities for non-physical labour, with commensurate wages, were equally available, very few would choose the former. Some would, yes, but that's true of any culture, and has nothing to do with the relative culturally-induced aversion to physical work (or whatever the hell was being implied in the post to which I responded) of third worlders.

And like I said, if it's such an integral part of canadian culture, why would Canadian conservatives, here on this board, be so quick to mock it? Unskilled physical labour is often some of the hardest work around.

Well, personally, I have not particularly noticed an aversion to physical labour among immigrants. I am just saying that your argument that most people in the third/developing world undertake physical labour does not necessarily refute the fact that there may be some cultural aversion to it once they come to Canada. I am not really supporting the contention, just pointing out that your argument doesn't really refute it.

Also, I don't know where you get the idea that conservatives "mock" physical labour.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Bonam

[bloodyminded]

Well, personally, I have not particularly noticed an aversion to physical labour among immigrants. I am just saying that your argument that most people in the third/developing world undertake physical labour does not necessarily refute the fact that there may be some cultural aversion to it once they come to Canada. I am not really supporting the contention, just pointing out that your argument doesn't really refute it.

Fair enough, yes.

Also, I don't know where you get the idea that conservatives "mock" physical labour.

There are a handful of conservatives here on MLW who have...shown their true colours, you might say. for twenty years of my adult life, I was variously a load-carrier, a construction labourer, a carpet-cleaner (with those old, portable machines you had to lug around), an unlicensed drywall installer, and several other trades-less forms of (often backbreaking) physical labour.

In my late thirties, after a layoff, I opted for a temporary job at Walmart rather than taking my EI benefits.

I had thought this a responsible, even a moral, decision.

And yet this fact elicited many hoots of laughter from the "responsible spending" conservatives here on this board.

All of this kind of honest, hard work seems to do so to these fellows. Hilarious stuff!

Now, I have considered the possibility that it's more a partisan issue among those here who are almost sexually obsessed with "the left," and has little to do with their actual feelings about honest, hard, low-wage work.

But I think they confess themselves a little, too. Someone who didn't look down on unskilled labourers wouldn't usually think of mocking them just because they didn't like the poster. They don't mock business ownership when a business owner differs from them politically...of course not.

But low-paid physical labour? That's just for losers, evidently.

To the class warrior elitists among us.

Edited January 25, 2011 by bloodyminded