Affirmative Action Explained

[Wild Bill]

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.

Oh, I dunno, BM! I've held many of the same kind of jobs as you in my life and see no reason to demean them. And although I don't believe it of myself on several occasions you have claimed that I'm a conservative!

Some guys will just shoot anything down, left or right.

You don't refute any of my premises by using them to take a shot at conservatives.

[Bonam]

Fair enough, yes.

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.

So long as these jobs exist and there is a demand for people to do them, there is nothing worth mocking about these positions. Now, sure, a Walmart clerk might not garner as much respect as a doctor or engineer or lawyer, but that is not the same thing. I would agree that getting a job is a responsible and moral decision compared to taking EI benefits, if the choice is available.

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.

Hmm well people on the "right" may not mock business ownership, but there are certainly others who have no qualms taking shots at the "rich".

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

Well, considering that most of those with the drive and ability to get higher wage work tend to do so, it is logical to assume that many of those who perform low-paid physical labour lack this drive or ability. On the other hand, they are probably fitter and more developed physically as a result of their jobs. When I worked as a machinist for 4 months I had huge bulging muscles afterwards, which I certainly never got or would get through any of my less physical jobs.

[bloodyminded]

Oh, I dunno, BM! I've held many of the same kind of jobs as you in my life and see no reason to demean them. And although I don't believe it of myself on several occasions you have claimed that I'm a conservative!

I most certainly wasn't talking about you. I have hard time picturing you mocking hard, honest work of any persuasion. Doesn't seem like your style.

Some guys will just shoot anything down, left or right.

And some guys are classist elitists; like I said, I've never heard them mocking business ownership.

You don't refute any of my premises by using them to take a shot at conservatives.

I wasn't taking a shot at them; I was lobbing their shot back.

And I was clear that it was a few of them; not "conservatives," but rather that cadre of conservative class warriors.

Edited January 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

The wicked man who gains influence goes against the laws of logic and nature - he grants the strong man the same value as the weak man - and in effect creates two weak people - and by doing so - removes the competators - or nips competition in the bud..That is the long term and wider effect of affirmative action..some one out there plans this social engineering and sells us the idea that it is a good thing..when it is a perversity. This is the core of facism - that starts off with liberal socialism ...eventually the populace is ground into a grey powder and served up as slop for the wanna be elite piglets who are oh so clever.

[BC_chick]

Affirmative Action simply means "Caucasians need not apply". Such as in some police departments etc. Mostly government jobs.

Similar to (English) signs on whorehouses in Japan. "Only Japanese Gentlemen Only".

Sounds like a terrible trip. Better luck in Thailand.

[Shwa]

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 live and work in the GTA. Ton's of visible minority tradesmen. One guy, highly educated in India apparently, was over to fix our washer. Good guy. Putting his daughter through to get her Master's degree in one thing or another.

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.

Yes!!! Not because of your opinion, but because you are guessing. As I said earlier, the article is social science, not math.

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.)

This is interesting. A while back there was a huge outcry over the lack of trades people in our workforce and many apprentices were being recruited from Europe. Recruited to come here and ply their trades in Canada. At the time I was intrigued because it never occurred to me that we could be short skilled trades people. I do know that at this point both Ontario and Federal governments are pushing trade certificates and apprenticeships in their re-training programs.

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.

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?

She's inferring a trend from the data countering the notion that it is a widely held view that university education leads to better employment possibilities.

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.

Agreed, plus another factor. It might be easier for someone to become more adpept at reading a language that actually speaking it fluently enough to communicate complex ideas. Thus I find plenty of computer technicians, who can pass written Microsoft certification tests, but are barely able to discuss design based on business need.

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.

Agreed. Plus, since we reply on immigration so much to boost our population growth there will be no political will towards such changes. But that doesn't change the fact that they can. Stranger things have been known to happen.

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.

Yet EE is an issue in some quarters and still being examined by Stats Canada. Do you think that EE is not an issue at all nowadays?

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.

Fair point, however, is the experience the same in your town - where there are few visible minority trades people - as there is in Toronto or Montreal? Either way, for any problem to be addressed, even in isolated areas, EE legislation is required I would think. Which is a simplistic answer, sure, but illustrative that certain regions undergo different economic stressors, but all have to answer under the same guidelines. Althought it would be interesting to note the visible minority percentages in the Coast Guard.

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?

Well here is the double edge: large federal government departments will frequently send out messages to their staff to self-identify so they can gather a current statistical view. If you are a visible minority and choose not to self-identify, guess what happens to the department's numbers?

Edited February 5, 2011 by Shwa

[Shwa]

Affirmative Action simply means "Caucasians need not apply". Such as in some police departments etc. Mostly government jobs.

Similar to (English) signs on whorehouses in Japan. "Only Japanese Gentlemen Only".

Sounds like a terrible trip. Better luck in Thailand.

LOFL!! ZING!

[bloodyminded]

Agreed, plus another factor. It might be easier for someone to become more adpept at reading a language that actually speaking it fluently enough to communicate complex ideas.

There's no might be about it. It's demonstrably true.

[Jack Weber]

Sounds like a terrible trip. Better luck in Thailand.

Beware the Kattoey's....

Turkey Chin!!!!

Edited February 5, 2011 by Jack Weber

[dre]

Sounds like a terrible trip. Better luck in Thailand.

[Yukon Jack]

Affirmative action explained: Crutch for the incompetent.

Would its proponents be happy with firefighters who got their jobs by affirmative action trying to rescue them? Or doctors who are products of affirmative action do their heart surgery? Or some ignorant affirmative action teacher teach their kids?

Yeah, probably!

[Shwa]

Affirmative action explained: Crutch for the incompetent.

Would its proponents be happy with firefighters who got their jobs by affirmative action trying to rescue them? Or doctors who are products of affirmative action do their heart surgery? Or some ignorant affirmative action teacher teach their kids?

Yeah, probably!

Sure, because those occupations have standards and qualifications. Did you seriously think for a moment that because a person is hired because of affirmative action that they are unqualified for that particular occupation? What was your reasoning - "just because?"

[Scott Mayers]

I only discovered this topic now and so what I may say may already been hashed out by others.

First off, this video is clearly an anti-liberal political viewpoint as it makes the woman speaking appear drastically off in how she would likely respond realistically. (I find the conservative speaker usually more candid in this respect [think Donald Trump])

I AM for the position of this video even being most liberal politically. Yet I think it deserves a proper inspection of how we as a society classify things that often tend more towards ethnicity or race as the distinguishing factor to attend to when solving the actual problems.

In this video, the conservative thinker there presented how that particular type of liberal clearly acted contradictory to how she interpreted what is 'fair' or not to the different expedient concerns of groups. It appears that where a cultural/ethnic group in a minority is losing in some measure based on plurality of being a larger representative of some bad concept, like poverty, they deserve to be granted affirmative laws that grant them a leg up, yet where their benefits are innately represented in another area (sports, for instance), she would ignore the relevance by contrast.

Treating societal problems based upon ethnicity or culture, however, IS the very causes that initiated these differences in the first place. I relate the American Affirmative action to our Multicultural ones here with one major exception: that at least the American system's use of Multiculturalism through its "Affirmative Action" is a localized or temporary one in contrast to our constituted ones in laws here in Canada.

That is, I see that the American ideal of Affirmative Action is NOT intended to be a permanent fixture in law through time and it suggests that they too (or most of them) are not strictly not cognizant of the problems that the conservative male in this video is apparently suggesting. It is likely more about the expediency in practice to which many may believe is an inevitable short-term means to create the desired equality. And in this respect, for the charity I am granting to liberalism, it MAY be necessary to do this yet am still preferentially hesitant.

I certainly disagree with our own Canadian constitutionalizing of Affirmative Action for select pluralities through what we call, "Multiculturalism" (as opposed to a simple "Intercultrualism" idea) because I believe it will always lead to strengthening Nationalism as a function based upon ethnicity and always will lead to worse outcomes in another future time. This is my fear for Canada as we are embracing this whole heartedly by most of ALL parties here.

So, for others, do you agree that the real problem lies with how we classify a social problem inappropriately by attending to one's ethnic or cultural heritage as some representative of some sub-majority rather than to deal with the classes that are defined by the very problem we are intending to tackle?

Example: If ethnic Group X is the majority of Impoverished People, is it appropriate to create laws that address the concerns of Group X or should we better address the issue of ALL people who are of the class, Impoverished People to be fairer?