Jump to content

Discrimination


udawg

Recommended Posts

I believe this has been a topic previously on this board; however, I cannot find it, and I hope that the recent influx of new members can shed some new light, or at least further outrage, on this issue.

Why is it, that for many job applications (within the government and without), applications for grants, and even things like scholarships, there are questions about your minority (or lack thereof) status. It seems that you need to be a lesbian disabled female member of a "recognized minority" to get a decent job in this country.

Somebody should sue the government for not employing an appropriate percentage of white males. I think I'm being politically incorrect, but it's gotten so you can't even mention a "minority" in bad terms without being a racist/homophobe/male chauvinist or whatever.

If gays and lesbians, Natives, African-Americans, Latinos, Italians, disabled persons, and even women can get special recognition within the government and elsewhere, why can't I?

I suggest that heterosexual male Anglo-Saxons should apply for government funding to help promote our social group... normal people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

descrimation within the government with regards to white man is entirely untrue

first you must match the competencies, statements of qualification in order to secure interviews, and you have to know how to sell your skills, and abilities to do a good job.

I always thought it is that 4 second look that is the most subjective - and if the look is white I believe you have a over-whemling chance :o

having said that face reality of the demographics of the canadian labor market

True 1946, over 90% of immigrants to Canada

were from Europe.

But In 1996, 57% came from Asia and the Middle East.

Yes.... and here is also whats new

do the math Canada’s workforce is aging so start 1946. At present, 36% of Canada’s population is over the age of 45.

By 2011, this percentage will rise to 44% and now

55- to 64-year-olds make up 9.2% of the population.

what i mean if you don't seem to get a goverment job - it is because you have not accepted reality of who is participating in the labor market. the fact is you must compete with 57% of other different than yourself

only because i still have this survey on my desk I can able to provide this information with regards to women

(Ottawa June 9, 2004)

Article Source: Globe and Mail

“The gap in labour market outcomes for foreign-born visible minorities may be related to incidents of discrimination or unfair treatment,” the report says, “According to the Ethnic Diversity Survey, about 20 per cent of visible minorities aged 15 and over said they had sometimes or often experienced discrimination or unfair treatment in the previous five years because of their ethnicity, culture, race, skin colour, language, accent, or religion.”

don't we have laws protecting descrimation?

Foreign-born visible minority women were the only group of working-age women to experience decreased employment rates between 1981 and 2001

when unemployment increased in the 1980s and 1990s, foreign-born visible minority men, especially new immigrants, fared worse in the job market

there must be some conclusion drawn between whites, non-white, non-white immigrants and wealth because even when you fear discrimation of not getting a job you continue to do well economically

How does this happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

descrimation within the government with regards to white man is entirely untrue

first you must match the competencies, statements of qualification in order to secure interviews, and you have to know how to sell your skills, and abilities to do a good job.

Oh... my mistake. Apparently, actually being able to speak English isn't important for a government job.

Competency? How competent is a 6-month immigrant from whereever (not going to start naming names) who can barely speak the language but happens to meet affirmative action criteria?

There is such a thing as overcompensation...too much political correctness...whatever you want to call it, it does exist and I can't believe you honestly don't recognize it, RB.

And I also remember that RCMP announcement. Why do we even HAVE quotas? Any quota means there is a conscious discrimination occurring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

descrimation within the government with regards to white man is entirely untrue

There is quite a lot of discrimination in government. Take it from someone who is actually IN government.

first you must match the competencies, statements of qualification in order to secure interviews, and you have to know how to sell your skills, and abilities to do a good job. 
Do you have any idea how internal and external competitions work? Basically, the testing is designed to eliminate the utter incompetents. However, for the most part, those who have a reasonable ability in a given task can pass them. They all go into a "pool" then, and the government selects whom it wants on whatever basis it desires. If that basis is a desire to increase the numbers of visible minorities, then that is what's done.

However, there is a wide variation in how well people do in those tests. You can, for example, get 100%, or you can get 70% (the pass mark). But the agency doing the hiring doesn't need to select those who finished on top if it doesn't want to. And often doesn't. And I have to admit I have had problems with the language skills of many of the newcomers. Trying to make them understand me over the phone is often difficult due to their thick accents and lack of vocabulary.

having said that face reality of the demographics of the canadian labor market

True 1946, over 90% of immigrants to Canada

were from Europe.

But In 1996, 57% came from Asia and the Middle East.

This isn't really relevent. In the nineteen fifties there was little pressure in government to hire Polish or Italian immigrants who could barely speak English.
do the math Canada’s workforce is aging so start 1946.  At present, 36% of Canada’s population is over the age of 45.
This is also not particularly relevent. Yes, we have an aging workforce. However, the immigrant population is aging just about as fast. We don't give points for youth, so many of our immigrants are middle aged, and they often wind up bringing over their parents, as well. Furthermore, our work force is not aging as fast as in many other countries, countries which have not seen the neccesity of importing millions of foreigners and letting them change the entire makeup and cultural value set of their nations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in promoting fairness and equity into a system, but also when implementing such a system and deciding to make it operational to futher review its:

1) processes, and

2) practices and

3) making sure it is effective

4) making changes where necessary

Now, you have to acknowledge that biases exist, whether it is individual or systematic, or institutionalised in order to recognise the need to promote diversity and also to speak of descrimation in the same breath - for "white" or "other"

Let me propose this of you, here is the list below of criteria of certain groups whom are historically treated unfairly and discriminated against.

Can you identified a couple of folks you know that fits the list and compare them with “white man” – in relation with jobs and opportunites for career development such as training, promotion and selection for advancement, wealth, happiness etc. what is the conclusion?

The percentage of happiness is at the bottom of the write-up

Here is the list:

Race

Color

Culture

Ethnicity

Linguistic origin

Disability

Socio-economic class

Age

Ancestry

Nationality

Place of origin

Religion

Faith

Sex (in the case of women, serious limitations and gross inequalities)

Gender

Sexual orientation

Family status

Martial status

Now the issue is if we can identify all these so-call barriers and unjust practices, WHY can't we find a solution to remove these factors and to have people contribute fully to society, and for those people to experience a meaningful life and to promote successes overall for the future

This isn't really relevent. In the nineteen fifties there was little pressure in government to hire Polish or Italian immigrants who could barely speak English.

My one-way surely to start is to educate folks to understand about covert agendas, systemic barriers, to understand similarities and differences of discrimination and to:

1) challenge unjust practices and

2) to promote “inclusion” into the system

The percentage for inclusion in affirmative action is somewhere about 20% see below and yet, yet it seems as though even 1 person out of the group is just way too much – that’s what I am talking about, it is discrimination.

Reports upon surveys show that there is descrimation.

we all need to support equity: it means FAIRNESS AND IMPARTIALITY.

as a society we need to move beyond what is principle to what is IMPERATIVE to ensure equality

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ec-fpac/sf-fs-2_e.asp#four

Employment Equity-Embracing Change Support Fund: 2000-2001 through 2002-2003

“The Visible Minority share of external recruitment rose from 5 per cent in 1999-2000 to 8.3 per cent in 2000-2001 and 10.0 per cent in 2001-2002.

A substantial effort will be required to bring the Visible Minority share of external recruitment up to 20 per cent by end of 2003-2004.

The task ahead, therefore, is to maintain the momentum while focusing on achieving the results and making progress at a pace to realize the promise of the Action Plan.”

My point in all of this is that “white man” you are not discriminated against YET. You are doing 80% of the time better than the entire population.

But the statistics on demographics was given to show you are being replaced by in the “other” groups participating in the workforce.

In 2011 the baby boomers retires but are replaced by guess who no not the singing sensational group but an continuous influx of immigrants majority from the Asian region never mind they are also retiring but the numbers keep increasing every year and replacing your numbers.

Maybe then I can bear to hear even then a subtle form of reverse discrimation.

ok some employers pursuing equity maybe accused of reverse discrimation is a catch-22 position to be caught in and is controversial and the HR system is usually accused of unfair practices.

But, I am happy Argus responded that way about the compentencies. We see a system full of flaws and contamination. So perhaps we can also say this is another one of those error - subtle?

In response to the language difficult with new immigrant, if we are going to bring immigrants in whose language skills was not screen and who cannot function fully into the labor market.

Then the need is to set up social systems for immigrants to integrated and contribute into the society as soon as possible, so afforadable housing and schooling. Some one has to take responsibility for a job badly done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People,look around.Do you know anybody that has recently been hired by the gov.?If you do,then they fill a quota set by the liberal government.Competency has nothing to do with it,language and ethnic background take priority.French first,visible french minorities second,

visible minorities third,and established Canadians with generations of families who have paid taxes for years,you get the job if there is no one else applying for it.

Call me a bigot if you want,but those are the realities

of who the government hires.

P.S.I never applied for a government job,so there is no chip on my shoulder .I just like to keep an eye on what is actually going on,not what a liberal press tells me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I do. He is a single white male with the needed IT skills. Oh, he doesn't speak French, either. I do believe he is trying to learn as he is working out of Quebec. He needs it to try to pick up girls.

I have several friends working for the federal government that do not belong to any minorities.

However, to work as a ministerial aid in BC it does seem you must be a relative of some Minister. Neopotism reigns there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know how I see it, each person is an individual, no matter what their skin color, sex, or ethnic background. When I apply to a government job I would like to be hired because I'm the best for the job, not because the government needs to fill a minority qouta. Sure the left wingers can whine and complain about racism, but they are the ones that are the real racists for insisting that minorities need to get an easier in for jobs because minorities are stupid.

Everybody is equal, and everybody will be judged on the content of their character not on the color of their skin.

The left wing version, Everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I think the right wing folks have an ideology of anti-fairness and are hypocritical, they usually parallel their arguments by pretending to be progressive, what i meant is that they use liberal principles and liberal ideologies to promote their ideas and practices on the discrimation issue.

here are the assumptions from the various post - of course you must correct me if i am wrong

"discrimination - white man can't get government job"

1. means the folks who are qualified and promotable are white males

"Any quota means there is a conscious discrimination occurring"

2. means discrimation only happens on occasions

"But the agency doing the hiring doesn't need to select those who finished on top if it doesn't want to. And often doesn't. "

3. means employers usually do not look at colors when making their selection

Normal people!

4. means equal opportunity already exist

Everybody is equal, and everybody will be judged on the content of their character not on the color of their skin.

5. means employment equity is unnecessary

"I just like to keep an eye on what is actually going on,not what a liberal press tells me. "

6. means individual rights takes precedent in a liberal democracy over group equity programs

7.also means equity programs poses threat to a liberal democracy

Neopotism reigns there.

6. means you exclude whites

i'll do a leap of logic for the cherish liberal values, first look if you change things you theaten our individual rights, everyone needs the same point to start thats what equality is about, its what individuality is about pursuing own interest, then look at the outcome=fair.

so here is the reassurance do not approve any group equity programs otherwise you will be barely hanging on liberal values and the future of democracy.

did i get that Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody should sue the government for not employing an appropriate percentage of white males. I think I'm being politically incorrect, but it's gotten so you can't even mention a "minority" in bad terms without being a racist/homophobe/male chauvinist or whatever.

Is there actually a shortage of white males in the work force??

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When inequity is addressed, why do gov't institutions sometimes completely exclude some segments of society? Could they not just give people points for various characteristics and make it a little more difficult for some groups rather than completely exclude them altogether? At least that way everyone still has a chance if a reduced one. If we keep excluding people based on "positive discrimination", then there will always be drastic swings back and forth and we will never have equality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When inequity is addressed, why do gov't institutions sometimes completely exclude some segments of society? Could they not just give people points for various characteristics and make it a little more difficult for some groups rather than completely exclude them altogether? At least that way everyone still has a chance if a reduced one. If we keep excluding people based on "positive discrimination", then there will always be drastic swings back and forth and we will never have equality.

The principle of employment equity is to give preference to qualified candidates who are members of an underrepresented minority. In other wordsa, if teh choice is between two equally qualified canddidates, one of wqhich is a white male and the other, say, an aboriginal woman, the latter would get the job.

There seems to be a perception that such practices lead to minorities being hired willy-nilly, regardless of qualifications. I doubt that's the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you Black Dog, but what I am referring to are cases when some groups are excluded entirely. Wilfred Laurier University did just that (in 1999?) when hiring in their Psychology Department. There was a major discrepancy in favour of males (18/22 faculty positions), but they excluded males altogether rather than use the slightly different method I have suggested.

Although I do not accept the views in this link, I thought you might find it interesting.

http://www.safs.ca/meritdiversity/kimura2.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the equity programs are not meant to exclude groups - it is meant to be a solution to compensate for under-representation of 4 groups of people whose participation in the labor force shows very serious disparities

the university followed the corrective steps to equalise the numbers, usually there is some short term and long term numbers set for internal hirings compare to the avail market externally

Although Mike Harris’ Conservative party in Ontario did away with the NDP’s employment equity legislation, it has done nothing to rid Ontario universities of employment equity offices and practices.

http://www.safs.ca/meritdiversity/kimura2.html

i am very critical of these right winged newspaper and their rhetorical stategies. they usually reflect a discursive shift. the haris government actually use the globe and mail arguments to to rescind the ontario employment equity program. the ontario gov't cannot get rid of ontario universities equity program because it is federal contractor

my argument always lies with the challenges of keeping up with the changes of the demographics, like work in polices to fit the environment. these equity program would not be an issue if employers were up to date in their hiring, training, promotion practices and handling of complaints - look @ home depot consent decree, intel, deloitte & touche and you get a sense of systemic discrimation detailed by susan sturm - columbia law review

look if there is an external population of 55% say visible minority available for a particular job and 45% whites also available for the same job there should be some similar reflection of the demographics inside a company - the equity act came into effect in '96 not that long, so companies that are federally regulated or those federal contractors should somehow be in sync in terms of compliance and numbers with this equity model however they plan it - there is no hard and fast rules, and there is no demand to cause undue hardship on anyone, employers or whites, regardless, of what the newspaper says

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...