Liberals Finally Appoint New Judges

[Guest]

No. It's for the idiots claiming Trudeau didn't pick the "most qualified" to define what worse is since they're the ones claiming these are worse choices. The only reason I have from people in this thread so far is because they're not white. Once again, if there's a problem with these choices or if there's better candidates you would think someone could point them out.

No it's not. It's for the idiots posters who are outraged at something that goes on all the time, just because it's their boy this time and someone had the absolute gall to point it out to them, to jump up and down and yell about it and accuse people of racism when it's obviously just enormous fun pointing out that their boy is a tosser too. Oh wait, you are.

Edited July 9, 2016 by bcsapper

[dialamah]

No it's not. It's for the idiots posters who are outraged at something that goes on all the time, just because its their boy this time, and someone had the absolute gall to point it out to them, to jump up and down and yell about it and accuse people of racism when it's obviously just enormous fun pointing out that their boy is a tosser too. Oh wait, you are.

Perhaps there would have been less pushback if the OP would have stuck to the reality that Liberal gov't appointed left leaning judges instead of assuming that because most of these judges weren't white and male, they must of course be less qualified, and once again white guys got shafted. They claim preferential treatment of minorities because this time they made up the majority of appointees and fail to see how the same argument could be used when mostly white males have been appointed in the past.

Nobody here has denied that political leanings inform the choices for any government, so why do you continue to make that argument?

Edited July 8, 2016 by dialamah

[Guest]

Perhaps there would have been less pushback if the OP would have stuck to the reality that Liberal gov't appointed left leaning judges instead of assuming that because most of these judges weren't white and male, they must of course be less qualified, and once again white guys got shafted. They claim preferential treatment of minorities because this time they made up the majority of appointees and fail to see how the same argument could be used when mostly white males have been appointed in the past.

Nobody here has denied that political leanings inform the choices for any government, so why do you continue to make that argument?

I don't. Read my posts on here. I'm saying exactly what you're not denying. That political leanings helped make the choices. It's just that those political leanings leaned towards an appearance of diversity and a desire to have left leaning judges in place this time. If it had been Harper and those political leanings had leaned towards heavy industry and a propensity to vote right, there would have been no outrage at pointing that out.

This has got nothing to do with racism, or judicial appointments. It has to do with just making the observation that JT does what everyone else does, and it's exactly the same.

[Big Guy]

I think the base of disagreement here is what we mean by qualified. If it means "certified" then it is the minimal standard under an individual will be considered for a job. Once a person is considered "qualified" for the position then they go into a special pool from which any one can be chosen by the employer for the job.

Now secondary considerations come into play. These secondary considerations will depend on the leanings or prejudices or those making the selection. For example, some will hire young over old because they are looking for someone who will stay for a long time, others will choose old over young because they prefer someone with maturity in decision making for that job.

Some will hire male over female because of the disruptions to the organization with maternity leave others will choose female over male because they feel prefer females to deal with their customers.

There are many examples - I am not condoning the practice but the hiring process is not blind, deaf and dumb but it satisfies the personal agenda of the hiring person (team).

The bigger the pool, the more selective is the process. A truly objective method would be giving each member in the qualified pool a number and use some random method of choosing the winner.

If it is a large pool then there will be many candidates with many different attributes available.

Once the successful candidate(s) is chosen, then the casual observer will evaluate the criteria of selection based on their own personal agenda - woman, religion, political leanings etc. Therefore the criteria for praising or criticizing the selection is based on the personal leanings of the observer.

There is no such things as "more qualified" or "less qualified" - there is "qualified" or "not qualified".

There is no such things as "more pregnant" or "less pregnant" - there is "pregnant" or "not pregnant".

I assume that these people were all qualified to preform judicial duties and were chosen from a large pool of candidates. Therefore any assumed criteria for their selection will vary and be based on the biases of the observer.

[Argus]

This is something that women have fought against over and over and over again. It's no different now with the bs that's been put forward in this thread against skin colour.

If women were as qualified they wouldn't need the rules to be changed and the requirements relaxed so they could be hired and promoted.

[msj]

There is no such things as "more qualified" or "less qualified" - there is "qualified" or "not qualified".

Yes there is.

Try hiring people sometime and you will find that there is a huge range between non-qualified through to over-qualified.

[?Impact]

Try hiring people sometime and you will find that there is a huge range between non-qualified through to over-qualified.

There is not such thing as over-qualified. There is unable to meet wage demands, perception that person will not stay long, afraid they will be after your job due to your insecurities, etc.

[Big Guy]

Yes there is.

Try hiring people sometime and you will find that there is a huge range between non-qualified through to over-qualified.

Did a lot of hiring - thank you. By definition, someone is "qualified" when they have the minimal requirements to apply for a job. For example - if a job requires a University degree in Computer Science then you need an accredited University degree to be even considered. If you do not have one then you are not qualified. If you have a University degree in Computer Science, and one in Sociology and one in Physical Education then you are qualified to apply.

My experience had been that those who applied, whose credentials were verified and they were found to not have the qualifications, never got past the office manager to get to the hiring team.

Perhaps we disagree in semantics but I have had this discussion in the past. You may advertise the "qualifications" required for the position and might add - "Additional background in ........... will be considered an asset". This often appears when the basics of the requirements are included in the qualifications but specifics of that particular position have nothing to do with the qualifications. (i.e An office manager for a veterinarian, a receptionist in an seniors home)

[msj]

There is not such thing as over-qualified. There is unable to meet wage demands, perception that person will not stay long, afraid they will be after your job due to your insecurities, etc.

That's why I do not hire over-qualified people - they will not stay long.

If I need a junior accountant I do not hire someone with a CPA designation. I hire someone who is going to start or who is currently enrolled in the CPA program.

[msj]

Perhaps we disagree in semantics but I have had this discussion in the past. You may advertise the "qualifications" required for the position and might add - "Additional background in ........... will be considered an asset". This often appears when the basics of the requirements are included in the qualifications but specifics of that particular position have nothing to do with the qualifications. (i.e An office manager for a veterinarian, a receptionist in an seniors home)

Fair enough - we disagree on the semantics.

[Smoke]

Did a lot of hiring - thank you.

I thought you were a teacher, please correct me if I am mistaken.

[Big Guy]

I thought you were a teacher, please correct me if I am mistaken.

25 years in the classroom followed by years in administration and supervision for a total of about 40 years in the business. For teachers, for a number of years, a hiring team of department heads plus one vice principal would do the interviews and recommend to the principal who would (in theory) make the final decision. For hiring department heads, usually principal, one vice principal and the rest department heads. For administration positions (Principals, vice principals) a hiring team of supervisors and trustees.

Lately, I understand a union representative has to take part in all interviews (sometimes voting, sometimes just observing) depending on the board.

Thank you for the question.

Currently, I assume that I work for the federal government since it sends me a cheque every month