Employment Law in Ontario

[RB]

When the NDP was in goverment they promised Employment Equity, and was introduced into the legislature and became a law and emplyoyers had to comply to identifying and eliminating employment barriers in the workplace and also instituting positive policies and practices so that groups of people are treated fairly

The Conservative government under Harris recinded Employment Equity in Ontario.

Ontario currently have 6 employment statutes: employment standards act, Ontario Labor Relations act, Workplace safety and insurace act, Occupational Health and safety act, Human rights code, and Pay equity act (clarifying, this one requires employers to be of a certain size to implement), but statistics show that descrimination in employment practices is a problem

The only compliance for Employment Equity now is Federal Agencies and Federal contractors with 100 or more employees in Canada

First, what are your thoughts on re-introducing a statute in all of Ontario?

Second, do you think a private member bill would do keeping in mind that these are rarely passed

I mean a liberal government in power now, they would buy in to public pressure

[Argus]

When the NDP was in goverment they promised Employment Equity,

Yes, the NDP have always frowned on discriminatory hiring based on race, and because of this have always been very enthusiastic about forcing organizations to discriminate in their hiring based on race.

Confused? Well, you have to have a strange and twisted kind of mentality to understand the "logic" of the NDP.

The Conservative government under Harris recinded Employment Equity in Ontario. 

Yes, one of the best things they did. In fact, this sort of thing was one of the driving forces behind the Tories getting elected the first time around.

but statistics show that descrimination in employment practices is a problem

No, they don't.

First, what are your thoughts on re-introducing a statute in all of Ontario?

I'm sure the Tories would be delighted. It would be a main election plank next time around.

Second, do you think a private member bill would do keeping in mind that these are rarely passed

I mean a liberal government in power now, they would buy in to public pressure

I would have thought even the Liberals would be too stupid to impliment another race based hiring law, but after watching McGuinty I don't think there IS anything to stupid for him to do. Regardless, whatever he does will be wiped out when the Tories get re-elected next time around.

[RB]

Yes, the NDP have always frowned on discriminatory hiring based on race, and because of this have always been very enthusiastic about forcing organizations to discriminate in their hiring based on race

.

The NDP platform is hinge around equality of the races, religion etc. so it is a "big deal" to take up these important issues.

No one is forcing companies to discriminate, equity would ensure that you look at all candidates suited for an opportunity and you decide on a best fit without biasness.

If companies are fair in the employment practices the reflection of the demographics would exist inside the workplace and I would not be having this discussion.

Furthermore, I would also submit that a separate Statue also be created for foreign trained professionals - there is something called justice and fairness and it not reflected in the recruitment of overseas professionals working in Canada, no system in place for such appeals as why? and are lost into the taxi driving and factory work

will return to continue later ....

[RB]

Yes, the NDP have always frowned on discriminatory hiring based on race, and because of this have always been very enthusiastic about forcing organizations to discriminate in their hiring based on race

I want to say to you that the “language” of “the act” was never radicalized. It is people’s responses such as yours that put meaning to the legislature and seek to promote radicalization.

So I will give you an example: so you would like to leave the marketplace and hiring practices alone. Not a problem, it is fair. But there is a dismal gap of commitment to look at other people’s experiences, their representation in companies and promotions within the companies.

I will help you sort out in summary what you are saying that companies owe nothing to society, and it is only fair that we, conservative continue with our collective memories of how institutions should operate: we seek to carry forward with values, principles and traditions regardless of what is changing around us. (Did I get that right?)

The only reason why equity is seemed as adverse to the “white” group is because it seem to discriminate against its members. I don’t have a percentage of unemployed whites, we don’t track this statistics, but I would guess that as much as 90-100% of them wanting to work has a job compare it to the designated equity group who takes menial jobs for survival, are under-represented, and under-employed, and unemployed, what maybe > 40%

Yet here you are telling me that there is race discrimination and the only race you are actually referring to is “white”

Regardless, whatever he does will be wiped out when the Tories get re-elected next time around.

I won't worry about getting any equity program dissolve so fast - there is indication that a whole lot a folks that are unemployed and are having mighty time on hand to decide on strategies are seeking to employ the conservatives to work on their behalf

[Argus]

Yes, the NDP have always frowned on discriminatory hiring based on race, and because of this have always been very enthusiastic about forcing organizations to discriminate in their hiring based on race

.

The NDP platform is hinge around equality of the races, religion etc. so it is a "big deal" to take up these important issues.

No one is forcing companies to discriminate, equity would ensure that you look at all candidates suited for an opportunity and you decide on a best fit without biasness.

Equity means equality of opportunity. That is not what employment equity is about, especially as designed by the lunatic fringe - ie, the NDP. Employment "equity" is about equality of results. They don't care if they can find any actual evidence of discrimination, racism or bigotry. If a company does not have the same proportion of workers and managers as exists in the general population they are condemned on that basis alone. This is lunacy by any logical standard. There are many perfectly legitimate reasons why a particular group, ethnic, racial or gender, may be underrepresented in different areas, different jobs, professions and companies. What "employment equity" would do would be to require that companies discriminate against whites on the basis of a numerical formula, would require they hire less capable, less qualified minority applicants purely out of racism. That is why the people of Ontario were overwhelmingly opposed to the NDP's policy and why it was a very popular plank in the Conservatives election platform.

And one of the reasons why the NDP are most unlikely to ever be elected again.

[Argus]

The only reason why equity is seemed as adverse to the “white” group is because it seem to discriminate against its members.

Canadians, at heart, believe in fairness. They clearly saw that this "equity" program was about discrimination on the basis of skin colour. It was about overturning hiring and promotion based on capability and forcing companies to hire and promote based on race.

And of course it discriminated against Whites, and of course Whites were, by and large, vehemently opposed to it. Anyone but an idiot would have been.

[RB]

Equity means equality of opportunity. That is not what employment equity is about, especially as designed by the lunatic fringe - ie, the NDP. Employment "equity" is about equality of results

Thanks for clearing the semantics about equity and employment equity

Maybe I had better rewrite it in proper formatting so that I understand fully:

INTERPRETATION:

Definition:

1) Employment Equity is not referred to the short title equity

2) Equity means equality so not a proper usage to address employment

3) Employment Equity is about equal results and has its roots in NDP

Finding solution to address the above:

Short Title:

I will hencefore use only "the act" gladly, because of less fingering with these non-responsive tangibles

Now I will like to clarify the act and its intention. I interpret it to read that no person should be denied a job for reason unrelated to their ability.

Here are the identify groups:

1) Women

2) Visable Minority

3) Aboriginal

4) People with Disablity

same proportion of workers and managers as exists in the general population they are condemned on that basis alone

I keep saying this, that the equity program does not put pressure and undue hardship on companies to accommodate anyone.

It would take as much as 3 years for some companies to reach a level of perhaps 60%. And at least 5years to have some semblance of the demographics.

We understand employment equity was not a practice prior, but we would expect that there is commitment to practice fair recruitment, it means re-evaluating some practices and to outreach into communities where jobs can be posted and the groups will have access.

Look at it this way, say new recruits are fed from only from a university campus, and I did not mention Intel, guess who shows up in the workplace. Other people who have the necessary qualification and would like to work a particular company is filtered out.

On a macro level the four groups mentioned above is always filtered out for whatever reason, and unless something is done to correct this, it would continue to be a perpetuating vicious cycle.

What "employment equity" would do would be to require that companies discriminate against whites on the basis of a numerical formula

This is the same argument used to repel the act. Arguments about quotas and etc.

But the real reason why those arguments usually show up is because some people "whites" need reassurance that:

1) they are not treated unfairly, and

2) that they are not on the receiving end of discriminatory practices,

3) they are hardly the ones needing support groups and to get together for the same

4) they follow tradition and are not recipients to government programs

5) they remain privileged

6) an attempt to change status quo is a threat to this nation

I think I got it right, so what is ideal is to take the marginalized group and marginalized them further

[RB]

And of course it discriminated against Whites, and of course Whites were, by and large, vehemently opposed to it. Anyone but an idiot would have been.

I am sure if those were the words used or mere suggestiveness we could have kept the act up

I can give you the lines that were used to recind the act:

1) The Job Quotas Repeal Act

2) Designed by well meaning people to encourage integration, employment equity works against it encouraging Canadians to huddle together in groups and feed the unhealthy obsession with race and gender that has seized the Canadian society

3) Call for new legislature: "Equal opportunity Plan"

4)Employment equity is reverse discrimination ...and hiring quotas (those you know)

5)Why Merit matters

6) No way to run a railroad (reference to foreign engineers)

7) Real Employment Equity

8) Employment ...challenges the fundamental tenets of ...individual rights and equal opportunity

9) Equal opportunity is presumed to exist

10) Equity programs are threats to liberal society

11)Any legislature that targets groups leads to victim-focus identities, conflict and division

12)The only qualified meritorious individual for jobs or promotions are ?

13) Discrimination exist only in isolated instances

14) calls for debate

15)How are Canadians going to fight these laws? mmm as people have lost their voices

16) Conservatives usage of "high principle"

17) "Ferret out" the act

18) Employers have been given the word, explicitly or otherwise

I mean I could go on with this for a bit .... but I am going to call it a night for now

[Argus]

I keep saying this, that the equity program does not put pressure and undue hardship on companies to accommodate anyone. 

Of course it does. Else it's meaningless.

On a macro level the four groups mentioned above is always filtered out for whatever reason, and unless something is done to correct this, it would continue to be a perpetuating vicious cycle.

If, as you claim, those groups are being unduly discriminated against you need to show evidence to support this; the how and when and where they are being denied their rightful employment. You need to show just what companies do to avoid hiring people from these groups. You would then have a case, and could force them to stop those practices.

What "employment equity" would do would be to require that companies discriminate against whites on the basis of a numerical formula

This is the same argument used to repeal the act. Arguments about quotas and etc.

Yes, because it is true. Look at the federal government, which practices employment equity. It is always about numbers. There is rarely, if ever a mention of a discriminatory hiring practice. Instead it is about numbers. This or that department has to get its numbers up. The government doesn't have the right numbers of minorities as compared to the general population, therefore they need to be pressured to hire more. But how do you hire more if there is no visible discrimination in place to remove? Why, by discriminating in favour of visible minorities - which is what they do. They actually reserve some jobs for VM members. You will see adverts for jobs stating only VM members need apply, or VM members will be given preference.

Look at my outfit as an example. Out of approximately 250 employees, there are about 3 Asians. That's it so far as visible minority members go. We don't match the general population, not even close. But this is not due to racism. Almost everyone in our department has to be an expert and experienced in interpreting taxation policy and the tax code. The majority of adult visible minority members are immigrants. Needless to say, expertise in Canadian tax law is pretty hard to find among them. But EE would require we find some people with darker skin colours who have at least some passing awareness of taxation policy and hire them, then spend a lot of time and effort to train them just so we could say we had good EE numbers. This is ineffeciency and actively discriminates against people who have spent tne years or more learning tax law and policies who would otherwise have those jobs.

In a nutshell, Canadians don't want discimination, and discrimination is what employement equity laws are all about.

[RB]

I am hardly the one to support forcing employers to hire someone who is not qualifying for the job. Sorry but I understand employers are committed to their bottom line, initial hiring and learning curve is factored in as cost and expenses and liability.

There was a study/experiment done with several actors each given the same qualifications, similar work history etc., and send off for interviews, the only difference between them is sex, and color. I am sure you would not be surprise to learn that "whites" and "males" were offer opportunities 80% of the time. While offers were made to visible minority 20%, was a couple of sales opportunity that to be put in the calculation, offers were made to the visible minority and whites on pare of which the companies took just about any one because it is whole commission

force them to stop those practices

Companies have their own practices on hiring, and whether we try to eliminate contamination and try to safe guard good practices the reflection in the workplace shows how subjective we are

- unless there is a law for company's to follow, company's do not have some code of ethics that universally bound them

You mentioned about taxes and I will add on there are other professions also difficult to access for some reason and not attracting the same groups of people - so employment is not the only source of the discrepancies we seeing

With regards supporting evidence, we look at the gaps in employment statistics and other statistics and follow the trend, obviously employment have a lot to do with people livelyhood, their sphere of control, social issues, living conditions etc.

Secondly, because the act has been remove, the question is where the complaints are lounge, so look at the back logs of Human Rights complains, and companies being sue

Thirdly, when social programs are implement with identify gaps we monitor and follow the results

Fourthly, the environment is constanly changing and reshaping, encouragement into reseach will give insights

The government is a good example of shifting minds but evidently someone recognised that a problem existed

Argus, I am afraid I don't think you nor I will agree on this matter of employment equity and hence being reinstated, as my notion of what is descrimination is totally whack from yours

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear RB,

Argus,

my notion of what is descrimation is totally whack from yours

Indeed. I believe Argus is in the right, legislated EE is discrimination, no matter how thin you slice it.

In Calgary, a few years ago, the Police service said it would never compromise it's hiring standards no matter what the cause may be. A few months later, it said it needed to have 'more representation from the First Nations Peoples', (assumably to fill an EE Quota) and since there was a dearth of qualified applicants, they lowered the hiring standards to a grade 10 level education for 'Aboriginals' instead of a high school diploma.

In a nutshell, they were willing to hire less qualified people, based solely on race, and I don't know how this can possibly be justified, no matter what field one is talking about. There was a kafuffle over gender discrimination amongst the EMS standards, too. (I don't remember who exactly, but I think it was KrustyKidd who posted a lengthy article about this one).

In the corporate world, if a company has over X(not sure what the official number is) number of employees, they must hire at least 5%(again, not positive about the number) 'Aboriginals', regardless of qualification. The Gov't has it's quotas too, as Argus states.

What if a company arose amongst the First Nations (Such as Peace Hills Trust Bank, run by the Samson Cree Nation) and was told "You must hire a certain number of 'whites', regardless of whether or not they are qualified." I believe they would have every right to protest, on the grounds of racial discrimination. I don't believe in the much used term 'reverse-discrimination', for it is all the same.

Racial and/or gender quotas are wrong and unfair.

[RB]

What if a company arose amongst the First Nations (Such as Peace Hills Trust Bank, run by the Samson Cree Nation) and was told "You must hire a certain number of 'whites'

I don't think this will happen - there is a section in the employment equity Guideline 8 that covers ONLY Aboriginals - Banks would exist under the federal regulations

But somehow I get the feeling that employers are just resentful of employment equity and hence the display of "emotions" like the usage forcing companies to do the numbers. You know emotions and business don't jive well.

Proper administration and implementation and close monitoring with readjustment is critical. All the examples given I would argue that even if Employment Equity is compliance that employers do need to see it just a basic core obligations but more about enhancing their business.

If you say to me that you are hiring visible minority because you need to meet quotas I would say that firstly you are not integrating your labor requirements into your business goals and objectives.

One of the goals of employment equity is to have companies access a diversify group of people that exist in the marketplace. And that if word of mouth is the only method of recruitment use, that there are other methods to try such as: organisations, churches, career fairs, become a community partner so that you learn to access other talents - be creative

Life is much easier if there is a "buy-in" and you understand the need for employment equity to exist

OK the least we can agree is that there is discrepancies in the identifiable groups. They are unemployed in large numbers.

One other alternative was to encourage them into entrepreneurship

Can you suggest other alternatives?

[RB]

I have thought about the future of employment and think that there is going to be a whole lot of joblessness around and the only people employed are specialised people to work such as doctors, engineers, nurses, teachers, IT. Gone will be manufacturing, factory, and other jobs.

So imagine the future where there is only poor and very poor people and a maybe 20% rich people.

But I think we need some contingencies in place to secure for the future of the poor, since the welfare systems and EI systems won't work and would like to suggest that we create some tax system to encourage a Non-governmental agency similar to the food bank, since we don't have faith in the government system to handle social issues.

So if we start now, when the time comes we are quite prepared.

[pioneer]

employment equity is a result of a bad immigration policy that nobody wanted in the first place but were afraid to say something for fear of being labelled intolerant!well i think canada has shown to much tolerance!

[Slavik44]

I am hardly the one to support forcing employers to hire someone who is not qualifying for the job. Sorry but I understand employers are committed to their bottom line, initial hiring and learning curve is factored in as cost and expenses and liability.

There was a study/experiment done with several actors each given the same qualifications, similar work history etc., and send off for interviews, the only difference between them is sex, and color. I am sure you would not be surprise to learn that "whites" and "males" were offer opportunities 80% of the time. While offers were made to visible minority 20%, was a couple of sales opportunity that to be put in the calculation, offers were made to the visible minority and whites on pare of which the companies took just about any one because it is whole commission

Well perhpas I should bring up my short person example, you see another such study was done very similar to your example but the difference was hieght, and you guessed it 75% of the time....the tall candidate was given the job. so perhpas black people should just not think of themselves as black, eh? After all it is hereditary, nothing we can do about.

[RB]

Firstly, the word black unpacks for us markers and images suitable for those who came from somewhere else. Furthermore these different people are further grouped into "desire" or "difference".

This sort of hierarchy sets up a framework and is a mindset and the cornerstone of the society. As such we have behaviour ordering, social impoverishment, cultural impoverishment, political markers for policy making, social impacts, social cost, marginalization, unemployment, settlement issues for new comers, resettlement and displacement issues, discrimination, consideration, people are uncomfortable with their experiences etc.

Notwithstanding, short people might be discriminated against. But are they experiencing a vicious cycle of economic dire straits, social adjustments, tremendous unemployment, poverty, racism based on identity, ethnicity, race, color, are they found in jails a lot, are they profiled.

I don't believe short people carry this sort of burden as some groups such as the blacks.

[RB]

Today is International day for the Elimination of discrimination.

Here is our failing grade in Canada:

64% of visible minority group reported to have experience discrimination in the workplace.

For Ontario 37% of the population is of visible minority status and if immigration and birth rates continue in this direction the number is likely to increase.

I mean how will we reflect the marketplace as a competitive centre globally if we do not recognise diversity, capitalise and exploit cultural and human talents and give people opportunities to do well or have inclusiveness.

[Robert Devid Baker]

HI

Edited December 5, 2015 by Robert Devid Baker

[Robert Devid Baker]

Ontario employment law also put responsibilites on the workers that they have to pay at least minimum wage for safety and their work includes providing training , guarding machines and ensuring the air is free from harmful substances.