Public Works Makes Hiring White Men Illegal

[tml12]

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...d7-723991e9d12e

Can you believe this? And I am not just angry because I am a white man. If they banned white women, or black women, or black men, or any minority from joining that would be wrong too.

This is an outrageous attempt to disenfranchise a portion of our society...can anyone defend this?

[BHS]

My favourite part of this is the idea that there will definitely be a backlash, so now they are justified in taking extra measures to ensure that target applicants are protected from irate white males. Create a disparity, proclaim loudly that you already know how the groups disenfranchised will react, and take proactive counter-measures against the backlash that hasn't happened. The EU couldn't do it any better.

[cybercoma]

wtf...seriously.

just wow.

[Leafless]

tml12

You wrote- " Can you believe this"

Short answer -YES

Do I believe it's 'RIGHT'

NO.

How to alleviate this--Re-write the Charter of 'Rights and Freedoms' to ensure majority concerns are properly addressed.

Iam sure GLAD the democratically chosen Liberals are running this country and not it's red neck citizen's.

[Argus]

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...d7-723991e9d12e

Can you believe this?  And I am not just angry because I am a white man.  If they banned white women, or black women, or black men, or any minority from joining that would be wrong too.

This is an outrageous attempt to disenfranchise a portion of our society...can anyone defend this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uhm....

You know, when you add up all the crap the government does in determining who to hire it's little wonder how many idiots find their way into the public service.

Seriously. You want to establish a pool of potential employees. You put out an ad, and start with 1000 applicants. Certainly among those 1000 will be some absolutely outstanding employees. But wait, the employee must be fluently bilingual (for no good reason), so that eliminates 950 candidates right off the bat. You're left with 50, but half are white men. So you're down to 25 that you can choose from. Although, in reality, because most visible minorities are immigrants the proportion of them with really good language skills in both official languages is much lower than in the general population, so really, you're left with perhaps 10 to choose from.

And that is BEFORE you've even tested them in anything. All the rest were eliminated on the basis of inconsequential and immaterial criteria like race, sex and language ability. So now you've got 10 left, but only 5 pass the tests. So how big is that pool of potential recruits again? And how much quality is going to be in it?

[RB]

there is a good reason for hiring minorities

demographics need to be represented in the workforce - there are smart minorities to choose from, but they are simply not given a chance

[PocketRocket]

there is a good reason for hiring minorities

I agree.

demographics need to be represented in the workforce

Again, agreed.

- there are smart minorities to choose from, but they are simply not given a chance

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or they have not applied to this department.

I think in a case like this, look first for the best-qualified people, then if there are minority members amongst the group, hire the minority person.

But if none of the minority people applying are qualified, then hire THE BEST QUALIFIED PERSON.

[plusgood]

It appears that you have all glossed over some fairly critical information in that article. "the proportion of female, disabled, aboriginal and non-white new hires fell from one in eight this March to only one in 20 by September." Jobs for white males are still going to be availiable, they just want to ensure that their employees better represent the society they are intending to serve. I think an explicit policy to ban hiring write males is a little bit troublesome, but none the less it is consistent with why afirmative action programs are important, especially in government.

1. Set an example to other companies to maintain fair hiring practicies

2. Correct historical mistakes and misrepresentation due to racism and sexism. This means hiring minorities and those who have been discriminated against.

3. Government bureaucracies should be representative of the society they are representing, this ensures that all members of the society have some consideration in policy designs and application.

Sure, it is not perfect and it can mean that sometimes those most qualified are not hired, but I think on the whole this policy is better. Ultimately our civil serives will encompass greater diversity and be able to better meet the needs of all Canadians.

On the bilingual note: Having to know two languages should not be considered too much of a burden. In all honesty it is a shame that more Canadians do not. I also know for a fact that civil service will hire unilingual Canadians who are qualified and then provide training for them to learn either English or French, not in all cases, but in many. So it is not as anti-English Canadian as it is being portrayed. Shouldn't a country that is officially bi-lingual strive to have a civil service that represents that ideal?

[Argus]

there is a good reason for hiring minorities

demographics need to be represented in the workforce - there are smart minorities to choose from, but they are simply not given a chance

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is, even were it true, silly. There is good reason for hiring minorities? There is good reason only for hiring the best person for the job. Period. Full stop.

In fact, I have seen many suggestions that the percentage of minorities in the public service is considerably higher than the statistics imply because such statistics rely on self-reporting. And many people either do not wish to self report, or do not believe that they are members of a minority group as such, (Ie, latinos and Arabics, who often consider themselve White - if a shade darker) BTW, why is a latino from El Salvador a minority but an Italian who has darker skin not?.

Then there is the quibble about the fact that just the most prized requirement of testers for federal government positions is French. And it has to be GOOD French, writing, reading and oral. Most minorities who come from other countries do well to speak one or the other reasonably well. Speaking both well enough to pass government tests is extremely difficult.

Leaving aside bilingualism, I can tell you that the second most important factor in all tests I have taken has been communication skills, both written and oral. So again, even if an immigrant has reasonably good English, say, is it as good as a native speaker? Because I can tell you that native speakers don't always find those tests easy.

And as we all know, many immigrants, even those here for years, don't even speak one very well, and have, shall we say, a wide variation in academic credentials and job skills.

So the plain and simple fact is, even exempting bilingualism, you are not going to find visible minority applicants (most of which are still immigrants) with the same level of job skills as you will find in the native born population (most of whom are White).

[Argus]

It appears that you have all glossed over some fairly critical information in that article.  "the proportion of female, disabled, aboriginal and non-white new hires fell from one in eight this March to only one in 20 by September." 

I found that odd, but I suggest, given my experience, that the most likely reason would be that they are hiring for particularly "male oriented" positions. This is public works, after all, responsible for maintenance of government grounds and buildings. I can tell you that in the government office buildings I've been in there is no lack of females or minorities.

On the bilingual note:  Having to know two languages should not be considered too much of a burden.  In all honesty it is a shame that more Canadians do not.  I also know for a fact that civil service will hire unilingual Canadians who are qualified and then provide training for them to learn either English or French, not in all cases, but in many.

You have to get it into your head that the term "knowing two languages" is not the same as is commonly used. A taxi driver might speak English imperfectly, as do many others I've seen, but they understand it well enough, and you can have a good conversation with them able to understand everything you say.

They would have very little chance of passing a strict English language test, however. Likewise, most non-French people who can speak reasonably capable French have little or no chance of passing a French test. It is not the least unusual that English kids who go through French immersion from grade 1 through 12 cannot pass those government tests. The government is, by repute and anecdotal reports, considerably pickier about the strength of one's French than one's English. French people don't like the kind of fractured, imperfect French as we often hear from, well, the likes of French speaking public servants when they speak English.

The tests we're talking about are for advanced French in reading, writing and speaking, and we're not talking about the coloquial French you pick up through talking to Francophones but academic French with all its complex grammar and syntax.

[Leafless]

plusgood

You wrote- " Shouldn't a country that's officially bilingual strive to have a civil service that represents that ideal.

This is a FALSE statement to say Canada is 'officially bilingual' as it is NOT 'officially bilingual.

Canada has TWO official languages namely majority English language and the minority French language in a country comprised of ten provinces with only ONE that is officially bilingual being New Brunswick.

The federal government is the other enitity that provides a 'officially bilingual' policy thast many see as 'outright discrimination' as it does not satisfy official provincial linguistic representation of Canada and only that of 'officially bilingual' New Brunswick.

There is an old song 'Breaking up is hard to do' when our federal government actually advocates this by fractionizing the country into little cultural groups that will sooner or later present a potential problem similar to what it is happening in France but multiplied by the number of smaller cultural groups Canada is broken down into.

We already have laws protecting individuals from discrimination but become meaningless when overidden by federal government authority who see themslves as the knight in shining armour but fail to see themselves as a major contributor to potential cultural unrest and discriminatory practices.

I really fear anyone voting Liberal.

[stewgots]

plusgood

You wrote- " Shouldn't a country that's officially bilingual strive to have a civil service that represents that ideal.

This is a FALSE statement to say Canada is 'officially bilingual' as it is NOT 'officially bilingual.

Canada has TWO official languages namely majority English language and the minority French language in a country comprised of ten provinces with only ONE that is officially bilingual being New Brunswick.

The federal government is the other enitity that provides a 'officially bilingual' policy thast many see as 'outright discrimination' as it does not satisfy official provincial linguistic representation of Canada and only that of 'officially bilingual' New Brunswick.

There is an old song 'Breaking up is hard to do' when our federal government actually advocates this by fractionizing the country into little cultural groups that will sooner or later present a potential problem similar to what it is happening in France but multiplied by the number of smaller  cultural groups Canada is broken down into.

We already have laws protecting individuals from discrimination but become meaningless when overidden by federal government authority who see themslves as the knight in shining armour but fail to see themselves as a major contributor to potential cultural unrest and discriminatory practices.

I really fear anyone voting Liberal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The liberal feds need votes...anywhere they can get'em,they are sacrificing the very core of this country to get them,and leaving the rest of us,and i mean all of us,even those who are the 'targets' of thier 'help',in thier wake!

[plusgood]

I would assume the fact that bilingualism is a cheif component of the Canadian Charter that Canada is infact a bilingual country. Based on bilingualism being mentioned in the Charter it seems to make sense that the government would strive for a greater porportion of bilingual civil servents.

I wasn't sure I understood the distinction being offered between Canada having two official languages and bilingualism. Provinces can be unilingual, I recognize that, however the federal government is officially a bilingual institution and Canadians have the right to demand that its services be provided in one of the two official languages.

There are also stipulations for french schools to be created where demand is necessary in English provinces, and vis versa for english schools in Quebec. This to mean is a very bilingual policy and its found in the Charter as well.

I admit I had no real knowledge about the skill level of french required to advance in the civil service. I'd like to learn more about this.

[Argus]

I admit I had no real knowledge about the skill level of french required to advance in the civil service.  I'd like to learn more about this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I dont have anything on me to explain it, but from memory, there are three measures of bilingualism, reading, writing and oral. Your abilities are tested and receive one of four marks A, B, C, or E. The value of these marks are in inverse order to tradition. That is, an A is not very good. B is better, C is fluent, and E means you are so good you are exempt from any further testing. Very few positions require A anymore because not only has bilingualism spread through the public service but the degree of bilingualism has steadily grown. A job which once would have taken an A now requires a B or a C. Or as it is listed CCC, or say, BBC.

B level means basic understanding. That is, you can have a conversation in the other language and understand what the other person is saying, as well as express yourself. Your might make a few grammatical errors, and your accent might be stiff, but you can understand and be understood in everyday common terms, without much difficulty. You can read and write in the other language, at least as far as basic conversational terms go. This is the usual level of support services, ie, secretaries and clerks, though again, the trend is to go higher, for the C. One recent external competition for AS-1/2 for secretaries, essentially, to bosses, was made CCC. The result was that though they had hoped to get several hundred applicants they got 60, even though they left the competition open for extra time.

I have seen my French colleagues earn C's and even in one case an E where their English was imperfect, to say the least, and their vocabulary, of even basic terms, very shallow. My last two bosses, who are CBC, were unable to write more than a few sentences in English without major grammatical errors. In fact, one of my unofficial jobs is to review the English of my bilingual colleagues before it goes into anything important to correct major errors.

On the other hand, one English girl, despite repeated tutorials, despite testimony from her French co-workers that her French was very good, was unable to pass the oral fluency test at the B level for some time. Nor is she the only one. It seems that the English version of "dis, dat, an da udder ting" is not accceptable to the French testers, though those who test in English don't seem to mind it.

C level is absolute fluency in reading, and writing, in speaking and understanding. If a B level lets you read the newspaper in the other language, a C level lets you read a complex, technical report, or write one, and then engage in oral discussions of considerable complexity without major gramamtical errors.

All mid to senior management positions in Ottawa require CCC, which is complete fluency in all categories. Whether they have any contact with the public, or with outside agencies, or with Quebec employees, is not relevent. Some more junior supervisory positions are BBC, which is B level in reading/writing but C level in oral interaction.

I think an important point is that while many Canadians (if you regard about 7% as many) regard themselves as bilingual, very few would be able to pass these tests at the CCC level. Most would have trouble at the BBB level. Thus the pool of potential candidates for the high levels of the public service is reduced by probably about 98%

[tml12]

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...d7-723991e9d12e

Can you believe this?  And I am not just angry because I am a white man.  If they banned white women, or black women, or black men, or any minority from joining that would be wrong too.

This is an outrageous attempt to disenfranchise a portion of our society...can anyone defend this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uhm....

You know, when you add up all the crap the government does in determining who to hire it's little wonder how many idiots find their way into the public service.

Seriously. You want to establish a pool of potential employees. You put out an ad, and start with 1000 applicants. Certainly among those 1000 will be some absolutely outstanding employees. But wait, the employee must be fluently bilingual (for no good reason), so that eliminates 950 candidates right off the bat. You're left with 50, but half are white men. So you're down to 25 that you can choose from. Although, in reality, because most visible minorities are immigrants the proportion of them with really good language skills in both official languages is much lower than in the general population, so really, you're left with perhaps 10 to choose from.

And that is BEFORE you've even tested them in anything. All the rest were eliminated on the basis of inconsequential and immaterial criteria like race, sex and language ability. So now you've got 10 left, but only 5 pass the tests. So how big is that pool of potential recruits again? And how much quality is going to be in it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. I think this "affirmative action" stuff is just a scheme to put lesser qualified minorities in positions that more qualified people should be in.

I am by no means a racist. But the important question is: do we want a government that mirrors our society or an efficient/quality government run by quality people with the skills and credentials needed (whether they be men, women, minorites, or whomever).

We live in a society where multiculturalism/political correctness have taken over. Now one can just use their identity to get ahead. I have many minority friends who say this embarasses them and makes it seems like they are lesser people that should be ghettoized. And you know what? They're right.

[tml12]

plusgood,

You wrote: "Sure, it is not perfect and it can mean that sometimes those most qualified are not hired, but I think on the whole this policy is better. Ultimately our civil serives will encompass greater diversity and be able to better meet the needs of all Canadians."

I respect your opinion, but you seem to believe that in the end hiring minorities in the civil service will make it better able to meet the needs of Canadians. How?

Work and discipline should pay off. People that work hard to become qualified in a particular area deserve to be selected first. This is not discrimination. This is fairness.

Hiring a minority just because they are a minority is not only discrimination, it is an insult to both the job and the minority. It sends the wrong message to our citizens and the wrong message to our community.

[tml12]

plusgood

You wrote- " Shouldn't a country that's officially bilingual strive to have a civil service that represents that ideal.

This is a FALSE statement to say Canada is 'officially bilingual' as it is NOT 'officially bilingual.

Canada has TWO official languages namely majority English language and the minority French language in a country comprised of ten provinces with only ONE that is officially bilingual being New Brunswick.

The federal government is the other enitity that provides a 'officially bilingual' policy thast many see as 'outright discrimination' as it does not satisfy official provincial linguistic representation of Canada and only that of 'officially bilingual' New Brunswick.

There is an old song 'Breaking up is hard to do' when our federal government actually advocates this by fractionizing the country into little cultural groups that will sooner or later present a potential problem similar to what it is happening in France but multiplied by the number of smaller  cultural groups Canada is broken down into.

We already have laws protecting individuals from discrimination but become meaningless when overidden by federal government authority who see themslves as the knight in shining armour but fail to see themselves as a major contributor to potential cultural unrest and discriminatory practices.

I really fear anyone voting Liberal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The liberal feds need votes...anywhere they can get'em,they are sacrificing the very core of this country to get them,and leaving the rest of us,and i mean all of us,even those who are the 'targets' of thier 'help',in thier wake!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have no doubt should the Conservatives oppose this they will be targeted as being anti-immigrant and intolerant.

[plusgood]

Argus, thank you. That was very informative. Kinda frightening how over the top the language requirement really is then.

Tml12, I'll come back on later to answer your concerns with my comments.

[fellowtraveller]

found that odd, but I suggest, given my experience, that the most likely reason would be that they are hiring for particularly "male oriented" positions. This is public works, after all, responsible for maintenance of government grounds and buildings. I can tell you that in the government office buildings I've been in there is no lack of females or minorities

Public Works contracts out the vast majority of its buildings, they are managed and maintained by a facilities management contractor from the private sector, who employs any necessary tradespeople and operators.

Many of these buildings are expected to be sold soon as the govt downsizes its real estate holdings.

[cybercoma]

there is a good reason for hiring minorities

demographics need to be represented in the workforce - there are smart minorities to choose from, but they are simply not given a chance

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what!?

Why do demographics need to be represented? Please tell me why that should be mandatory?

I mean, I'm just saying...you're discriminating by ethnicity and gender regardless. At that point does it matter which one you're discriminating for? Why do these things even need to be a factor??

This is all insane to me.

[Argus]

found that odd, but I suggest, given my experience, that the most likely reason would be that they are hiring for particularly "male oriented" positions. This is public works, after all, responsible for maintenance of government grounds and buildings. I can tell you that in the government office buildings I've been in there is no lack of females or minorities

Public Works contracts out the vast majority of its buildings, they are managed and maintained by a facilities management contractor from the private sector, who employs any necessary tradespeople and operators.

Many of these buildings are expected to be sold soon as the govt downsizes its real estate holdings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I know, but I was speculating on why women and minorities would, together, make up only 1 out of 20 of hires. I know there isn't active discrimination, not from the way government hires. And I know that office positions are usually over 50% female. So I'm guessing the positions they're hiring for are mainly male oriented. I can thnk of no other reason for that kind of disparity. Except, of course, shoody journalism. They might mean 1 out 0f 20 was a minority or disabled, not as reported, a minority, disabled, or female.

[tml12]

there is a good reason for hiring minorities

demographics need to be represented in the workforce - there are smart minorities to choose from, but they are simply not given a chance

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what!?

Why do demographics need to be represented? Please tell me why that should be mandatory?

I mean, I'm just saying...you're discriminating by ethnicity and gender regardless. At that point does it matter which one you're discriminating for? Why do these things even need to be a factor??

This is all insane to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

cybercoma is correct.

At what point DOES it matter who you're discriminating for?

When is discrimination EVER right?

[scribblet]

tml12

You wrote- " Can you believe this"

Short answer -YES

Do I believe it's 'RIGHT'

NO.

How to alleviate this--Re-write the Charter of 'Rights and Freedoms' to ensure majority concerns are properly addressed.

Iam sure GLAD the democratically  chosen Liberals are running this country and not it's red neck citizen's.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rewrite the Charter so that discrimination isn't allowed. The charter currnetly allows for discrimination if it is to rectify past historical wrongs.

Equality Rights

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Affirmative action programs (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

[plusgood]

The logic is that without this reverse-discrimination you would be discriminating against minorities due to historical disadvantges, prejustices, and so on. It is making up for the mistakes of the past and in many ways I think that makes complete sense.

I also think it makes complete sense that demographics in society be represented in its civil service. It allows for the greater posibility that all members of society will have people working in their government that take them into consideration. That is why I want to see demographics represented.

This is the theoretical background for affirmative action programs and I have no complaints against it. Maybe there are problems with its application, I don't have enough information to make too clear a judgment on that.

[theloniusfleabag]

I have to agree with cybercoma,

what!?

Why do demographics need to be represented? Please tell me why that should be mandatory?

I mean, I'm just saying...you're discriminating by ethnicity and gender regardless. At that point does it matter which one you're discriminating for? Why do these things even need to be a factor??

This is all insane to me.

Insane is the right term. The policies for ending discrimination, a while ago, meant taking down signs (and barriers) that said "Whites Only". It is hardly a step forward, nor does it indicate a positive change, to simply change the sign to "Non-Whites Only".