[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
The game is lost as soon as one accepts that one ought to, and allows their unspoken threat to define our attitude toward policy.

---

[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Jobs should be handed out fairly - not to the "best". Where did this notion come from anyway?

Do we send the "best" kids to school?

Do we provide health care to those who can "best" afford it?

Maybe our society does some of these things - but should it?

If we have deprived some individual or group unfairly of certain rights or advantages for a long time, should we not temporarily give them more in order to right the balance?

quote:

---

Jobs should be handed out fairly - not to the "best".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
True. But isn't that conceding implicitly that if an affirmative action policy or effort is indeed in place, than that is unfair? Or that if they are for some reason dissatisfied, then that indicates unfairness and requires action?

---

quote:

---

I want a world where it becomes natural to answer any privileged group member who complains that h/she is "uncomfortable" with anything: "Good."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
This is a recipe for creating a large and unnecessary amount of resentment against the underprivileged minority. Most fair minded people will understand and accept the need for such policies wehen they are explained properly.

An "in your face" response to legitimate questions is completely counterproductive.

---

Hell, yes.

quote:

---

When someone asks "Why does this particular policy exist?" I think it's reasonable to give them an answer.

---

A friend tells me that "...Ontario (i don't know about the rest of Canada) has never had an affirmative action policy, it was called employment equity, and it was legal for a time, then just for government and gov't funded places, now it's voluntary. So not much has been done in terms of raising women's wages, so really, the powers that be, and their dupes on babble, have nothing to fear. those nasty people of colour won't be coming for "their" jobs."

[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Instead of just spreading second-hand smears of the entire babble community, why don't you invite your friend to post on babble and we can deal directly with his/her concerns?

ETA: yeah, what unionist said.

[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Hey, even if we didn't make the 'thank you' list...[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

---

Don't feel so special, neither did I---and mine was the the most uber-arrogant reply, too!

Wut-oh, my FBI beeper just went off...this reply will self-destruct in 30 seconds.

[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: Robespierre ]

quote:

---

unionist: ...pay equity, an entirely separate and absolutely mandatory rectification of gender-based salary discrimination...

---

quote:

---

M.Spector: You have a "friend" who talks about "the powers that be, and their dupes on babble"? Instead of just spreading second-hand smears of the entire babble community, why don't you...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Gee, a lot of women must be not only underpaid but clueless about it.

---

Women as a whole are underpaid as compared with men.

With friends like yours to advise them, they would definitely stay that way. Employment Equity is a mild-mannered form of affirmative action. It basically involves tracking the hiring of women, disabled persons, so-called "visible minorities" (their word, not mine), and workers of Aboriginal descent. The only mandatory thing about it is usually reporting and keeping stats. It's essentially useless.

Pay equity, on the other hand, is legally enforceable federally and in other jurisdictions. It is, at bottom, the prohibition against discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, as per the CHRA. It has meant billions in judgments and settlements for women subject to historic job ghettoization and pay discrimination.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Who said anything about the "entire" community?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
M.Spector, I addressed the substance of the OP; there isn't much substance to be found in your whine about bablers being smeared. (If you think there is, take it to the mods.) I relayed what I felt was an appropriate comment about the few of us who would indulge reactionaries whining about the few measures that claim to get us close to equality between women and men, non-whites and whites. etc.
Unionist describes pay equity as an unmistakable reality; I think that some women have made some gains, but that many more remain underpaid and locked in jobs that pay little money - if any - vis-à-vis men. I doubt he will deny that and some women's disaffection for his blanket optimism.
He makes the point that pay equity is different than employment equity, which he calls useless. (Women and other minorities who got jobs thanks to EE will appreciate.) The point is that OP is the one who raised EE schemes and selective scholarships. We all know that opponents of such equity measures will whine about either, so I see no problem in discussing opposition to EE and PE and what to tell such opponents in the same breath (even if it makes some heads spin).
G'nite, folks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
It is a good ploy to delay implementation of progress. We have to 'splain it to folks. If they haven't figured it out yet, I'm not wastin' my time.

---

No, RP, you don't have to delay implementation of anything, but you must explain it to folks while it's being implemented - if you actually have anything to do with real live folks, that is. Otherwise, you can just arrogantly sit with your superior understanding, and then throw your hands up in dismay when you and your cause are incomprehensibly left without any allies.

And yes, my real life is such that I witness, educate and repeat as many times daily as possible. Doesn't leave as much time to post here as I would like but hey we all don't have that luxury.

Glad you think I'm arrogant and will be left without allies.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
Also thought I'd point out that Ontario's Pay Equity legislation also benefits a privileged white male like me so it's not exactly the greatest thing since sliced bread.

---

The same could be said of the 40 hour week and health and safety legislation and medicare. But in the real world, we learn to distinguish between progress and regress, and we learn not to mock progress.

Anyway, the only way a "privileged white male" could benefit is if he were doing a job which was mostly or traditionally performed by women. You won't find too too many "privileged white males" in such jobs, otherwise the struggle for pay equity would never have been necessary in the first place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
I'm well aware of the legislation since I administer it. Why doesn't it target woman specifically and get them above 80% of male's earnings?

---

It can't target women specifically, because then a male sewing-machine operator working alongside 50 women would get paid less than the women doing the identical job after a favourable pay equity analysis comparing the operator's job to some clerical or cutter's function etc. You should understand that, given your familiarity with the application of the legislation.

As for bringing women above 80%, that can't happen through legislation. The very fact that there are so many female-predominant job ghettoes is the biggest part of the problem, given that in light of human rights legislation, most employers don't dare pay different wages for the same work (although the real challenge continues to be, "work of equal value", a questionable concept but better than SFA).

The issue for women (as for the disabled and Aboriginals and workers of colour) is to eliminate the real less tangible barriers to employment in better-paying jobs. That requires combatting sexism and racism and "able"-ism in society as a whole. It also necessarily means affirmative action, which has never been legislated in this country (contrary to some not very well informed comments upthread). But it can't just be "legislated", as for example we legislate against blatant discrimination in hiring or promotion etc. on the basis of the prohibited grounds in human rights legislation.

A really good example of the challenges involved is found in Action travail des femmes v. CN. In short, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found systemic sex discrimination by CN Rail in hiring in its rail repair shops in the St. Lawrence Region (basically Quebec). These are better-paid skilled trades positions. In an unprecedented ruling (probably before or since), it ordered CN to hire one woman for every four men in that region.

That was 1984. After court appeals, the Supreme Court upheld the decision in 1987. One in four may not seem like much, but considering that the ratio of women in these jobs was probably around 1% (that's a pure guess - you'd have to read the original decisions), it was enormous.

Well, 20 years later, there are still a tiny percentage of women in the CN skilled trades. Why? Layoffs by inverse seniority over the years have surely been one reason. But the principal one is that not enough women apply. They are "screened out" by vocational schools, by their churches, by their "boyfriends", by their families, by their education, by Cosmo and Strut and music and movies and art and... by society as a whole.

Our society needs "affirmative action", but not in the heavy-handed wash-our-hands approach of legislators and jurists. We need a social revolution. We need to free people from the shackles of economic, psychological, physical, social, and I don't know what other kinds of discrimination.

And it won't happen without lots and lots of talk and laws and marches and strikes and movements and more talk.

quote:

---

Unionist, I'd like to thank you for pointing out that I do need to do a better job of learning and not lobbing comments. I'm just disappointed that even trying with my loved ones, it's frustrating.

---

Don't thank me. I suffer from exactly the same problem. I just don't see it as a virtue.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Fine. Any views on the rest of my post?

---

I agree, 100%.