What a knob!

[ 07 April 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

There are so many jobs out there that are looking for women or chinese or blacks in particular

---

I see you provide no statistics.

What your post ignores is the reality that huge numbers of jobs are awarded informally, through patronage and connections. In Canada, white people are overwhelmingly better connected: see the work of Francis Henry for details.

Creating positions which alllow the jobgiver to seek out minorities is simply a strategy to overcome the inherent bias of social power in favour of white people in this country.

As far as I am aware, no serious researcher has concluded that the task has been completed. So, my advice is, don't blame others, keep at it. While capitalist requires unemployment as a structural aspect of its existence, most people do find jobs if they keep trying.

Editted to add: Oh, I see from Heph's links that this poster just drops right-wing talking points into babble threads, presumably to waste our time.

Sorry, I had previously thought he was authentic. But now, I doubt he's looking for a job at all; probably works for Dad.

[ 07 April 2005: Message edited by: jeff house ]

at the point you give them "extra points" as in the case in the states when going for university, asking them to identify themselves on an application etc you are now taking a position total opposite to what the problem was in the past

quote:

---

fzxdude:i kinda figured this was a group of back patters

---

im not saying anything with regards to racist ideals ... im simply saying that its an upsetting point of view that people have that they are afraid to be identified (except where it is convenient to them)

i mean why else would universities regularily have clubs such as "women in engineering" or "blacks in engineering"

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:
My God, you're right .... the next time I have to hire someone I will automatically hire the white male so as not to be considered as hiring on the basis of race or colour!

Why are racists all so clueless?

---

thats the total opposite of what I am saying

why are they looking for specifics i.e. this bit i copied from a privy office job on the psjobs site (was an analysts job)

NOTE: Please note that this competition is open only to members of the following Employment Equity groups: Aboriginal persons, Persons with disabilities, Women, Persons in a visible minority group.

here is the contact person for this position

quote:

---

Originally posted by fzxdude:
i kinda figured this was a group of back patters

---

I waited a couple minutes, then called again, this time identifying myself as Ms. Muriel Thomas, and asked in a thick Jamaican patois "Iss no problem dat I'm from Jah-mek-ya, mon?".

Well, the difference was like night and day!

She eagerly asked "Are you in a wheelchair? You wouldn't happen to be blind, would you???"

I played along and told her that I have Spina Bifida ("mon") and I also wear a corrective hairpiece, and I swear I heard cover the phone with her hand and scream "Yes!".

She asked me to fax her a list of my job requirements, along with how much I'd like to make, how many hours I'm comfortable working, and to send along a signed non-disclosure agreement stating that I won't breathe a word of this to any of my white male friends.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

What your post ignores is the reality that huge numbers of jobs are awarded informally, through patronage and connections. In Canada, white people are overwhelmingly better connected: see the work of Francis Henry for details.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I phoned them, identifying myself as "Mr. White" and asked about the job, but they told me point blank that there was none.

I waited a couple minutes, then called again, this time identifying myself as Ms. Muriel Thomas, and asked in a thick Jamaican patois "Iss no problem dat I'm from Jah-mek-ya, mon?".

Well, the difference was like night and day!

She eagerly asked "Are you in a wheelchair? You wouldn't happen to be blind, would you???"

I played along and told her that I have Spina Bifida ("mon") and I also wear a corrective hairpiece, and I swear I heard cover the phone with her hand and scream "Yes!".

She asked me to fax her a list of my job requirements, along with how much I'd like to make, how many hours I'm comfortable working, and to send along a signed non-disclosure agreement stating that I won't breathe a word of this to any of my white male friends.

So... off to Goodwill to see if I can scrounge up a dreadlock wig and an "Irie, Mon" t-shirt or something and I'll let you know how it goes. Anyone have any tips for faking the Spina Bifida?

---

the quote I placed in my post with her number was from the psjobs site (altho the link has since expired)

Its not like there is any hiding of the requirements

"NOTE: Please note that this competition is open only to members of the following Employment Equity groups: Aboriginal persons, Persons with disabilities, Women, Persons in a visible minority group."

[ 07 April 2005: Message edited by: audra trower williams ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
What, with all these skills you have
and McDonald's isn't even hiring?

For shame!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fzxdude:

thats the total opposite of what I am saying

why are they looking for specifics i.e. this bit i copied from a privy office job on the psjobs site (was an analysts job)

NOTE: Please note that this competition is open only to members of the following Employment Equity groups: Aboriginal persons, Persons with disabilities, Women, Persons in a visible minority group.

here is the contact person for this position

contact at the privy office: jocelyn 613 952 4829

---

Jocelyn must have been fired for being a female, some white male called Joanne is now sitting in that cubicle.

So what do you think a company should do if it finds that their employee base consists of an over abundance of white males in relation to the general population in which it operates and hires? Should it just assume that non-white, non-males are automatically inferior and continue on their merry way with their racist hiring practices. or should they decide that they are going to take measures to hire equally qualified "designated group" members?

Now assuming they have decided to address an inequality, what do they do now?

Do they just put out job descriptions with no designations knowing full well that until the inequality is adressed, or until they run out of applications by qualified "designated groups" that the "white males" applying will be wasting their time, or do they make it clear what groups they are looking for and try to get qualified applicants from those groups without wasting everybody elses time?

The way this works is that any inequality in these designated groups is attempted to be addressed directly ... and unless you believe that white males are always more qualified than everyone else, then this makes sense ... once the inequalities are addressed the hiring practices can then be less specific. If for whatever reason the positions cannot be filled by members of the designated groups, then the hiring can be opened up to the general population.

I really don't see where you have any argument other than it sucks to be a memeber of a preferred group if people are taking measures not to prefer you anymore.

[ 07 April 2005: Message edited by: No Yards ]

[ 08 April 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Well fzxdude,

So you're a dude who's interested in freewheeling, open debate, and you're not afraid to attack any sacred cows. fantastic.

So, you think that employment equity programs are quotas that hypocritically discriminate against white males to redress discrimination against women and minorities.

So, do you possibly also think that these quotas humiliate the ostensible "beneficiaries" in that they make individuals feel they don't have their jobs based on merit, but based on condescending special treatment?

(Just asking.)

My direct questions to you:

1. Do you believe that women and minorities have been discriminated against in the past, and probably are being discriminated against at present?

2. And if so, what do you propose Canadian society do about this problem, if present methods are unfair and demoralizing?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
He's been banned for a day now. You can probably stop feeding him any time.

---

The answer would probably have been about the same regardless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
SOME white people are, but most of us are not.

---

Look at it this way (and I will use exaggerations to make it easier to follow, but the theory is still applicable.)

Suppose we have a Toronto firm that is 100% white males ... what reasons are there for this kind of demographic to come to exist?

It could be that the hiring practices do not include "equality of opportunity", or it could be that it does include "equality of opportunity" but for some legitimate reasons members of "designated groups" do not apply, or the ones that do apply are legitimatly NOT qualified.

How can we test to see which of these possibilities are actually valid?

Setting up strict quatos might not be appropiate, not unless one was sure that there was indeed a culture of discrimination at work here, and there were a community of qualified "designated group" members ready to fill the needed positions.

A better plan, even in the case where descrimination was known to be the cause, would be to give preference to *qualified* members of the "designated groups" over non members. So for instance, if you have one position and two equally qualified canaidates, then selecting the one from a "designated group" over the "white male" is not descrimination (and if anyone thinks it is, then they should be able to tell us how picking the "white male" in the same situation would not also be descrimination.)

If even with this policy in place you get no applications or qualified canidates from these designated groups, then by all means, hire from the non designated group canidates, but the onus should be on the employer that an honest attempt was made to address the discrimination in hiring.

Now, assuming the above plan is acceptable, then making the "leap" to the next logical level, posting job opening only available to "designated groups" makes sense ... not only don't you waste the time of people who probably do not have a chance at this time of being hired, but you eliminate any feelings of "I'm a lesbian of colour , so what chance do I have against the white males that are applying" that might prevent qualified people from even bothering to apply.

Once again, if the position is posted for a position only open to members of the designated groups, and none apply, or those that do apply are not qualified, then the position can be opened up to all qualified applicants and those "white men" are welcomed to apply.

quote:

---

So for instance, if you have one position and two equally qualified canaidates, then selecting the one from a "designated group" over the "white male" is not descrimination (and if anyone thinks it is, then they should be able to tell us how picking the "white male" in the same situation would not also be descrimination.)

---

Doesn't this assume that qualification is some kind of "yes or no" judgement, rather than a sliding scale?

In other words, isn't it possible to have two "qualified" candidates who meet the minimum requirements, but one of the two excels in some way or ways that the other does not?

Example: a secretarial job calls for a minimum typing speed of 60wpm. Obviously someone with 65wpm and someone with 90wpm are both "qualified", but can you blame the employer who prefers the second candidate over the first?

I don't do much hiring myself these days, but I used to do quite a bit for a large Accounting firms IT department, and never has there been a case where a canidate was choosen because of something like a 60wpm vs a 90wpm difference.

It would more likely come down to a case, sticking to your example, where one could type 60wpm at 100% accuracy, has 2 years university, knows three filing systems, has 5 years experience in the industry, was experienced in booking conventions, has little experience in booking airline tickets ... while the other canidate would type 90wpm at 90% accuracy, 3 years university, knows two filing system, has 8 year experience in a different but similar industry, was experienced in booking airline tickets, but no experience booking conventions.

Both having the necessary skills to do the basic functions of the job, and showing the ability to learn the rest of the required skills in a reasonable time ... now, since there is no real "show stopper", or "overriding skill" that would make the decision obvious, deciding that with two QUALIFIED canidates I now have the obligation to choose the one from the "designated group" is not discrimination.

And once again, anyone saying that it is discrimination, must then explain why it would not be discrimination to pick the "familiar group" member in this case. At best, you can make the argument that you are left with a choice where either picks is discrimination, but then one must make a case as to why discrimination in favour of the person from an advantaged group is better than discrimination in favour of the person from the disadvantaged group.

edited to add:

In the case that there were such a "yes no" judgement, then obviously no one should be forced to pick the "no" canidate, nor does the EE laws require you to do so.

Nor does the EE law require you to hire under undue hardship, so for example your requirement was to have the fasest typist possible, then because restricting hiring to a limited subset of society would be considered undue hardship in achieving your hiring requirement, you would be allowed to open up that sort of competition to all groups (assuming your company was found to be in violation of the act in the first place and were required to take measures to address the situation.)

[ 08 April 2005: Message edited by: No Yards ]

quote:

---

And once again, anyone saying that it is discrimination, must then explain why it would not be discrimination to pick the "familiar group" member in this case.

---

Obviously if the white guy is chosen solely on the basis of being the white guy then that's discrimination.

I'm just finding it tough to believe that, by and large, most applicants for a position are indistinguishably equal except for their inclusion in either the 'advantaged' or 'disadvantaged' group.

The EE laws do not make a business hire unqualified personal, it doesn't make a business get rid of "familiar group" employees to be replaced with "designated group" employees, it doesn't make a business limit its hiring pool in cases where it doesn't make sense to do so, it doesn't force a business to contnue hiring "designated groups" even if there is not "stastical" reason to do so, it doesn't make a company hire "designated group" members if there is evidence that the company is making a good faith effort to do so but is still coming up short for some legitimate reason.

I really don't see the problem, as usually it's the company itself that once their HR department and those responsible for hiring are trained in the methods and policies involved that sees how being better able to address the inequities in hiring will help the bottom line, and company culture.

I know the accounting firm I was with when the EE laws were first enacted was more than happy to be able to better direct those doing the actual hiring and recommendations for who got hired to better reflect the community in which the business operated ... they saw that rather than letting "hiring nature" take its course and continue to stay stuck in the same old "white male" only hiring practices, they now had an "excuse" where they could eventully "direct" the move of staff to a demographic that could better position them to be able to service more of the diversivied community in which they operated.

quote:

---

The problem is never with the business having to follow the policies, the problem is with the privilidged groups losing their priviliges.

---

Well, if I were applying for a job and I were exactly equal to a, say, black woman candidate then I wouldn't expect to get the nod because of my white maleness. In that case the interest in employment equity would be the only thing to tip the hire toward her.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Well, if I were applying for a job and I were exactly equal to a, say, black woman candidate then I wouldn't expect to get the nod because of my white maleness. In that case the interest in employment equity would be the only thing to tip the hire toward her.

But if I were more qualified, even if only by a little, then I'd expect the job.

---

You'd have to give me an example of being "more qualified, even if only by a little".

From my experience with hiring, there are qualifications set down for the position. Some described as essential, some described as nice to have. If it is essential to have 3 years of university, and you have 3 1/2 years while another canidate has 3 1/4 do you believe the extra 1/4 year should be the deciding factor rather than the need for a company to deversify its workforce?

There are also many times when a "qualified" person is not hired because of being "too qualified". In this case the business may believe that hiring a PhD as a middle manager might put the company in a compromising position when negoiating future wage increases, or promotions, where the "company PhD" might start to be a pain in the ass when someone got advanced further or faster than s/he.

We're (the other candidate and I) both good with all of those, but I'm also good with PERL and she's not. The employer, who's paying by the word for that Want Ad, didn't mention PERL but they do have a bunch of legacy scripts and nobody else who can decode them, so I'd be "value added" with my PERL experience.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

I see you provide no statistics.

What your post ignores is the reality that huge numbers of jobs are awarded informally, through patronage and connections. In Canada, white people are overwhelmingly better connected: see the work of Francis Henry for details.

Creating positions which alllow the jobgiver to seek out minorities is simply a strategy to overcome the inherent bias of social power in favour of white people in this country.

As far as I am aware, no serious researcher has concluded that the task has been completed. So, my advice is, don't blame others, keep at it. While capitalist requires unemployment as a structural aspect of its existence, most people do find jobs if they keep trying.

Editted to add: Oh, I see from Heph's links that this poster just drops right-wing talking points into babble threads, presumably to waste our time.

Sorry, I had previously thought he was authentic. But now, I doubt he's looking for a job at all; probably works for Dad.

[ 07 April 2005: Message edited by: jeff house ]

---

I am not all that familiar with the hiring practices of private sector however I have a lot of experience with the public sector.

Public sector is not (or not suppose to be) about making profit it is about providing appropriate services to the public. This whole concept makes this sector more vulnerable to nepotism, hiring your un-qualified freind or family member won't result in the lost of profit and ultimatly those most vulnarable members of public who will loose ("who cares").

A lot of hiring takes place that simply people get hired because they are friend of somebody in that organisation. These individuals do not necessary have the qualifications for the job or are not necessary more qualified than other applicants including people of colours, aboriginals, queers, person with disability,…

Usually when a person is hired without appropriate qualification for a job, the job is changed to fit the hired person’s abilities, meaning services offered accoring to teh ability of this person an not on the base of the needs of the community. Meaning it is the need of the hired person which is being fulfilled and not the public.

Result of these practices is that organizations that are supposed to be offering services to a diverse community are predominantly white and middle class with very little understanding of the dynamics of the community and many not appropriate qualifications.

In another word the very same people who can not obtain meaningful employment as a result of these practices are left with inappropriate services. Even when those traditionally marginalized are hired in an organization they are facing in-equity within the organization.

Imagine a work environment that you are working with a group of people who can relate to one another because they are all white middle class and some of them are “special” because they are friends with the management or union bosses.

I have been involved in various public sector organizations in various capacities; some organizations receive funding to provide services to those whom have not been receiving services however some of these organizations are for the most part are serving the white middle class. Ask them about the situation and why the majority of their service users are white middle class and not their priority population, the response may be: "there is nothing we can do if our priority population are not accessing our services or middle class need services as well."

It is true middle class need services as well but most of the services are geared towards middle class. These organizations have a responsibility to provide services in a manner that those marginalized receive services. Then look at their hiring practices you just may find a correlation between their hring practices and their inclusivity of their services.

And there are UNIONS: One must look closer and see how often they facilitate process of hiring their elite friends (for the most part white, heterosexual, abled body) and cutting some slack for the management, again at the expense of those most discriminated against. A cysle of facilitating discrimiantion.

To address this comment:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fzxdude:
It seems to me that equal opportunity is more akin to quotas than equality. There are so many jobs out there that are looking for women or chinese or blacks in particular for "cultural" reasons, so that leaves whitie boy here lacking the opportunities.

That being said, if its acccepted that we are all different isn't it quite possible that the qualities that make us different would make us better in certain fields and not so much in others ?

---

Wow there is so much assumption in this comment. One can see how discriminatory practices result in further profiling: “you are ……, therefore you are only good in serving me food on your hands and knees”. "you are white therefore you are good in rulling the world" and then see how this beleif by itself starts a cycle of discrimination which would go on and on,…. "this person is... they can't possibly be good at anything but serving white folks on their hands and knees".

The only thing that you may find one group may be better than others would be bigotry, deception, bullying, super-inflated sense of entitlement, fraud and lack of responsibility towards the public and abuse of public fund.

[ 10 April 2005: Message edited by: Negad ]

Is it my fault that I was born male and white and that for the first hundred years (or more) of this countries existence we dominated a lot of commerce?

Should I be made to suffer because of the systemic racism and sexism that has existed here forever?

The "stand easy" lounge

"old" Gym

New Gym

Funny, I know a white guy who got accepted to the RCMP fairly recently. He's straight too. Not saying your experience didn't happen, but you might want to question whether "the girl behind the glass," as you put it, has an accurate asessment of the situation. All perceptions may not be valid (many of my students insist that "all jobs with the federal government require you to be bilingual." Not even in Ottawa, but definately more prevalent here.)

quote:

---

Is it my fault that I was born male and white and that for the first hundred years (or more) of this countries existence we dominated a lot of commerce?

---

And still do dominate in places like the RCMP (which I have no idea what that has to do with commerce).

quote:

---

Should I be made to suffer because of the systemic racism and sexism that has existed here forever?

---

Define forever. There were egalitarian First Nations communities prior to colonization, as I understand. Define suffer while you're at it. You chose not to apply for a job you weren't even sure you wanted.

quote:

---

If I am a suitable candidate for a position, do I not have the right to be considered based on my qualifications along with everyone else who has applied regardless of our age/race/sex?

---

In some cases, age/race/sex are a qualification.

quote:

---

The point I was trying to make is that someone told me not to apply, that i was not allowed to do something because of the colour of my skin.

---

I guess it is hard to explain, I felt at the time that I had been discriminated against, and in some ways I still do. I just thougth that everyone was equal, no matter how we look, what our ethnic background was, what sex we are, what religion that we practice, or who we go to bed with. I mean, does it all really matter? Is not the point, (especially with the RCMP) to get the best possible candidates no matter who they are?

They wouldn't even give me a brochure about joining, so you can take that or leave it as well.

But, I also think that it is very necessary to reanalyze our actions and the situation, and take responsibility for what we did or did not do. Saying that "They wouldn't even give me a brochure about joining," is highly problematic - one person, not "they," wouldn't give you a brochure.

I would hope this would also be looked at in larger contexts, with an understanding of structures of racism, privelege and systematic inequality. That "the best person" is not a neutral, natural category - it is constructed by our biases and expectations. Maybe the best RCMP officer isn't the person who can run the fastest or shoot most accurately. Maybe its the person with knowledge of Aboriginal communities, or the woman who can gain the trust of a sexual assault survivor.

I am also very wary whenever people run about claiming that they are not racist, predjudiced, sexist, etc. We live in a society that is all of these things - to expect that we haven't internalized this to some extent, is naieve. It took me a while to come to grips with my own racism - I still recall my very defensive reaction to the idea that racism was a feminist issue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by artfuldodger:

Is it my fault that I was born male and white and that for the first hundred years (or more) of this countries existence we dominated a lot of commerce?

---

No, it is not your fault what colour you were born but you are benefiting from it. The system is puting you on a pedistol and considers you a superior. What you learn from this system is at your power to deal with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by artfuldodger:

Should I be made to suffer because of the systemic racism and sexism that has existed here forever?

---

You think you are being made to suffer? My goodness this clearly shows how being white means previlge, previlge and more previlage.
What do you think those who are livign with racism on every day basis feel while those white folks are feeling sorry for themselves for Employment Equity. I don't even know where to begin.