White Woman Denied Fed Govt Job Because She Is White


dumpthemonarchy
#1
Being white should not disqualify a person from any job in Canada. This is an injustice. Time to junk affirmative action and employment equity legislation.

The woman who applied for the job is Sara Landriault, an Ottawa-area blogger and mother. In her own words,

“The question was my race and gender, I answered white and the application as a whole stopped and said I did not meet the criteria for this position,” Ms. Landriault said in an e-mail Thursday. “I do not wish to take anyone’s job, my only wish was to be allowed to apply based on my qualifications. No government should have the right to ask you your race or gender to see if you are qualified for a job. That is discrimination.”

Tories take aim at employment equity - The Globe and Mail

Tories take aim at employment equity

Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney speaks during an announcement in Ottawa, Monday March 29, 2010. THE CANADIAN PRESS

Ethnicity shouldn’t decide hiring, Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney says

Joe Friesen

From Friday's Globe and Mail Published on Thursday, Jul. 22, 2010 11:09PM EDT Last updated on Friday, Jul. 23, 2010 12:53AM EDT


The Conservative government is taking aim at an employment-equity policy that favours applicants from historically disadvantaged groups, saying no Canadian should be barred from applying for a job based on race.

Stockwell Day, president of the Treasury Board, ordered a review Thursday into a government job-application process that restricts some jobs to one or more of the four groups targeted by Canada’s employment-equity policy: aboriginal people, visible minorities, women and people with disabilities.

The move came in response to the story of a Caucasian woman who tried to apply for an administrative assistant’s job in the federal ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, only to find the competition was restricted to aboriginals and members of a visible minority. Such a practice is permitted under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is intended to help government meet diversity hiring targets.

Jason Kenney, the minister of Citizenship and Immigration, said he was shocked by the woman’s story and consulted with Mr. Day, who has oversight of the public service. Hiring should be decided on merit, not ethnicity, Mr. Kenney said.
“We can continue to achieve greater diversity in the public sector without prohibiting people from applying for jobs on the grounds of their race or ethnicity,” Mr. Kenney said. “It’s a very simple principle and I think it’s something the vast majority of Canadians would appreciate.”

The review raised concerns with the Opposition, who accused the Conservatives of abandoning vulnerable groups for the sake of motivating their political base.
The woman who applied for the job is Sara Landriault, an Ottawa-area blogger and mother.

“The question was my race and gender, I answered white and the application as a whole stopped and said I did not meet the criteria for this position,” Ms. Landriault said in an e-mail Thursday. “I do not wish to take anyone’s job, my only wish was to be allowed to apply based on my qualifications. No government should have the right to ask you your race or gender to see if you are qualified for a job. That is discrimination.”

NDP MP Pat Martin said he supports extraordinary measures to get the federal government closer to its employment-equity targets.

“We shouldn’t apologize for doing that. Sometimes the pendulum has to swing the other way before it finds balance in the middle,” Mr. Martin said. “I think Stockwell Day and Jason Kenney are pandering to their neo-conservative base. They’re using an anomalous incident to attack the whole notion of employment equity and affirmative action.”

Liberal MP Marcel Proulx also attacked the Conservative position.
“If they do what they’re trying to do then there won’t be any protections for aboriginals and visible minorities,” he said. He accused the Conservatives of using this controversy to try to divert attention from the resignation of the head of Statistics Canada over the census. The Liberals said the two controversies, taken together, suggest the Conservatives don’t want to see the country as it really is.
Mr. Kenney scoffed at that notion.

“Excluding Canadian citizens from applying for employment in their government is profoundly illiberal. What we’re articulating here is an essentially liberal value of equality of opportunity and equality under the law. If the Liberals were true to their liberal values they would see that,” Mr. Kenney said. “I don’t have any problem with employers taking into account the objective of diversity in the hiring process. If someone merits the job we don’t object to that being a consideration.”
Myer Siemiatycki, who teaches politics at Ryerson University, said the policy review raises alarm bells.

“It’s an announcement that has echoes of the politics of the census decision. It’s about optics, it’s about sending a signal to the traditional base of the Conservative Party about the kind of harder line social conservative positions that the Conservative party has tended to say they’ve left behind but seem to be returning to,” he said.

“The reality is that this Act is in place for a reason. There is a dramatic under-representation of these groups to whom it applies in the public service. ... This Act is intended to remove barriers and level the playing field.”
 
petros
#2
Quote:

The move came in response to the story of a Caucasian woman who tried to apply for an administrative assistant’s job in the federal ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, only to find the competition was restricted to aboriginals and members of a visible minority. Such a practice is permitted under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is intended to help government meet diversity hiring targets.

What were the other disqualifiers that she never mentioned? Stuff like she can't speak Dene or another language she has no clue about?
 
gopher
+1
#3
Another thread on the alleged claim of discrimination against the majority! It's a good bet this will be readily debunked as have all others. Have fun.
 
shadowshiv
+2
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

Another thread on the alleged claim of discrimination against the majority! It's a good bet this will be readily debunked as have all others. Have fun.

Why would it be debunked? They are already looking into this, and have said that it is a valid concern.

The crux of it all is this. She was not even able to apply. If she had applied for the position and did not get the job, then that is fine. But to not even be able to apply due to her skin colour is not right.
 
Dexter Sinister
+2
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchy View Post

“The reality is that this Act is in place for a reason. There is a dramatic under-representation of these groups to whom it applies in the public service. ... This Act is intended to remove barriers and level the playing field.”

Yeah, that's the theory alright, but that's not how it works in reality. If you look at the details you'll find that "groups to whom it applies" is more simply expressed as a negative, "no healthy white people," and usually it's even more specific, "no healthy white males." I vividly remember a presentation by a woman from the federal public service on this when I was working in a federally regulated industry and noting that the only people not on the list to whom the affirmative action rules applied were healthy white guys. I asked her why I as a hiring manager should implement a policy that institutionalizes discrimination against a group I happen to belong to, and the answer amounted to "because I say so." Well, screw that idea. If I need somebody who speaks an aboriginal language to deal with a group of employees at a northern mine site--and I often did--the statement of qualifications will say so, but it won't say that the person must be aboriginal, that's irrelevant. Obviously a person who speaks an aboriginal language is most likely to be aboriginal, but it doesn't make sense to require that as a qualification, the language requirement itself is an adequate filter.

The Act doesn't remove barriers or level the playing field, no statute could do that because qualifications have to do with education and experience and knowledge and personal suitability; and you can't legislate those. What it does is legitimize and institutionalize discrimination against a supposedly privileged group, healthy white people. It's always expressed in terms of nice, high-sounding ideals, but in reality it results in de facto quotas for hiring "visible minorities" and hiring decisions based on utterly irrelevant qualifications like race and ethnicity. I'd immediately agree that it should be illegal to discriminate against people for such usually irrelevant qualifications as race and ethnicity, but discrimination in favour of such irrelevant qualifications doesn't strike me as a step forward either. It just creates another set of problems. If I hire someone who's aboriginal and female, for instance, but is otherwise less qualified than some other candidate on the factors that actually matter, and she doesn't do well, then there's fodder for the bigots, and a backlash: "See? I told you an Indian/a woman/a whatever couldn't do that job..." I've seen that way too many times. Positive discrimination is no better than negative discrimination, and it doesn't work.

If we know there are disadvantaged minorities who need a leg up, and we certainly do--apropos of which, that's the kind of information the mandatory long census form provides and a voluntary one will not--then we should implement programs and policies to give them that leg up, in terms of improving their skills and knowledge and experience, and doing a little consciousness-raising among the cretins who discriminate against them, so they can compete on an equal basis in the job market. But don't tell me as a hiring manager that I MUST PREFERENTIALLY hire them before they're qualified.
Last edited by Dexter Sinister; Jul 24th, 2010 at 03:21 AM..
 
Colpy
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

Another thread on the alleged claim of discrimination against the majority! It's a good bet this will be readily debunked as have all others. Have fun.

How can it possibly be debunked?

The woman was prevented from even completing an application because she was white.

Game, set, match.
 
petros
+1
#7
When I worked with the Feds and there was hiring it was structured by qualification. If no-one who is disabled, or visible minority who are QUALIFIED and pass all the testing and reference checks then it goes to anyone else QUALIFIED for the job and pass all the testing and reference checks.

Other than than broken engrish and disability they are usually beyond qualified to do the job.

Besides..the pay and working environment sucks ass.

If it looks like they make oodles of money to you then you really need to go back to school and improve yourself.

If you aren't earning you damn well better be learning. There is no excuse for being under qualified in Canada.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

How can it possibly be debunked?

The woman was prevented from even completing an application because she was white.

Game, set, match.

When he says debunked he most likely means her pleas will be ignored.
 
Liberalman
#9
play that funked music white boy
 
YukonJack
+1
#10
Next to abortion, affirmative action is the greatest crime in the history of mankind.
 
petros
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

Next to abortion, affirmative action is the greatest crime in the history of mankind.

Only you would think disabled people don't deserve work never mind those "colored folks".
 
YukonJack
#12
petros, i believe everybody deserves work on their own merit, and nothing else.
 
petros
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

petros, i believe everybody deserves work on their own merit, and nothing else.

so you wouldn't go out of your way to build a wheelchair ramp and toilet?
 
ironsides
+2
#14
Accommodating a person with a disability is not in any way a form of discrimination against anyone. Hiring that person because of their disability, sex or color is just another form of discrimination. If a person is qualified for a job, they deserve it, if they have a disability and you need their expertise, you will do what ever is needed to make them comfortable in that position.
 
Machjo
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

Next to abortion, affirmative action is the greatest crime in the history of mankind.

Affirmative action compared to murder. That's pushing it a little there.

That said, yes I do agree that affirmative action should be eliminated.

At most, the very most, I could see a scenario where if in an election two candidates get tied, then visible minority status breaks the tie, but that's about as far as I'd ever go with affirmative action.
 
lone wolf
#16
Tokenism encourages mediocrity
 
AnnaG
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

Accommodating a person with a disability is not in any way a form of discrimination against anyone. Hiring that person because of their disability, sex or color is just another form of discrimination. If a person is qualified for a job, they deserve it, if they have a disability and you need their expertise, you will do what ever is needed to make them comfortable in that position.

Bump.
 
Durry
#18
The Libs as usual have themselves all tied up in knots not knowing what the correct policy is on an issue like this !!
 
Risus
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

so you wouldn't go out of your way to build a wheelchair ramp and toilet?

Wake up, bud, wheelchair access and toilets are the law
 
AnnaG
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Risus View Post

Wake up, bud, wheelchair access and toilets are the law

Only on public buildings
 
Risus
#21
I guess it depends where you live. In Ontario for new buildings, its the law. For the boonies like where you live, I guess they don't give a crap.
 
AnnaG
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Risus View Post

I guess it depends where you live. In Ontario for new buildings, its the law. For the boonies like where you live, I guess they don't give a crap.

Actually, where we live, we don't need it to be law. We're civilised over here.

There are 3 people in wheelchairs that I know of within 50 miles and that was enough to prompt the local pub owners, meeting halls, and restaurants to build ramps. They didn't need prompting by a bunch of laws. Most found the ramps handy anyway, because it made deliveries easier.

Also, most of the restrooms are equipped with large doors and room for wheelchair manouvering as well as change rooms for women with babies.
Last edited by AnnaG; Jul 24th, 2010 at 06:21 PM..
 
TenPenny
#23
I thought accessibility was part of the building code, which would make it pretty much part of the permitting process for any new or renovated public buildings. But maybe not.
 
gopher
+2
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

Next to abortion, affirmative action is the greatest crime in the history of mankind.

LOL! I suppose in your mind, slavery, the Nazi slaughter of innocents, and the European decimation of Native Americans were a blessing to humanity.
 
taxslave
#25
It is my opinion that if you are denied the right to apply for a government job then you should not have to pay taxes.
I am a firm believer in hiring and promotion based on merit. Skin color doesn't concern me although some times disabilities do. A number of years ago we were repaving an airport and the federal inspector was wheelchair bound. Not that he didn't know his stuff, just that he was physically unable to do parts of his job and we had to do the sample collecting for him. This is unfair to all as we had our own jobs to do.
No different than hiring a blind truck driver just because you have to meet some imposed quota.
 
Downhome_Woman
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

Next to abortion, affirmative action is the greatest crime in the history of mankind.

Why? As a 54 year old woman who used to read job ads in the paper that stated men would make $5 an hour and women would be offered $4 an hour ( only an example) I'm wondering - as a female - why 'affirmative action ' was the 'next greatest crime.What? You don't think that working women should actually get the salary that they are worth?

Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

Next to abortion, affirmative action is the greatest crime in the history of mankind.

And rhw af=gain ther at re those other 'nasties' Ummm ...like the holocaust? That's kind of a crime , don't yo think? And then there was Sadaam Hussein gassing the Kurds? Well personally, I think that was kind of nasty ... but hey - if you think that affirmative action rates over those things? Well what can I say - I'm just a lowly brood-mare woman - what the heck do I know?
 
ironsides
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

I thought accessibility was part of the building code, which would make it pretty much part of the permitting process for any new or renovated public buildings. But maybe not.

No, you are right at least in the U.S. it is the law. I would be willing to bet it is the law in Canada also.
 
JLM
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Downhome_Woman View Post

Why? As a 54 year old woman who used to read job ads in the paper that stated men would make $5 an hour and women would be offered $4 an hour ( only an example) I'm wondering - as a female - why 'affirmative action ' was the 'next greatest crime.What? You don't think that working women should actually get the salary that they are worth?



And rhw af=gain ther at re those other 'nasties' Ummm ...like the holocaust? That's kind of a crime , don't yo think? And then there was Sadaam Hussein gassing the Kurds? Well personally, I think that was kind of nasty ... but hey - if you think that affirmative action rates over those things? Well what can I say - I'm just a lowly brood-mare woman - what the heck do I know?

And maybe gassing six million Jews may rate up there a notch above affirmative action.........................what think you Y.J.?
 
YukonJack
#29
For those with limited ability to comprehend:

Abortion ended far more innocent lives than the Holocaust. But since in can not be known if they would have been conservatives or liberals if allowed to live, it does not matter.

Affirmative action put millions of unqualified hacks to positions affecting lives of those who were powerless to complain fearing to be labelled racists.

Only those who know fully well - but refuse to admit - that their own ability would get them not any further than they ever achieved on their own merit - support the insane and and unnatural idea of affirmative action.
 
Nuggler
#30
"""The Conservative government is taking aim at an employment-equity policy that favours applicants from historically disadvantaged groups, saying no Canadian should be barred from applying for a job based on race."""

.....Great, so you can APPLY.......And the personnel manager will be told; "Look, Jack, you hire anyone except a lesbian Latvian for this job and you're fired!!!" "Oh yah, and she's gotta be a BLACK, DISABLED, lesbian Latvian also".

Good luck with that, DeFacto.

 

Similar Threads

13
Racism and a very stupid white woman
by Blackleaf | Mar 6th, 2018
541
Why are tea baggers white?
by Avro | Sep 13th, 2010
14
The other other other white meat.....
by Twila | Oct 30th, 2005