Special rights for certain groups in Canada
- Thread starter Andem
- Start date
I know. Which is why I'm sure he's pleased to see him and his crews work and work environment likened to women working the bakery at the local WalMart.
I've been a roughneck, it's a world of difference.
Not that I agree it's 'moodiness and drama', but how many all female crews do have to compare them too?
I absolutely agree, which is why I know the difference between blowing off steam created by a tense and dangerous environment, isn't comparable to the local WalMart or teachers lounge.
His experience with male work environments isn't limited to rig crews.
And I'm sorry, but, he takes no offense at the notion that interpersonal issues on a rig would be similar to 'women working the bakery'.
I was talking about coffee room drama, not work floor drama. There's a difference between the two.
Exactly: its about the interpersonal relationships and the way they influence the professionalism with how the job is done.
Thank you for stating that because, as a woman who has managed a fair degree of success both personally and professionally without outside intervention, every time I get a survey or statistic thrown at me suggesting women 'need' to be afforded these privileges in order to succeed, it feels really demeaning.
I get that. To grant special status based on a specified group membership is to define the group as victims, and that's not the path to equality. And I wish it were really that simple, but it's not. I've been a hiring manager in several organizations, and I can assure you that if you really want to discriminate against a certain group based on irrelevant qualifications like gender and race, you can find a way to do it without it looking like that's what you're doing. Any hiring process I've ever seen has enough subjectivity in it to let any hiring managers get whatever results they want. Sexists and racists and homophobes and whatnot will probably always be with us, and I don't know how to handle loutish attitudes like those. Can't legislate them away, hiring quotas for specified groups I think are a terrible idea, consciousness raising and sensitivity training (I hate those phrases for it, it's education) will help to a certain extent, but as comedian Ron White observed, you can't fix stupid. We can legislate away systemic barriers, and I think by and large we've done that, but oppression and discrimination are still just as real as they ever were.
Best I was ever able to do as a hiring manager was make sure I was never guilty of such negative discrimination, which I found pretty easy to do, I never paid much attention to such artificial distinctions in my professional life, I just wanted somebody who could do the job and work with the group, and make sure nobody who reported to me was guilty of it either. That was a little harder.
No that's definitely not the path. It plucks on that same nerve for me as the folks who constantly call up their own specified group as the sole reason why things go badly for them, aka 'playing the race card'.
People who really want to will find a way to discriminate, of course they will. But you're right in that systemic barriers are all but gone at this point. The rest of it is in individual people's attitudes, and that just cannot be legislated away no matter how hard you try. Time is the only thing that will do that, and even then it won't be a thing of the past for everyone.
There is justifiable reasoning and rationale for wanting the businesses and industries that serve the broad spectrum of society to be reflective of the broad spectrum of society and no one should be denied an opportunity based on a qualifier that has nothing to do with the job itself. But hiring quotas are not the way to do that. Finding ways to encourage underrepresented groups to achieve the skill and educational levels necessary to fill those occupations should be as far as society is willing to go.
I hear what you are saying about quotas. However the problem is not that underrepresented groups do not have the skill or educational levels necessary to fill those occupations. So are you saying we should just ignore the problem? Isn't that a bit like ignoring blacks go to the back of the bus?
Neither is mine nor SCB's, limited to a raisebore or bakery, respectively.
Interpersonal issues? lol.
I thought you were talking about cycles sinking up and all that.
There's a difference between 'interpersonal issues' and what you originally said too.
I must just need you to clarify that too.
No doubt.
But that has nothing to with what was being discussed.
Of course there's always going to be interpersonal issues in a large work environment. The workplace isn't staffed based on free association. It's based on who the company hires through a pretty standard process. Personality tests for all employees to make sure everyone will get along, isn't generally part of it. Add to that the stress that goes along with working in an environment that is both dangerous and tense, you're bound to raise pulses.
Male or female, tradesmen and roughnecks are known for being high strung go getters. Comparing the steam valves of a rig crew to the nonsense SCB has related to me, is ridiculous.
No, I'm not saying to ignore it, what I'm saying, or I suppose asking is, where exactly is the problem today? Are there policies in place that discriminate? If so then that goes against current legislation. If not, what is the intention, to legislate people into having the correct attitude? Tell me how that's going to work, seriously.
To me, having hiring quotas in place, it's akin to the when the police suspect the husband of committing the crime and begin to focus on him over what the evidence may be telling them. Just as an analogy. Human nature is such, I feel, that eventually we will focus more exclusively on one aspect, the quota requirement, perhaps to the detriment of other qualifiers. That to me is especially true in very large institutions, like government.
You know at this time of the year I am forced to call Canada Revenue Agency pretty much daily. And I can tell when they've had a quota fulfilled because, even though it is an english language telephone service, it can be rather difficult to understand many of them. And what that says to me is that, despite the fact that they may very well have met the qualifiers in other aspects of application process, they are lacking in one crucial element, which is clear concise communication. A pretty big qualifier don't you think? So that's a big glaring sign that quota requirements over rode at least one other requirement, how many more may it have over rode and how do I possibly have confidence in the qualifications of their service persons? That's just one example. And it's not limited to just government. I can recall having this exact conversation about the exact same problem with my sister-in-law when her former employer, an abused women's shelter, hired similarly for their emergency phone line. Can you imagine what it would be like to call in, in distress, and have difficulty communicating to the person over the phone?
Personally, I'd prefer we spend the money and make a more concerted effort to achieve communication levels for ESL or FSL as the case may be for people who's primary language is neither. That's what I'm talking about when I say put the focus on the qualifiers.
Okay this I can agree with. I always feel embarassed when I call an office and I have to keep saying, pardon, sorry can you repeat that, sorry we have a bad connection, when what I really mean is I can not understand your English. Quotas can be bad but I can see how they could also be good IF used correctly. But when used by government well... 'nough said...they mess that up too.
I think I was projecting "females" who are totally qualified onto what you were saying. It sounded like you would be insulted by imposed female hiring where the qualifications were the same because you had made it on your qualifications alone and therefore if other women couldn't it was they who were lacking and nothing further should be done for them to over come the old boys club.
I am near the end of my working world, another decade and I am done. The industry I came from is low paying and harsh but if you worked hard back then and could motivate people to produce they didn't care what sex you were it was all about the green. Now I work for government rather than industry and my eyes have certainly been opened to a whole new set of prejudice , d i c k holding, back slapping, imposing new rules to keep the status quo etc. if they were a business and were running themselves in this manner they would have bankrupted long ago. Frankly coming from a business perspective, it sickens me. Fortunately due to the position I hold it affects me very little and I have other things I would rather fight for. One must choose their battles.
I too come from the business world and am accustomed to being deferred to with regards to my skill set by both males and females, the same as I would defer to anyone else, male or female, dependent upon their skill set. Gender does not factor into the equation, competency does.
While I do think there are some vestiges of "the glass ceiling" remaining, I don't think it resembles what existed 20 years ago or maybe even 10 years ago. Perhaps in the next decade or so it will be gone completely, I'd like to think so. But it won't be gone because we've had hiring quotas in place, it'll be gone because women have acquired the skills and demonstrated their value alongside men within that industry. Because, as you said, green is the bottom line.
But I do find it frustrating when I hear women complain that the reason, and the only reason, they can't get ahead is because of men. Especially in the business world. Because that is like saying to me that I got ahead despite the fact that I am not a man. B.S., I got ahead because I'm competent and capable. And honestly, despite potentially having the required qualifications for a position, if I were hired simply for what's between my legs, I would be insulted by that. Because I've worked hard for my qualifications and they have value to me. I wouldn't work for a place like that to be truthful.
Just let me know when all other groups and genders are equal to white men ok...
How will we know?
Who will inform us?
How will we know?
Who will inform us?
Is he the guy with the tally sheet?
Equal or equality? Really what does that even mean? Do we need to have the exact same numbers of each group in each position of power or influence in order to say we finally have an equal society?
What if some people from all the other groups and genders just aren't pulling their own weight, what if they don't want to? It does happen. I know plenty of white guys are as useless as tits on a bull, I have to assume that applies to all other groups in society too.
I find it hard to believe you've never seen a shop full of guys get gossipy, snippy, or just downright pissy for no good reason.
But hey, yours and SCB's anecdotal life experience is what you're running off. I'm running off mine. From everything I've ever seen in my life, men are not 'better' in the work place for gossip, moodiness, or having problems with one another.
LOL, like 'unnatural'.
Not at all.
That sounds paranoid.
Not really.
I didn't realize that meant I wasn't allowed to reply to you or question your post... What were you saying about dictating every move?
That sounds sensitive.
I've spent a lot of time in the oil field, camps and the office and have yet to hear any men cut-up another guy for the clothes they wear, maybe retaining a little water or general smearing for no reasons whatsoever
No, I'm sure they're too busy measuring.
Really? Stereotypes? That's where you're going to go with this?