Special rights for certain groups in Canada

[Andem]

I got involved in a discussion today on a Facebook thread which I didn't really intend. In a word, it was a bunch of women demanding special rights in terms of paygrade, job opportunities and the like.

I have no problem at all with a woman in a position of power and I see nothing wrong with anybody who is qualified to earn a decent living and whom obtained the position on their own merit. What I do have a problem with is a person becoming employed based on race or sex quotas imposed by a government, regulations, legislation, backroom deals or worse... that ruins the market economy which provides the western world with their freedoms and democracy.

I'm finally getting involved in politics over here in Europe and an unelected commission (a part of the European Union) has been attempting to force quotas across the continent not based on merit, but based on sex. My partner's university (who is a professor) currently has over 10 highly paid employees which do nothing more than interfere with the hiring process and "vote against" any male candidate who is applying for an administrative job, a temporary teaching job or for tenure. The amazing thing about this is that none of them are qualified themselves to judge whether an applicant would be a worthy candidate.

I am very aware that Canada's public sector jobs have become very easy for some to obtain and next to impossible for others, regardless of ability and experience. The United States has benefited greatly from these policies in the form of brain drain in many sectors, both public and private.

There is a very large amount of inequality in Canada disguised as equality.

What does the membership here think about special rights for certain groups? A very different question than discrimination against certain groups.

Does anybody find it right to put a fully qualified candidate out to grass while the less-qualified candidate gets the job based on their race, sex, sexual orientation, height, weight or religion?

 

[CDNBear]

What does the membership here think about special rights for certain groups?

depends on whether or not they were negotiated for.

Does anybody find it right to put a fully qualified candidate out to grass while the less-qualified candidate gets the job based on their race, sex, sexual orientation, height, weight or religion?

No one rational would.

 

[L Gilbert]

To me qualifications are qualifications regardless of anything like gender, skin color, age, etc. And I don't believe in quotas just for the sake of APPEARING to be egalitarian.
Interesting that you mention unqualified people deciding who is qualified for the jobs.
Reeks of PC-ness

 

[spaminator]

I have no problem at all with a woman in a position of power

I guess you've never been bossed around by women.

 

[Andem]

depends on whether or not they were negotiated for.

These are not the special rights I am talking about, and they have an entirely different legal basis so let's keep that out of this thread.

Interesting that you mention unqualified people deciding who is qualified for the jobs.
Reeks of PC-ness

Since public universities here in Germany are publicly funded, it is very characteristic of a western government to have these types of highly-paid people in such positions. It is very real and not a figment of my imagination. (My partner is currently heading the hiring committee for new professors, so I get to hear about the shenanigans every Tuesday evening).

 

[CDNBear]

These are not the special rights I am talking about, and they have an entirely different legal basis so let's keep that out of this thread.

No problem, just answering your question honestly.

 

[L Gilbert]

heheh The EU wants more women to work? Train more to do the work, don't just fill in the positions.

Since public universities here in Germany are publicly funded, it is very characteristic of a western government to have these types of highly-paid people in such positions. It is very real and not a figment of my imagination. (My partner is currently heading the hiring committee for new professors, so I get to hear about the shenanigans every Tuesday evening).

That will undoubtedly have a negative effect on the EU's future performance (in quite a few areas such as economics and academics) in comparison to other regions. Foolsplay at its best.

 

[karrie]

To my understanding, the only time you are supposed to choose based on gender here, is when applicants are equally qualified, not when one is less qualified. This attempts to address some of the gender inequality in work forces, without creating a new set of discriminatory practices. I know hubby's company pushes for gender to break the tie, but only when applicants are truly tied in qualifications.

 

[SLM]

What does the membership here think about special rights for certain groups? A very different question than discrimination against certain groups.

Does anybody find it right to put a fully qualified candidate out to grass while the less-qualified candidate gets the job based on their race, sex, sexual orientation, height, weight or religion?

No I don't think it's right. It's unfair. The intentions behind it may be laudable but in practice I'm not sure that it ever really and truly achieves the goals it sets out to achieve.

On the one hand for those individuals who have worked to gain the qualifications, it's incredibly demotivational. Why bother to work hard when it doesn't matter in the end anyway? But even for those who for whom it supposedly benefits, I believe it's harmful because you end up with unqualified individuals, or poorly qualified ones, attempting to do a job that is above or beyond their skill level.

I get the idea behind it, to have certain areas, industries and positions in society be more reflective of the broad cross section of society. As I said, that's laudable. But I feel like that would be better achieved by putting the focus on incentives towards individuals from these underrepresented groups to achieve the necessary skills so that they may compete on even footing.

That's my take on it.

 

[Andem]

That will undoubtedly have a negative effect on the EU's future performance

The EU is all but done. It has such a resemblance to the U.S.S.R. that you might even giggle for a second. In fact, the unelected president of the European Commission is a "former" Maoist and wait for it... his deputy vice president WAS a member of the Supreme Council of the Soviet Union. The policies here in the EU are essentially not voted for and like any other failed socialist state, has no clear mandate, accountability or removal mechanism.

Over here, the special rights rules they are pushing through are nothing more than a way to create more jobs in the commission and to appear as if they are progressive -- winning over the female vote. So nothing new there.

 

[Tonington]

In Canada there is another level that comes before you even get out of school. The job market is tight these days, and most people won't get into their field without some experience before graduation. At my school there were job notices on the bulletin boards, and nearly all of them being in science positions were funded by some government entity. Those jobs always made special mention of gender at a minimum, as well as others. It was discouraging.

But I've also heard from women in industry how hard it can be to get positions. As an example, I know of an old Veterinarian who did not like to hire women because, in his words, they would get pregnant soon after graduation, and he didn't like having to find temporary replacements.

As long as there are dumbasses like that, it makes it hard for guys like me because the natural policy decision from a political point of view is to over-react and put in place these types of policies like those that discouraged me. In the end I had an employment offer before I left school, and it's worked out well. But I have friends who were not as fortunate. Maybe they don't interview well? Hard to say. I'm not sure there's an easy answer.

And both examples I mentioned are forms of discrimination.

 

[Andem]

As long as there are dumbasses like that, it makes it hard for guys like me because the natural policy decision from a political point of view is to over-react

Take a look on the other side of the coin. I worked for a company in Montréal that everybody here has heard of where it was easier to get hired in certain departments as a female... and two of three with the final say were female.

In other departments, more than 70% were female employees (with jobs normally dominated by males).

 

[Spade]

There should be no special allowances made for men who struggle in academe.

 

[Tonington]

Take a look on the other side of the coin.

I did...I mentioned the difficulty in getting relevant industry experience during my undergrad. I did landscaping in Alberta for two summers instead of working in my field. Though my jobs paid better

In other departments, more than 70% were female employees (with jobs normally dominated by males).

Have you looked at the enrollment in university? More women than men these days; it stands to reason at some point they would overtake men in roles formerly dominated by men.

 

[Spade]

New research helps explain why girls do better in school

 

[SLM]

Have you looked at the enrollment in university? More women than men these days; it stands to reason at some point they would overtake men in roles formerly dominated by men.

A result, I'm sure, of decades of encouraging our daughters to pursue a higher education. At least the qualifications shouldn't be lacking and the "glass ceiling" will be for certain a thing of the past. That's not a bad thing.

Restricting applicants based on their gender is a bad thing.

And if male attendance at post-secondary is down, should we now be doing more to encourage our sons to pursue higher education?

 

[Spade]

And if male attendance at post-secondary is down, should we now be doing more to encourage our sons to pursue higher education?

Are you advocating special privilege?

 

[SLM]

Are you advocating special privilege?

No, how would I be doing that? Is making a concerted effort towards a youth group that may be underrepresented, be they grouped by gender or race, and encouraging them to take future opportunities to better themselves affording them a privilege? Opportunities that already exist I'm talking about, like higher education.

 

[Andem]

Are you advocating special privilege?

Encouraging and providing exclusive benefits for are not synonymous.

 

[Spade]

What about helping men qualify for medical school?
Women doctors will outnumber men within a decade: research - Telegraph