Employment Equity in the CFL

[TBURGESS]

Imagine claiming that the EEA is discriminatory legislation. LOL

Imagine not being able to see the discrimination in it. LOL.

[blue_gold_84]

Imagine not being able to see the discrimination in it. LOL.

Feel free to back up your claim, rather than your usual retorts.

[blue_or_die]

The THEORY that statistically speaking it should come out in the wash is so simplistic as to be useless because it only takes race into account. It doesn't take training, education, economic factors, or a plethora of other data points into account which are as important if not more important than race. Example: Rich folks who went to the right schools & know the right people will get way more opportunities than poor folks who might not even have a high school education, who don't know the right people and it doesn't matter what colour their skin is or where their ancestors were born.

The chances of finding two identical prospects one white, one 'of colour' for every job you post is statistically insignificant. That's what you would need to make the theory relevant.

The Human Rights Act says you can't discriminate based on: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. The Employment Equity Act (EEA) says you must discriminate in favor of 4 special rights groups - women, people with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, and visible minorities (Defined as Not White).  (Note: Reverse discrimination is still discrimination) It takes some serious mental gymnastics to say both can be applied at the same time. Examples: I can't discriminate based on sex, but I must discriminate in favour of the Women. I can't discriminate based on colour, but I must discriminate in favour or visible minorities.

I believe in equality of opportunity, the EEA is trying to enforce equality of results. I believe that any two people who do the same job equally well, should be paid the same. (That won't happen unless people share salary information). I believe that employer's should be able to choose whoever they think is the best candidate regardless of race or sex or the local demographics. I believe that employer's will find ways to 'get around', IE discriminate against those that they want to. Example: I know of a women run company that won't hire women of child rearing age unless they already have a couple of kids because that means holding the job open if/when they get pregnant.

You're entirely right (bolded part) and that's kind of the point, right? At the group level, there are historical reasons how certain folks don't get the same opportunities and so intervention/correction is a way to compensate and "catch up" those groups. It is by no means clean or fair (to anyone) but that's how I understand it. Fixing mistakes of the past is complicated and I don't think there's a way to do it that is clean or fair to everyone. If it's status quo, the outcomes will continue to be skewed indefinitely. Things are getting better but it's a much slower process without intervention.

[theaardvark]

I think the issue some have with affirmative action is that "all things being equal" is never a case, no two candidates are exactly the same except for colour. 

Which allows for interpretation and selection based on a personal bias, and in today's environment, there are those that say a diversity hire may get selected over a non-diverse applicant solely based on diversity.  So, a "reverse discrimination" gets them angry.

Does this happen more than the opposite does?  Are "diversity hires" being made purely to appease "Employment Equity"?  No doubt that someone can find examples of both. 

Neither are correct, but one gets applauded, and the other vilified.  In either case, if a less qualified applicant is hired for a position, it is unfair to the organization and the applicant. 

There is no correct answer short of letting every candidate succeed or fail on talent and ability alone.  Hopefully that becomes the norm, and people stop judging, either way, a hire based on anything but talent.  And organizations are judged based on their results, not their group picture.

[TBURGESS]

You're entirely right (bolded part) and that's kind of the point, right? At the group level, there are historical reasons how certain folks don't get the same opportunities and so intervention/correction is a way to compensate and "catch up" those groups. It is by no means clean or fair (to anyone) but that's how I understand it. Fixing mistakes of the past is complicated and I don't think there's a way to do it that is clean or fair to everyone. If it's status quo, the outcomes will continue to be skewed indefinitely. Things are getting better but it's a much slower process without intervention.

Blaming things on race when other data points are much more important to success is no reason to give special groups special rules. We can't fix the mistakes of the past. In fact they aren't even mistakes until you put a 2000's filter on them. It's just the way the world used to be. We're not fixing the past anyway. We're trying to fix the present and future.

I'm not suggesting the status quo. I'm saying that women, natives and people of colour are equal to men, non-natives, and non people of colour. I agree that we need to give disabled people additional help.

I'm saying that forcing companies to hire specific groups doesn't really help unless they want to hire them in the first place. A group of Trumpers, won't take kindly to being managed by an EEA person. The best business decision is to hire someone who will be able to do the job without significant push back. Big companies can hire a token black, a token women, a token native or a token women of color who is in a wheelchair and has a native mom to be statistically correct. How does that help the EEA folks or society, or fix the past for that matter?

The EEA is just another example of looking like you're doing something without actually doing much of anything. Just check of some boxes to show you're doing the 'right thing'. You can't fix racism with reverse racism or sexism with reverse sexism. You need to address the root problems like education, poverty, language skills, etc. You need to remove all references to every group that can't be discriminated against in the HRA from CV's. Removing first names would be helpful, but people could still make pretty good guesses based on last names. Maybe the names should be removed before even making the interview list. Would that stop racism or sexism? Nope, that's going to take generations of educators training the next generations to look past colour, sex, race, etc.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I think the issue some have with affirmative action is that "all things being equal" is never a case, no two candidates are exactly the same except for colour. 

Which allows for interpretation and selection based on a personal bias, and in today's environment, there are those that say a diversity hire may get selected over a non-diverse applicant solely based on diversity.  So, a "reverse discrimination" gets them angry.

Does this happen more than the opposite does?  Are "diversity hires" being made purely to appease "Employment Equity"?  No doubt that someone can find examples of both. 

Neither are correct, but one gets applauded, and the other vilified.  In either case, if a less qualified applicant is hired for a position, it is unfair to the organization and the applicant. 

There is no correct answer short of letting every candidate succeed or fail on talent and ability alone.  Hopefully that becomes the norm, and people stop judging, either way, a hire based on anything but talent.  And organizations are judged based on their results, not their group picture.

Case in point Vernon Adams is currently the only black QB listed as a CFL starter and his grip on the position is tenuous at best.  We all know this has nothing to do with race and is a matter of finding the most proficient QB available for the job at the time, as all CFL teams main objective is to win as many games as possible. 

That being said black QB's coming out of the US may have faced discrimination along the way through their high school and college careers, which put them on an unequal footing competing for the limited QB opportunities in pro football. I don't know what the ratio is in the NFL at this time, so I can't say whether this is just a current CFL anomaly, but there have been plenty of black starting QB's in the past 40 years.

[Jesse]

Blaming things on race when other data points are much more important to success is no reason to give special groups special rules. We can't fix the mistakes of the past. In fact they aren't even mistakes until you put a 2000's filter on them. It's just the way the world used to be. We're not fixing the past anyway. We're trying to fix the present and future.

I'm not suggesting the status quo. I'm saying that women, natives and people of colour are equal to men, non-natives, and non people of colour. I agree that we need to give disabled people additional help.

I'm saying that forcing companies to hire specific groups doesn't really help unless they want to hire them in the first place. A group of Trumpers, won't take kindly to being managed by an EEA person. The best business decision is to hire someone who will be able to do the job without significant push back. Big companies can hire a token black, a token women, a token native or a token women of color who is in a wheelchair and has a native mom to be statistically correct. How does that help the EEA folks or society, or fix the past for that matter?

The EEA is just another example of looking like you're doing something without actually doing much of anything. Just check of some boxes to show you're doing the 'right thing'. You can't fix racism with reverse racism or sexism with reverse sexism. You need to address the root problems like education, poverty, language skills, etc. You need to remove all references to every group that can't be discriminated against in the HRA from CV's. Removing first names would be helpful, but people could still make pretty good guesses based on last names. Maybe the names should be removed before even making the interview list. Would that stop racism or sexism? Nope, that's going to take generations of educators training the next generations to look past colour, sex, race, etc.

There's no such thing as reverse racism. Racism is racism, first of all.

Companies who hire "token" people are kind of the reason some of these policies have to exist. If you're in charge of a large enough company and there's a noticeable lack of diversity of any marginalized groups, it probably means that there are systematic barriers keeping those groups from getting jobs at your company.

Again, it is not about forcing people to hire anyone. It is not about, "this next job has to go to the race or sex or gender". It is about understanding why and addressing the barriers in place.

All of your points come from a place that assume all people are born with the same opportunities. It is unfortunately not true. It is also unfortunately true that the colour of your skin, sex, gender, age, religion, sexual preference affects all of those other things you mention; ie, "training, education, economic factors, or a plethora of other data points". To ignore that is to want to keep the status quo - which isn't uncommon for a lot of people - but it's still wrong (And always has been).

[blue_or_die]

Blaming things on race when other data points are much more important to success is no reason to give special groups special rules. We can't fix the mistakes of the past. In fact they aren't even mistakes until you put a 2000's filter on them. It's just the way the world used to be. We're not fixing the past anyway. We're trying to fix the present and future.

I'm not suggesting the status quo. I'm saying that women, natives and people of colour are equal to men, non-natives, and non people of colour. I agree that we need to give disabled people additional help.

I'm saying that forcing companies to hire specific groups doesn't really help unless they want to hire them in the first place. A group of Trumpers, won't take kindly to being managed by an EEA person. The best business decision is to hire someone who will be able to do the job without significant push back. Big companies can hire a token black, a token women, a token native or a token women of color who is in a wheelchair and has a native mom to be statistically correct. How does that help the EEA folks or society, or fix the past for that matter?

The EEA is just another example of looking like you're doing something without actually doing much of anything. Just check of some boxes to show you're doing the 'right thing'. You can't fix racism with reverse racism or sexism with reverse sexism. You need to address the root problems like education, poverty, language skills, etc. You need to remove all references to every group that can't be discriminated against in the HRA from CV's. Removing first names would be helpful, but people could still make pretty good guesses based on last names. Maybe the names should be removed before even making the interview list. Would that stop racism or sexism? Nope, that's going to take generations of educators training the next generations to look past colour, sex, race, etc.

Blaming things on race when other data points are much more important to success is no reason to give special groups special rules. We can't fix the mistakes of the past. In fact they aren't even mistakes until you put a 2000's filter on them. It's just the way the world used to be. We're not fixing the past anyway. We're trying to fix the present and future.

...But those things are inextricably linked. Differences in experience, training, etc. can be traced to lagging behind in those opportunities for historical reasons, i.e. discrimination.

And so you don't think we can change the past but want to change the present and future? Well that's exactly what's trying to be accomplished here.

I'm saying that forcing companies to hire specific groups doesn't really help unless they want to hire them in the first place. A group of Trumpers, won't take kindly to being managed by an EEA person. The best business decision is to hire someone who will be able to do the job without significant push back. Big companies can hire a token black, a token women, a token native or a token women of color who is in a wheelchair and has a native mom to be statistically correct. How does that help the EEA folks or society, or fix the past for that matter?

It gives them the opportunity that they wouldn't otherwise have. No one is suggesting that unqualified candidates should be hired, but rather given a pool of qualified candidates, is perhaps the reason the non-best candidate is such due to additional barriers they experience? If the workplace currently doesn't reflect the demographic distribution, then the answer is yes.

Would that stop racism or sexism? Nope, that's going to take generations of educators training the next generations to look past colour, sex, race, etc.

It actually does address racism because it compensates for historical racism (so yes, it is possible to fix mistakes of the past). Racism or sexism in the workplace (or anywhere else) is not really the old white man who runs a business and just doesn't care for black people and thinks women belong in the kitchen, it's having populations that are in the state they're in due to historical discrimination that's lead to less opportunities and therefore incongruent representation in the workplace. If I was in charge of hiring for a job, and and my pool of qualified candidates came down to say a white man and indigenous woman, the white man would statistically be more qualified and so I'd very likely give him the job. If this perpetuates, that other person and group she's a part of would never have the opportunity to overcome those historical circumstances. Yes, it comes at the expense of a more qualified candidate and so white men (like myself, I should add) are eating it here. There's probably no way of doing this without tradeoffs.

So with that, your last comment about people needing to be trained to look past these factors (while still true) is a bit of a red herring because an individual not being considered for a position is likely not to their race but because of the lack of opportunities given over their lives and even generations before that lead to that situation in the first place...which is linked to racism. While it's true that this situation can't be rectified overnight, we shouldn't accept that this will just take a very long time without taking any real action beyond telling kids they should be open minded when they grow up.

[TBURGESS]

There's no such thing as reverse racism. Racism is racism, first of all.

Companies who hire "token" people are kind of the reason some of these policies have to exist. If you're in charge of a large enough company and there's a noticeable lack of diversity of any marginalized groups, it probably means that there are systematic barriers keeping those groups from getting jobs at your company.

Again, it is not about forcing people to hire anyone. It is not about, "this next job has to go to the race or sex or gender". It is about understanding why and addressing the barriers in place.

All of your points come from a place that assume all people are born with the same opportunities. It is unfortunately not true. It is also unfortunately true that the colour of your skin, sex, gender, age, religion, sexual preference affects all of those other things you mention; ie, "training, education, economic factors, or a plethora of other data points". To ignore that is to want to keep the status quo - which isn't uncommon for a lot of people - but it's still wrong (And always has been).

Reverse racism is racism.

Companies hiring token people are the result of policies like this, not the reason for them.

Disabled people likely have physical barriers in place. Those things can & should be eliminated or at least minimized. Barriers for people of colour, natives and women are much harder to address and simply forcing companies to hire them doesn't address them.

I'm not assuming that all people are born with the same opportunities, quite the contrary. I'm saying working on the things that reduce opportunities is a better plan than check boxes on a form or pro special groups racism.

[TBURGESS]

@BlueOrDie
Differences in training etc are linked more to poverty than to race. I'm saying we need to address those things no matter the color of your skin is or your sex.

Qualified candidates don't come from poverty no matter their race or sex. We need to attack poverty. Everyone should have enough to eat, a safe place to sleep, a good education, medical & RX (No use in knowing what's wrong if you can't get the drugs to help you). Training is key to lifting people out of poverty and to getting better jobs.

The myth of two equally qualified people for each job is used to justify giving special groups special access to jobs that they wouldn't get otherwise. (If they're the best candidates in the first place, they wouldn't need the EEA) It also justifies the idea that X number of EEA people would already be in the jobs if racism didn't exist.

White Guilt justifies giving non-white groups a leg up because of what their ancestors went through. That's treating non-whites as lesser peoples who can't get ahead on their own merit, which simply isn't true. 

You can't change the past, no matter how much you may want to. The few hundred extra opportunities the EEA gives is a drop in the bucket. It makes some folks feel good about what they are doing for people of colour and women. It gives some companies the ability to crow about how racially sensitive they are. It doesn't fix anything for most people who the EEA considers special.

[blue_or_die]

@BlueOrDie
Differences in training etc are linked more to poverty than to race. I'm saying we need to address those things no matter the color of your skin is or your sex.

Qualified candidates don't come from poverty no matter their race or sex. We need to attack poverty. Everyone should have enough to eat, a safe place to sleep, a good education, medical & RX (No use in knowing what's wrong if you can't get the drugs to help you). Training is key to lifting people out of poverty and to getting better jobs.

The myth of two equally qualified people for each job is used to justify giving special groups special access to jobs that they wouldn't get otherwise. (If they're the best candidates in the first place, they wouldn't need the EEA) It also justifies the idea that X number of EEA people would already be in the jobs if racism didn't exist.

White Guilt justifies giving non-white groups a leg up because of what their ancestors went through. That's treating non-whites as lesser peoples who can't get ahead on their own merit, which simply isn't true. 

You can't change the past, no matter how much you may want to. The few hundred extra opportunities the EEA gives is a drop in the bucket. It makes some folks feel good about what they are doing for people of colour and women. It gives some companies the ability to crow about how racially sensitive they are. It doesn't fix anything for most people who the EEA considers special.

Differences in training etc are linked more to poverty than to race. I'm saying we need to address those things no matter the color of your skin is or your sex.

Qualified candidates don't come from poverty no matter their race or sex. We need to attack poverty. Everyone should have enough to eat, a safe place to sleep, a good education, medical & RX (No use in knowing what's wrong if you can't get the drugs to help you). Training is key to lifting people out of poverty and to getting better jobs.

Sure, but that's a bit of a straw man in the context of what we're talking about because to eliminate poverty and to have those effects ripple through to the extent we want not only would take generations, but is just an example of one tool that can be used. I'm saying "yes" to your suggestion but employment equity and poverty reduction, etc. do not have to be mutually exclusive. What's attractive about giving people an opportunity to excel that they may otherwise not get is that it's relatively immediately effective by comparison and has an indirect positive feedback. For example, inspiring others in the same group who are able to physically see someone who looks like them in a position of power they didn't even know was possible.

The myth of two equally qualified people for each job is used to justify giving special groups special access to jobs that they wouldn't get otherwise. (If they're the best candidates in the first place, they wouldn't need the EEA) It also justifies the idea that X number of EEA people would already be in the jobs if racism didn't exist.

That's....exactly right, yeah. Again, we aren't talking about giving jobs to unqualified people, we're talking about making a tradeoff for two *similar* candidates but where one comes from a group that may have lacked the same opportunities and correcting for that at the expense of someone else with no barriers who may only be a slightly better candidate.

You can't change the past, no matter how much you may want to. The few hundred extra opportunities the EEA gives is a drop in the bucket. It makes some folks feel good about what they are doing for people of colour and women. It gives some companies the ability to crow about how racially sensitive they are. It doesn't fix anything for most people who the EEA considers special.

You think that it if all companies had workforces that reflected population demographics that it would only result in a few hundred new opportunities? That's Rider math. I'm not talking about virtue signaling bs, I'm talking about an impactful change for how we approach workforce management. And having the chance at a role you wouldn't normally absolutely does fix things. If you can give a little economic power to a group that's never had the same access to, how is that "nothing"?

[TBURGESS]

If you want impactful change, the EEA isn't what your looking for. It just applies to a small group of businesses that deal with Government contracts. It doesn't cover most businesses in Canada including the CFL. A few hundred jobs isn't Rider math, it's a reasonable guesstimate.

The EEA is virtue signalling. Give jobs to a few people, who otherwise wouldn't get the jobs, because we understand how racism affected & affects their families. What evolved people we are.

No, I don't think that companies need to or even should match the local demographics. That's not what the EEA does anyway. It says that white owned companies should match the local demographics, but people of colour & women can totally ignore the demographics. I think companies should hire the best candidates period. Full stop.

[blue_or_die]

I guess we?re talking about different things because I?m talking generally, not specific to EEA legislation.

I think companies should hire highly qualified candidates while also considering other factors, full stop.

[blue_gold_84]

So, still no evidence showing how the EEA is discriminatory...?

Oh, okay.

[blue_gold_84]

Still nothing. LOL