Author Topic: The sad state of the (UN) United States  (Read 1552 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline The Cynic

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 288
Re: The sad state of the (UN) United States
« Reply #165 on: November 26, 2021, 04:21:47 pm »
Would it kill you to provide even the tiniest shred of evidence that completely unqualified people are being hired based on the colour of their skin or whatever? Because it sounds like a bunch of made up bullshit to me.

How would it be even possible to supply such 'proof' in a medium you would accept? What type of statistical study could even be launched? What organization is going to admit that it places more importance on 'equity' than merit? Even Trudeau isn't likely to admit that, though it's quite clear he does.

Quote
It's extremely sexist to assume those women are where they are because of employment equity hiring and not because they are qualified. Maybe your friend isn't as good at his job as they are and that's why he's stuck.

If women make up 30% of a caucus yet are 50% of cabinet that's not due to merit. That's clearly equity promotion.

Offline Nipples Von Graham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6719
Re: The sad state of the (UN) United States
« Reply #166 on: November 26, 2021, 04:23:05 pm »
Would it kill you to provide even the tiniest shred of evidence that completely unqualified people are being hired based on the colour of their skin or whatever? Because it sounds like a bunch of made up bullshit to me.

I never said completely unqualified candidates are being hired, I said the most qualified are not always being hired.

The Employment Equity program assumes that if hiring representation in the gov of the 3 designated disadvantaged groups does not match that of the general labour force then some kind of injustice is happening and things need to be done to address this inequity.  It is equality of outcome nonsense.  If asians are hired more often than aboriginals or black Canadians, that doesn't mean racism/injustice is necessarily happening (although that can certainly be a factor), it can also mean that asians are more qualified because of education background etc.

I support measuring these stats and seeing if there are real discriminatory barriers for marginalized groups that can be eliminated (ie: accommodation supports for disabled people), which is a part of the Employment Equity efforts, but I don't support not hiring purely on merit.

https://psacunion.ca/sites/psac/files/attachments/pdfs/employment-equity-toolkit-updated-2018-july-en.pdf
Quote
Employment Equity as part of the merit criteria:

The PSEA defines merit. An appointment is made on the basis of merit
when the person appointed meets the essential qualifications of the
position.   In addition, the deputy head may establish and apply any asset
qualification, operational requirement or organizational need, currently or
in the future in order to find the ‘right fit’ for the organization. The deputy
head may also apply the current and future needs of the public service,
identified by the employer and deemed to be relevant by the deputy head.
When employment equity considerations are part of a staffing
competition, they must be included as one of the above criteria and
therefore will be consistent with the definition of merit.   

Employment equity, or being a member of one of the four designated
groups, can be a criterion in a staffing process in the following ways:

1)  it can be included as an asset qualification
2)  it can be included as fulfilling an organizational need
3)  it can be included as fulfilling a need of the public service

For example, where there is a need to hire a person who is
familiar with Aboriginal culture and languages to provide service
a particular Aboriginal community, the department can state that
being an Aboriginal person would be considered an asset criteria
or an organizational need.  Or, where there is a significant under-
representation of women in a particular occupational category,
a department can list hiring women as an organizational need in
accordance with their employment equity plan.

Employment equity as the area of selection:

Another way in which employment equity can be part of the staffing
process is through the “area of selection”.  The area of selection defines
who will be eligible to apply for a job.  It can refer to a geographic area
(for example, a job will only be open to people in the National Capital
Region), organizational (a job will only be open to members of the
same department), or occupational criteria (a job will only be open to
members of a certain occupation), or employment equity (a job will only
be open to members of one or more of the employment equity groups).   
However, according to Public Service Commission policy, a department
can only limit the Area of Selection to an employment equity group
where it is justified by the department’s employment equity plan.  That
means, there must be evidence of a significant gap in representation for
that designated group (the representation of the group in the workplace
or occupation is much lower than their representation in the external
labour market).
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Black Dog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1070
  • Location: Deathbridge
Re: The sad state of the (UN) United States
« Reply #167 on: November 26, 2021, 04:33:50 pm »
I never said completely unqualified candidates are being hired, I said the most qualified are not always being hired.

So what was the point of this then:

Quote
If a refugee from Uganda comes to Canada and isn't well educated and doesn't have a college diploma, why should an employer be allowed to give them a job over a more qualified candidate simply because of skin colour?  Race has absolutely NOTHING to do with why the Ugandan is not as qualified for the job.  Being low-income in that case isn't in any way whatsoever the fault of someone from another race, and the primary reason is education not racism.  If the majority white population allows refugees into Canada because they want to be compassionate, does that mean they also have to give them their freaking jobs?  It's insane.  I'm fine with giving them education, language training, free healthcare, even income supports, and everything else they need to succeed, but i'm not going to support racially discriminatory policies.

Offline eyeball

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 999
Re: The sad state of the (UN) United States
« Reply #168 on: November 26, 2021, 08:15:32 pm »
Delete

Offline MH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9398
Re: The sad state of the (UN) United States
« Reply #169 on: November 27, 2021, 05:38:23 am »
I don't know about afraid but just about every post you make reeks of arrogance. And here you are flouncing off in a huff again.

I think you're far more arrogant than I could be because you don't see any obligation to explain your reasoning for anything.

You just post it like it's obvious fact.  I have the humility of looking for reasons to back up my opinions.  That's not arrogance it's open-mindedness.

I think you are not used to people challenging your point of view, personally.

Offline MH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9398
Re: The sad state of the (UN) United States
« Reply #170 on: November 27, 2021, 05:42:48 am »
You're looking in a mirror. I'd like to discuss things calmly if there was anyone here capable of such a discussion. But what there seems to be here are a few nasty extremists from the far left and you - a tower of condescension willing to be polite only for a limited time, until it's clear you're not convincing someone. Then you are full of indignation and contempt and the pretense of any sort of interest in what others think goes out the window. You're locked in your little multicultural bubble in downtown Toronto and imagine that's the whole world and everyone should act and think just like you.

So because of YOUR perception than I'm arrogant (and I am from Toronto ??) you won't even discuss things with me ?

And I'M arrogant ?

Quote
The masses aren't going to be educated by you or people like you, you pompous petty-bourgeois fool. They're going to come for you and your out-of-touch elitist world with pitchforks and torches instead and pull everything down around your ears. And you'll be left wondering "But, but I was so nice and caring and understanding!"

The level of public discussion has degenerated because of people like you, who simply state a bias such as "you like multicult" "you are from Toronto" and then close out the conversation with that.  There are things called facts that need to be looked at.  What we don't need is a culture war.

Do the so-called 'woke' go too far sometimes ?  Absolutely.  But when they do they are just pursuing a moral culture war in the same way you do, but for the other side.

And yet another post that doesn't address issues from you.  You are tiresome and you have nothing.  I think if you post some facts you will find I agree with you on more than a few things...
Agree Agree x 1 View List