Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )

[Good2Golf]

My wife is graduating from her nursing program next month at the RPN level. There are 145 graduates and maybe 8 are male. So to go back to your question even if there was a practice in place for a 50/50 split it would still be a struggle to find enough qualified males as the majority of students taking nursing are still female.

See what you did there, Teager?  You just made Bruce’s point. Males are a significant minority in nursing, but there is no EE for them, and no organization would stop recruiting female nurses to make up for the imbalance from a pool of candidates (male) that could not come close to supporting gender parity for years/decades.

The mistaken concept that Equitable = Equal is unfortunately interpreted by many organizations, including the CAF, as a valid COA...except, it would seem, when dealing with occupations currently represented by a jake majority

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Infanteer]

The answer to the question is pretty easy to find, and is written right in the law that Blackadder put up earlier:

Purpose of Act
2 The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.
⦁  1995, c. 44, s. 2;
⦁  2017, c. 26, s. 19(E).

There are no EE programs to make more male nurses because, according to the Act, there are no "conditions of disadvantage in employment" for that demographic.  Not to say its right or wrong, only pointing out the answer to the question.

 

[mariomike]

didn't you say that one of your partners was a female?

My permanent  partners were white males.

My permanent partner received a temporary six-month position as an Alternate Rating ( AR ) Superintendent  ( aka Supervisor ).

So, I talked it over with a female on the department that I knew socially. We submitted a request to be "married up" ( that was the common term for any temporary partnership ) for the duration of my permanent partner's AR. 

Being low seniority, she was on what was called "Swing". ie: A spare.

To complicate matters, I hadn't worked "the cars" since 1980. ( It would be similar to a City paramedic permanently assigned to the Marine Unit, temporarily going back on the street. A "fish out of water", so to speak. )

That is how much confidence I had in her. I was happy to let her take the lead.

My partnership with my permanent partner resumed when his AR terminated.

Working with her was a wonderful experience. I was sorry when it ended. But, also relieved to return to my regular duty station.

If I recall correctly she went on to be your boss or supervisor?

When she became an AR herself, she became my supervisor for a short time.

Unlike "the cars", where supervisors who were going nowhere were permanently assigned to crews on the same schedule and District, AR's ( like her ) that they had their eyes on tended to be fast-tracked through HQ, Communications, Education, Special Operations ( ETF, ESU/MPU, HUSAR, CBRNE, PSU, ERU ) Logistics, etc... etc... All sorts of programs.

This way, they could check some of the "been there, done that" boxes when it came time to apply for a permanent promotion.

Since you asked...

 

[Blackadder1916]

The answer to the question is pretty easy to find, and is written right in the law that Blackadder put up earlier:

There are no EE programs to make more male nurses because, according to the Act, there are no "conditions of disadvantage in employment" for that demographic.  Not to say its right or wrong, only pointing out the answer to the question.

Thank you.

However, the answer is much more basic than  "conditions of disadvantage in employment".  The Act isn't applied by occupation but by employer.  If it is was, then the argument would be "why are there not 25% (the rough overall CF target for female representation) women as infantry officers, or armoured, or pilots, or any of the pointy end types who are the first in line for the higher level command positions" instead of the CF trying to reach the goal by counting all the nurses, logisticians, supply techs, clerks, etc.  However that question has been asked in some of the regular audits of EE. 

So, if one was to seriously discuss male nurse representation in the work force then it should legitimately be a discussion about gender representation in hospitals or the health care industry generally.  At that point the Employment Equity Act become moot because with a few rare exceptions (CF Health Services being one, don't know if there are any DVA hospitals anymore) that industry segment is not a federally regulated industry and thus is not subject to the Act.

(edited to add)

Oh, by the way, I don't know what exact percentage of CF Nursing Officers are male but (even way back when I was serving) "Mister Sisters" did not have a particularly great disadvantage due to their gender.  While at one time (long. long ago - I'm getting old) there may have been some obvious discrimination on the part of some of the nursing leadership sisterhood (and appropriate stick by other male members of the Mess) men often ended up in desirable positions (however, there wasn't a whole lot of senior rank positions for nurses).  Probably the only "jammy go" that they were excluded from was the midwifery exchange position with the Brits.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>conditions of disadvantage in employment

What are the conditions of disadvantage in employment in the CF?  Lack of population-proportionate representation is not one.  If there any remaining rules/regulations obstructing disadvantaged groups, remove them.  If there is still social bias (against members of disadvantaged groups), leaders must deal with it.  If occupational requirements (standards) to be met exist that are not bona fide and have the effect of screening out members of disadvantaged groups, remove or alter them to reflect properly what people must be able to do for the job.

None of those is fixed with quotas at the entry gate.

 

[Jarnhamar]

So after 30 years of this EE plan we're sitting at what, 15%?

Is it effective or archaic at this point?



Rereading the article, under certain circumstances an indigenous member from the far north can join the CAF without even bothering to do the CFAT, or they have to write it but they don't have to pass. Is representation that important?

Under our current government I wonder we will do in order to reach that 25% mark.

 

[ballz]

Spillage from another thread that touched on this issue.

I'll grant you some leeway as you are still (legally) a child and have a little time to develop into a thinking adult, but if you believe that expressing such opinions will endear you to the average military member or those who frequent this site, then you may be disappointed.  On reflection, I wonder if you actually read the link in Loach's post or analysed the responses in that thread.  Perhaps you could explain (in the other thread, to keep it on topic) why this is "a joke of a thinly veiled, politically motivated, PC culture lie".

I'd have thought that the story would (as it should) elicit a "so what, old news" but I guess there are still those around who haven't changed with the times.  By the way, I served back in the days of yore when this was an actual issue, thankfully we (the CF as an organization) grew up.  Maybe it hasn't reached the optimal stage yet when measures such as described remain necessary but it's getting there.  If there are applicants (especially those who want to be officers) who can't accept the law or understand the measures needed to implement same then perhaps they should seek another line of work.


And the challenge to my post.

Actually, I see nothing discriminatory (legally speaking) about the practice raised in Ms. Blatchford's article.  Since the initials "EE" are featured as the secret code on the sheets that Ms. Blatchford's surreptitiously received let's look at the purpose of the Employment Equity Act.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-5.401/page-1.html#h-2
But surely it would be discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act?  Well, not necessarily.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-6/page-2.html#docCont
Now, that sounds like a bunch of lawyerly babblespeak, but I take it to mean that it is permitted to give an advantage or priority to a group if  it is based on reducing the effects of a prohibited grounds of discrimination for that group.  Seems that is what CFRG did.

But surely, the time has passed since enactment of the Employment Equity Act (33 years) that such "special programs" are no longer necessary?  You would hope so, but the Canadian Forces has never met the targets envisioned as reasonable.  What does the act consider a reasonable target measurement?

https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/equal-employment-opportunities-0
In the course of researching for this post (which began before the posts from the other thread), in various OAG audits, CF Ombudsman reports, CHRC reports and some of the latest government defence and security policy documents, a common "official" position of the CF over the years discuss the woes of meeting Employment Equity targets and in the last few years indicate (in various descriptions) that "special programs" will be instituted to help meet the goals, especially that of recruiting more women.  However, no specific details were provided as to how they would function.  My assumption is this temporary prioritization of women only applications for specific occupations is included in these latest CFRG administrative trivia.

The CF is not the only large government body to do so.  The other organization specifically mentioned on the Employment Equity Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) seemingly has been doing similar for decades.  I remembered stories from the late 1990s (?) and in my googling came across other reports from the 2000s and the early to mid 2010s with tales of individuals being told that if they were a white male don't bother applying because priority was being given to women and visible minorities.  On some other forums, the (unofficial) report is that women and visible minorities have to meet a lower score on their testing in order to get an employment interview.  I wasn't however able to find any "official" announcement of this RCMP policy.  If it does work that way, there must have been someone who officially complained as previously suggested in this thread.
I looked through Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) decisions to see if there were any complaints that touched on the points discussed here - none.  Similarly, I found nothing on any of the other court decision databases and a general google of the topic revealed no reports or discussion of anybody who officially challenged such a policy.  Either potential applicants to the RCMP are too lazy (unlikely) or the legal merits of such action would preclude anyone from being supported in their case by the CHRC or being successful in a venue other than the CHRT.  My search skills of case law may be (probably is) deficient so I would gladly be disabused of my assertion by someone with better search skills.

Law does not constitute morality and while there's been a few mentions of whether or not it's legal, I think this argument is about whether or not it *should* be legal on the basis of whether this action is moral or not. If someone can provide me an argument as to how morally correct it is to discriminate against a race/gender/etc, than by all means, I'm all ears. But simply regurgitating laws are not really arguments, particularly given your very bold assertions in the other thread that those of whose disagree should find another line of work.

Although I do find this contradiction a bit fun...

"The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences."

This current practice is literally denying white males employment opportunities for reasons unrelated to ability.

 

[Ostrozac]

So after 30 years of this EE plan we're sitting at what, 15%?

Is it effective or archaic at this point?

Well, arguably the Canadian Forces as an institution hasn’t really been trying to obey the legislation in question, the Employment Equity Act, and for years has been filing it among other laws that receive lip service but not full compliance (The Official Languages Act is another — has anybody actually served in a Bilingual Unit that actually used two languages in the workplace?) An actual honest effort to obey the law, including investing resources and changing internal policy, is probably a required step before declaring that the direction given by Parliament is impossible to achieve.

To be frank, it would probably be easier to meet the letter and intent of the EE Act with conscription/selective service, but instead we will have to figure out how to do it (or at least make an honest attempt) through our existing recruiting system.

 

[dapaterson]

An actual honest effort to obey the law, including investing resources and changing internal policy, is probably a required step before declaring that the direction given by Parliament is impossible to achieve.

Culture eats strategy for breakfast.  Cultural change is what's needed - laws, regulations and policies are irrelevant until that happens.

It's been more than three decades since CREW and WINTER...

 

[PuckChaser]

To be frank, it would probably be easier to meet the letter and intent of the EE Act with conscription/selective service, but instead we will have to figure out how to do it (or at least make an honest attempt) through our existing recruiting system.

The CAF is exempt from some federal equity acts, and even articles of the Charter of Rights. We turn people away due to medical disabilities all the time. Why are we not able to say "This is the recruiting standard, once you meet it, you get boarded along with everyone else". I personally feel board files should be stripped of any identifying factors for race/gender/sex/religion to give a completely "colour-blind" selection process.

We're such a small military with limited resources, but we're hamstringing ourselves by taking less than ideal candidates to fill quotas.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Well, arguably the Canadian Forces as an institution hasn’t really been trying to obey the legislation in question, the Employment Equity Act, and for years has been filing it among other laws that receive lip service but not full compliance (The Official Languages Act is another — has anybody actually served in a Bilingual Unit that actually used two languages in the workplace?) An actual honest effort to obey the law, including investing resources and changing internal policy, is probably a required step before declaring that the direction given by Parliament is impossible to achieve.

To be frank, it would probably be easier to meet the letter and intent of the EE Act with conscription/selective service, but instead we will have to figure out how to do it (or at least make an honest attempt) through our existing recruiting system.

I Have: HMCS/NCSM DONNACONNA. And all pipes and orders were in both languages. Nothing submitted for unit consumption (Routine Orders, papers, any communication, was not allowed until both versions were available).

Heck! We even deployed on training week-end with that philosophy, turning many heads with pipes alongside such as "Special sea duty men and cable party close up - hands to station for leaving harbour - assume damage control condition yankee / specialistes de la manoeuvre et equipe des chaines a vos postes - equipage aux postes d'appareillage / condition de limitation d'avaries Yankee"  ;D

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The CAF is exempt from some federal equity acts, and even articles of the Charter of Rights. We turn people away due to medical disabilities all the time. Why are we not able to say "This is the recruiting standard, once you meet it, you get boarded along with everyone else". I personally feel board files should be stripped of any identifying factors for race/gender/sex/religion to give a completely "colour-blind" selection process.

We're such a small military with limited resources, but we're hamstringing ourselves by taking less than ideal candidates to fill quotas.

Puckchaser: There are NO exception for the Military for any of the articles of the Canadian Charter of Rights - which is the one that forms part of the Constitution Act. The military wanted to have such exceptions but Trudeau senior refused to grant any.

The CF capacity for excluding people with medical disabilities from serving is actually part of the accepted limitation of right that is permitted under the Charter for limitations that are "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". And even that is under attack, as many people are pushing for the CF to accept that people with physical disability can be useful in some positions that don't require full physical capacity and therefore, should be accommodated.

 

[Ostrozac]

I Have: HMCS/NCSM DONNACONNA. And all pipes and orders were in both languages. Nothing submitted for unit consumption (Routine Orders, papers, any communication, was not allowed until both versions were available).

Interesting. My experience with multiple units in Ottawa, as well as nominally Bilingual Units in Kingston and Gagetown, was quite different. Even in my current (Ottawa) unit, while Routine Orders are bilingual, our SOP’s are not. I wonder if DONNACONNA is more a reflection on the bilingual nature of Montrealers rather than of the Canadian Forces.

 

[PuckChaser]

Puckchaser: There are NO exception for the Military for any of the articles of the Canadian Charter of Rights - which is the one that forms part of the Constitution Act. The military wanted to have such exceptions but Trudeau senior refused to grant any.

I'd ask you then to go exercise your Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Peaceful Assembly on something that doesn't toe the current CAF policy. You only have to look at the "Proud Boys" incident, CAF members who were doxxed and never identified themselves as CAF members had administrative action taken against them for counter-protesting.

 

[dapaterson]

Proud Boys are a hate group.  Are you sure that's the hill you want to die on?

 

[PuckChaser]

Proud Boys are a hate group.  Are you sure that's the hill you want to die on?

Its an example, and do you know its a hate group or just going off what the media/Southern Poverty Law Center says it is? What kind of "hate group" sues someone for libel? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-proudboys/founder-of-proud-boys-sues-over-being-labeled-hate-group-idUSKCN1PU032

You're also missing the point. A private citizen in Canada can assemble peacefully with whatever group they want. A CAF member cannot.

 

[ballz]

Its an example, and do you know its a hate group or just going off what the media/Southern Poverty Law Center says it is? What kind of "hate group" sues someone for libel? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-proudboys/founder-of-proud-boys-sues-over-being-labeled-hate-group-idUSKCN1PU032

You're also missing the point. A private citizen in Canada can assemble peacefully with whatever group they want. A CAF member cannot.

I'm not sure you're on target on this one... the Charter is to protect you from legal consequences... those members did not face legal consequences. They faced administrative action for conduct. I'm pretty sure any employer who has clear guidelines on ethics/values/conduct etc has similar recourse available to them for employees who do not align with their values and can, just like we did, issue employee's warnings for their conduct and potentially fire them, etc., if it can be shown that their off-duty conduct is relateable to their on-duty conduct. There's lots of law around this but that's the general idea.

I have zero issues with issuing remedial measures to someone for being part of a hate group or openly associating with them, etc (don't know anything about Proud Boys to be honest) (EDIT: because I think freedom of association is important, and your employer should be able to disassociate with you without legal consequences... the fact that you lost your job is a social consequences of exercising your freedom of expression or right to peaceful assembly).  However, I do fear that policies like the ones our CFRGs are using are only going to create more members for such groups. It's sad to see the government talking about how white nationalism is a growing threat and wondering how to combat it while at the same time deliberately discriminating against white males.

 

[mariomike]

Proud Boys are a hate group. 

That may be up for debate. But, they aren't the Bowery Boys 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys#Events

I'm pretty sure any employer who has clear guidelines on ethics/values/conduct etc has similar recourse available to them for employees who do not align with their values and can, just like we did, issue employee's warnings for their conduct and potentially fire them, etc., if it can be shown that their off-duty conduct is relateable to their on-duty conduct. There's lots of law around this but that's the general idea.

The Canadian HR Reporter,
https://www.hrreporter.com/columnist/employment-law/archive/2013/04/22/professional-conduct-outside-of-profession/
How far should high standards of professional conduct apply when employees are off duty?
"Recently, an Ontario arbitrator upheld the dismissal of a Toronto paramedic after his judgment was called into question due to off-duty conduct."

Didn't break any laws. Just inappropriate off-duty behavior.

In addition to the above, there are other cases like the Hydro One guy at Exhibition Place. Fired and re-hired.
Jian Ghomeshi let go by the CBC.
We had guys fired where I worked for, "Unacceptable sexist tweets."

Also, even if the union gets your job back, these are things future employers may find out during your background check.

 

[PuckChaser]

Follow up video from Christie Blatchford:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=9MyGBs3WMUE

 

[TCM621]

Are those exceptions, or the norm?  Are you taking isolated examples and extrapolating a general trend?  What percentage of recruits have developmental issues or mental heath conditions?  What's the failure rate at CFLRS?  Is it higher than historical norms?  Lower?  Why?

Before anyone tells me that the standard of recruit has dropped, I want to see proof.  I say this because "today's recruit is much poorer than when I went through" is probably one of the most common and inaccurate statement commonly made as a general fact by people who don't really have any proof to back the statement up.

While I haven't been to CFLRS lately, I've commanded soldiers who've come out of the pipeline, and the kids are all right.  This pipeline was, from my point of view, sound.

The proof is warrior platoon or what every they call it now. The proof is 1st generation immigrants who struggle to understand one of the official languages. That isn't even to say that these kinds of people couldn't be strong, valuable candidates if they addressed those issues, just that are not strong candidates at that time. Warrior platoon is a good example of that, I know lots of people who shed the weight and got fit on warrior platoon but those people were being paid and holding up a position.

Maybe that is a symptom of the CAFs inability to recruit rather than EE targets but no one to my knowledge is doing those studies. No one wants to accidentally come up with a result that could be see as sexist, racist, etc. There are some trades where certain traits must be present to be successful, regardless of what the polite answer is. Rather than ignore it we need to address it head on. if we want to increase the women in the military, we will have to generate 3 to 4 times the interest in the Infantry to find the amount of women who can physically perform the job. If we want to increase representation of the number of new Canadians, we need to find away to address issues like language which is an issue for many new Canadians. Too much EE stuff is someone on high waving a wand and saying "thou shall recruit more X" without address the real issues they may face. Women can be strong and new Immigrants can have impeccable English but those people are not as high represented in those populations as they are in the Canadian born male category. The further down the intersectional ladder you go the more difficult it get to find appropriate applicants. Recent south-east Asian female immigrants, may be a very difficult demographic to find physically strong people with strong english skills, for example.