Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )

[geo]

Links? References? Stats? Pics?
I wonder how many white guys were in those special recruiting teams? Somehow I can't see a 30 year old white guy inspiring visible minority youth to join the Army just because he's driving a Humvee blaring Snoop Dog.

1.... he'd be wearing ear plugs

2. Does that mean I can't go to the Hockey & football games in a Humvee / G Wagon?

 

[GO!!!]

Links? References? Stats? Pics?

I wonder how many white guys were in those special recruiting teams? Somehow I can't see a 30 year old white guy inspiring visible minority youth to join the Army just because he's driving a Humvee blaring Snoop Dog.

As a middle aged white guy yourself - how would you know?

http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/05-government/C-fraud/04-US-gov/2005/05C4-04-23-05-military-recruiters-targeting-minority-teens.html

http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/2029.cfm

http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/10/17/army/index_np.html?x

http://www.usarec.army.mil/6thbde/photos.htm

http://www.usarec.army.mil/6thbde/Photographs%20Page%20Files/North%20Bay/Mega%20DEP%20015.jpg

The presence of "recruiters of color" in the US is meaningless, as a far greater proportion of that country is vis-min, and as such, so is their military.

Over - representation of minorities is becoming a fact of life in the US military, leading to renewed calls for the draft.

 

[Michael OLeary]

So, the US Army identified that putting images, people and activities that young people of specific demographic groups could relate to was a successful recruiting tactic. But their success in doing so invalidates the presence of their visible minority recruiters simply because of that success. I still don't understand why that creates an argument that our own Recruiting System's attempt to initiate similar programs starting with selected recruiters (albeit on a much smaller scale) is inappropriate?

 

[enfield]

This policy assumes that the primary identifier of a person walking into a CFRC is their race or gender. It assumes that seeing a person of similar appearance will make the CF more attractive.
I disagree - I would suspect that even more than race or gender, potential recruits will notice if the recruiter is fit, motivated, professional, and embodies the qualities that the candidate expects from the military and believes are important.

Are we also going to rig the CFRC's so that if a person of a one visible minority walks in, they talk to someone of the same minority?

Why are we trying to present an artificial image to the public? Why do we insist on representations that have nothing to do with the demographic reality of the CF?

Hundreds (thousands?) of Native Canadians are currently serving in the US military. Did they go south and join there because the US recruiter was native? Nope - probably has a lot to do with a professional, aggressive reputation tho.
I would suggest that the more we try to change to attract minority elements, the more we alienate everyone - most of all young males.

At a most basic and superficial level (and one proven by the advertising industry) putting an attractive person behind the desk is probably the most important factor. Perhaps thats the best way to go...

 

[Michael OLeary]

Where was it stated that the plan was based on a presumption of a primary identifier of race/gender? The initial message talks about reinforcing the existing (prediminantly white male) recruiting staff. The backgrouder talks about task tailored employment of volunteers programmed by the CFRC.

http://www.recruiting.forces.gc.ca/engraph/recruiterforaday/index_e.aspx

"Recruiter for a Day" (RFD) is a volunteer program designed to reinforce the full-time CF recruiting team by drawing on other interested soldiers, sailors, airmen and women to assist in fulfilling the recruiting mission.

Volunteers will be contacted by a CF Recruiting Centre when their assistance is required for a specific recruiting event or activity.

So, if placing some visible minority recruiters in CFRCs and at selected events "alienates" young white males, doesn't that mean that staffing CFRCs and events predominantely with white males also alienates visible minority applicants?

Isn't there likely a balance between the two supposed extremes? Perhaps that is what the Recruiting System is attempting to achieve. Of course, we don't have precise demographics stats on current CFRC staffing, or how that compares to each of their local areas. If a potential applicant is more comfortable speaking to somone they identify with on that first contact basis, why shouldn't we work on that; whether the applicant is a white male or a black woman?

Without more facts it's a rhetorical discussion.

 

[geo]

... and it becomes one of:
white bashing; or
vis minority bashing

 

[GO!!!]

Well, it's good to hear that affirmative action has been replaced with "reinforcement".

My unit is predominately white, male, and anglophone. I suppose we require "reinforcement" from women, francos and visible minorities so that the public won't realise what we are, after all, how shameful, and in need of fixing it must be for any trade to be indicative of the canadian public which is only 15% visible minorities.

I'm sure our recruiting numbers will surge once everyone who is'nt white sees a recruiter of the same color - after all - that's what they were waiting for - right?

:

 

[the 48th regulator]

Ok troops,

this one is shut down for now unti coller heads prevail...PM me if you have a good one

dileas

tess

 

[dimsum]

Depending on the week and whether employment equity (or EE) targets are being met, the Canadian Forces periodically closes some of its approximately 100 occupations or trades to any applicants but women...

...and other members of EE groups...

More at link:

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-canadian-forces-jobs-where-only-women-need-apply?fbclid=IwAR2RlBWzz1HspcE48f-vn0Tlut09bA3Mb6h8DTE4iDqBDvE1nxDkWPCrq2k&utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app#Echobox=1555682676

Edit to add a bit of content from the article, rather than only a link.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I very sincerely hope someone challenges this as a violation of their Charter or Human rights.  And...to lie to applicants?

Sabourin agreed that in practice, it means that if a white male was applying for a job that was temporarily open only to EE candidates, he would be informed the occupation was full and other job possibilities discussed.

Asked if the man would be told the occupation was still open for members of EE groups, Sabourin said no.

 

[mariomike]

Nothing new about Employment Equity,

From 2005,

Employment equity is only for those who qualify
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/37277.0.html
2 pages.

Sometimes referred to on here by its American term, "Affirmative Action",

2004,

Affirmative Action recruiting policies?
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/22619.100.html
5 pages.

For reference to the discussion,

Canadian Forces Employment Equity Regulations
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-421/page-3.html
Date modified:  2019-04-10

 

 

[Navy_Pete]

I'm not really sure what all the outrage is about; worked a lot of different short term contract jobs before joining and pretty sure I wouldn't have gotten a few of them if I wasn't a white male (because the guy doing the hiring was racist). 

Presuming this means the trade has hit it's recruiting target, but they will let EE candidates apply for beyond that. Might mean they exceed the training system capacity a bit, so some people wait a while longer in a few trades if they have hard caps on course loads but otherwise who cares?

As an added bonus, makes for some really great potlucks; had an awesome curried chill and some jerk chicken recently.

They've tried all kinds of things to try and diversify, maybe this will work.  Worse case not enough recruits are coming in to keep up with releases, and that's been status quo since before I got in (about 15 years ago).

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'm not really sure what all the outrage is about

A Canadian government organization denying someone possible employment, and lying about the reason why...how much *outrage* would there be if the story said "coloured applicants" in the sentences it says "male" or even better, "white male"? 

You're saying it is perfectly fine with you if they discriminate, but only against white males?

 

[BeyondTheNow]

It’s honestly not that surprising. Maybe it’s a bit surprising that someone has actually confirmed what we’ve all known all a long, but otherwise, yeah, it’s not surprising.  :dunno:

... “There are no occupations that we restrict based on gender.”...Tattersall acknowledged, however, that “diversity is a consideration” – a significant one, especially near the end of the recruiting year when she said “We will look at diversity applicants first” – and that what the sheets indicate about Indigenous applicants is correct...

This sort of thing isn’t rare in many areas of public service.

What bothers me more, however, are the CFAT and PCL issues mentioned.

 

[Journeyman]

There's way too much to be offended about, or on behalf of... you know, like a Reservist wanting a photo in uniform, or hair styles, or badges.....FREAKIN' BADGES!!
            anic:


So the short answer is, the Employment Equity Act has been enshrined in federal Canadian law since 1986 (amended 1995).  For over three decades,  it has required federal employers to engage in proactive employment practices to increase the representation of women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities.

Forgive me if I don't get worked up today by DND doing something that has been legally mandated for 33 years.  However, should anyone wish to light torches and storm some castle, or start a harshly-worded petition, you can get some useful bits from "Canada, Justice Laws Website, 'Employment Equity Act (S.C. 1995, c. 44)',"  https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-5.401/ -- it specifically mentions Canadian Forces, CSIS, and RCMP.

 

[Infanteer]

I'm with Journeyman.  If I understand the numbers right, the CAF can afford to be selective, and only takes a certain percentage of actual applicants each year - we have more people applying than we actually have seats for, based on the size of the training pipeline.

The article says they will lock specific applications down on a week-by-week basis.  I'd imagine this is done as an occupation reaches its annual quota, which is determined by a document called the Strategic Intake Plan.  If you've got 80% of your seats filled and know you have more than enough applicants to fill the other 20%, I don't see an issue with being a little more selective as you come to the end of the Fiscal Year to achieve some Government of Canada policies - policies that will arguably help the CAF in the long run by giving us a competitive advantage in terms of a diverse personnel pool.

 

[mariomike]

This sort of thing isn’t rare in many areas of public service.

True.

"I also explained that women and visible minorities, once qualified, are placed in their own group and that each class hired would require 50% from that group and 50% from the white male group."
Toronto Fire Watch - Spring 2009
Secretary Treasurer's Report
http://www.torontofirefighters.org/OSS/images/firewatch/spring2009.pdf

Not for me to say what's fair or unfair. I joined the PRes and public service prior to the Employment Equity Act of 1986.

 

[Navy_Pete]

A Canadian government organization denying someone possible employment, and lying about the reason why...how much *outrage* would there be if the story said "coloured applicants" in the sentences it says "male" or even better, "white male"? 

You're saying it is perfectly fine with you if they discriminate, but only against white males?

No one is being denied employment, there are lots of trades to apply to. What they are doing is trying to reserve some of the SIP slots for EE candidates so they can meet the actual legislation goals that have been in effect for over 30+ years.

The only thing that generally concerns me is when you get a recruit come in that doesn't speak either official language well enough to go through training. Had a few of them as an instructor, and while there was no issue with aptitude, intelligence or effort, was pretty frustrating to need a translator to go over some of the more complicated lessons when we hit the technical side of things.  Our policies assume that you are proficient with either french or english, so doesn't allow any ESL training unless you are a native french speaker.  Took a course failure, training review board and a lot of paperwork, but wasted about a year to get them on a six month language course, after which they were good to go.

As long as they stick with the same baseline for the intake requirements though, works out in the wash, so not going to lose any sleep over this.  Also, CFRG success to date has been an overall increase of about 0.5%, so we aren't talking about a massive number of candidates being affected.

 

[ballz]

No one is being denied employment, there are lots of trades to apply to.

And women in the US weren't being denied employment in the US military, there were lots of "other" trades besides infantry.  :facepalm:

So the short answer is, the Employment Equity Act has been enshrined in federal Canadian law since 1986 (amended 1995).  For over three decades,  it has required federal employers to engage in proactive employment practices to increase the representation of women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities.

Forgive me if I don't get worked up today by DND doing something that has been legally mandated for 33 years.

I'm not a lawyer obviously but I'm not sure the Employment Equity Act gave the government legal authority to literally deny applications based solely on race/gender.

Proactive employment practices means a lot of things, including "recruitment in Aboriginal communities, job advertisements in a Chinese-language newspaper, or an apprentice program directed toward people with disabilities." Another huge part of it is reasonable accommodations, such as making buildings wheelchair accessible.

All of those things is in an entirely different league than literally refusing to look at a white male's application because he's a white male.

I'm with Journeyman.  If I understand the numbers right, the CAF can afford to be selective, and only takes a certain percentage of actual applicants each year - we have more people applying than we actually have seats for, based on the size of the training pipeline.

I'm not really sure how that statement in anyway justifies that we should be selective based on race / gender.

policies that will arguably help the CAF in the long run by giving us a competitive advantage in terms of a diverse personnel pool.

That's a great theory but one hell of an assumption to base social re-engineering off of. I'll be the arsehole here with the glaringly obvious example, if we manage to make the infantry corps 50% women, without having increased its size because we're limited on that, it's going to be a weaker corps than it is currently is.

Cue all the social justice warriors coming to tell me how biology isn't a real thing. Can't wait for it. Please take that particular tangent to another thread, thanks in advance.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Cue all the social justice warriors coming to tell me how biology isn't a real thing. Can't wait for it. Please take that particular tangent to another thread, thanks in advance.

That is a neat trick.  You have preemptively dismissed anyone who does not agree with you.  Nice.