Subject: Re: Ontario's Employment Equity Act

From: [email-masked] (Glen Moore)
Date: 16 Feb 1995 23:29:35 GMT

The following article sums up the reality of Employment Equity.
As for your ideas, they are the cries of an opportunist!

			RACE, SEX BIAS				       
			**************				       
Rights Commission offers glimpse of chilling future for white males in 
its hiring policy . . .						       

  THE FACE OF ONTARIO'S FUTURE IS NON-WHITE AND FEMALE AND A PLACE     
	 		WHERE RIGHTS ARE . . . WRONG  		       
								       
		by Christie Blatchford				       
		Toronto Sun, Fri. August 26, 1994, page 5	       
								       
	The Ontario Human Rights Commission - often touted as a model  
of employment equity - has been systematically and deliberately        
discriminating against white English speaking men, statistics in a     
recent report show.						       
	And what's more, even though oly abut 9% of its workforce are  
white men - who form 40% of Ontario's population - other documents     
prove the commission is hellbent on hiring even more racial minorities 
and aboriginals and on making employment equity a crucial part of a    
major restructuring now under way.				       
	Less than a week before Bob Rae's controversial Employment     
Equity Act comes into force for the public service, the results of the 
organizations's recently completed "employment systems review" put the 
lie to the notion that employment equity is always about fairness.     
	Employment equity, which becomes mandatory for large private-  
sector firms next March, is SUPPOSED to see to it that the five        
so-called "designated groups" - women, the disabled, aboriginal people,
Francophones and racial minorities - are fairly represented.	       
	White English-speaking men are referred to as the	       
"non-designated group."						       
	Usually, equity advocates use census results to argue, for     
example, that because the disabled make up about 7% of the general     
population, they should also compose 7% of every work force.	       
	The assumption has always been that once barriers have been    
"removed" for the designated groups and fairness achieved, mandatory   
equity programs would cease.					       
	But at the commission, there's no equity for white men - and   
none planned for the future, either.				       
	The statistics which form the "workforce profile" released last
March are revealing enough.					       
	They show, among other things, that women and racial minorities
are wildly over-represented among the commission staff.		       
	Women make up 50% of Ontario's population, but they form 67% of
the commission's workforce, while minorities, who form about 9%, are   
represented at more than four times that rate - about 38% - at the     
commission.							       
	Aboriginal people, who form 1.7% of the population, have more  
than twice that representation - 3.9% - at the commission.	       
								       
	But the Sun has also learned other shocking facts.  Among them:
								       
* White men are totally absent fromt he commission's "senior management
  group";							       
* In some commission offices outside Metro, particularly in the        
  Northern Region, there are NO white men on staff;		       
* There are NO white men working in the influential jobs on the        
  executive directors' or the commissioner's staff;		       
* There are no white men employed in the policy branch of the 	       
  commission;							       
* There have been virtually no white men promoted in recent years, and 
  of the few hired, virtually all had so much seniority in government  
  they couldn't be denied the jobs.				       
* The over-representation by racial minorities and women was first     
  revealed in a 1989 "I count" survey, which showed the two groups had,
  respectively, 40% and 68% of commission jobs.			       
								       
But while the number of Francophones has almost doubled since then, the
plight of the ordinary white male who ISN'T French has only worsened.  
	The commission is also in the midst of a sweeping restructuring
and according to a 26-page report just released to staff a week ago,   
employment equity remains "an organizational priority".		       
	The restructuring may see some jobs eliminated, the report says
and if any competitionsa re held as a result, equity will be a PRIME   
consideration.							       
	Staff who are deemed "job-threatened" or "surplus" will be     
allowed to compete for their redefined positon or a new one, but equity
will be a factor in whether or not they get it.			       
	Management has also recently approved much of a sweeping set of
recommendations from the commission's active anti-racism committee; two
of its goals are to see "and increase in aboriginal" and "racial       
minority staff."						       
	It's quite clear that if the commission is a glimpse of the    
future for Ontario under employment equity, the fact of the future is  
female and non-white.						       
[End of Article]

Kamala-Jean Gopie ([email-masked]) wrote:

: You are only criticizing Employment Equity out of your own
: inadequacies and fears.

: Immigration has been the lifeblood of Canadian and American
: economies.  As old cultures grow stagnant, the new cultures
: bring a new vitality and without them this country would
: have fallen apart.  Those from the old ways who are the
: reason for this stagnation are afraid of the success of the
: immigrants and out of their fear and racism will do anything
: to forbid the newcomers an equal chance.  It is because of
: this that Employment Equity becomes a necessity.

: Unfortunately, Employment Equity is not enough.  Those in
: positions of power will use other means to block the success
: of newer citizens.  One method is by educational restrictions.
: Therefore to have a truly equitable system other inequities
: must be addressed, predominately education.  Education is 
: effectively limited to the new citizens by: financial 
: restrictions and by culturally biased marking.  To eliminate
: the first problem, post seconday education must become more
: accessable to historically discriminated groups ideally by
: making their education free, but if that is not politically
: possibly, then by a program of scholarships and grants to
: members of those groups.  Secondly, since testing is
: culturally biased, it must be normalized to account for the
: cultural biases in tests that give certain groups lower
: marks unfairly.

: Another area Employment can't address but that must be
: addressed are cultural images that portray certain groups
: in certain roles.  Women seem to only be portrayed in
: sexual or homemaker roles in our media; Blacks as athletes.
: The media must start portraying historically discriminated 
: groups in different roles, likes women as leaders and Blacks
: as scholars.  The media won't do this without government
: intervention.

: Bob Levitt ([email-masked]) wrote:
: : As I have had several requests after one posting I made about Ontario's 
: : Employment Equity Act, I will be typing it up plus the regulations that 
: : go with it in its entirity.  For now I will  just be posting the 
: : "Preamble" in the Act.

: : I believe that no matter what your beliefs on Employment Equity are, 
: : after reading the Act you will believe that this particular law is a bad 
: : one because it does not define all the requirements and leaves most of 
: : the decisions, not to the law, but to the bureaucrats of the Employment 
: : Equity Commission, an invitation to individual interpretation (that will 
: : vary from bureaucrat to bureaucrat and their personal political beliefs) 
: : and is an open invitation to abuse and even graft.

: : As for my personal beliefs on this law, I believe it adds to the 
: : overburdening of both the public and business with more and more 
: : bureaucracy, it makes it desirable to hire those that are covered under 
: : this law (the "designated groups" only, and I am one of those 
: : "designated groups") and not on the basis of merit, it punishes some for 
: : the previous misdeeds of others in the past in the same "non-designated 
: : group," it rewards others for the misdeeds done in the past to those in 
: : the same "designated groups" and it may be one of the causes for the 
: : "economy" not recovering in the province of Ontario.

: : I understand there is a similar federal (Canadian) law, but I don't have 
: : a copy of it.

: : Anyways, for those who are interested in it, here is the beginning of my 
: : work, typing the Act and regulations that go with it.
: : ************************************************************************

: :                          BILL 79

: :           (Chapter 35 Statutes of Ontario, 1993)

: : And Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aborininal People,
: : People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women

: :                     The Hon. E. Ziemba
: :                     Minister of Citizenship

: : 3rd Session, 35th Legislature, Ontario, 42 Elizabeth II, 1993

: : 1st Reading    June 25, 1992
: : 2nd Reading    July 19, 1993
: : 3rd Reading    December 9, 1993
: : Royal Assent   December 14, 1993

: : Printed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario

: :           Contents

: :      Part I - Employment Equity

: : 1. Entitlement
: : 2. Employment equity principles

: :      Part II - General

: :      Interpretation

: : 3. Definitions
: : 4. Designated groups
: : 5. Legitimate requirements, handicaps, special employment
: : 6. Plan to prevail

: :      Application

: : 7. Application of Parts III, IV and VI
: : 8. Crown bound

: :      Part III - Obligations

: :      Obligations

: : 9. Implementation and maintenance of employment equity
: : 10. Collection of workforce information
: : 11. Review of employment policies
: : 12. Employment equity plan
: : 13. Standard re contents of plan
: : 14. Implementation of plan
: : 15. Review and revision of plan
: : 16. Joint responsibilities, employer and bargaining agent
: : 17. Consultation with unrepresented employees
: : 18. Duty to post information
: : 19. Employment equity records
: : 20. Reports to the Commission

: :      Application to the Commission

: : 21. Access to Information

: :      Exemptions

: : 22. Regulations re Aboriginal workplaces

: :      Implementation

: : 23. Time to comply, existing employees
: : 24. If exemption ceases to apply, broader public sector

: :      Part IV - Enforcement

: :      Audit and Enforcement by the Commission

: : 25. Commission audit
: : 26. Settlement with Commission
: : 27. Commission order to comply

: :      Applications to the Tribunal

: : 28. Application by Commission
: : 29. Application for failure to implement plan or settlement
: : 30. Applications re joint responsibilities
: : 31. Application by employee re joint responsibilities
: : 32. Application re employers
: : 33. Application re intimidation, etc.
: : 34. Notice to Commission
: : 35. Mediation
: : 36. Parties
: : 37. Power to made orders
: : 38. Exclusive jurisdiction

: :      Offences

: : 39. Confidentiality of information
: : 40. Obstruction
: : 41. Providing false information
: : 42. Intimidation
: : 43. Offences and penalty
: : 44. Consent to prosecution

: :      Part V - Administration

: :      Employment Equity Commission

: : 45. Commission established
: : 46. Functions of the Commission
: : 47. Policy directives
: : 48. Commission rules
: : 49. Annual report
: : 50. Advisory councils

: :      Employment Equity Tribunal

: : 51. Tribunal established
: : 52. Panels of the Tribunal
: : 53. Tribunal rules

: :      Part VI - Miscellaneous and Regulations

: : 54. Employment equity; government contracts
: : 55. Regulations

: :      Part VII - Consequential Amendments, Review, Commencement
: :                 and Short Title

: : 56. Amendments to Human Rights Code
: : 57. Review of the Act
: : 58. Commencement
: : 59. Short title

: : Addendum added by the typist of this electronic version
: : Regulations as published in The Ontario Gazette - O. Reg. 386/94

: : Aboriginal Workplaces

: : Construction Industry

: : Agricultural Industry

: : Definitions

: : General
: : - Non-application                           Sections 1
: : - Interpretation                            Sections 2-5
: : - Workforce Survey                          Sections 6-13
: : - Review of Policies and Practices          Sections 14,15
: : - Employment Equity Plans                   Sections 16-21
: : - Rview and Revision of a Plan              Sections 22,23
: : - Certificates                              Section  24
: : - Joint Responsibilities of Employers
: :   and Bargaining Agents                     Sections 25-30
: : - Consultation with Unrepresented Employees Sections 31-33
: : - Information for Employees                 Sections 34-36
: : - Employment Equity Records                 Sections 37,38
: : - Employment Equity Reports                 Sections 39-41
: : - Commencement                              Section  42
: : - Workforce Survey Questionnaire            Schedule 1

: : ---------------------------------------------------------------

: : Preamble

: : The people of Ontario recognize that Aboriginal people, people
: : with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women
: : experience higher rates of unemployment than other people in
: : Ontario.  The people of Ontario also recognize that people in
: : these groups experience more discrimination than other people
: : in finding employment, in retaining employment and in being
: : promoted.  As a result, they are underrepresented in most
: : areas of employment, especially in senior and management
: : positions, and they are overrepresented in those areas of
: : employment that provide low pay and little chance for
: : advancement.  The burden imposed on th people in these groups
: : and on the communities in which they live is unacceptable.

: : The people of Ontario recognize that this lack of employment
: : equity exists in both the public and private sectors of
: : Ontario.  It is caused in part by systemic and intentional
: : discrimination in employment.  People of merit are too often
: : overlooked or denied opportunities because of this
: : discrimination.  The people of Ontario recognize that when
: : objective standards govern remployment opportunities, Ontario
: : will have a workforce that is tryly representative of its
: : society.

: : The people of Onatio have recognized in the Human Rights Code
: : the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all 
: : members of the human family and have recognized those rights
: : in respect of employment in such statutes as the Employment
: : Standards Act and the Pay Equity Act.  This Act extends teh
: : principles of those Acts and has as its object the
: : amelioration of conditions in employment for Aboriginal people,
: : peole with disabilities, members of racial minorities and
: : women in all workplaces in Ontario and the provision of the
: : opportunity for people to these groups to fulfil their
: : potential in employment.

: : The people of Ontario recognize that eliminating discrimination
: : in employment and increasing the opportunity of individuals to
: : contribute in the workplace will benefit all people in Ontario.

: : Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of
: : the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as
: : follows.

: : -----------------------------------------------------------------

: :                               Part I

: :                         Employment Equity

: : Entitlement
: :

---

From: [email-masked] (GREGORY IRVING)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 11:48:52

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Hareesh Kesavan) writes:
>From: [email-masked] (Hareesh Kesavan)
>Subject: Re: Ontario's Employment Equity Act
>Date: 8 Mar 1995 05:26:34 GMT

[regarding Bob Levitt's analysis of the act...]

>I think some of the points you have raised are very interesting,
>such as the ones that seem to give absolute power to an appointed
>political body (that is, the Employment Equity Tribunal).  It is
>worrisome that there seems to be no recourse to the rulings of this
>tribunal.

This is *very* worrisome.

>However, I must say that a law doesn't necessarily mean what it
>says it does!  It's important to consider the spirit of the law,
>not just the words.  I don't think a court of law would interpret
>these clauses in such an extreme fashion.  I'd love to hear a
>legal opinion on this one...

Ask Karen Selick.  She practises law in Belleville, Ont. and, based on her 
statements made on W5 last night, I think she would be only too happy to 
give you a legal opinion.

>>CONCLUSION
>>
>>
>>This law certainly seems to be discriminatory against the "non-designated
>>group".  I feel that a law should apply to everybody or it shouldn't apply
>>to anybody.

>This is where we part company!  The law may be "discriminatory"
>against the "non-designated" group, but the alternative is much worse.
>This is one case of a law which I believe should apply to some
>people and not others; in order to create a just society, individual
>rights must sometimes be sacrificed, if only for a while.

How can you create a just society when certain groups have more rights than 
others?  There are so many fundamental problems with this law as to make it 
completely untenable.

>This law promotes the hiring of a relatively small group who are
>particularly likely to have trouble getting jobs due to traditional
>prejudice on the part of (some) employers.  This promotion may
>indeed cause some of the "non-designated" group to not be hired, but
>it's better than allowing the qualified members of the "designated"
>group to never be hired!  

Please explain to us how that is "better".  Personally, I don't think it is 
acceptable to refuse employment to individuals based on race.  PERIOD!!

>I believe one of the main purpose of Employment Equity legislation
>is to provide examples of people in jobs to which they are not
>normally associated.  Remember, it was not that long ago that
>we took for granted that all doctors were men.  Similarly, you'll
>find even today that some guidance counsellors will never counsel
>girls to try their hand at engineering.  Promoting certain careers
>among "designated" groups is easier if there are examples of
>people from that group who have succeeded at that career.

Employment equity does not accomplish this goal.  We must change attitudes 
through education.  We have to change the way we educate people.  Employment 
equity simply polarizes people based on race, creates resentment, and raises 
questions in the minds of the so-called beneficiaries about why they got 
their jobs.

>Of course, I don't believe that such legislation should or will
>be a permanent part of Ontario law.  When sufficient numbers
>of the "designated" groups get into positions of power in the
>employing companies, hopefully the stereotypes will have been
>broken for good, and such "discriminatory" laws will not be
>necessary.

What makes you think the "designated" groups will be so magnanimous once 
they are in power, unless of course, you believe that only white males are 
capable of making racist decisions?

As a footnote, it might be of interest to note that the state of California 
will be holding a referendum to abolish affirmative action (and for those 
who say that EE is different.....calling it something different does not 
make it so).  It is widely expected that the referendum vote will result in 
the abolition of AA.  In its place will be a bill forbidding the use of race 
as a criterion for any hiring decision (which is as it should be).  What 
precipitated this movement was a bill passed in the California legislature 
stating that both admissions and *graduation* levels of the state 
universities had to reflect the demographics of the state.  The governor 
refused to sign the bill and it died there.  But the fact that it could pass 
in the legislature at all is evidence that we are going beyond the bounds of 
reason.

On last night's episode of W5, there was a piece on EE in which various 
individuals were fighting to have Ontario's Bill 79 repealed (or at least 
were advocating that action).  Included among those interviewed were Metro 
Toronto councillor Gordon (?) Chong and Belleville lawyer Karen Selick.  Did 
anyone else see that piece?

---

From: [email-masked] (John Angus)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 19:01:15 GMT

In a previous posting, Hareesh Kesavan ([email-masked]) writes:
> In article <[email-masked]>, Bob Levitt <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>                    These are my criticisms of the
>>                 (Ontario) Employment Equity Act, 1993
>>
>>by: Bob Levitt
> 
> [interesting analysis deleted to save bandwidth]
> 
> Furthermore, it would be useful to know whether anyone has been
> foolish enough to invoke this act in the way that you suggest.
> It doesn't just take a hole in the law, but someone to abuse it!
 
And you don't think this will happen? It's already happening federally
with less stringent legislation. Marcel Masse has already openly acknowledged
that, even though it is clearly illegal to do so, federal workers will not
be laid off based on merit but on skin colour and sex. He danced around
openly supporting this, but clearly, in a nudge-nudge, wink-wink fashion
he is agreeable to flouting the law in order to achieve all important
racial and sex ratios the feds have targeted.

> rights must sometimes be sacrificed, if only for a while.
 
A while? This practice has been ongoing in the US for a generation now,
and has miserably failed to achieve any lessening of racism. In fact,
it could be argued that quotas increase racism by increasing resentment
of the majority for minorities.

> group to never be hired!  If people are unable to secure employment
> because the "system" rejects them, who do you think pays for it??
 
Please explain to me why it is better for Ontario, or better morally,
to hire a black person over a more qualified white person because of
his skin colour, rather than hiring a white person over a more qualified
black person due to his skin colour. Please explain to me why you think
the more qualified candidate in either case would not be angry, bitter
and resentful.

> people from that group who have succeeded at that career.
 
But what you are saying is that social engineering is acceptable because
members of certain ethnic groups aren't interested in jobs which we feel
they must have, that if women aren't interested in being police, for example,
we must undertake propoganda campaigns to convince them otherwise. Why?
I would like to know how this province or country is damaged if few blacks
wish to be firefighters, few asians which to be police, and few women want
to be construction workers or soldiers.

> broken for good, and such "discriminatory" laws will not be

Hasn't happened anywhere else. There are human rights commisions, for
example, which are 90% ethnic or female, yet they still retain racial
hiring preferences. I believe the Ontario human rights commision has
something like 5% white males on its staff.

JA

--
"Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness"    [email-masked]
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
"Peace, Order, & Good Government"              [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Pearse Ward)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 1995 04:08:59 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Hareesh Kesavan)
wrote:

> I don't agree... in any society, including ours, some people have
> more rights than others based on the group to which they belong.
> In other words, in order to allow some people to have rights that
> were historically denied to them, other peoples' rights must be
> curtailed to some degree.  It's nice to believe in the ideal
> that everyone has the same rights, but it isn't always realistic.
> 
I certainly hope that you don't honestly believe what you just wrote.
"It's nice to believe that everyone has the same rights but it isn't
always realistic." You just made the day of every racist on the *net. That
is the line they have been using for years. For example; "blacks are
stupid so it isn't realistic to expect us to give them the same rights as
whites" or "women aren't as capable as men so it isn't realistic to pay
them the same as men." George Orwell was criticising totalitarianism when
he wrote "Animal Farm" but his parable applies equally well to the
politically correct. Reading the preamble of the Ontario legislation
caused me to remember the famous line; "ALL ANIMALS ARE CREATED EQUAL, BUT
SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS". Maybe I'll send Bob Rae a copy.

Either you belive in equal rights or you don't. If you believe in equal
rights for every human being then you cannot agree with policies that
treat people unequally based on their gender, race, religion etc...
Anything other than that position is sophistry of the worst kind; a feeble
attempt to rationalize what you know to be wrong. Feminists, persons of
colour, and anyone else who purports to be in favour of equality and
equity and then supports discrimination against another identifiable
group, simply because that discrimination favours them, are hypocrites.

Any law that requires specific exemption from the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms to escape being overturned by the courts is a priori in violation
of that Charter, and by extension, unjust. The Ontario legislation is bad
legislation. It cheapens the struggle for equality waged by thousands of
men, women and members of minorities in the past because it is an
admission of defeat. If the illusion of equality and parity of esteem can
only be achieved by perpetrating an injustice then the battle has been
lost by default.

> But how do you get to a situation where (say) 40% of employees in
> a given field are (say) women where there were previously only 10%?
> Quite likely, the female applicants do not represent 40% of the
> total number of applicants.  Why is that?  Because girls are not
> interested in entering that field.  So why is that?
> 

What about a case were 90% of the workers in a field are women. do you
advocate affirmative action in these areas to boost the representation of
males to 48% (their representation in the general population). Take
nursing for example, 98% of all nurses are women. I assume that in
Ontario, that now means that no more female nurses will be hired until men
make up 50% of the workforce. Given that there fewer than 5% of all
nursing school students are male, that will take until well into the next
century.

Women make up 52% of the student body at this university. The majority of
graduates in the faculties of; Pharmacy, Law, Commerce, Veterinary
Medicine, Education, Nursing, Nutrition, Physical and Occupational
Therapy, and Arts and Sciences are female. The numbers are about equal in
Medicine and Dentistry. Men are in the majority in Engineering, Physical
Education, and Graduate Studies. given that the pool of graduating
professionals is greater than 50%, if a level playing field exists (and
existing legislation is sufficient to enforce fair hiring policies under
the federal and provincial charters), then greater than 50% of all new
hirings will be women.

In less than a generation, women will be equally represented in all the
professions. The only group in Canada that is still under-represented in
all areas of professional life is aboriginal people, and that is slowly
changing. The problem is that those who favour discriminatory legislation
aren't willing to wait. They want to unfairly discriminate against one
group to accelerate the progress of another.

> A more troublesome argument might be: if there are tendencies
> to *not* hire "designated" groups at a company, then the
> people from "designated" groups who have some power at that
> company can help to balance this (exclusionist) tendency.  I
> prefer not to take this line of argument because it would come
> down to two different groups competing to bring their own kind
> into the company, which is nobody's idea of a just society.
> 
> Hareesh.

Your idea of a "just society" apparently allows for denying some people
the right to be considered for a job, even if well qualified, because they
aren't they are the "wrong" sex, the "wrong" colour, or were born of the
"wrong" parents.

It's quite simple. You cannot claim to support equity and justice and
allow for discrimination. If you want to claim that to address past
injustices, it is necessary and desirable to perpetrate new injustices,
then make your case on those grounds but don't try to sugar coat it by
calling it "equity". It is a perversion of the word and an insult to those
who have fought against inequity and injustice.

Pearse

---------------------------------------------------------------------
              "To someone with a hammer, many things
               look like nails that need banging in"

Pearse Ward
[email-masked]

---------------------------------------------------------------------