Responding to questions about affirmative action

It needs no justification at all. It's a necessity, to ensure that the staffing of various professions and institutions adequately reflects the society in which they operate.

It might be worthwhile to ask if the person is certain that there actually is an affirmative action policy in his field. Maybe he's assuming there is when in fact the best qualified people for the positions were people of colour.

True. But isn't that conceding implicitly that if an affirmative action policy or effort is indeed in place, than that is unfair? Or that if they are for some reason dissatisfied, then that indicates unfairness and requires action?
I want a world where it becomes natural to answer any privileged group member who complains that h/she is "uncomfortable" with anything: "Good."

[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Jobs should be handed out fairly - not to the "best".

---

Excellent point. But you can see where this is finds its justification: the drive to maximum productivity... for the bosses.

Who says we have to agree with their conceit that these questions are "legitimate"? You are ceding the ground from the get-go. Can't we understand and integrate to our strategy that such questions come from within a false consciousness that accords excessive importance to the uncomfort of the privileged, that throws up constinuously paranoid false truths about the oppressed, especially when they start making inroads in the dominants' privilege? We DON'T have to run things past them unless we are simply scared of their might? But if we "fold" before even trying to call their unconscious bluff, the game is lost, without even impinging on that false consciousness.

Every working class person has an interest in combatting all forms of oppression, including racism. When someone asks "Why does this particular policy exist?" I think it's reasonable to give them an answer. If they don't accept the answer then move on.

I don't look down my nose at anyone who dares to question why things are the way they are and tell them to fuck off because I don't think their question is legitimate. That's petty-bourgeois elitism.

quote:

---

When someone asks "Why does this particular policy exist?" I think it's reasonable to give them an answer.

---

Of course, and I do. But that is pointedly not the 'complaining' situation described by the OP and which we all very well know. To acknowledge this dynamic of the privileged complaining about the little rights the underprileged have is IMO paramount to answering his or her question. And yes, unionist, I do believe that the privileged are - objectively, if not in their mind that refuses to clutter itself with anything approaching responsibility for its position - the enemy of the underprivileged: I believe that the only times where things have changed is when this has come closer to being acknowlkedged, over and above defense/denial reactions.

Hey, even if we didn't make the 'thank you' list, you may want to look into sineed's suggestion when she wrote: "It might be worthwhile to ask if the person is certain that there actually is an affirmative action policy in his field. Maybe he's assuming there is ..."

A friend tells me that "...Ontario (i don't know about the rest of Canada) has never had an affirmative action policy, it was called employment equity, and it was legal for a time, then just for government and gov't funded places, now it's voluntary. So not much has been done in terms of raising women's wages, so really, the powers that be, and their dupes on babble, have nothing to fear. those nasty people of colour won't be coming for "their" jobs."

[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

You have a "friend" who talks about "the powers that be, and their dupes on babble"?

Instead of just spreading second-hand smears of the entire babble community, why don't you invite your friend to post on babble and we can deal directly with his/her concerns?

ETA: yeah, what unionist said.

[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

unionist: ...pay equity, an entirely separate and absolutely mandatory rectification of gender-based salary discrimination...

---

Gee, a lot of women must be not only underpaid but clueless about it.

quote:

---

M.Spector: You have a "friend" who talks about "the powers that be, and their dupes on babble"? Instead of just spreading second-hand smears of the entire babble community, why don't you...

---

Who said anything about the "entire" community?

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b] Gee, a lot of women must be not only underpaid but clueless about it.[/b]

---

Women as a whole are underpaid as compared with men.

With friends like yours to advise them, they would definitely stay that way. Employment Equity is a mild-mannered form of affirmative action. It basically involves tracking the hiring of women, disabled persons, so-called "visible minorities" (their word, not mine), and workers of Aboriginal descent. The only mandatory thing about it is usually reporting and keeping stats. It's essentially useless.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/newsinreview/Dec%2099/Pay%20Equity/Intro.html]Pay equity[/url], on the other hand, is legally enforceable federally and in other jurisdictions. It is, at bottom, the prohibition against discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, as per the CHRA. It has meant billions in judgments and settlements for women subject to historic job ghettoization and pay discrimination.

If you know "a lot of women" (as you say) that are "clueless" about this simple distinction, I strongly urge you to refer them to any of the tens of thousands of women trade unionists who have fought and won these battles over the years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]It is a good ploy to delay implementation of progress. We have to 'splain it to folks. If they haven't figured it out yet, I'm not wastin' my time. [/b]

---

No, RP, you don't have to delay implementation of anything, but you must explain it to folks while it's being implemented - if you actually have anything to do with real live folks, that is. Otherwise, you can just arrogantly sit with your superior understanding, and then throw your hands up in dismay when you and your cause are incomprehensibly left without any allies.

Everyone needs allies, or else they need potential enemies neutralized. Arrogance doesn't work.

Also thought I'd point out that Ontario's Pay Equity legislation also benefits a privileged white male like me so it's not exactly the greatest thing since sliced bread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]Also thought I'd point out that Ontario's Pay Equity legislation also benefits a privileged white male like me so it's not exactly the greatest thing since sliced bread.[/b]

---

The same could be said of the 40 hour week and health and safety legislation and medicare. But in the real world, we learn to distinguish between progress and regress, and we learn not to mock progress.

Anyway, the only way a "privileged white male" could benefit is if he were doing a job which was mostly or traditionally performed by women. You won't find too too many "privileged white males" in such jobs, otherwise the struggle for pay equity would never have been necessary in the first place.

Since a number of posters appear to have no clue about these concepts (and claim that others are "clueless" as well), why not [url=http://www.payequity.gov.on.ca/peo/english/faqs.html#equity]take five minutes[/url] and look before you leap.

Unionist, I'd like to thank you for pointing out that I do need to do a better job of learning and not lobbing comments. I'm just disappointed that even trying with my loved ones, it's frustrating.

Fine. Any views on the rest of my post?

quote:Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]I'm well aware of the legislation since I administer it. Why doesn't it target woman specifically and get them above 80% of male's earnings? [/b]

It [b]can't[/b] target women specifically, because then a male sewing-machine operator working alongside 50 women would get paid less than the women doing the identical job after a favourable pay equity analysis comparing the operator's job to some clerical or cutter's function etc. You should understand that, given your familiarity with the application of the legislation.

As for bringing women above 80%, that can't happen through legislation. The very fact that there are so many female-predominant job ghettoes is the biggest part of the problem, given that in light of human rights legislation, most employers don't dare pay different wages for the [b]same[/b] work (although the real challenge continues to be, "work of equal value", a questionable concept but better than SFA).

The issue for women (as for the disabled and Aboriginals and workers of colour) is to eliminate the real less tangible barriers to employment in better-paying jobs. That requires combatting sexism and racism and "able"-ism in society as a whole. It also necessarily means affirmative action, which has never been legislated in this country (contrary to some not very well informed comments upthread). But it can't just be "legislated", as for example we legislate against blatant discrimination in hiring or promotion etc. on the basis of the prohibited grounds in human rights legislation.

A really good example of the challenges involved is found in [i]Action travail des femmes v. CN[/i]. In short, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found systemic sex discrimination by CN Rail in hiring in its rail repair shops in the St. Lawrence Region (basically Quebec). These are better-paid skilled trades positions. In an unprecedented ruling (probably before or since), it ordered CN to hire one woman for every four men in that region.

That was 1984. After court appeals, the Supreme Court upheld the decision in 1987. One in four may not seem like much, but considering that the ratio of women in these jobs was probably around 1% (that's a pure guess - you'd have to read the original decisions), it was enormous.

Well, 20 years later, there are still a tiny percentage of women in the CN skilled trades. Why? Layoffs by inverse seniority over the years have surely been one reason. But the principal one is that [i]not enough women apply[/i]. They are "screened out" by vocational schools, by their churches, by their "boyfriends", by their families, by their education, by Cosmo and Strut and music and movies and art and... by society as a whole.

Our society needs "affirmative action", but not in the heavy-handed wash-our-hands approach of legislators and jurists. We need a social revolution. We need to free people from the shackles of economic, psychological, physical, social, and I don't know what other kinds of discrimination.

And it won't happen without lots and lots of talk and laws and marches and strikes and movements and more talk.

quote:[b]Unionist, I'd like to thank you for pointing out that I do need to do a better job of learning and not lobbing comments. I'm just disappointed that even trying with my loved ones, it's frustrating. [/b]

Don't thank me. I suffer from exactly the same problem.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

*bump*

*bump*