Yes yes, but I meant: from the employer's end. Sure, the state can have initiatives to encourage women and minorities to seek employment in the fields that interest them and try to seed interest by informing them through various programs, but in the end the employer can't be expected to do this task: all I think he can do is provide a desirable, discrimination- and harrassment-free environment. Archie seemed to say that it was still the employer's responsibility here:
I think that's wrong. As an employer it's none of my business why people don't choose to go into my field.
Please don't tell me what I want. What I'm saying is that the differences exist and may not be something that can or should be solved.
Agree.
Instead of requiring representation in a certain occupation (which may have many have many different types of jobs and industries within it), the government would do better to partner with employers to assess if there is really a gap and if anything in the employers control can address it.
For example, Canada can link all 500 or so employers that fall under the act (mainly banking, transportation, and communication) to a Job Bank.
Any available job would be required to be there and the government could focus marketing these postings to their designated groups. Instead of having auditors chasing paperwork, you'd shift resources to looking at the real pool of qualified and interested applicants available.
A shared database can hold all information about the applicant, their group designation (if they disclose it), education, qualifications, experience, etc..
Employers mark who was selected to interview and who was eventually chosen. Reasons are given as to the rejected candidates in the groups. Things like:
unlicensed in Canada, limited english, declined employment offer to work instead at Fortune 50 company, etc...
From this we would learn so much more about any actual hiring bias and determine what was appropriate to reduce it. We would also learn if there were other areas to address such as bias in trade training, licensing, university programs, and the culture of the group itself (ie self-segregating in a particular niche). How many want a short term job and how many are interested in a career in it?
There would be no penalty for having poor reasons that indicate bias. This is about getting the employers on board with what is supposed to be access to untapped talent. Changing their entrenched viewpoints to see REAL diversity benefits hit their bottom line. If top management isn't eventually leading efforts and only complying, then any well-intentioned policy will backfire on the very people it was designed to help.
The policy they have now is lazy, expensive, one-sided, fosters stigma and resentment, and just isn't working.
