Minority Groups "Special Rights"

So, when are the North American whites who want a white enclave/safe space going to move back to Europe?

Oh, silly me, of course they will still want their enclave to encompass the best bits of this continent and everyone else, including the First Nations, will have to continue to be happy with the nasty scraps, no matter how small the white minority becomes.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Just to be clear. When you talk about 'forcing companies to hire minorities' you don't mean 'not allowing them to discriminate against minorities' do you?
Click to expand...

I mean something just like "forcing people to stop at red lights". Yeah, it's a good idea, but it still forcing people to do X. It's law. If I'm forcing you to have a policy that will have you hire minorities, especially since I'll check up on you to make sure you respect that policy, it's forcing you to do X.

Darat said:
There are no quotas, with scare speech marks or not! It is not about "quotas" it is about whether a company discriminates illegally against anyone.
Click to expand...

How was it "scare speech"? :confused:

And earlier in the thread, other people mentioned quotas as well while defending AA. Were they wrong?
 
Skeptic Tank said:
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/12/04/blacks-and-whites-with-equal-educational-attainment-differ-in-cognitive-ability/

Blacks and whites with equal educational attainment differ in cognitive ability. This is relevant to this thread and to why there is discrimination in hiring,
Click to expand...

How does "equal educational achievement" act as a proper control? You could equally argue the differences, assuming they are meaningful and real, are a measure of (1) poorer schools (2) low expectations (3) the Sisyphus effect of knowing efforts may never yield fair results owing to white gods gaming the system.

At any rate, the white echo chamber you link to is not a reliable source. Motto: Start with fave premise, cherry-pick data for premise, admit no data or argument countering premise, fantasize about premise, use premise to feel superior, end with the conclusion: premise! Riiight.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
How does "equal educational achievement" act as a proper control? You could equally argue the differences, assuming they are meaningful and real, are a measure of (1) poorer schools (2) low expectations (3) the Sisyphus effect of knowing efforts may never yield fair results owing to white gods gaming the system.

At any rate, the white echo chamber you link to is not a reliable source. Motto: Start with fave premise, cherry-pick data for premise, admit no data or argument countering premise, fantasize about premise, use premise to feel superior, end with the conclusion: premise! Riiight.
Click to expand...

I knew someone would complain about the site. Yes, it's a race realist site. However, they make every effort to be careful, check their sources and facts, and lay things out in an objective way. The two main guys who run that site are very solid and I've been listening to both of them for years. If you'd heard as many hours of them talking on these issues as I have, you might not necessarily agree with them, but you would in no way come away from that questioning that they are at the very least making a very good faith effort to present these facts properly and interpret the data properly and you'd also concede that both of them are VERY sharp guys with scientific minds.

Feel free to simply ignore all of their commentary though and just look at the sources they provide. The point stands on that alone.
 
Argumemnon said:
I mean something just like "forcing people to stop at red lights". Yeah, it's a good idea, but it still forcing people to do X. It's law. If I'm forcing you to have a policy that will have you hire minorities, especially since I'll check up on you to make sure you respect that policy, it's forcing you to do X.

...snip...
Click to expand...

No - the law stops you discriminating, it is neutral on which qualified candidates you do decide to employ.
 
Argumemnon said:
I mean something just like "forcing people to stop at red lights". Yeah, it's a good idea, but it still forcing people to do X. It's law. If I'm forcing you to have a policy that will have you hire minorities, especially since I'll check up on you to make sure you respect that policy, it's forcing you to do X.
Click to expand...

Its forcing you not to discriminate I suppose. But you aren't of the opinion that businesses should be able to discriminate if they want to, are you?

I'm struggling to get to the bottom of what your objection is. If businesses that discriminate are forced to stop it then it stands to reason they will end up hiring more minorities in all likelihood.

Businesses that don't discriminate will not be forced to hire anyone they don't want to. But they may be asked to demonstrate that they actually don't discriminate and that they have the proper processes in place to monitor that.

You can't just say you are an equal opportunity employer but not actually do anything to ensure that's true.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Its forcing you not to discriminate I suppose. But you aren't of the opinion that businesses should be able to discriminate if they want to, are you?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

I'm struggling to get to the bottom of what your objection is.
Click to expand...

It went too far anyway. My point was to banquetbear's claim that I had somehow changed the meaning of the law by wording it differently. I don't think there's much of a difference between the two. As I said earlier: forcing you to stop at red lights isn't "bad" either.

I was simply trying to get to the bottom of how the government could ensure that an employer wouldn't discriminate without forcing them to discriminate the other way.

You can't just say you are an equal opportunity employer but not actually do anything to ensure that's true.
Click to expand...

Of course not.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
are VERY sharp guys with scientific minds.
Click to expand...

Are they Americans? According to IQ test data the average American is of below average IQ. If they are from Hong Kong or Singapore maybe I'll believe they are sharp as you say but I wouldn't take your word for it as an American.
 
Argumemnon said:
And earlier in the thread, other people mentioned quotas as well while defending AA. Were they wrong?
Click to expand...

As far as the US goes, they were - firm quotas were ruled unconstitutional back in the early-mid 70s. Other countries will vary, of course.
 
Argumemnon said:
Absolutely not.



It went too far anyway. My point was to banquetbear's claim that I had somehow changed the meaning of the law by wording it differently. I don't think there's much of a difference between the two. As I said earlier: forcing you to stop at red lights isn't "bad" either.

I was simply trying to get to the bottom of how the government could ensure that an employer wouldn't discriminate without forcing them to discriminate the other way.
Click to expand...

It seems that the mechanism for compliance is that it gives applicants in one of the 4 groups the extra value of contributing to the required equity plan (if an employer has a gap).

Think of the Canadian government as dictating the boilerplate clauses of all federal contracts. They decide equity is beneficial, so if a company wants to keep doing business with, or under regulation by, the government, they need to comply. Like GMP's.

There are target hiring numbers set by the employer themselves (a specific, but entirely flexible 'quota') with the requirement that they progress towards "representation", which is determined by census data. If they do not move towards the goal, they need a good reason why not.


One issue I have with this type of program is the "guilty until proven innocent" assumption. The employers who may find it difficult to hire qualified candidates must explain themselves. There is only so much within their control. The census data on occupations is self-reported and status in a group is self-reported. I see no verification that a given representation % accurately describes the breakdown of qualified and active job seekers available to hire.

There is no illusion that somehow, with enough effort, the best candidate will be found in one of these groups. It clearly promotes preference, as long as qualifications are met.
 
Sherkeu said:
There are target hiring numbers set by the employer themselves (a specific, but entirely flexible 'quota') with the requirement that they progress towards "representation", which is determined by census data.
Click to expand...

Do you have a cite for this? It seems silly to assume not only to assume that proportions will be the same in the general population and in every field, but to force those to be.
 
Argumemnon said:
Do you have a cite for this? It seems silly to assume not only to assume that proportions will be the same in the general population and in every field, but to force those to be.
Click to expand...

Sure. It's straight from the EEA itself on the government website.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-5.401/page-1.html


Here's the relevant portion but read at the link for the full employer obligations.

(d) where underrepresentation has been identified by the analysis, establishes short term numerical goals for the hiring and promotion of persons in designated groups in order to increase their representation in each occupational group in the workforce in which underrepresentation has been identified and sets out measures to be taken in each year to meet those goals
...
(2) In establishing the short term numerical goals referred to in paragraph (1)(d), every employer shall consider

(a) the degree of underrepresentation of persons in each designated group in each occupational group within the employer’s workforce;

(b) the availability of qualified persons in designated groups within the employer’s workforce and in the Canadian workforce
Click to expand...

Depending on the skill level of the job, employers can use metro, province, or national census data. This is one example:
"If the utilization rate is 80% or less, your organization must investigate the under-representation further. For example, if your organization has 7 accountants who are women, but the expected availability indicates that you should have 10, then your organization has only 70% of what is expected, and thus a significant gap exists." http://www102.hrdc.gc.ca/WEIMS_Training_Module/urLP24/main.html

If the census says 50% of certified accountants in the population area appropriate for that job level are women, then 50% is the equitable goal.
 
Argumemnon said:
Do you have a cite for this? It seems silly to assume not only to assume that proportions will be the same in the general population and in every field, but to force those to be.
Click to expand...

Targets dont force things to be though. If they did id be fifteen kilos lighter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom