I don’t understand employment equity

employment equity

I’ve read several websites that “debunk” the claim that employment equity is reverse discrimination against white males. For the benefit of non Canadian readers, the employment equity act designates 4 “protected” (a term used by my former HR Proff) groups:

  • Women
  • People with disabilities
  • Aboriginal people
  • Visible minorities

Perhaps the reason I fail to understand employment equity is because its underlying ideology evades my comprehension. How exactly does a “diverse workforce” provide any discernible benefit to companies? This seems to my mind a classic case of a self serving ideological slogan that has been repeated so many times it has become a truism. The liberal media megaphone drowns out all dissenting voices, especially those that make a humble appeal to empiricism. Liberals have yet to prove how a diversity of skin colours and religions increase profits and improve productivity. I’m all for supporting the interests of disabled people and aboriginals, but I fail to see why non Aboriginal visible minorities and women ought to be coddled.

I am curious about how employment equity plays out in a job hunt scenario. Liberal websites claim that it doesn’t discriminate against white males but I can’t for the life of me see how that isn’t the case.

Consider the following hypothetical scenario: A white male and an Afghan immigrant apply for the same job. Let’s assume that their qualifications and work experience are identical. Let’s also assume for the sake of this hypothetical that all other variables are also equal. Who get’s the job? I would assume the Afghan. If the Afghan doesn’t get the job, then employment equity is redundant.

If one looks carefully at the image that prefaces this post, one will notice that the employment equity section precedes the skills section. This seems like a classic case of pragmatism sacrificed on the alter of ideology.

I don’t mean to be snarky here, but exactly how does employment equity work?

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Feminism, Immigration, Uncategorized, Western Values, White nationalism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to I don’t understand employment equity

  1. Todd Lewis says:

    “I don’t mean to be snarky here, but exactly how does employment equity work?”

    Equality for third worlders and women, and inequality for whites and men.

    • Dota says:

      in a zero sum environment like the job market that’s what it comes down to.

      • Todd Lewis says:

        I identify myself as a non-hispanic, non-greek, non-italian, non-socially conditioned white man. Let’s have that as a check box.

        In relation to the stupidity of these check boxes. Rush Limbaugh once said that when people check other on the list of sexual dispositions. Many of them are probably just messing with the pollsters. So if from this or that piece of data the left concludes at 10% of the population are trannies they are counting a fair amount of these ‘trouble makers.’

  2. Ger Jen says:

    There is one way that giving preference to non-whites benefits employers: it protects them from being sued by race hustlers. In your example, if the company chose the white applicant over the Afghan, the Afghan could sue the company on the basis of discrimination and get it to settle out of court for thousands of dollars. The white applicant would be less inclined to do so, and have less favorable chances, if he did. The interesting question is how this will change as the white population continues to decline. For one, whites will become an actual “minority”. Second, whites may have more success bringing discrimination claims in the future which would diminish the advantages of Diversity hiring.

    • Dota says:

      The interesting question is how this will change as the white population continues to decline. For one, whites will become an actual “minority”. Second, whites may have more success bringing discrimination claims in the future which would diminish the advantages of Diversity hiring.

      It won’t happen like that. Even when whites become a minority these leftists will insist that they are a privileged minority as power isn’t about numbers.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        If anything, the leftist agitation against whites will only intensify. These constant fulminations against “whiteness” are a product of white weakness, not white power or hegemony.

        They only attack whites because they know that whites aren’t conscious, united, or reactive enough. They know that they don’t have to worry about losing their job or facing social ostracism on account of critiquing whites.

      • Ger Jen says:

        Power is not about numbers and we may be able to continue to run this country even as a minority. The Jews are successful at this. And in many Latin American countries, a white minority controls the power. But when the day comes that whites are really no longer in power, there will be no more civilization. And white self-hatred will cease because this defect of our people is born out of a dying civilization. Self-hatred is really the trait of an self-indulgent and privileged type of person. It’s a mask of false humility that an aristocrat wears in order to appear less repulsive. But In the Ragnarok to come, white people will need to work in their own interest in order to survive.

      • Dota says:

        Self-hatred is really the trait of an self-indulgent and privileged type of person.

        Not in places like India and the Middle East where the privileged usually feel that they deserve their privilege for taking the trouble of being born.

        It’s a mask of false humility that an aristocrat wears in order to appear less repulsive.

        White humility is very real however.

  3. Ger Jen says:

    I think some part of white self-hatred is pride. Basically, the white anti-racists are saying that whites are evil but although white, I, as an anti-racist crusader, am good because I support “equality”. In fact, I am really better and more altruistic than non-whites who support equality because I don’t have to think that way. I think that way out of my own altruism. I have overcome my privileged white status to become an anti-racist. And the worse that I think whites are, the better I think I am because I have overcome my whiteness. It is just putting other people down to make yourself feel better.

    Only someone who really is economically privileged could support a system that discriminates against them and their white children (if they have them) in order to feel good about themselves. Maybe there are poorer whites who think like this, but I’ll bet this type of thinking is more common in people who don’t have to live in the real world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s