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:
- 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?