TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- The race card
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

quote:

Originally posted by chrismack If you have facts that HR departments are actually comprised of "women and Pakistanis and a small number of Arabs and Asians" Then please share. I pulled this out because it is a perfect example of an illogical argument. Much (perhaps even most) of what you had to say might be true, but how can I possibly agree with you when you muddle your message up with "facts" like the above.

Fine, I'll have a look around for actual statistics. At the same time, perhaps you'd like to show us statistics which show that top-level management is predominantly white males, which is no less "illogical" than anything I've stated. For now though, why don't you just ignore that and address the rest of what I said (i.e. *the* actual argument), which you still haven't done.

The trend prior to affirmative action was decades ago. We're in a new generation now and even if the white-male discriminating CEOs (as you so aptly characterize them) had the power to hire and fire at one point, that proves absolutely nothing about the other 95% of people in management positions who also had the power to hire and fire but never rose to "senior" management. This "statistic", even if true, holds absolutely no water as an argument for AA.

The intent of affirmative action is irrelevant alongside the actual consequences of it. The intent of communism in the Soviet Union was to improve the overall quality of life but it ended up doing just the opposite - and furthermore, even if the real problem (as some people still insist) was that it was simply not implemented properly, it was still impossible for the government to just "fix" the problems with that implementation - the whole system had to be torn down in order to start an economic recovery.

You can choose not to see the analogue here if you don't want to, but affirmative action is remarkably similar to a communist doctrine, with the prime difference being that it's implemented within a democratic society. The theory may be sound from a certain perspective, and it may have had very good and noble intentions, but successful societies are not built on good intentions, they're built on effective policies. Affirmative Action merely paints a better picture of a sick society, it doesn't treat any of the ills that it suffers (if, once again, we can indeed call them "ills", since many argue that modern affirmative action policies are totally divorced from modern racism and prejudice).

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#99CCEE]Fine, I'll have a look around for actual statistics. At the same time, perhaps you'd like to show us statistics which show that top-level management is predominantly white males, which is no less "illogical" than anything I've stated. For now though, why don't you just ignore that and address the rest of what I said (i.e. *the* actual argument), which you still haven't done.

I've presented my case (and am honoured that two right wing lunatics have agreed with some of what I say, lol, j/k)...but I think this point is about as safe a position that can be taken without having to provide evidence...it's often public knowledge to see who's at the top.

Chances are you can easily access any publicly traded company's info, like financial statements, Board of Directors, even upper management.

I guarantee that you will see mostly white, male faces at the top...Which is *sort of* to be expected. "White" men and women still make up the majority in our country. But the % in these positions is definitely disportionate to the makeup of our population, no question.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/030929/d030929a.htm
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo28a.htm

I work (ultimately) for CIBC, a bank with an fairly extensive record of promoting diversity in their workforce and events (like Pride, for eg). The overall staff in my office is quite diverse, but managers and executives are generally white, european males. There are a few high level women, however...but the members of the executive team are...8 white men and 1 white woman. I trust you'll find this to be the same in the majority of large financial institutions and most large companies in general...and in high profile public sector positions (politics, policing, etc). Sure we have lots of minority politicians...when will we have a minority PM? An (elected) female PM? minority Premier? minority Mayor? A female or minority police chief?

A scan of TD's website indicates a board of 15 members...12 men, 3 women...all (except maybe one) appear to be white, from the b&w photos on the site.

Scotiabank's Board...15 members...11 white/european men, 3 white women, 1 asian man. Upper management is much the same, although (wow!) there is a male of (what I'm guessing is) Indian decent.

Sure, this is just the banking industry...but I see a trend, don't you? Is affirmative action policy the solution...I don't *necessarily* think so...but there clearly is some situation that is resulting in this lack of representation in the upper echlon of the corporate sector.

small part of the overall issue, I agree...I still don't think inserting people into lower level positions is going to change much...that operates on the assumption that people will "rise through the ranks". Corporate management is made up of people who have reached their positions via a series of lateral and inter-company moves. Few start as a bank teller or call centre rep and eventually become a VP, lol. In this industry, I'd suggest easier access to the necessary education is one necessity...addressing whatever the underlying reasons are for the lack of representation is another.

I have a bit more hope for the next generation of people...kids today seem to be far less hung up on things like ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. The ignorance of the differences between people just doesn't exist with them as it once did, at least in major cities like Toronto...the rest of the country is another story though.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#99CCEE]Fine, I'll have a look around for actual statistics. At the same time, perhaps you'd like to show us statistics which show that top-level management is predominantly white males, which is no less "illogical" than anything I've stated.

OK

"Although the representation of African Americans sitting on corporate boards has climbed 4 percent since 1999, African-American men and women held just 388 of 11,500 Fortune 1000 board seats in 2002. The ratio of men to women was 14:1" (Microquest White Paper: Shattering The Glass Ceiling, 2002)

While i would love to tackle the other errors in your dogmatic opinion, I have grown tired of this debate and have too much work to do.

I stand behind my previous comments.

quote:

Originally posted by chrismack While i would love to tackle the other errors in your dogmatic opinion, I have grown tired of this debate and have too much work to do. I stand behind my previous comments.

LOL - good one, nit pick on the smallest part of an argument and dismiss the rest as dogma not worth your time.

Okay, well onto Mark who's presented some surprisingly well-formed arguments lately (I tip my hat to you dude... well I would if I had one):

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT I work (ultimately) for CIBC, a bank with an fairly extensive record of promoting diversity in their workforce and events (like Pride, for eg). The overall staff in my office is quite diverse, but managers and executives are generally white, european males. There are a few high level women, however...but the members of the executive team are...8 white men and 1 white woman. I trust you'll find this to be the same in the majority of large financial institutions and most large companies in general...and in high profile public sector positions (politics, policing, etc). Sure we have lots of minority politicians...when will we have a minority PM? An (elected) female PM? minority Premier? minority Mayor? A female or minority police chief? ... small part of the overall issue, I agree...I still don't think inserting people into lower level positions is going to change much...that operates on the assumption that people will "rise through the ranks". Corporate management is made up of people who have reached their positions via a series of lateral and inter-company moves. Few start as a bank teller or call centre rep and eventually become a VP, lol. In this industry, I'd suggest easier access to the necessary education is one necessity...addressing whatever the underlying reasons are for the lack of representation is another.

I "ellipsised" some of it out - not an attempt to take any of this out of context, but I'll grant the statistics may show a trend unless someone else wants to prove otherwise, so I don't see the need to argue about that.

Now my personal feeling is this: white European men have lived in this country since its existence. Many immigrant groups simply haven't been here as long. It *may* simply be that we need to pass through a few generations before "new" groups rise to senior management positions. It's not so much that these minority groups (which I again call an arbitrary generalization) are somehow "prevented" from getting up there, it's just that to truly make it like that in business, you have to have a lot of connections.

Where do "connections" come from? Well, often they come through family. Nepotism is the oldest form of discrimination in the book, but it's not illegal and many people probably don't consider it really immoral either - it's a practice that people in business, big or small, often just have to deal with. There are connections through family, and friends of family, and so on and so forth probably up to the 3rd or 4th degree before they start to lose their significance.

Connections may come from family and also may come from business relationships. No matter how talented you are, you have to already be doing business for people to know it - this isn't just about getting a "foot in the door" so to speak, it's about people having opportunities to "sell themselves", an opportunity which is really only provided to people who have already established themselves somewhat. Striking up serious business relationships is not an easy thing, people often have to be in business for a long time before they have that chance.

Business skills can be taught in schools to a certain extent but are often learned more through networks of friends and family early on. A white kid who got to work in his dad's real estate company when he was 12 years old and watch how the business is run, and has a bunch of white friends who did the same sort of thing, is probably simply better-equipped to run a similar business than a black kid who grew up in the ghetto. It's not strictly discrimination, at least not in the sense of race or really any physical characteristics - it's simply life experience. University admissions officers are often quite sympathetic to people who grew up under hard times, but boys who have connections to the Old Boys' Club and have had 10 years' job experience by the time they're 25 years old still have an edge on the universitity graduates.

I guess my point here is, we've given the "minorities" a kick start into the business world but we really should be mindful of trying to move too fast. It may be that there isn't as much of a systemic sickness anymore as people think - it's just that it takes time for the antidote to fully propagate through the system. Now that we have more minorities in positions of power, the "network" has been started and more not-so-powerful minorities have the opportunity to make the connections I was talking about earlier. Affirmative Action is still in its early generations and we really need to *wait* in order to see what the effects will be - certainly we don't need stricter policies and I think we could stand to relax some of the existing ones. I don't think this is what you're implying, Mark, but placing similar AA policies on upper-level positions as well as low-level positions is certainly not the answer, and could really stand to damage a lot of important companies if they're forced to hire unqualified people.

That may not be 100% correct but it is a perspective that I think should be considered. We've thrown some disinfectant and a band-aid on the wound, but eventually we're going to have to take that band-aid off in order to see whether or not it's healed. And if we take it off a little later and find out that it has not healed, that it's gotten all grotesque and nasty, then perhaps we need a better solution instead of another band-aid.

Access to education is an issue I can fully accept as a root cause of the problem, but from my mom being a teacher I have an acute awareness of how many of these people don't *want* to be educated. What do you propose as a solution to what is in large part a "Values" problem, aside from waiting it out to see if the results of previous AA policies will trickle through the rest of society? Personally, I don't think preferential treatment on university admissions (which I'm going to insist we already have, regardless of whether or not the universities fess up) is really the answer either.

nepotism...no question that's a part of the equation. I freely admit that more than least half of every job I've had have been as a result of "knowing someone". Yes, I was still fully qualified to do the job, but that connection ultimately helped me. So perhaps that does work against recent immigrants...

I think a large part is that times have changed. My father came to Canada from Germany about 45 years ago. He had NOTHING there and NOTHING here, barely speaking English. My uncle was here, both were "poor". He did manual labour, eventually getting hired, like many of European decent, on an assembly line for Ford. He retired as middle managemnet last year after working 40 years for the company. He doesn't have a high school diploma, nevermind a post-secondary education. His position will be filled by someone with at least a college diploma, if not an engineering degree.

point being...what was available to that generation of "white" men and woman is no longer available to recent immigrants...ie. the ability to work there way up via entry level positions, with little to no formal education. Upward mobility has been replace by lateral mobility. I think that's now a major stumbling block towards representation in higher level positions.

I also agree that in CERTAIN fields, there is a genuine lack of desire, or a perceived lack of being welcome, on the part of particular groups. Hence the targetted hiring practices of the police force, for example. They literally NEEDED to target minorities not only due to the "old boys club" of a white police force, but because of a lack of applicants from minority groups. So I think that you're right that systemic racism is not prevalent in EVERY field with predominently white employees...there are certainly other factors to consider.

it's a complex issue...not every employment sector that is mostly "white" staffed is that way for the same reason as any other sector.

I still feel that with education and skills, someone WILL eventually get a job if there are jobs to be had...most fields don't have a glut of skilled workers out there (IT notwithstanding). The medical and teaching fields face a shortage of skilled workers, for example.

It's having equal opportunity to getting that education and those skills that doesn't currently exist, IMHO, and it's more about economics than race. If you can't afford the education in the first place, if you're a recent immigrant facing language challenges, facing difficulty in getting an entry level job that will pay enough to allow you to get that education, facing difficulty writing entrance exams that are potentially culturally biased (moreso in the U.S. with SATs), or having the necessary education or skills but not having them be easily recognized/modified by governing/licensing bodies to enable you to work here, etc...then the odds are unfairly stacked against you. I think THAT is what really needs to be addressed.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT It's having equal opportunity to getting that education and those skills that doesn't currently exist, IMHO, and it's more about economics than race. If you can't afford the education in the first place...

I think it's not just recent immigrants but probably even 2nd or 3rd generation ones... it takes time to make a mark.

But anyway, if I'm understanding you correctly then the problems (and possibly the solutions) would be:

if you're a recent immigrant facing language challenges -> Public ESL classes (although many will say that living here is not a *right* and it's their own responsibility to learn the language)

facing difficulty in getting an entry level job that will pay enough to allow you to get that education -> Regular affirmative action policies would take care of this, right? One might also argue that high taxes are a valid reason why people with those entry level jobs can't afford to educate themselves on the side...

facing difficulty writing entrance exams that are potentially culturally biased (moreso in the U.S. with SATs) -> I'd like to hear your justification of this one in particular - I've heard numerous allegations to this effect but never seen any definitive proof.

or having the necessary education or skills but not having them be easily recognized/modified by governing/licensing bodies to enable you to work here, etc... -> I'm not positive what's meant here - are you talking about, for example, degrees or licenses that are valid in India/Pakistan/Jamaica/etc. but not recognized here because they aren't accredited?

I'm playing devil's advocate here - some of these reasons might be valid but whether or not they are "bad" may be subject to interpretation - regardless, it would be interesting to hear what you think the solutions should be.

I have my opinions...but "solutions" might be pushing it, lol...I don't pretend to know all the "ins and outs" of these issues

1. yes, no one has a "right" to live here. But if we're allowing people to immigrate, isn't it in our own best interests to have them become productive (ie. tax paying, lol) members of society as quickly as possible? I support free ESL classes. In fact, I think at least basic level classes should be mandatory (ok, an 80 year old immigrant may not be in a position to learn an entirely new language, but you get my point).

I fully respect and support someone's desire to maintain their own language and cultural identity...I *do not* respect people's desire to maintain it while completely shutting out that of their new country. If I moved to another country where English (and French) was not a first language, I'd feel compelled to *at least* learn the basics to get by and interact...et oui je parle un peu de Francais...assez, je croix, pour communiquer avec quelq'un qui ne parle rien d'Anglais (ok, my French is *brutal*...it's been a while, haha). At least I (sort of) speak both of our official languages, lol. I think French should be pushed harder here as well. There's no reason kids can't learn to be profficient in both languages from an early age...but that's another topic

2. personal income tax breaks aren't really an option...so how about a higher minimum wage? I know, small businesses freak out at the idea. Sorry...if you can't afford to pay your employees $9-10/hour, your business has other issues, IMHO.

3. For SATs, math is math...but the written components of tests can assume some prior familiarity of regional history, English literature, etc. I haven't seen what testing is like here for high school equivalency, or for admission to post-secondary education as a mature adult...so I can't really comment further.

4. that's exactly what I meant. People with Masters degrees, medical and engineering degrees, teachers, etc. face the difficulty of becoming accredited here. There needs to be a more efficient way to bridge whatever gaps may (or may not) exist between their education and experience abroad and our requirements here for the same position or level of education.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT I fully respect and support someone's desire to maintain their own language and cultural identity...I *do not* respect people's desire to maintain it while completely shutting out that of their new country. If I moved to another country where English (and French) was not a first language, I'd feel compelled to *at least* learn the basics to get by and interact...et oui je parle un peu de Francais...assez, je croix, pour communiquer avec quelq'un qui ne parle rien d'Anglais (ok, my French is *brutal*...it's been a while, haha). At least I (sort of) speak both of our official languages, lol. I think French should be pushed harder here as well. There's no reason kids can't learn to be profficient in both languages from an early age...but that's another topic

That's not a very *liberal* opinion... I agree completely though. Well, not entirely about the French, but all the rest of it...

quote:

2. personal income tax breaks aren't really an option...so how about a higher minimum wage? I know, small businesses freak out at the idea. Sorry...if you can't afford to pay your employees $9-10/hour, your business has other issues, IMHO.

Well I wasn't really suggesting lower tax breaks, just the lowering of income taxes in general. Maybe I'd be less indignant about our high taxes if the government did a better job of covering up just how much of it gets misappropriated.

I'm all for raising the minimum wage, though - minimum wage has not kept up with inflation in this country AT ALL. And while from a pure policy standpoint I don't like the idea of minimum wage, I think *in Canada in particular* it's a necessity.

Want to start a lobby group?

quote:

3. For SATs, math is math...but the written components of tests can assume some prior familiarity of regional history, English literature, etc. I haven't seen what testing is like here for high school equivalency, or for admission to post-secondary education as a mature adult...so I can't really comment further.

I dunno - the SATs are an American test but I didn't find any problems with it as a Canadian, despite knowing precisely zero about American history or English literature. People make general claims about SAT bias but they seem to be insofar unsubstantiated (not saying they are patently false but I'd like to see proof instead of allegations).

quote:

4. that's exactly what I meant. People with Masters degrees, medical and engineering degrees, teachers, etc. face the difficulty of becoming accredited here. There needs to be a more efficient way to bridge whatever gaps may (or may not) exist between their education and experience abroad and our requirements here for the same position or level of education.

It's funny that you say this because there are definitely two sides to this coin. Ask any Engineer especially and they will tell you that a *huge* reason for the sorry state of our profession is immigrants who come in from less developed countries and work *cheap*. Their performance is mediocre at best, they barely speak any English, but they eat up important jobs with what you could almost call a kind of slave labour. So many people would actually argue for STRICTER regulations on what immigrants can and can't do because they seem to be really hurting the job market here, at least in certain fields.

I see this as a very tough issue to reconcile. We've got rich corporations taking advantage of the situation � la McDonald's/Wendy's/Burger King except in this case they use immigrant labour as opposed to teenage labour. Trying to regulate the corporations themselves would be very oppressive government policy, so we're stuck with either loose or tight regulations on immigrants. If they're loose, it can wreck the domestic job market. If they're tight, it denies those immigrants an opportunity to succeed.

Which path would you take? Which ideal do you think is more important, opportunities for immigrants or employment for educated hardworking citizens? There may well be a solution that accomodates both, but I haven't heard it yet...

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Which path would you take? Which ideal do you think is more important, opportunities for immigrants or employment for educated hardworking citizens? There may well be a solution that accomodates both, but I haven't heard it yet...

How about importing educated hardworking immigrants?
It's not like they don't exist

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.