Canadian Money Forum banner
3341 - 3360 of 3425 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,501 Posts
I don't agree with discrimination as part of the requirements, but I will agree with the use of the concept of representativeness as part of a selection process where this step comes in when there's a tie in competency.
Why?
Really, what role does gender identity play in ones capability to work on Climate change?
I could understand different academic perspectives on climate change to ensure broad representation.
But I don't see how gender identity changes would impact the scientific work, unless you think different genders have different scientific aptitutdes (which would be IMO sexist/genderist)

The problem is that if they didn't have a gender requirement, one could reasonably assume that the selected person was the most qualified.
However if they're hired with this additional restriction a few thoughts will get raised.
1. The candidate pool was artificially limited, and assuming a 50/50 split in the field, it is possible that you got a second rate candidate. In male dominated fields the odds are even worse.
2. It also exposes the little secret, the people who put this requirement in don't think that women can get this position based on their merit.

For instance, say you need 10 people and gender representativeness would be beneficial, then you receive 100 applicants, the top 2 are both women scoring 97 and 96, then 4 men scored 92, then 6 women and 5 men all scored 90, the reminder scoring less than 90. In this case I wouldn't call it discrimination to end up selecting 5 women and 5 men due to the tie in competency evaluation (top 2 women scoring 97 and 96 plus 3 women scoring 90, plus 4 men scoring 92 and 1 man scoring 90).
You need to make the case that gender representativeness is beneficial in a scientific context.
Since I don't believe that gender is correlated to scientific capability, I see no benefit.

Secondly, what if you get 100 applicants for 10 people.
The top candidates score
97,96,92,92,92,92,90,90,90,90,90,90,90. None of them disclose their gender identity citing privacy reasons.
5 men and 5 women score 60.
Who do you hire?

Why stop at gender? Maybe 50% of all teachers should be Conservative instead of the current 95% Liberal majority.
Because this would require you to divulgate your political beliefs, considering that people don't want to share everything about their personal life and beliefs. What about privacy, right?
By that logic why do I have to disclose my gender identity? What about privacy?
I'd argue that diversity of thought (including political beliefs) is a far more important criteria than gender identity with respect to "representation"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,501 Posts
There was no actual law passed requiring a vaccine.
Not required as the laws were already in place.
Even then the emergency powers legislation during a emergency include catchalls legalizing pretty much everything.

Just like our charter says you have these rights, subject to "fundamental justice", which means you have those rights, unless we decide that you don't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,094 Posts
By that logic why do I have to disclose my gender identity? What about privacy?
You don't have to. Never said you had to.

The top candidates score
97,96,92,92,92,92,90,90,90,90,90,90,90. None of them disclose their gender identity citing privacy reasons.
5 men and 5 women score 60.
Who do you hire?
I said a fair process would prioritize competency first and use gender (if available) only for ties in competency, and only if it is beneficial for representativeness or other gender-specific benefits.

So if all the top scores in competency didn't disclose their genders, you still end up selecting those top scores but you break ties by a random selection.

All that being said, most people are cisgender so no one actually disclose their gender identity as they end up being assumed by their gender expression, which still allows to break ties by gender, if beneficial.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,501 Posts
I said a fair process would prioritize competency first and use gender (if available) only for ties in competency, and only if it is beneficial for representativeness or other gender-specific benefits.

So if all the top scores in competency didn't disclose their genders, you still end up selecting those top scores but you break ties by a random selection.
I'm glad you understand that it is unfair to consider gender.
Since you can't or simply won't make a case for any gender specific benefit, you must agree that there is no such benefit.

All that being said, most people are cisgender so no one actually disclose their gender identity as they end up being assumed by their gender expression, which still allows to break ties by gender, if beneficial.
Again, now you're guessing gender to discriminate, and since there is no case for gender discrimination to be beneficial it shouldn't be done anyway.
Unless you're suggesting we should discriminate based on gender expression for no reason.

Finally my point is that the government is being unfair with these diversity policies.
We agree that they are unfairly discriminating.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,094 Posts
Since you can't or simply won't make a case for any gender specific benefit, you must agree that there is no such benefit.
Why Gender Equity Matters

In 2020, gender equity is more than simply a buzzword. A growing body of research now demonstrates fairly conclusively that a true commitment to diversity generally—and gender equity more specifically—can have concrete financial benefits.

Ten years of research by McKinsey and LeanIn.org offers key statistics demonstrating a clear correlation between organizational diversity and financial performance. For instance:

  • Companies with the greatest proportion of women on executive committees earned a 47 percent higher rate of return on equity than companies with no women executives.
  • Companies in the top 25 percent for gender diversity are 27 percent more likely to outperform their national industry average in terms of profitability.
  • Companies in the bottom 25 percent for gender diversity were significantly less likely to see higher profits than their national industry average.
As McKinsey acknowledges, correlation is not the same as causation. Yet the consistency of the data over the past decade strongly indicates that the link between diversity at the leadership level and financial performance is not coincidental.

The link lies in organizational health. Organizations that actively create and promote strong internal processes dedicated to incorporating a variety of perspectives, experiences, and leadership styles consistently outperform competitors with homogenous leadership teams.

This is true across many different dependent variables, from problem solving to analytic thinking to communication. And when taken together, success across these different variables adds up to strong financial performance.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,501 Posts
Why Gender Equity Matters

In 2020, gender equity is more than simply a buzzword. A growing body of research now demonstrates fairly conclusively that a true commitment to diversity generally—and gender equity more specifically—can have concrete financial benefits.

Ten years of research by McKinsey and LeanIn.org offers key statistics demonstrating a clear correlation between organizational diversity and financial performance. For instance:

  • Companies with the greatest proportion of women on executive committees earned a 47 percent higher rate of return on equity than companies with no women executives.
  • Companies in the top 25 percent for gender diversity are 27 percent more likely to outperform their national industry average in terms of profitability.
  • Companies in the bottom 25 percent for gender diversity were significantly less likely to see higher profits than their national industry average.
As McKinsey acknowledges, correlation is not the same as causation. Yet the consistency of the data over the past decade strongly indicates that the link between diversity at the leadership level and financial performance is not coincidental.

The link lies in organizational health. Organizations that actively create and promote strong internal processes dedicated to incorporating a variety of perspectives, experiences, and leadership styles consistently outperform competitors with homogenous leadership teams.

This is true across many different dependent variables, from problem solving to analytic thinking to communication. And when taken together, success across these different variables adds up to strong financial performance.


I agree with the research.
Healthy organizations do better, isn't that obvious?

So shouldn't the goal be to build healthy organizations in a fair manner?
If that is the goal, we should remove as much unfairness as possible.

Obviously if perspectives, experience and leadership styles matter, that is what we should be trying to diversify.

Unless of course you're going to say that this specific person has a different leadership style because of their gender, which is a laughable sterotype.

As far as experience and perspectives, again each and every person on the planet has different perspectives and experience, if that's what you want, that's what you should pursue. Gender diversity (or racial diversity) is a sloppy proxy for experiences and perspectives.

For example the children of presidents likely have a much more similar perspective than someone of the same race who was raised in poverty.
If you want REAL diversity, look for those things, not sloppy proxies like race or gender identity.

Secondly I'm not sure what difference I bring to something like climate change as a man, woman, or non-binary.
Thirdly, it is well established that general characteristics attributed to an identifiable group tend to overlap significantly, and such group difference are not applicable to individuals.
For example lets say as a group males are better at math than females, when you take individuals, or even small groups, it would be incorrect to assume that the male is better at math.

Lets take an example, do you think Lauren Southerns perspective experience and leadership style changed when they transitioned from female to male?
Finally in the McKinsey piece, which was done with a womans advocacy group, it reads like an opinion piece.
I wonder how they determined the gender of the staff in the companies they analysed, The most logical answer is they assigned assumed genders, or illegally accessed medical records, I find it doubtful they actually asked anyone.

My position remains that using gender and race and other such criteria as sloppy proxies is wrong. We should not treat people differently because of race or gender.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
Re: Immigration backlog leaving thousands of trained health care professionals on the sidelines.

Interesting that the vast majority, according to the article - are waiting for college approval.
Of the roughly 26K pool, thousands are described as being in the immigration backlog.

Up until recently, the main issue was the training/certification.


Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,951 Posts
Re: Immigration backlog leaving thousands of trained health care professionals on the sidelines.

Interesting that the vast majority, according to the article - are waiting for college approval.
Of the roughly 26K pool, thousands are described as being in the immigration backlog.

Up until recently, the main issue was the training/certification.


Cheers
What's insane is actual backlog being 2.4 mln and growing at rapid pace month over month. Is every immigration worker on paid vacation for past 3 years??? Maybe time to recall them and actually get to work?

What are the numbers of healthcare workers that are on sidelines thanks to incompetency of people in charge? 26k(14k RN) alone in Ontario, what is it for rest of the country?

No wonder this country is a mess - healthcare, airports, immigration, service canada, agriculture, international relations - all in absolute shambles due to ineptitude and sheer incompetence
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,285 Posts
What are the numbers of healthcare workers that are on sidelines thanks to incompetency of people in charge? 26k(14k RN) alone in Ontario, what is it for rest of the country?
Those healthcare workers could really help now. Maybe the gov can hit everyone up with a one time tax to speed up the process and get those people working?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,951 Posts
Those healthcare workers could really help now. Maybe the gov can hit everyone up with a one time tax to speed up the process and get those people working?
Not sure if sarcastic or not?

All that needs to be done is stop paying people for not working from home, get them behind desks, and move healthcare workers to front of the line so they get processed first.

You can't just stop providing any government service for 3 years and continue paying people for sitting and doing absolutely nothing. 2.4mln in immigration backlog, which is 300k higher than just month ago. That's insane.

Having 5 year old kid run the country would probably result in better service than Canadians currently get
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,285 Posts
All that needs to be done is stop paying people for not working from home, get them behind desks, and move healthcare workers to front of the line so they get processed first.

You can't just stop providing any government service for 3 years and continue paying people for sitting and doing absolutely nothing. 2.4mln in immigration backlog, which is 300k higher than just month ago. That's insane.
Wow, I didn't realize immigration had stopped working for 3 years ... that's weird but would explain it.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,285 Posts
Didn't see your link but quickly found ...

341,000 permanent residents in 2019
184,500 permanent residents in 2020

on another "news page" I found,

Canada exceeded its 2021 immigration target by landing 405,303 new permanent residents last year, according to new data obtained from IRCC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,951 Posts
Didn't see your link but quickly found ...

341,000 permanent residents in 2019
184,500 permanent residents in 2020

on another "news page" I found,

Canada exceeded its 2021 immigration target by landing 405,303 new permanent residents last year, according to new data obtained from IRCC.
And as you can see on the IRCC website, PR makes small fraction of applications.
Backlog grew 3-fold since 2020. The numbers are disastrous, no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig.

Sadly, entire country is run like service canada. It is not an accident there are failures on all fronts
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,285 Posts
And as you can see on the IRCC website, PR makes small fraction of applications.
Backlog grew 3-fold since 2020. The numbers are disastrous, no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig.
Wonder what happened in 2020 that could cause a hold up? Is kind of odd how the all those PR got in with nobody working (as you mentioned) in immigration. In any case, please continue on with your finger pointing and rants about Canada. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,951 Posts
What's the alternative?

Continuing to pretend it is refreshing rain when you get pissed on like you insist on doing?

Absolutely nothing wrong with 2.7mln backlog growing at 300k/month, holding up tens of thousands of healthcare workers. - all is well here, nothing to be concerned about. We have doctors and nurses to spare - they can continue to wait in lines while government employees continue to sit at home.

Nothing wrong with services canada either, right? Tent cities? Camping out? Who cares There were SOME passports issued in each of the years - no issues at all

Cartoon Facial expression Vertebrate Organism Mammal
 
3341 - 3360 of 3425 Posts
Top