Canadian Money Forum banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,658 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So the big banks are starting racial quotas.

Unfortunately such racism is legal in Canada, but this is nuts.

I'm sorry, but this is blatantly racist, the worst part is that the people pushing these policies are the most racist.
They actually believe that certain groups are simply not good enough to get there on merit.

Personally, having worked with people of all different identity groups, I can state that the identity group someone may appear to be a part of has very little to do with their actual real performance.

The reality is people with drive, and a positive attitude can achieve.

Do you know what is disheartening to people in these groups? When people question if they're actually competent, or a quota hire. I don't want the organizations I rely on to be run by quota hires.
Not just because it's bad for the organization, but I actually care about the people we're putting into these positions. They'll never know if they really earned it, or if they're just there because of the quota, this will stain their every accomplishment and every interaction.

The idea that we need quotas is silly.
This is the bigotry of low expectations, and it's insulting and demeaning.

It's like the US push to not require ID to vote, because some people think "marginalized groups" are too stupid to figure out how to get ID. It's racist, demeaning, and hurts those you're trying to help.


I find it really sad, that in this day and age, some people consider Racial discrimination "progress".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,253 Posts
I am in total agreement that quota hiring is ridiculous for the reasons you suggest. At the same time I recognize that discrimination in hiring does exist.

Nor is discrimination in hiring confined to racial discrimination. What about gender discrimination in hiring? What about discriminating just because you don't like fat people? We all discriminate every day for all kinds of reasons and it should come as no surprise that we do in hiring. The only difference with racial discrimination in hiring is that it is easy to yell about as it is a popular and pc issue to yell about.

I have seen discrimination in hiring for all kinds of reasons. One guy I knew got passed over for a promotion because he wore sports jackets and slacks instead of suits most of the time. Another applicant for a job was dropped because he wore white socks with a suit and tie. A woman got passed over for promotion to a management job because she was still 'young enough to have kids and could go off on maternity leave at any time which would leave a gap in management for an intolerable long period of time.' You can't hire a temp manager like you can a temp secretary.

All hiring and promotion should indeed be done on merit but that is in a perfect world and we don't like in that world. We all like to work with people 'like us' and those two words 'like us' are defined by each of us individually. So if I am the one hiring, I may choose to hire one person who has no more merit than another person, simply because the person I do decide to hire doesn't have a beard and the other one does. It isn't as if I am going to hire a total incompetent over a highly competent person with a beard. It's rarely that obvious a difference.

Hiring by quota on the other hand is indeed JUST that obvious. You get hired not because you are seen to be more competent even if you are, but because there is a quota to fill. Why if I am the hirer, should I not be allowed to hire someone else, not because I am discriminating against someone by race but because I just like the other person better. Where is my right to hire someone more 'like me' if I want to?

I think hiring discrimination exists and I think it will always exist. Quota hiring will simply result in those NOT hired because of a quota, developing a resentment against those who are hired not based on just merit or not based on just 'I think they will fit in' better but only on the basis of their minority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,658 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I was actually shocked to hear that there are still some people out there who are making sexist/racist hiring decisions.
Doesn't make sense to me, or most of the people I interact with. We all want to work with good capable people, choosing a second rate person because of their race (be it the same as yours or not) is just crazy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,253 Posts
I was actually shocked to hear that there are still some people out there who are making sexist/racist hiring decisions.
Doesn't make sense to me, or most of the people I interact with. We all want to work with good capable people, choosing a second rate person because of their race (be it the same as yours or not) is just crazy.
That's too simplistic. You use the words 'second rate' as if that is what happens. I'm trying to explain to you that if I have 2 people EQUALLY qualified, I still have to choose one of the two. So on what basis do I then make my choice? The reality is we all discriminate and judge people every day based on all kinds of small or large differences. Most of the time we don't even know we are discriminating and why.

Have you never found yourself taking an instant dislike to someone and yet can't really say why you have? Something triggered that in you. Do you not know people you like better than you like other people? That's a form of discrimination is it not.

Personally, I will confess that I find it harder to like fat people than to like skinny people. Even though I know intellectually that weight has nothing to do with what kind of person someone is or their abilities etc. I just can't help preferring thinner people over fat people. I'm being honest and admitting that. So if I have two people to choose from and one is fat and one is 'normal' (good word that 'normal', it is a discriminatory term in and of itself), I will probably choose to hire the thinner person without even necessarily knowing that is why I am choosing one competent individual over the other equally competent individual.

It is crazy to think we can eliminate discrimination in hiring.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,975 Posts
That's too simplistic. You use the words 'second rate' as if that is what happens. I'm trying to explain to you that if I have 2 people EQUALLY qualified, I still have to choose one of the two. So on what basis do I then make my choice?

I think there's a difference between personal preference/discrimination (which is what you're alluding to) compared to company policy though.

You cite a case where two people are equally qualified, but more likely than not it would be one person more qualified than the other. In that case, if it was company policy to defer to the less qualified candidate because of their race - is what appears to be bothering MrMatt, and I agree that I don't like it.

ltr
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,658 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I think there's a difference between personal preference/discrimination (which is what you're alluding to) compared to company policy though.

You cite a case where two people are equally qualified, but more likely than not it would be one person more qualified than the other. In that case, if it was company policy to defer to the less qualified candidate because of their race - is what appears to be bothering MrMatt, and I agree that I don't like it.

ltr
That's pretty much it, when you have a fixed quota, you're not talking about "equally qualified" people.

If you were to look for a person to fill a job, the chance that the very best available person is in any one particular demographic group is small. That's why you should look at EVERYONE, and why excluding any group is stupid.

For high level positions the odds get even worse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
863 Posts
These are tough issues to solve. and all publicly traded companies are facing the issue, not just the banks. At its core, it seems to me that if half the population Is female, then roughly half of the executives should be too. If it’s not, then you need to at least consider why it’s so, the same goes for any other group. I’m not sure quotas are the solution, but there needs to be programs, mentor ships, open houses etc that allow marginalized groups access to the decision makers, policy makers and group heads. When I was with TD, I do recall aspirational diversity goals, but never heard the word quota. In the end, merit should win out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
I agree the quota system seems to be more about virtue signalling than anything and will exacerbate issues rather than solve them.

I also agree with LTA's point as well that the "hire on merit" idea is a fantasy espoused by many people. In the real world, people hire/ promote with all kinds of unconscious bias, insecurities and flat out just promoting their friends etc etc. Not to mention the most qualified person on paper, is often ends up not being the right person for the job.

I'm not saying hiring or promoting on merit doesn't happen, but it would be the exception rather than the rule. This hiring by ethnicity policy is pretty much an admission that the hire by merit theory is non sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,435 Posts
These are tough issues to solve. and all publicly traded companies are facing the issue, not just the banks. At its core, it seems to me that if half the population Is female, then roughly half of the executives should be too. If it’s not, then you need to at least consider why it’s so...
Studies have been done. Women choose different career paths and are also less willing to put in the hours that many executive positions require. Therefore, the pool of qualified female executives is far less than of male executives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,658 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
These are tough issues to solve. and all publicly traded companies are facing the issue, not just the banks. At its core, it seems to me that if half the population Is female, then roughly half of the executives should be too. If it’s not, then you need to at least consider why it’s so, the same goes for any other group. I’m not sure quotas are the solution, but there needs to be programs, mentor ships, open houses etc that allow marginalized groups access to the decision makers, policy makers and group heads. When I was with TD, I do recall aspirational diversity goals, but never heard the word quota. In the end, merit should win out.
You're making the fundamental assumption that men and women are the same.
They aren't.

"Women generally live longer than males – on average by six to eight years. This difference is partly due to an inherent biological advantage for the female, but it also reflects behavioural differences between men and women."

One could argue that there is systematic "racism" against men, causing them to die younger than women.

I don't believe women are marginalized, if anything they're overencouraged to enter particular careers, but there is a retention problem, female lawyers are an excellent example.

The reality is, being a high level executive isn't a life that most people want or will make them happy.
Most men and most women, given the choice, do choose something else.


I think it's okay for people to choose a life path that makes them happy, and I fully accept that different individuals may have different ideal paths. Short white women tend not to make it into the NBA, and that's not sexist, racist or heightist.

I am scared of a dictate for equal representation by immutable biological characteristics, irrespective of the desires and abilities of the participants.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
847 Posts
Personally, I will confess that I find it harder to like fat people than to like skinny people. Even though I know intellectually that weight has nothing to do with what kind of person someone is or their abilities etc. I just can't help preferring thinner people over fat people. I'm being honest and admitting that. So if I have two people to choose from and one is fat and one is 'normal' (good word that 'normal', it is a discriminatory term in and of itself), I will probably choose to hire the thinner person without even necessarily knowing that is why I am choosing one competent individual over the other equally competent individual.
That is exactly why there needs to be a system in place to make sure that fat people do not get looked over by all those thin people. If there was a good representation of fat people in management, then both fat and thin people would be able to contribute to the corporation.

A similar argument applies to minority races and women. By blazing the trail for the first group, the next generations could follow in their footsteps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,644 Posts
^ That's a pretty broad title you've eluded with that narrow-link provided.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,530 Posts
It's like the US push to not require ID to vote, because some people think "marginalized groups" are too stupid to figure out how to get ID. It's racist, demeaning, and hurts those you're trying to help.
Canada manages to make it possible to vote without ID, with no apparent ill effects. Not sure we should be cavalier about disenfranchising people, regardless of race.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,658 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Canada manages to make it possible to vote without ID, with no apparent ill effects. Not sure we should be cavalier about disenfranchising people, regardless of race.
So if electoral fraud isn't detected, then it's not a problem?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
422 Posts
Divide the people with unfair laws so they start fighting one another so we turn to government to protect us. They are making it look like a race problem when the real problem is in your face in your wallet tyrants in government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,530 Posts
The proportionality of the response is in question. The US has a history of disenfranchisement as a strategy to maintain political control. It is partly racist but also classist. One would think that in a democracy every reasonable effort should be made to ensure that eligible voters can exercise their right to vote. Instead, it seems like in the US it is something only granted begrudgingly, and that it is considered legitimate strategy to actively supress the vote. Even the widespread practice of gerrymandering makes it pretty clear that democracy is not a guiding principle in the US, but only something to which lipservice is paid.

To answer your question differently, how many millions of people should be disenfranchised to stop an example of voter fraud?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,658 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
The proportionality of the response is in question. The US has a history of disenfranchisement as a strategy to maintain political control. It is partly racist but also classist. One would think that in a democracy every reasonable effort should be made to ensure that eligible voters can exercise their right to vote. Instead, it seems like in the US it is something only granted begrudgingly, and that it is considered legitimate strategy to actively supress the vote. Even the widespread practice of gerrymandering makes it pretty clear that democracy is not a guiding principle in the US, but only something to which lipservice is paid.

To answer your question differently, how many millions of people should be disenfranchised to stop an example of voter fraud?
I think when the amount of fraud in the system is sufficient to swing the election, or even more than a small fraction of the vote, more steps need to be taken.
Reports of significant electoral fraud are coming out now, they've got hundreds of thousands of uncounted votes from recent elections. It's a huge problem in the US.

At least for now Canada has a somewhat secure election, but with some jurisdictions going to insecure voting methods, such as online voting, we're heading the same way. Thats very concerning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,239 Posts
What I find odd is that it always seems to be some white politician or official who is giving his or her opinion on racism. Racism certainly does exist in Canada. Just ask someone of colour, or someone of a different faith or background. They are the ones who know about it because they experience it...not some privileged white person who is trying to make an impression.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,658 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Why do the left think that minorities are incapable of obtaining ID? Do they think they're not intelligent enough?
Short answer, yes. You can go on youtube and find interviews.

These people think that minorities are incompetent and unable to function in society, which is why we need quotas and a massive welfare state to "take care of them".

The US left really is that racist.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top