Topic: Politics in 2018

[whiskey601]

-" I was simply trying to say striving for gender equality and helping to bring women up to the level of men is a worthy goal.  whether they reach it or not is up in the air,.."

Disagree. I'm no feminist, but I am a pragmatist and it's 2018 and that equality model needs to be better defined and then it must be the end state at any cost, and any cost is what they are willing to pay. I find it hard to see things any other way, I remember looking at recruiting brochures years back that spec'd pay based on gender, family and marital status etc.   Decades have gone by, and while some equity has been achieved, parity in terms of recognition of rewards and acknowledgement of equal role responsibility (it's a two way street) has not been achieved and that is unacceptable.

[Good2Golf]

Isn't it ironic that one of the fastest ways for women to gain pay equity with men is to join the Canadian Armed Forces?  I didn't see anything in the budget to support DND in attracting women towards that 100%, no-questions-asked pay equity...   



Regards
G2G

[Altair]

Isn't it ironic that one of the fastest ways for women to gain pay equity with men is to join the Canadian Armed Forces?  I didn't see anything in the budget to support DND in attracting women towards that 100%, no-questions-asked pay equity...   



Regards
G2G

Forces can't hire every single woman in Canada.

Isn't our money due to role out after the next election?

[Jarnhamar]

Are there actual jobs in Canada where women are getting paid less than men for doing the same job?

[MCG]

Are there actual jobs in Canada where women are getting paid less than men for doing the same job?

News media is rolling with two examples that are claimed to be the case right now.

One is a police force where civilian office workers (who happen to be mostly women) feel they are owed the same pay as police office workers (who happen to be mostly men) in similar jobs.  The other example is urban mail carriers (who are mostly male) are making more than rural and country mail carriers (who are more likely to be female).

None of the coverage that I have seen or read gives enough information to form an informed opinion.

[George Wallace]

That depends.  If by “help” you mean words of encouragement then sure.  If you have to carry their rifle or ruck for them then we have a problem.  That is the minimum standard everyone should pass.  If they can’t do it they are bringing the team down.  Carrying there kit and dragging them across the finish line helps nobody. How many people are you going to accept in your platoon that need help carrying their own kit?  See the problem?  Nobody “makes it” in that scenario.  What’s next?  Shooting a few rounds into their target for them during the PWT because they suck a little at that too?

Unfortunately, this is the wrong attitude.  It is a TEAM.  You, however, are concentrating solely on yourself as an individual.  Individuals who are not team members in a team lead the whole team to failure in many cases. 
In any military operation the team has to stay together.  Your suggestion that you leave a person behind, not only increases the likelihood that you will lose that person, but then the remainder of your team is short members in the fight.....a big handicap in a firefight.
On the civilian side, this 'Mcdonald's School of Thinking' is what is leading us in a downward spiral, as people rush in to make their money fast as an individual, and then get out fast with the cash and personal profit.....No thought to the long term goal of 'team' profit.....No thought of the welfare of others......No thought in politics of 'nation building'.....

[SeaKingTacco]

Are there actual jobs in Canada where women are getting paid less than men for doing the same job?

As I understand it (and I may be wrong based on what I heard on CBC and am certainly willing to be corrected) , what the Liberals want to legislate in federally regulated industries is not two people in the exact same job getting the same pay (what we, obviously, already have in the CF) but a system whereby two people in two different jobs get paid equally because both their work is equally important to society.

Maybe not the best example (but the only one I could think of because airlines are federally regulated) is that, possibly, the government will now decide that flight attendants should receive the same pay as pilots because their work crewing the aircraft is of equal value.

How this all plays out, practically, is beyond me.

[Jarnhamar]

News media is rolling with two examples that are claimed to be the case right now.

One is a police force where civilian office workers (who happen to be mostly women) feel they are owed the same pay as police office workers (who happen to be mostly men) in similar jobs.  The other example is urban mail carriers (who are mostly male) are making more than rural and country mail carriers (who are more likely to be female).

None of the coverage that I have seen or read gives enough information to form an informed opinion.

I don't want to spin this into a male vs female thing. Women should make the same as men for doing the same job, full stop.  Similar jobs? Well that's not the same job (right?).  During the G20 summit some Police officers, which included females, were making something sick like $800 a day they said with overtime and all that when corporals, who at that moment in time were doing the same security task, were making standard corporals pay like $120 a day or whatever.

I picked a male dominated field and my house boss picked a female dominated one. She made $20'000 more than me last year (and 5 of those months I was away from my family).

The mail carrier thing is an interesting point but at first glance that seems to be a matter of urban vs rural rather than male vs female. It would be a story if male mail carriers in the country made more money than female mail carriers.

[pbi]

News media is rolling with two examples that are claimed to be the case right now.

One is a police force where civilian office workers (who happen to be mostly women) feel they are owed the same pay as police office workers (who happen to be mostly men) in similar jobs.  The other example is urban mail carriers (who are mostly male) are making more than rural and country mail carriers (who are more likely to be female).

None of the coverage that I have seen or read gives enough information to form an informed opinion.

My impression from coverage so far is not that this is a major problem in government jobs (where pay rates tend to be set by various regulations and are thus usually more transparent, and unions are almost always involved), but more in private businesses that are not so tightly regulated and have more freedom to manage how they compensate employees. Or don't compensate employees.

For me, this is a no-brainer. If you have two employees doing the same job, and all other factors (certified skills and qualifications, seniority, performance pay, etc) are equal, then you pay them equally. It's common sense and the decent way to treat the people who work for you.  Male/female should have nothing to do with it.

[Jarnhamar]

Maybe not the best example (but the only one I could think of because airlines are federally regulated) is that, possibly, the government will now decide that flight attendants should receive the same pay as pilots because their work crewing the aircraft is of equal value.

How this all plays out, practically, is beyond me.

Ah, seen.

[Jarnhamar]

The budget is still light on critical infrastructure. It's a public relations budget.

And sorry but is there a point where we will realizing constantly throwing more money at first Nations problems isn't going to fix the issues and we need a new game plan?

Trudeau needs to hire me, clearly I have all the answers eh 

[SeaKingTacco]

Ah, seen.

I have only a tenuous grasp on what this Government is shooting for here, so take what I have said with a grain of salt.

Obviously, if there still exist cases in Canada today of two workers side by side doing the same job but getting different pay because of sex, that needs to be fixed.

If the goal for the government is to decide what jobs are of equivalent value to society and force pay equity on that basis, I am not sure how that is practically possible.

[pbi]

...If the goal for the government is to decide what jobs are of equivalent value to society and force pay equity on that basis, I am not sure how that is practically possible.

I agree with that. It sounds like a swamp that could employ bureaucrats and Royal Commissions from now until...until....until the Ontario Tories sort out their act.

[MCG]

The mail carrier thing is an interesting point but at first glance that seems to be a matter of urban vs rural rather than male vs female. It would be a story if male mail carriers in the country made more money than female mail carriers.

From the articles I saw, the difference was because the urban carriers were unionized years earlier, they were able to establish better pay for themselves and that disparity now endures as a systemic sexual discrimination. The article would have you understand that delivering mail is the same work and the same value regardless of where it is done, but is that true?  Do urban and rural carriers carry the same loads over the same distances? Do they deliver the same volume of mail, or the same value of mail (and how do you measure mail value: by item, by mass, by dollar value attached to business conducted through the mail, or something else?)? Do they work same hours?  Face same hazards? Does either location struggle more than the other to attract capable employees?  I don’t know.

[jollyjacktar]

Rural carriers use their vehicles to carry the mail to the boxes.

[mariomike]

Are there actual jobs in Canada where women are getting paid less than men for doing the same job?

I don't know if it was ever resolved, but I remember this,

QUOTE

In the case of Reid et al. v. Vancouver Police Board there was a claim by the mostly female dispatchers of the Vancouver Police Department that the 40% pay difference between them and the mostly male dispatchers at the Vancouver Fire Department was discrimination. The latter group was employed by the City of Vancouver while the former group was employed by the Vancouver Police Board. The Tribunal and ultimately the Court of Appeal agreed they were separate employers even though the City of Vancouver had final responsibility to pay for the employees of the Police Board. In the result, the claim was dismissed.
http://www.mccarthy.ca/pubs/2006_Labour_Conference_Materials.pdf

END QUOTE

[ModlrMike]

Apples to oranges. The comparison is really only valid if it's within the same workforce. Your example is no different than male janitors at ABC Co being paid more than female janitors at XYZ Co.

[mariomike]

Your example is no different than male janitors at ABC Co being paid more than female janitors at XYZ Co.

I'm not a lawyer.

My example was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada ( Docket #31171 ).
https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=31171

[Altair]

That depends.  If by “help” you mean words of encouragement then sure.  If you have to carry their rifle or ruck for then we have a problem.  That is the minimum standard everyone should pass.  If they can’t do it they are bringing the team down.  Carrying there kit and dragging them across the finish line helps nobody. How many people are you going to accept in your platoon that need help carrying their own kit?  See the problem?  Nobody “makes it” in that scenario.  What’s next?  Shooting a few rounds into their target for them during the PWT because they suck a little at that too?

I've never carried someone's kit in a ruck march.  I've stayed with them(men and women both) and offer encouragement,  urge them to keep up, maybe offer some of my water.

They still have to do the hard work putting one foot in front of the next,  but it can be easier when you're not dropping off and being left behind by themselves.

[pbi]

I've never carried someone's kit in a ruck march.  I've stayed with them(men and women both) and offer encouragement,  urge them to keep up, maybe offer some of my water.

They still have to do the hard work putting one foot in front of the next,  but it can be easier when you're not dropping off and being left behind by themselves.

I agree with Altair here: leaving soldiers behind is not good leadership, in my opinion. Apparently, neither is leaving Marines:

http://www.usmc-mccs.org/articles/commandant-we-never-leave-a-marine-behind/

Going through Inf School, I remember more than once that we carried the rifles and packs of exhausted course mates, after a few days of stumbling through the swamps of Gagetown. Sometimes we did it on our own, sometimes the DS told us to. The point drilled into us was that nobody gets left behind, because that doesn't help the team, either.

I get QV's point about a common standard, but it has to be applied with common sense and sometimes some compassion. That could easily be "you" falling behind.

[Jarnhamar]

I agree with Altair here: leaving soldiers behind is not good leadership, in my opinion. Apparently, neither is leaving Marines:
Going through Inf School, I remember more than once that we carried the rifles and packs of exhausted course mates, after a few days of stumbling through the swamps of Gagetown. Sometimes we did it on our own, sometimes the DS told us to. The point drilled into us was that nobody gets left behind, because that doesn't help the team, either.

I get QV's point about a common standard, but it has to be applied with common sense and sometimes some compassion. That could easily be "you" falling behind.

But the 13KM BFT is an individual test. If someone essentially has to be motivated (be it jacking up or happy thoughts) for 13 kilometers what happens when the soldier has to perform to the standard they just "passed" and people aren't around or able to push them?

Get what you're both saying but there is a difference, IMO, between fitness standards and something like a platoon on a forced march with heavy weapons etc..
I think we see some shitty MCpls and 2LTs because course mates carry them, in various ways, through courses.

[whiskey601]

I'm not a lawyer.

My example was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada ( Docket #31171 ).
https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=31171

The SCC offered no opinion of their own and denied the plaintiff's leave to appeal the 2-1 decision of the BCCA, which had earlier set aside a trial judge's order made in judicial review proceedings relating to a decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The main issue was one of symmetry between employers based on the ultimate source of funding for the paycheque (City of Vancouver), which the BCHRT ruled to be of no consequence to the matter.  An employer is an employer, regardless of source of funding for employment. This makes sense, for example look at the payment of nurses in nursing homes and hospitals. They are usually much different.

In contradistinction, Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Morneau appear to be espousing a policy that all departments of the federal government are ultimately a single employer, which is probably correct assuming that there is only one pension plan, one pay scale, one benefit plan, one collective agreement, one common standard of employment etc. etc. But alas, that assumption is incorrect.  They have to do better.

[mariomike]

Your example is no different than male janitors at ABC Co being paid more than female janitors at XYZ Co.

An employer is an employer, regardless of source of funding for employment.

I was not offering a legal opinion, as I am not a lawyer.

My reply was to this question,

Are there actual jobs in Canada where women are getting paid less than men for doing the same job?

The question was about jobs. Not employers.

In this case, it was argued that dispatching police and fire, in / for the same city ( Vancouver ), were similar jobs.

[whiskey601]

You pointed to a case that was ostensibly about jobs, in fact there was actually common ground that the jobs were comparable and the wages were not. The main issue of whether one employer could pay less than the other employer for highly comparable work did not turn on gender. The process never got that far because the City was able to establish they were not the single employer and that the City, and the two departments were all separate employers in their own right. The fact that one employer apparently valuated the work of dispatchers at a much higher level than the other employer suggests a problem perhaps rooted in something other than gender discrimination.
 

[mariomike]

You pointed to a case that was ostensibly about jobs, in fact there was actually common ground that the jobs were comparable and the wages were not.

My reply was to this question,

Are there actual jobs in Canada where women are getting paid less than men for doing the same job?

"In provincial jurisdictions, employers must give men and women equal pay for similar or
substantially similar work. In the federal jurisdiction, employers must give equal pay for work of
equal value."
http://www.mccarthy.ca/pubs/2006_Labour_Conference_Materials.pdf

As this was a municipal jurisdiction,

"The latter group was employed by the City of Vancouver while the former group was employed by the Vancouver Police Board. The Tribunal and ultimately the Court of Appeal agreed they were separate employers even though the City of Vancouver had final responsibility to pay for the employees of the Police Board."

This was Vancouver. The situation in Toronto was virtually identical. So, it was watched closely as the case went to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Interestingly, after 1998, Paramedic and Fire dispatchers could transfer between each others Communications Divisions.
But, not with ( the lower paying ) City Police Communications.