Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )

[Navy_Pete]

Dealt with the language issue while working as an instructor.  It was super frustrating to have a few people that didn't speak either official language well enough to understand the core trade training but the policies specifically didn't allow us to send them on an ESL course.  Took more than six months, failing a career course, TRB and a lot of fighting to get common sense to apply.

Otherwise they were good candidates; motivated, smart and happy, but just didn't understand enough english to get through the training. Not their fault, not our fault, but the same system that recruited them didn't give us the tools to get them the language training needed.  As far as I know, after that finally got done, they did a six/nine month go and came back to successfully complete the course.  Was pretty frustrating for everyone.

As an aside, some of them wouldn't have qualified for EE (white males that didn't speak english/french well), but CFRG was usually prefaced or followed by swear words for a while.

 

[eastern]

I was seriously considering of joining the Canadian forces, but I came across this article this morning, which is now making me doubt my decision:

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-canadian-forces-jobs-where-only-women-need-apply

I have several questions:

1. is this true, or just fake news?
2. doesn't Canada have laws protecting against gender discrimination?
3. why would processing time take less if you are female or minority than if you are a white male?

i want this to be fake with all my heart!
please let me know!

 

[dimsum]

I was seriously considering of joining the Canadian forces, but I came across this article this morning, which is now making me doubt my decision:

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-canadian-forces-jobs-where-only-women-need-apply

I have several questions:

1. is this true, or just fake news?
2. doesn't Canada have laws protecting against gender discrimination?
3. why would processing time take less if you are female or minority than if you are a white male?

i want this to be fake with all my heart!
please let me know!

For context, why would this make you doubt your decision?

 

[BeyondTheNow]

I was seriously considering of joining the Canadian forces, but I came across this article this morning, which is now making me doubt my decision:

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-canadian-forces-jobs-where-only-women-need-apply

I have several questions:

1. is this true, or just fake news?
2. doesn't Canada have laws protecting against gender discrimination?
3. why would processing time take less if you are female or minority than if you are a white male?

i want this to be fake with all my heart!
please let me know!

You need to read the article carefully, word for word, beginning to end.

Then you need to read this thread carefully to its current point. Then once you’ve done so, you need to figure out whether or not—if you’re indeed a qualified candidate—that you still feel anything you’ve learned would negatively impact your decision to apply.

 

[Furniture]

For context, why would this make you doubt your decision?

Perhaps rather than questioning why somebody feels this way, the CAF should be looking into how they can prevent people from feeling this way while still recruiting from the target groups.

If I was looking to join at this time, being told I'm not wanted until they can't find somebody from a special group(that I'm excluded from based on race, and gender) would be rather off-putting.

For those on the outside I imagine it creates the impression that promotion once in the CAF will also be influenced by the same criteria. Those of us that are already in know that isn't the case, but do potential recruits know that? 

 

[mariomike]

If I was looking to join at this time, being told I'm not wanted until they can't find somebody from a special group(that I'm excluded from based on race, and gender) would be rather off-putting.

Nothing new about Employment Equity. Canada's Employment Equity Act ( EEA ) became law in 1986.

Nothing new about the discussion, either,

From 2005,

Employment equity is only for those who qualify
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/37277.0.html
2 pages.

Sometimes referred to on here by its American term, "Affirmative Action",

From 2004,

Affirmative Action recruiting policies?
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/22619.100.html
5 pages.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

If I was looking to join at this time, being told I'm not wanted until they can't find somebody from a special group(that I'm excluded from based on race, and gender) would be rather off-putting.

I strongly disagree with certain recruiting practices and/or how specific targets are being initiated during periods involving CAF or otherwise. Your statement, however, implies CAF is exercising all of these initiatives 100% of the time and that's simply not the case.

There's no reason why the OP, or anyone else for that matter, feels they shouldn't apply. If the article hadn't have come out, would it have made a difference for these potential applicants? No. These practises were taking place regardless. And again, CAF is nowhere near the only government organization implementing these types of practices, in Canada or otherwise. Nor are they the only public service sector doing so.

If someone wants to apply, apply. If theyre a good candidate they'll be successful, period. But no one should be feeding into the sentiment of, "Oh, soandso took my job/spot because they're..." That only worsens the issues.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I was seriously considering of joining the Canadian forces, but I came across this article this morning, which is now making me doubt my decision:

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-canadian-forces-jobs-where-only-women-need-apply

I have several questions:

1. is this true, or just fake news?
2. doesn't Canada have laws protecting against gender discrimination?
3. why would processing time take less if you are female or minority than if you are a white male?

i want this to be fake with all my heart!
please let me know!

So you were considering joining the CAF but came across an article so came to this unofficial forum to register and ask whether this is fake news or not? Why would you believe us other the accredited journalist?

 

[Furniture]

I strongly disagree with certain recruiting practices and/or how specific targets are being initiated during periods involving CAF or otherwise. Your statement, however, implies CAF is exercising all of these initiatives 100% of the time and that's simply not the case.

There's no reason why the OP, or anyone else for that matter, feels they shouldn't apply. If the article hadn't have come out, would it have made a difference for these potential applicants? No. These practises were taking place regardless. And again, CAF is nowhere near the only government organization implementing these types of practices, in Canada or otherwise. Nor are they the only public service sector doing so.

If someone wants to apply, apply. If theyre a good candidate they'll be successful, period. But no one should be feeding into the sentiment of, "Oh, soandso took my job/spot because they're..." That only worsens the issues.

My statement says I would feel as though I would be at a disatvantage when applying, and that would make me question whether or not it would be worth applying. The person applying doesn't know when these practices are being applied, so as an outsider it would feel as though they are always in effect. That's an obvious flaw in the CAF strategy that needs to be addressed. Transparency is important not only for the person applying, but for the organization they are applying to join as well.

I'm sure you're aware that discussion boards are for expressing opinions, and my opinion is that these practices that have been brough to the light by the article in the National Post are wrong, and should be addressed. That's not feeding a sentiment that "Oh, soandso took my job/spot because they're...", it's pointing out that the current practice is damageing the image of the CAF as a potential employer no matter your age/race/gender/religion/sexuality/etc..

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Nothing new about Employment Equity. Canada's Employment Equity Act ( EEA ) became law in 1986.

Nothing new about the discussion, either,

From 2005,

Employment equity is only for those who qualify
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/37277.0.html
2 pages.

Sometimes referred to on here by its American term, "Affirmative Action",

From 2004,

Affirmative Action recruiting policies?
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/22619.100.html
5 pages.

What is new, however, is a senior officer confirming in the preceding news article that if a white male applied to a trade designated "EE/female applicants only", the CFRC staff would lie to him and tell him the trade was closed.  Effectively "white males can't apply to certain trades".  That is discrimination veiled under the purpose of the EE Act.

I'd say that is still pretty "new". 

 

[TCM621]

On the other hand, my daughter wants to go to med school. I can't afford med school, so I am pushing the CAF option. If they want to keep these EE standards going for about 3 years or so, my wallet will thank them. ;D

 

[Eye In The Sky]

My statement says I would feel as though I would be at a disatvantage when applying, and that would make me question whether or not it would be worth applying. The person applying doesn't know when these practices are being applied, so as an outsider it would feel as though they are always in effect.

This;  what will a white male who is aware of these practices revealed in the article think if he is told "the trade(s) you are applying for are closed right now"?  Maybe they are actually closed, but maybe they are only closed to him  because he is a male. 

That's an obvious flaw in the CAF strategy that needs to be addressed. Transparency is important not only for the person applying, but for the organization they are applying to join as well.

I suggest not only is it important, it is policy (heck, it's an AF on our PERs).  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about/defence-ethics.page

The DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics
The DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics, part of the DEP, sets a standard of expected behaviours for all personnel in DND and the CAF. The principles, values and expected behaviours it contains apply to DND and its employees and to the CAF and its members.

Statement of Defence Ethics
The Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) have a special responsibility for the defence of Canada, its people and its parliamentary democracy. Discharging this responsibility requires, among other things, a commitment by DND and its employees, and the CAF and its members, to apply the highest ethical standards in all decisions and actions, whether at home or abroad.

Ethical Principles and Expected Behaviours

1. Respect the Dignity of All Persons

At all times and in all places, DND employees and CAF members shall respect human dignity and the value of every person by:
- Treating every person with respect and fairness.
- Valuing diversity and the benefit of combining the unique qualities and strengths inherent in a diverse workforce.
- Helping to create and maintain safe and healthy workplaces that are free from harassment and discrimination.
- Working together in a spirit of openness, honesty and transparency that encourages engagement, collaboration and respectful communication.

Specific Values and Expected Behaviours

1. Integrity

DND employees and CAF members shall serve the public interest by:
- Acting at all times with integrity, and in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny; an obligation that may not be fully satisfied by simply acting within the law.
- Adhering to the highest ethical standards, communicating and acting with honesty, and avoiding deception.

The article several pages back in the thread demonstrates we are not practicing what we preach.  Of all of the discussion over the "females only" article, I am most astonished that people are "ok" with the fact that we are lying to applicants.  What would the CAF do to a CAF member who had lied on their application, or was caught during the recruiting process?  What would forum members say to an applicant who came on here and posted he/she had lied to the recruiters?

Outright lying to people now and some think "oh, that's okay".  :not-again:

 

[Navy_Pete]

It's not detailed in the article, but they could have a few extra positions above the strategic intake plan (SIP) levels and be willing to 'overrecruit' a trade to hit some EE targets.

Given that white males is still the majority of the CAF, don't see how anyone is being disadvantaged. Competitive candidates will still get offers.

As an aside, I think an underlying belief in meritocracy is harmful. It's not realistic, and like everywhere else, the CAF is not a meritocracy, so we shouldn't pretend it is, and get surprised by things like this. Even determining what merit is is pretty subjective, so it's an impossible standard.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Given that white males is still the majority of the CAF, don't see how anyone is being disadvantaged. Competitive candidates will still get offers.

Tell that to the unknown number of male applicants since this...'program'... was put into place that didn't even get the opportunity to compete for the trades and careers in the CAF they really had their heart set on, and only reason why?  Because of their sex.  Oh, and were flat-out lied to by the recruiting staff.

You can't fix a wrong that one group was/may be experiencing by transferring it to another group.  That doesn't fix the problem;  2 'wrongs' don't make a 'right'.

Direct question for you;  what is your opinion, knowing the expectations of all serving CAF members IAW our Defence Ethics Program, of recruiting staff outright lying to CAF applicants?

 

[mariomike]

An interesting ten pages.

This post received 1,200 Mil-Points, so is perhaps worth a second look,

There's way too much to be offended about, or on behalf of... you know, like a Reservist wanting a photo in uniform, or hair styles, or badges.....FREAKIN' BADGES!!
            anic:


So the short answer is, the Employment Equity Act has been enshrined in federal Canadian law since 1986 (amended 1995).  For over three decades,  it has required federal employers to engage in proactive employment practices to increase the representation of women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities.

Forgive me if I don't get worked up today by DND doing something that has been legally mandated for 33 years.  However, should anyone wish to light torches and storm some castle, or start a harshly-worded petition, you can get some useful bits from "Canada, Justice Laws Website, 'Employment Equity Act (S.C. 1995, c. 44)',"  https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-5.401/ -- it specifically mentions Canadian Forces, CSIS, and RCMP.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Also worth a second look.  From the Canadian Human Rights Act.

2. The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Prohibited grounds of discrimination

3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered

Discriminatory policy or practice

10 It is a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee organization or employer organization
(a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or
(b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospective employment,

that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The EE Act is not the only one that needs consideration.

“priority is given to EE applicants. Non-EE may apply.”

No issues, balances the requirements of EE and the CHR Acts. 

“accepting applications from females only”.

  Oversteps the purpose of the EE Act, and contrary to the para's of the CHR Acts above.  We should be doing the "priority given...non-EE may apply" option to all trades that are targeted for EE applicants. 

And, of course, we should not be lying to people.  :

 

[Navy_Pete]

My opinion is that there isn't enough information available to make any determination on what is actually going on and what the facts are, so I'm not going to get upset about it.

It depends on how the program was rolled out. If unqualified people got pushed ahead of highly rated applicants because of a tick in the box, that would be wrong, but it's obviously not that black and white (no pun intended). If two files near the cut off are scored the same, and an EE factor prioritizes one file over the other, don't think that's a a big deal. That's really no different then something like bilingualism or the old exemption on the PT test being the determining factors on two files going for promotion, as they relate to the organizational goals.  In this case the GoC says the CAF should better reflect the makeup of the Canadian population, so if they can do that while still getting qualified people in the door, why not? No real difference than the bilingualism goal at the GoC level and how that impacts promotion.

If they follow up with some actual details, or show that this made a significant difference to a large number of applicants, then that'd be different. Right now there isn't even one person they can identify in any way as being disadvantaged, or that anyone got in that shouldn't have as a result of this policy.

I can see why some people would be upset, but also think a lot of it is driven by the CAF being a meritocracy, when it's not (and no where is).

 

[mariomike]

From the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission,

The Commission also works with federally regulated employers to ensure compliance with the Employment Equity Act.
https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/our-work

How to File a Complaint

If you believe you have experienced discrimination, you may be able to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/how-file-compliant

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Not sure what your point is MM, sorry.

I'll add this one into the thread.

CANFORGEN 057/19 CMP 035/19 212048Z MAR 19
DAOD 5516-5 / CF MIL PERS INSTR 02/19, LEARNING DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION DURING RECRUITING, TRAINING AND EDUCATION
UNCLASSIFIED

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS CANFORGEN IS TO ANNOUNCE THE RELEASE OF DAOD 5516-5 AND CF MIL PERS INSTR 02/19 THAT ACCOMPANY IT. THIS DAOD APPLIES TO CAF APPLICANTS, CAF MEMBERS UNDERGOING SELECTION PROCESSES AND CAF MEMBERS RECEIVING TRAINING (INCLUDING SECOND LANGUAGE OR FOREIGN LANGUAGE TRAINING) OR EDUCATION AT RMC, RMC SAINT-JEAN, A CIVILIAN INSTITUTION, OR ANY OTHER CAF APPROVED INSTITUTION

2. RESEARCH AND INCREASED AWARENESS IN RECENT YEARS HAVE RESULTED IN A RISE IN THE DIAGNOSIS AND REPORTING OF LEARNING DISABILITIES (LDS). RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THAT LDS ARE LIFELONG AND INNATE, HOWEVER, INDIVIDUALS WITH LDS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE INCREASING SUCCESS IN THEIR EDUCATION AND CAREERS

3. THE DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF INDIVIDUALS WITH LDS IS A LEGAL OBLIGATION UNDER THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT AND THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT. SUBJECT TO UNIVERSALITY OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS, THE CAF MUST ACCOMMODATE CAF APPLICANTS AND CAF MEMBERS WITH LDS TO THE POINT OF UNDUE HARDSHIP. ACCOMMODATION REQUESTS MUST BE ASSESSED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION SUCH FACTORS AS UNIVERSALITY OF SERVICE, COST, AND HEALTH AND SAFETY

4. THIS DAOD ALONG WITH THE CF MIL PERS INSTR ASSIST COMMANDING OFFICERS AND CAF PERSONNEL IN UNDERSTANDING THEIR OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ACCOMMODATING LDS. KEY POINTS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
A. CAF APPLICANTS AND CAF MEMBERS ARE TO BE ENCOURAGED TO DISCLOSE IF THEY HAVE, OR SUSPECT THEY MAY HAVE A LD IN ORDER TO ENABLE ACCOMMODATION IAW THIS DAOD,
B. THE ASSESSMENT OF A LD MAY ONLY BE CONDUCTED BY A QUALIFIED ACCREDITED PROFESSIONAL,
C. A LD IS NOT SPECIFICALLY A MEDICAL ISSUE UNLESS MEDICATION IS PRESCRIBED OR IS AS THE RESULT OF AN ILLNESS OR INJURY, AND,
D. SPECIFIC SUGGESTED ACCOMMODATION MEASURES ARE PROVIDED

5. COMMANDING OFFICERS HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE A WORKPLACE FREE FROM HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION AND THAT HUMAN DIGNITY IS RESPECTED. ALL LEVELS OF PERSONNEL WITHIN THE CAF MUST ASSUME A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUPPORTING INDIVIDUALS WITH A LD, OTHERWISE SUCCESSFUL SUPPORT AND INTEGRATION WILL NOT BE REALIZED

6. FOR ASSISTANCE IN THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF THIS DAOD, COMMANDING OFFICERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT DHRD, OR DPGR 4 FOR THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF THE CF MIL PERS INSTR XX/19

7. DND 4458-E LEARNING DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION REQUEST FORM CAN BE FOUND IN THE DND FORMS CATALOGUE

8. DAOD 5516-5 CAN BE ACCESSED AT THE FOLLOWING LINK: HTTPS://WWW.CANADA.CA/EN/DEPARTMENT-NATIONAL-DEFENCE/ CORPORATE/POLICIES-STANDARDS/DEFENCE-ADMINISTRATIVE-ORDERS- DIRECTIVES.HTML

This one I've zero issue with, personally.  We've likely been recruiting people with LD for a long time;  I know at least one mbr I worked with who was pretty open that he had a LD and it had some effect on his ability to carry out his duties (an Instructor at the time).

The parts I've highlighted in yellow are important aspects of this policy, IMO.

I do note, thought, this CANFORFEN identifies the CAFs responsibilities include the Charter, CHR and EE Act.

 

[Furniture]

My opinion is that there isn't enough information available to make any determination on what is actually going on and what the facts are, so I'm not going to get upset about it.

It depends on how the program was rolled out. If unqualified people got pushed ahead of highly rated applicants because of a tick in the box, that would be wrong, but it's obviously not that black and white (no pun intended). If two files near the cut off are scored the same, and an EE factor prioritizes one file over the other, don't think that's a a big deal. That's really no different then something like bilingualism or the old exemption on the PT test being the determining factors on two files going for promotion, as they relate to the organizational goals.  In this case the GoC says the CAF should better reflect the makeup of the Canadian population, so if they can do that while still getting qualified people in the door, why not? No real difference than the bilingualism goal at the GoC level and how that impacts promotion.

If they follow up with some actual details, or show that this made a significant difference to a large number of applicants, then that'd be different. Right now there isn't even one person they can identify in any way as being disadvantaged, or that anyone got in that shouldn't have as a result of this policy.

I can see why some people would be upset, but also think a lot of it is driven by the CAF being a meritocracy, when it's not (and no where is).

I'll  just address the two points highlighted.

1) Pers involved with recruiting have said they lie to applicants about job availability based on gender/race. That's not the action of an organization that thinks it is doing the right thing. If the CAF thought they were doing the right thing they would clearly advise the applicant that based on the EE targets they can't hire them until the quota has been met.

Example "We aren't hiring right now" vs 'We can't hire you right now because you're a white male, come back in a few weeks/months when we can't find someone else for the job"

2) The examples of a second language or level of physical fitness are not at all the same as race and gender.  If I really want those extra points on my PER I can hit the gym and pick up Rosetta Stone. I can't make myself a woman, or a minority... That fact you can't see the difference between discriminating between people based on learned skill, and race/gender is a bit is a touch worrying.