First nations will blockade roads as part of 'Idle No More' protest

[polak]

No. I should have clarified that the cost was on the employers side (lets say it takes an hour to screen each diploma and you can only afford to screen so many diplomas)

If your only defense is holes in my completely made up scenerio and not the actual point I'm making (that profiling makes logical sense when it's based on real numbers) then this is a pointless discussion.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Well, it is almost certainly a violation of s. 7 of the Alberta Human Rights Act:



Look at your hypothetical from the perspective of first nations applicants. You are adding an additional employment barrier solely because of their race, an unchangeable and deeply personal characteristic. Does that seem fair to you?

To clarify though, adding a requirement that all applicants must have a high school designation is not racist or discriminatory.

Adding that only Aboriginals would be checked is.

[polak]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

To clarify though, adding a requirement that all applicants must have a high school designation is not racist or discriminatory.

Adding that only Aboriginals would be checked is.

A) You could easily screen a few others to get around that if you so choose.

B) I don't have to agree with a law. I just have to follow it. Just cause it's law doesn't make it wrong to discuss it's validity.

[CaramonLS]

Sorry I should clarify - basically if you are going to implement anything in an employment screening process, it must demonstrate consistency across all applicants.

Otherwise you could be subject to human rights tribunals.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

See. Sensitivity clouds logic.

In my scenerio, in no way is the person that is native and being asked to provide proof being hurt or really affected in any unexpected way.

The ad stated that a High School Diploma is a requirement and they should be prepared to provide it. Budget constraints say you can only do so many checks and you have statistical evidence saying that the person that is native has a smaller chance of posesing that diploma (or whatever race, or burden of proof you want to interchange into this argument, You could make it polish people and malaysians needing to prove they can actually hula dance for all I care).

When they walk through your door, there is an equal chance that either group is lying. They all give outstanding interviews. The only thing you have to base your decision on is numbers and apperance and your choice really makes no impact on the persons life.

Why on earth wouldn't you use what you have to help you make a choice on who to verify?



Thats also why I used it.
As you can tell I'm pretty laissez faire about this crap. People are too sensitive.



Yup. If you only had time to check a finite amount of people, why on earth wouldn't you use such knowledge to your advantage? The people you profile aren't losing anything or being hurt in anyway outside of maybe being slightly offended that someone had the balls to profile. They'll get over it.

Probably because you'd be exposing yourself to legal liability

Oh, you'd also be ####ty person

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by polak

If your only defense is holes in my completely made up scenerio and not the actual point I'm making (that profiling makes logical sense when it's based on real numbers) then this is a pointless discussion.

I didn't say it wasn't logical or cost effective, I said it was racist. A policy can be both cost-effective and racist.

[polak]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Sorry I should clarify - basically if you are going to implement anything in an employment screening process, it must demonstrate consistency across all applicants.

Otherwise you could be subject to human rights tribunals.

Thats fair enough, my scenerio was just one of many where profiling is an option.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by polak

No. I should have clarified that the cost was on the employers side (lets say it takes an hour to screen each diploma and you can only afford to screen so many diplomas)

If your only defense is holes in my completely made up scenerio and not the actual point I'm making (that profiling makes logical sense when it's based on real numbers) then this is a pointless discussion.

You're illustrating an unfair hiring practice. Stats also say men are more likely to beat up women than women beating up men. Does that mean any male applicant should get a criminal check, but females don't have to? You either require all do show proof of a diploma, or you require none.

And since what you're highlighting is basically the definition of discrimination, then to answer your question, yes, it most certainly is a racist practice.

[polak]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

I didn't say it wasn't logical or cost effective, I said it was racist. A policy can be both cost-effective and racist.

Is it morally wrong to use logic if no one is being hurt by it? Okay, it's racist in that it's based on race (in this case). But why is other discrimination okay?

No one has a problem with cops giving more scrutiny when choosing whether or not to pull over a 23 year old guy at a checkstop compared to a 56 year old mom with her kids.

Super-End Point:

PEOPLE ARE TOO SENSITIVE ABOUT STUPID THINGS.

Edit: Okay, I get it. The hiring example was a bad scenerio. Change it then.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by polak

A) You could easily screen a few others to get around that if you so choose.

B) I don't have to agree with a law. I just have to follow it. Just cause it's law doesn't make it wrong to discuss it's validity.

Ultimately, selective screening practices like the ones that you describe are unlikely to ever lead to a human rights complaint because they are unlikely to ever be discovered by applicants.

However, they're still stupid. All such practices would do is assure the employer that all if its first nations employees had degrees, while making it quite possible that some of its white, black, south asian, etc. employees did not. I fail to see the advantage (for anyone) of such a system.

[afc wimbledon]

I sit in the middle on all of this, I am a foster parent, pretty well always have a native kid I am looking after, their problems are not native so much as generational.
they generally come from families who have not finished high school, often have histories of physical and sexual abuse and this leads to substance abuse issues.

Any kid, no matter what race, coming from that kind of background, will have massive problems graduating high school and doing well in life, they will also, unfortunatly have huge difficulty not passing on that history to their kids. Now anyone with any brains can see this started a hundred years ago, 5 or 6 generations and is directly related to their societies total economic and cultural displacement. In reality it is a miracle they survived at all as a people and it will take generations longer for the effect of this to flush out of their families and alternate social and culture coping strategies to develop.

I suspect there is little 'we' can do to help 'them' but at the least we should acknowledege it is historically our fault and the wonderfull country 'we' enjoy was bought at a huge cost to 'them'.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

You're illustrating an unfair hiring practice. Stats also say men are more likely to beat up women than women beating up men. Does that mean any male applicant should get a criminal check, but females don't have to? You either require all do show proof of a diploma, or you require none.

And since what you're highlighting is basically the definition of discrimination, then to answer your question, yes, it most certainly is a racist practice.

Yep, I can't quite figure out how he has come to the conclusion that a policy that blatantly discriminates on the basis of race can be anything but racist.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by polak

No one has a problem with cops giving more scrutiny when choosing whether or not to pull over a 23 year old guy at a checkstop compared to a 56 year old mom with her kids.

In fact, people (especially criminal defence lawyers, judges, etc.) have a big problem with that. Random roadside stops like Checkstops are required by law to be random.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

Is it morally wrong to use logic if no one is being hurt by it? Okay, it's racist in that it's based on race (in this case). But why is other discrimination okay?

No one has a problem with cops giving more scrutiny when choosing whether or not to pull over a 23 year old guy at a checkstop compared to a 56 year old mom with her kids.

Super-End Point:

PEOPLE ARE TOO SENSITIVE ABOUT STUPID THINGS.

So in your world the ability to obtain employment and earn a living is a stupid thing?

[polak]

omg I said it earlier that was just one stupid scenerio.

Sorry I didn't think you'd get hung up on the HR practices of this made up company in this made up situation.

Make it Airport security in Islamabad screening Brits and Americans. Who cares. Thats not the point.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by polak

Make it Airport security in Islamabad screening Brits and Americans.

Still discrimination. Still offensive. Still against the law (in Canada anyway.)

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by polak

Is it morally wrong to use logic if no one is being hurt by it? Okay, it's racist in that it's based on race (in this case). But why is other discrimination okay?

No one has a problem with cops giving more scrutiny when choosing whether or not to pull over a 23 year old guy at a checkstop compared to a 56 year old mom with her kids.

Super-End Point:

PEOPLE ARE TOO SENSITIVE ABOUT STUPID THINGS.

Edit: Okay, I get it. The hiring example was a bad scenerio. Change it then.

Hey I'm not saying you're totally out of line.

You are right in some cases and it raises a good debate - why should an insurance company be able to violate my rights and charge me more money because I am a man and not a woman?

But they aren't allowed to keep racial stats which could or could not show that 'Chinese drivers cause more accidents than white ones'.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Makarov

In fact, people (especially criminal defence lawyers, judges, etc.) have a big problem with that. Random roadside stops like Checkstops are required by law to be random.

Great, doesn't mean it's not an effective practice and it doesn't mean that other judges who don't have a problem with it in another country are wrong.

Basically what I'm getting at is...

At what point do we stop letting sensitivity get in the way of sound logic that harms no one outside of a potential feeling of slight offense? Whether it be based on Racial stats or Age stats or whatever type of stats.

[afc wimbledon]

nm

[polak]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Its pretty logical to euthanise the mentally handicapped and elderly, doesn't mean it does no harm.

Where the hell did that come from?