White Guy suing Canada Revenue Agency for discrimination

[Taynted_Fayth]

http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/Canada/2015/10/28/22566746.html

 

i know we kinda touched on this a little in the same sex marriage thread, but is this going to open a can of worms or be forgotten quickly?

[The Unknown Poster]

Ill post the story because it should generate some discussion:

 

Chris Doucette, Toronto Sun Oct 28, 2015

, Last Updated: 1:29 AM ET

OSHAWA, Ont. - A Canada Revenue Agency worker alleges his employer discriminated against him because he had the misfortune of being born a white man.

 

Joe Bate, 40, is representing himself in the Federal Court case. He claims he was an “efficient and productive” appeals officer for CRA, outshining many of his colleagues.

 

But instead of being promoted, he says his employer used the Employment Equity Act to pass him over.

 

“I could be twice as efficient (as my co-workers), have better communication skills ... but, unfortunately, I was born white,” Bate told the court Tuesday.

He said the Employment Equity Act was passed in 1986 to ensure inclusion in the workplace of four groups — women, visible minorities, aboriginals and persons with disabilities. But, he said, it excludes “one specific group.”

 

“What a vicious cycle of discrimination,” he said.

 

Bate pointed out when Canada allowed women to vote in 1918, it didn’t stop men from voting, nor was heterosexual marriage banned when gay marriage was legalized a decade ago.

 

“I feel as an able-bodied white male, I’m the only person excluded by a law meant to benefit all Canadian citizens,” he told the Toronto Sun outside court. “And I feel my employer has gone beyond the requirements of the law to represent (members of the four categories) and not me.”

 

Bate said a management position opened up at his Whitby office in 2013 and he felt he was a lock. But his bosses allegedly made it clear the promotion would go to someone from one of the designated groups, even though, by Bate’s estimation, about 95% of the staff in the office at the time was women and visible minorities.

 

Bate went on disability in 2014 after developing mental health issues, which he says were brought on by the stress of standing up to his employer.

He submitted evidence showing CRA has boasted about exceeding national hiring requirements for each category for at least 12 years.

 

He alleged CRA promotes workers from the four categories who are “mostly qualified” in their current position over employees who are more skilled.

“This is discrimination towards me and (an) irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars,” he said.

 

Using a hockey analogy, Bate asked the court to imagine if Team Canada implemented the Employment Equity Act and refused to allow Wayne Gretzky to play, or Don Cherry to coach, instead picking players who can “at least skate” just because they’re women or visible minorities.

[The Unknown Poster]

Im of two thoughts.

 

When I was younger I hated affirmative action.  As a kid, I couldnt understand it.  How is purposely being unequal meant to create more equality?  I recall a news story I saw on local TV that an Aboriginal group was challenging police hiring standards, claiming the requirement of a High School diploma was racist.  And I remember thinking I dont care what ethnicity the cops are as long as they are good at their job.

 

We've all filled out job applications which include an option for disclosing minority status.  Im a white male.  And there was a time when the possibility of being filtered out due to that fact bothered me.

 

I understand affirmative action was meant to quickly re-balance an unbalanced system.  I dont think any employer should have a quota.  But I think being cognizant of hiring minorities and women is important.

 

I applied for a job with the provincial government a few years back which was hugely into minority hiring.  It consisted of several exams, background checks and interviews to get hired.  But I got it.  So to me, a good person will get a job regardless of their ethnicity.

 

Where I work now was traditionally an old boys club and in some instances still is.  Im very much in favour of hiring women in positions of power.  And from my experiences, the women that have received promotions into Director, VP level jobs are qualified and competent. 

 

I think as time passes this becomes less of an issue because the people hiring will hire the best person and the best fit for the job/company and wont care if they are white, black, man, woman, gay, straight etc.  As the old boys club moves out.

 

For government agencies that either officially or unofficially have a mandate to be diverse, well, they are probably cherry picking minorities and thats not a good thing if that person is not otherwise qualified.

[Logan007]

I'll probably be bashed for my view, but to me, any job should go to the person most qualified for the job, be that woman, man, white, black, minority, non-minority, etc...  A position should not go to a person that is not as qualified for a job when there is someone better, I don't care if they're in that group or not.

 

And when I say qualified, I mean in every aspect, including being personable.  If you have the option to hire someone qualified but he/she's a complete jackass, vs. someone almost as qualified but they'd be better to work with, I would go with the latter.  As the jackass could end up causing issues in the workplace and making efficiency go down.  So, when I say qualified, I mean overall, not just the task that person will be doing.

[The Unknown Poster]

I'll probably be bashed for my view, but to me, any job should go to the person most qualified for the job, be that woman, man, white, black, minority, non-minority, etc...  A position should not go to a person that is not as qualified for a job when there is someone better, I don't care if they're in that group or not.

 

And when I say qualified, I mean in every aspect, including being personable.  If you have the option to hire someone qualified but he/she's a complete jackass, vs. someone almost as qualified but they'd be better to work with, I would go with the latter.  As the jackass could end up causing issues in the workplace and making efficiency go down.  So, when I say qualified, I mean overall, not just the task that person will be doing.

I generally agree.  I worked with people who were more knowledgeable about facts and figures then me but I actually got many opportunities and promotions based on personality and "leadership" qualities.  And when I was in a position to have influence I'd make sure that people who were good workers and knowledgeable but perhaps lacked certain skills were still rewarded and recognized for their contributions.

 

One thing I've found is that often women have trouble getting along with other women in the workplace.  When I got bumped to a supervisor position, I was actually accused of trading sexual favours for "opportunities" with two girls in the office, one of whom I was close to and one that I had barely spoken one word to...simply because the girls in question did good work and thus got opportunities and were young and attractive.

[Rod Black]

This fella should have applied for the job if he wanted to obtain evidence to support his claim of discrimination. The article doesn't mention any actual foul against him.

[Fraser]

Freakenomics did a study on this with identical resumes in education and experience with the only difference being some had names like "Tyrell and LeSean" and other had names like "Chris" and "John"

 

The resumes with non-ethnic names got called a lot more. The idea that being a white man has somehow become a disadvantage is a myth.  

[Taynted_Fayth]

not a myth, its out there, maybe not everywhere but every job application asks you your sex and if your a visible minority. I know for sure in HR depts of certain government organizations they dont necessarily give first consideration to people who check off female or minority, but they keep track of what % their workforce is of one or the other and make unspoken effort to boost those numbers at times to say they are doing their part.

 

interestingly enough I think i read in the freep or maybe a diff outlet,  based on winnipegs growth rate, that filipino was growing at the highest rate in numbers,  followed by aboriginals then white people and at some point white people would become a visible minority.  what happens then if this is true?

[Logan007]

not a myth, its out there, maybe not everywhere but every job application asks you your sex and if your a visible minority. I know for sure in HR depts of certain government organizations they dont necessarily give first consideration to people who check off female or minority, but they keep track of what % their workforce is of one or the other and make unspoken effort to boost those numbers at times to say they are doing their part.

 

interestingly enough I think i read in the freep or maybe a diff outlet,  based on winnipegs growth rate, that filipino was growing at the highest rate in numbers,  followed by aboriginals then white people and at some point white people would become a visible minority.  what happens then if this is true?

Then we get one of those little check boxes.

[The Unknown Poster]

I think Fraser is correct (or the study he mentioned).  I would agree "its out there" but think of it this way.  Would you give up every other advantage of being a white male in North America you've experienced over your life time in exchange for that one instance where a hiring party decided they wanted more diversity and chose a minority over you?

 

If 98% of the time the "white guy" gets the job but 2% of the time they go with a minority because its an internal program to do so, is the white guy really disadvantaged? 

 

I've worked at a few call centres in my life and it always amazed me, not the diversity of the workforce, but that they'd hire people that have a very difficult time with English.  I've wondered why thats the case.  Is it the immense turnover in that industry?

[Rich]

Freakenomics did a study on this with identical resumes in education and experience with the only difference being some had names like "Tyrell and LeSean" and other had names like "Chris" and "John"

 

The resumes with non-ethnic names got called a lot more. The idea that being a white man has somehow become a disadvantage is a myth.  

 

 

not a myth, its out there, maybe not everywhere but every job application asks you your sex and if your a visible minority. I know for sure in HR depts of certain government organizations they dont necessarily give first consideration to people who check off female or minority, but they keep track of what % their workforce is of one or the other and make unspoken effort to boost those numbers at times to say they are doing their part.

 

interestingly enough I think i read in the freep or maybe a diff outlet,  based on winnipegs growth rate, that filipino was growing at the highest rate in numbers,  followed by aboriginals then white people and at some point white people would become a visible minority.  what happens then if this is true?

 

If both these statements are true, then maybe the self identification on job applications and organizations looking at their gender and racial percentages is to offset the bias that is inherently out there.

 

At the end of the day, I would really prefer to have the best qualified person get the job.  

 

But in reality, even if it is all people of a specific demographic, the most qualified person doesn't always get the job.  Everything from how someone looks to speaks to presents themselves all play a part in the selection process.  Someone may be excluded because they "look" or remind someone of another person they dislike.  That is no fault of their own.  We are all biased in a myriad of ways we don't even recognize.

 

Also, all these things are trends and statistics of the greater population.  To the average person, the only thing that really matters is how it affects them.  If they are denied getting a job or promotion because of the way they look or because they belong to a specific demographic, it really sucks for them in that specific instance.  

 

The unfortunate part is people are usually only aware of when this sort of thing affects them negatively.  They rarely think, hey I got this job or promotion because of the way I look or because of the way someone else looks.  People tend to think they got a job because they were the best qualified person, so that balance and perspective of weighing the positive and negative is rarely considered.

[The Unknown Poster]

That's true Rich but part of the process is personality which is one of the reasons the interview is important.  As I said, I've excelled beyond some people in my place of business because of certain skills even though others might have a more profound knowledge base.  And in some cases, people are ahead of me who lack my skills but are so much better in other areas. 

 

The fact this guy is bringing a lawsuit makes me question if perhaps he was not a fit personality-wise.

 

I also understand the idea that some minority groups need to play catch-up.  Its 2015 and women are still behind in corporate positions and pay.  There are some reasons behind some of it (women taking time from work for family reasons) but there is likely a bias built in to the general populace to hire and reward people that look, act, talk like the one doing the hiring.

[Rich]

That's true Rich but part of the process is personality which is one of the reasons the interview is important.  As I said, I've excelled beyond some people in my place of business because of certain skills even though others might have a more profound knowledge base.  And in some cases, people are ahead of me who lack my skills but are so much better in other areas. 

 

The fact this guy is bringing a lawsuit makes me question if perhaps he was not a fit personality-wise.

 

I also understand the idea that some minority groups need to play catch-up.  Its 2015 and women are still behind in corporate positions and pay.  There are some reasons behind some of it (women taking time from work for family reasons) but there is likely a bias built in to the general populace to hire and reward people that look, act, talk like the one doing the hiring.

 

Personality or skills pertaining to your job isn't really what I was alluding to.  We all judge people on how they look every day, and that isn't confined to the colour of their skin or their gender.  The first time we meet someone, we all make initial judgements and assumptions on them by the way they look.  It is the way most of us are wired.

 

And even if we solve the gender and skin equality problem, I'm pretty sure that with human nature being what it is, as a society we will start discriminating on something else (like the God they worship or their sexual preference or the color of their hair or their height, etc, etc).  Maybe if we ever meet other intelligent life in the universe, maybe then we can unify as a species and be intolerant as a group towards them.

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to stop it or do better, all I'm saying is everyone needs to recognize and admit that we all do it, be cognizant of it, and try to not do it when it happens.  As for this guy and his lawsuit, I agree it is bogus.  I do think there is an inherit flaw in how public service does its hiring and promotions, but that is an entirely different discussion.

[Brandon]

I have known a few people who work with the CRA and they are really bad.

Someone I know was directed to hire visible minorities from the pool of candidates regardless of test scores.

They also were to not punish the bad apples or the crazies because they don't want to offend if someone misses work because they are out drinking and suffer from alcoholism.

CRA is quite bad and he may have a case.