did the conservatives just win the next federal election?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/tories-want-review-of-affirmative-action-hiring-in-public-service-99031834.html

" The Conservatives say race and ethnicity shouldn't enter into the
hiring process for federal jobs and have ordered a review of affirmative
action policies.

They want to look at government hiring practices, which currently give priority to qualified applicants from minority groups."

PAT MARTIN IS A fri cken IDIOT!!


What part of discrimination does he not understand?

I say that the Feds should take it a step further and drop the bilingual bullsh it too!!

I thought "affirmative action" was some sort of US thing. Anyway, the best qualified applicants should get the job regardless of minority status. If however there should be two equally qualified top applicants I see nothing wrong with creating diversity at the workplace and preferring the candidate from an under-represented group.

From Pat Martin:

"It is paranoia on their part, though, because we are nowhere near achieving equity in the face of the public-service workforce," he said.
"I don't think they can make a case that white, middle-class people are being denied access to public service jobs, or that there's any preference shown."

Umm...hello? Can't make a case?The very FACT that there's a policy in place means people are being denied jobs and that preference IS being shown. Whether anyone is actually hired or not hired because of the policy is irrelevant...the fact that the government is discriminating using the policy means there is a case.

How many white men simply dont apply because it basically says not to bother?

eViL tRoLl wrote:I thought "affirmative action" was some sort of US thing.

lol....Pat Martin agreeing with anything American??? What a day!!!

Anyway, the best qualified applicants should get the job regardless of minority status.

Full stop please!!

If however there should be two equally qualified top applicants I see nothing wrong with creating diversity at the workplace and preferring the candidate from an under-represented group.

I do.

Firstly, it's almost impossible to have two equal candidates, and secondly, the parameters should be expanded if there are candidates with similiar abilities. imo

"Firstly, it's almost impossible to have two equal candidates, and
secondly, the parameters should be expanded if there are candidates with
similiar abilities. imo"



seems like the perfect time for this joke


As a result of the company’s recent financial
troubles, the boss had to get rid of somebody. He narrowed it down to
one of two people, Debra or Jack.

It was an impossible decision because they were both
super workers so rather than flip a coin, he decided he would fire the
first one who used the water cooler the next morning.

Debra came in the next morning with a horrible hangover after partying all night. She went to the cooler to take an aspirin.

The boss approached her and said: “Debra, I’ve never done this before but I have to lay you or Jack off.”

“Could you jack off?” she asked. “I feel like sh1t.”

JTF wrote:

eViL tRoLl wrote:If however there should be two equally qualified top applicants I see nothing wrong with creating diversity at the workplace and preferring the candidate from an under-represented group.

I do.

Firstly, it's almost impossible to have two equal candidates, and secondly, the parameters should be expanded if there are candidates with similiar abilities. imo

Good point...but some parameters ARE vague.
A primary example would be "fit".
If you have two candidates who are equally capable on paper...there has to be taken into account the things that are NOT written...such as:
Sex - if the majority of the workforce is men, a woman may NOT fit, as she may become a target for unwanted advances or innuendo (or vice versa)
Ethnicity - if you notice anything about ethnicity, you'll see that generally, "like meets like"...and usually "cliques" will form within a workforce based on that. If your business has 10 natives and 5 white guys working...you might not want to hire the guy from Nigeria if there's a native or white guy who's "equally" capable.

Things like these are not to discriminate, they are to address reality and human nature...and to provide a work environment that is not "forced" creating additional (and unnecessary) stress in the workplace.

[quote="AGEsAcesA primary example would be "fit". [/quote]
I would include compatibility with corporate culture in the list for key qualifications, and not as an afterthought.

I have to agree. who among us would almost for sure not hire a goth? which tend to be WHITE people?


They almost as a rule would not fit in with most corporate cultures.

well if the conies didn;t win it just by asking to look into it.

iggie just won it for them

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/liberal-leader-comes-out-swinging-on-affirmative-action-before-multiethnic-crowd-99114019.html



Can anyone even believe this crap?


"We believe in affirmative action," Ignatieff said in a speech to a multiethnic crowd.

"We believe each Canadian has the right to participate in the public service."
ummm the term mutually exclusive comes to mind

Iggy loves affirmative action because it keeps Ukrainians out of the public service.

Governments have never hired "qulified" before! Whi in the government would recognize one of those??

Thats true look at the leaders of the parties .

Pavolo wrote:Thats true look at the leaders of the parties .

You mena the "elected" leaders, as opposed to the employees who are "hired". Kind of different isn't it?

I like the fact that white men with grey hair decide most issues!

Don't forget the French speaking part.

eViL tRoLl wrote:I thought "affirmative action" was some sort of US thing.

Years ago a farming-related federal government agency needed a FoxPro programmer. They put out the usual job ads and no-one applied.

I was contacted by an employee who knew that I was a FoxPro programmer, and I agreed to take the job. But there was one catch: I had to submit my resume through normal channels.

I went to the hiring office and handed them my resume. They refused to take it, saying that they only accepted resumes "from women and visible minorities." I asked, "So won't hire white males?" The response: "We hire ANYONE! But currently we only accept resumes from women and visible minorities." "No, you can't be hired without submitting your resume."

The person hiring me pulled some strings - they REALLY needed a programmer - and got them to accept my resume. I visited again and dropped it off.

It came back in the mail two weeks later with a note saying that they only accepted resumes from women and visible minorities. I took another job.

awesome

You should have said that you were a woman, ort a black guy with a 'skin condition'.