Canada is often referred to as a ‘tossed salad,’ a term that reflects the attempt to allow multiple cultural flavours to exist within one cohesive nation.
In an effort to ensure this multicultural entrée pervades the Canadian job market, the government of Canada instilled a policy referred to as ‘employment equity’ in 1986. Similar to the ‘affirmative action’ seen in other nations such as the United States, employment equity is an attempt to ensure equality of all workers regardless of race, disability, or gender.
The term refers to a series of Canadian policies that require or encourage preferential employment for certain designated groups. Employment equity thus gives a competitive edge to women, disabled people, aboriginal people and visible minorities.
This policy is only promoted and enforced in federally regulated industries such as banks, telecommunications, transportation and in the government.
Though employment equity was devised to maintain the ‘tossed salad’ model of Canada and promote equality among Canadians, many job seekers have been left unsatisfied. Critics declare that by targeting specific groups for ‘proactive treatment’ the Canadian government is going against the very meaning of equality.
I have lived in Canada for my entire life and consider myself Canadian above all other distinctions. So I was taken aback when I applied to Federal Student Work Experience Program (FSWEP) and my application asked me to indicate my gender and the colour of my skin. I am female and a visible minority, but as a citizen of Canada, I never viewed these attributes to be a disadvantage much less a competitive advantage in the job market.
The FSWEP disclaimer states:
The Public Service of Canada is committed to building a skilled, diverse workforce reflective of Canadian society. As a result, it promotes employment equity and encourages candidates to indicate voluntarily on their application if they are a woman, an Aboriginal person, a person with a disability or a member of a visible minority group.
Though initially I was firmly against using my gender or race as a means of getting employment, I have since come to realize that giving yourself an edge in the job market can come in many forms. The fight for jobs is never fair and if it was, there would never be any clear winner.
A competitive edge can be anything from who you know, to where you attended school, to hobbies you have in common with your employer. As the job market gets increasingly difficult, this competition intensifies and candidates are forced to use every tool at their disposal.
For me, this means ticking a box indicating that I can help potential employers appear more inclusive and multicultural. While I do not agree with the controversial policy of ‘employment equity,’ it is a competitive advantage that I will not turn down.
It seems like it’s impossible to pinpoint when equality will occur and how we’ll know. This policy was enacted in 1986, the year I was born! Perhaps it’s made a difference in those industries which you’ve mentioned, but there are some workplaces which are still dominated by white men (even in fields where women have recently become the dominant gender).
Just last week, UBC released a study which found resumes with names that sound “Canadian” had a 40% greater chance of being called for an interview, even if the resume with the English name was exactly the same as the one with the “foreign” name.
And people with English-sounding first names but foreign-sounding last names had a 20% greater chance than those with fully foreign/ethnic names.
Why is this still happening? I think employment equity is a good idea, but after 23 years it’s still ineffective when you take the entire economy into account and not just the government-regulated businesses.
I greatly appreciate this article because it provides an excellent example of the application of “equity” in public administration. When a democratic or representative government devises policies, they must do so in a manner that ensures an “equitable” application across all citizens. This usually requires the establishment of eligibility criteria so that the political/social intention of the policy can be achieved. However, as the author learns in her situation, “equity” is not tied to equality, or to the more important value of freedom.
It is a serious challenge to remain true to your beliefs in an environment where they are undermined by the institutions sworn to respect and acknowledge your freedoms and liberties. As a local government bureaucrat in the United States, I deal with this ideological battle on a daily basis on a variety of issues. In the end, I must maintain faith that the decisions we make are based on the will of the people as represented by their elected leaders, though it is not always an easy self-sell.
The concluding comments of the author do bother me, as I can sense the resignation of her belief in freedom as defined by the individual, not equity as ruled by the state. Her argument that she must make her choice in order to succeed within the confines of the job market reinforces the overall goal of a nationalist, corporatist agenda that encourages people to measure their self-interest with respect to the wishes of the state. For her sake and future commitment to pursuing those careers and opportunities that connect best with her passions, I can only ask that she look closely at what she has done and consider the spiritual impact such a “compromise” might inflict.
This is a very thought provoking article…
While people seem to be very comfortable with the idea of ‘networking’ aka ‘who you know’ as a way to get an edge in the job market, I’m not sure our society is compeltely comfortable in calling ‘being a minority’ an edge. Maybe wrongly so!