From the Fall 2000
Issue
DEBATE
THIS!
Government
Enforced Quotas
Two Viewpoints
by James Stephens
POINT
Should employers
use race as a key factor in hiring or promoting workers? Should
universities or colleges determine student admissions by an applicant's
sex? Of course not.
Canadian
society must ensure there is equal and unlimited opportunity for
everybody. The irony, however, of regulating quotas in the workplace
or classroom is that it enforces -- rather than eliminates --
inequality and prejudice.
Let's
consider an example related to the advancement of women in business.
If an engineering company is required to fill a number of positions
with females - yet not enough qualified candidates apply -- the
employer would be forced to hire unsuitable employees. When these
women fail, it is seen as confirmation of their inadequacy. Worse
still, when women succeed on their own, it is argued that they
were helped only by preferential treatment.
Such
resentment would lead to heightened sexism. However, it's not
an unlikely consequence from a policy that reinforces prejudice.
You could easily apply this example to any group based on religion,
ethnicity or even lifestyle.
Enforcing
statistical guidelines threatens the rights of the most vulnerable
member of society, the individual. The point is, if we designate
everyone into a group, we will overlook and undervalue the merits
of an individual.
Creating
a fair society does not mean regulators should seek a desired
end result, such as equality or non-discrimination. More good
would be done to safeguard the means for an individual to get
into the preferred college, or land the dream job. That means
as long as people have the freedom to pursue their goals, we are
living in the most equitable society possible.
COUNTER
POINT
No one wants to hire an unqualified
person. But the whole point of employment equity, as the Canadian
Union of Public Employees (CUPE) states is "to remove discrimination
from the workplace, not to cause it."
Employment
practices often reflect the needs of employers several decades
ago. Times have changed. And so too has the Canadian workforce.
Yet many employment practices have not kept pace with this change.
For example, some work environments and washrooms designed for
able-bodied workers seldom accommodate people who use a wheelchair.
Modernizing
these practices is what employment equity is about. For example,
making sure work benches and washrooms are adapted for disabled
people entering the workplace paves the way for workers who become
disabled on the job. By doing so, any given group of people -
formerly discriminated against - now has access to better employment
opportunities.
The
objective of course is to make the workplace reflect Canadian
society. However, this does not necessarily mean enforcing quotas,
which can be too rigid. Rather, it means identifying the barriers
to employment and design measures, with clear goals and timetables,
to correct them.
For
example, according to CUPE, it would be unrealistic in the short
term to insist that because half of the working age population
is women, that half of the employees of an engineering firm should
be women. At this moment, there would not be enough qualified
female engineers.
A
reasonable numerical goal would be based on the number of women
who actually are engineers (8%) and those who are studying to
become engineers (at l'École Polytechnique in Montreal for example,
the figure is 25%). A short term goal of 13% would be appropriate
without running the risk of hiring unqualified people.
Equally
important, is to ensure people who have been disadvantaged the
chance to become qualified for new opportunities. If aboriginal
people, for example, can't qualify for certain jobs because they
haven't had access to appropriate educational opportunities, then
an employment equity program would have to address that obstacle
with training programs.
Employment
laws in this country cannot be considered obtrusive if they guarantee
all Canadians fair and equal access to the workforce.
