Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Furniture]

1) Pers involved with recruiting have said they lie to applicants...
[/quote]

This is enough to tell me that the CAF should re-examine the policy.

 

[Navy_Pete]

2) Fair point, poor example.

1)  Also still not clear how having to wait for a trade to open up or consider other options is harmful. Someone else having access to an extra slot doesn't inherently mean you are somehow disadvantaged.

In any case, still not any real details to the actual program, and we did a piss poor job explaining it in the MRL.  It's a pretty sensitive area, and they are creating issues by not being open about it. This isn't something they pulled out of the air though, as it's been GoC policy for decades and not unique to DND (or the GoC).

 

[ballz]

1)  Also still not clear how having to wait for a trade to open up or consider other options is harmful. Someone else having access to an extra slot doesn't inherently mean you are somehow disadvantaged.

Let's just call a spade a spade, you're deliberately doing everything you can to not answer to the very straightforward question about lying, which clearly has enough information available to comment on. Your comment is not in anyway relevant to whether or not we should be lying to recruits about it.

As for the crap in yellow... in the US, the argument was that women didn't need to be allowed to apply for the infantry because there were plenty of other jobs in the Army / Marines that they were allowed to do .They weren't being disadvantaged or harmed by having that opportunity denied to them based on their gender, because there were lots of other open jobs. No big deal, right? You're agreeing with that position then? Sure sounds like it... otherwise, you're a hypocrite.



I can deal with support for this stuff if people want to make an argument for this based on how it will make us a more effective fighting force, or something other than "discrimination is okay," then there's a worthy debate to be had. But if they're going to literally make the exact same arguments that society used to oppress women, minorities, etc, and pretend it's not just as wrong to do it now to white men as it was back then to do it to women, minorities, etc, then they are just as unethical as all those old rich white males they despise so much.

 

[Kat Stevens]

The problem with Employment Equity is that it's very name implies, you know, equity. If candidate A is a better pick for trade X than candidate Z in every category other than a melanin deficiency and externally deployed reproductive gear, in what definition of the word is that equity (the quality of being fair and impartial)?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Canadian Armed Forces preach ethics and integrity but our recruiters lie to applicants.

 

[Throwaway987]

There’s a lot of talk about how EE is commonplace and appropriate.

If what the recruiting group is doing is appropriate, acceptable, and in line with CAF ethics and values, why is this article or our EE policies scandalous?

Shouldn’t we be proud these institutional values and serve to publicize them as widely as possible? We should have our public affairs officers work with the CBC to produce a number of feel good articles and get credit for our hard work.

 

[Loachman]

Reflecting societal make-up within the CF is laudable. It would be nice, especially if "visible minorities" took up their fair share of the load.

Take steps to attract them, along with women, and remove any cultural or other unreasonable/unfair (beyond valid standards) obstacles that may exist for them, and then step back. Recognize that different people make different life choices, and don't force the issue - and, especially, do not place artificial obstacles in others' ways or, even more, do not lie to people.

Everybody who wants to join should be able to compete fairly, and those with the best potential should be selected on that basis alone.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

Umm, okay. Let’s get off our soap-boxes about “Recruiters” and “recruiting” being unethical and liars and whatever else. We ALL know that much more aggregious and unethical things are being done and said on ALL levels, regarding ANY number of situations from ALL ranks in ALL of CAF. There isn’t one area that’s immune. We ALL preach ethics and whatever else right from the get-go and usually within 5 minutes (sarcasm) after each lecture about it we see or hear something that shouldn’t be happening or we don’t agree with. Then there are the MANY members who are trying, and trying hard, to change said situations and stop them from reoccurring, and I don’t think this Recruiting situation will be any different.

Recruiters aren’t coming up with this stuff on their own, we know it’s coming from the top tier down. Clearly, continuous adjustments and reevaluating need to keep taking place, but enough with grouping “Recruiters” as one big corrupt entity.

 

[Throwaway987]

Recruiters aren’t coming up with this stuff on their own, we know it’s coming from the top tier down.

Isn’t this exactly what we’re all frustrated about? The disappointing realization that we work for an ugly self-serving organization? That individuals everywhere are trying to reconcile their personal values against a workplace full of lip service and hypocrisy?

Edit: I think we’re using “recruiters” as a generic term for the organization that has chosen to implement these questionable policies. We’re not bashing the poor Sgt who’s biting his tongue so he can put his kids through school. The front line worker has no power or authority to influence the topic of discussion (besides acting as a whistleblower).

 

[ballz]

Isn’t this exactly what we’re all frustrated about? The disappointing realization that we work for an ugly self-serving organization? That individuals everywhere are trying to reconcile their personal values against a workplace full of lip service and hypocrisy?

Indeed. Don't really understand how that would be lost on anyone, I don't see any indication that people are blaming the individuals working at recruiting centres for this...

 

[BeyondTheNow]

Indeed. Don't really understand how that would be lost on anyone, I don't see any indication that people are blaming the individuals working at recruiting centres for this...

Except the multiple instances in this thread where posters haven’t differentiated, they’ve simply stated ‘Recruiting’ or ‘recruiters’ in blatant, blanket fashion. I fully understand and feel the frustration. But it’s important to keep things in perspective, and just as I have with other trades, make sure (especially new and non-member) readers are understanding that there needs to be a clear separation.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

If a recruiter was the one who told a male applicant "the trade is closed, sorry", does it absolve them of their part because "it was a direction from higher?

Serious question;  I'm curious what people think.

We ALL know that much more aggregious and unethical things are being done and said on ALL levels, regarding ANY number of situations from ALL ranks in ALL of CAF. There isn’t one area that’s immune. We ALL preach ethics and whatever else right from the get-go and usually within 5 minutes (sarcasm) after each lecture about it we see or hear something that shouldn’t be happening or we don’t agree with.

BTN:

I'd be careful claiming the entire CAF is full of unethical behaviour, in all ranks, commands and situations, etc, especially given your relatively limited exposure and experience to the CAF as a whole at this point in your career.  I don't know where you are currently posted, but I can happily state my Squadron and Wing isn't rife with ethical conflict and abuse.  :2c:

 

[BeyondTheNow]

If a recruiter was the one who told a male applicant "the trade is closed, sorry", does it absolve them of their part because "it was a direction from higher?

Serious question;  I'm curious what people think.

BTN:

I'd be careful claiming the entire CAF is full of unethical behaviour, in all ranks, commands and situations, etc.  I don't know where you are currently posted, but I can happily state my Squadron isn't rife with ethical conflict and abuse.  :2c:

I’m glad you’re part of an excellent posting, and many members are. However, I’m confident in my statement that no area is entirely immune. It only takes a very little effort of find evidence of this at different times, regardless of thorough screenings and training and PERs/PDRs and whatever else. It happens. It’s unfortunate, but it does. Which also brings me to the other point I raised of the many CAF members who are working hard to ensure more and more situations remain positive as much as possible. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Which also brings me to the other point I raised of the many CAF members who are working hard to ensure more and more situations remain positive as much as possible.

I'd say that more so now than ever, members (especially junior members) are more comfortable raising concerns about situations they are uncomfortable or unsure of.  I see this as a positive change, regardless of the minor growing pains that might come with it.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

I'd say that more so now than ever, members (especially junior members) are more comfortable raising concerns about situations they are uncomfortable or unsure of.  I see this as a positive change, regardless of the minor growing pains that might come with it.

Agreed.

 

[Throwaway987]

If a recruiter was the one who told a male applicant "the trade is closed, sorry", does it absolve them of their part because "it was a direction from higher?

What’s the recruiter (or any of us) to do though? Is it a manifestly unlawful order? Is he going to rock the boat and risk his career over this issue? He has very few viable options to voice his concerns. Perhaps this is why threads like this are so cathartic.

I’d argue that it would be short sighted to fault the individual recruiter since this is more of a system issue rather than an individual issue.

I'd say that more so now than ever, members (especially junior members) are more comfortable raising concerns about situations they are uncomfortable or unsure of.  I see this as a positive change, regardless of the minor growing pains that might come with it.

Isn’t this the true irony and/or success of the CAF ethics program? We have empowered our employees to advocate for what they believe is right even when it is against the goals of the organization.

If the whistleblower who leaked these documents is caught, should they be praised or punished?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Umm, okay. Let’s get off our soap-boxes about “Recruiters” and “recruiting” being unethical and liars and whatever else. We ALL know that much more aggregious and unethical things are being done and said on ALL levels, regarding ANY number of situations from ALL ranks in ALL of CAF.

Respectfully, you're confusing a soap box with the high ground. I'm not lying to someone's face. I make a habit of telling the truth regardless how uncomfortable that truth is, in point of fact.

The fact unethical stuff happens in other areas of the CAF, while true, doesn't absolve recruiters of championing a lie.

Recruiters are the first point of contact in the CAF for many applicants. That they'll lie (or mislead them if that feels more comfortable) says a lot about the CAF.

Sorry but recruiters don't get a pass from me because they're just following orders. The ethical thing to do here is to be upfront and honest with applicants, full stop.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

That right there.

I don't mind you screwing me so much, as long as you tell me you're screwing me.

 

[Furniture]

Except the multiple instances in this thread where posters haven’t differentiated, they’ve simply stated ‘Recruiting’ or ‘recruiters’ in blatant, blanket fashion. I fully understand and feel the frustration. But it’s important to keep things in perspective, and just as I have with other trades, make sure (especially new and non-member) readers are understanding that there needs to be a clear separation.

I said recruiters, and I stand by it based on what the recruiter is quoted as having said in the article. If even the recruiter(s) find it distasteful enough to go to the media about it, I think it's fair to point it out again.

It's bad enough that recruiters lying is a "joke" commonly known about joining the military. Those of us already in know the truth, recruiters are often doing the best they can with the limited knowledge they have of all the occupations in the CAF. I know my recruiter didn't know anything about my trade apart from the fact we do weather, and some sail on ships. (He was a MARS officer)

If the recruiter sitting across the desk from the applicant doesn't know that the trade is locked out for EE applicants only, and tells a non-EE person that they need to apply for somethign else, it's not the recruiters fault.

If the recruiter sits across the desk from an applicant and lies to their face about a trade being closed, regardless of whether or not it's the direction from on high, it's wrong and the recruiter isn't blameless. 

We expect our leaders to do the right thing, not simply 'follow orders". A bad PER or two, and a posting back to an in-trade position is about the worst a recruiter would encounter for being honest. They aren't going to be kicked out for telling the truth... Imagine the National Post/Globe and Mail headlines over that.

Lastly, while I applaud your concern for the image of recruiters, and the CAF, circiling the wagons while jumping to the defence of bad decisions isn't going to help the CAF in the long run.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>We ALL know that much more aggregious and unethical things

The ethics modules I received on my (reserve) courses never taught that unethical behaviour was excused if I could point to some unethical behaviour elsewhere.

The proper and liberal COA has already been identified: explain to applicants (or any aspirant to anything - promotion, appointment, etc) exactly why they are being denied entry to <whatever>, so that they have complete information with which to make their decisions.  When you give a person incomplete, inaccurate, or false information and it influences his decision, you have inflected his decision with your own prejudices and oversights.  Don't allow anyone or any policy to lie or obfuscate, starting from the top.  And allow no "exigency" to intrude: if disclosing information might lead to a Charter challenge, the GoC and the rest of us should welcome the opportunity to settle a question in law.