Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )

[BeyondTheNow]

>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.

Not once did I ever state blatant, unethical behaviour should be excused through means of misdirection, or otherwise. My point with that post was bringing home the fact that, whether intentional or not, an entire trade was/is being painted with the same negative brush at various times which is not fair, nor accurate. Additionally backing up my point in that post, with all the issues CAF is facing even on a basic level at the moment, I haven’t read any posts indicating, or implying to any degree, that an entire trade, or division or whathaveyou is responsible. Persons or perhaps chains at a stated level? Yes. But not an entire area.

No one here can speak for how *every*single*CAF*recruiter conducts their interactions with applicants, period. While that article opened an entire can of worms, I’m quite certain that there are Recruiters out there who have never straight-up lied to any hopefuls. Maybe I’m too optimistic, but I think many deserve the benefit of the doubt here. I personally don’t envy their positions. They essentially have to be sales people, and with that comes all the crap that comes with sales. (Anyone who’s been in a sales position knows what it can be like.)

Again, I’m not excusing anything. I’ve made my stance on the issues raised by that article pretty clear and I don’t advocate for any type of questionable means by which to get applicants through the doors. But I personally believe that (most) Recruiters are trying the best they can with what they have. Also, as stated by me earlier, clearly more evaluating in many areas is needed—at least by how it’s being viewed by outsiders and those not doing the job.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

Respectfully, you're confusing a soap box with the high ground...

You’re correct. I had two trains of thought going on at the time. ‘Lead with one train, but ended up going with the other...

 

[Navy_Pete]

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.

So it's crystal, the lying about it is wrong. If CFRG is going to do this, be up front about it.  I doubt that kind of details filters down to the recruiter levels, and is probably something someone comes up with on a spreadsheet that pushes the outputs down. I think it's a pretty poor position to put the front line recruiters in, but expecting them to lie is dirty pool, and a cowardly way to approach it.

So what's the actual policy?  Are we talking about having 50 positions open to anyone, with an additional few extra positions that they are holding for EE candidates? 500 open positions? More? I have no idea what the order of magnitude we are talking about, because it's a black box.

Bottom line if you are a strong candidate you'll still get in.  But you are basically cold calling the CAF when you stop in, so you may need to wait if you want to be considered for a specific trade.  If you are unwilling to wait, or are a borderline candidate that doesn't make the cut, don't think that's because you are the wrong colour.

In any case, don't have anything else to add unless some new info comes up, so will leave it at that.  :cheers: