Is this the quiet end to pay equity?

Tories want to kill the principle that equity is a right, critics say


Is this the quiet end to pay equity?

When the Governor General prorogued Parliament in December, the Harper government’s controversial, and nearly fatal, fall economic update was effectively dispatched to the dustbin of history. But while the government has reversed its projections and shelved its plans to eliminate per-vote subsidies for political parties, it has not dropped one of the update’s more controversial promises—a legislated change to the rules governing pay equity.

The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act would see issues of equal pay for men and women in the public service dealt with through collective bargaining between union and employer. Complaints would no longer be the business of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, but would instead be referred to the Public Service Labour Relations Board. The Conservatives say this will lead to speedier resolutions of disputes. Critics argue the new legislation will effectively gut the right to equality in the workplace.

The Canadian Human Rights Act, for instance, dictates that the value of work be assessed on skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. To those criteria, the new legislation would add consideration of “qualifications and market forces.”

“The purpose of pay equity was to, in fact, intervene in order to redress what the forces of the market had done to women’s pay,” explains human rights lawyer Mary Cornish. Adds Margot Young, a law professor at the University of British Columbia: “There’s a wide consensus that pay equity is a human right. The new legislation effectively treats pay equity as if it’s not a human right.”

Ironically, both Young and Cornish expect the new legislation, which has been promoted as an attempt to cut down on lengthy litigation, to eventually be challenged in court.


Is this the quiet end to pay equity?

  1. Ironically, both Young and Cornish expect the new legislation, which has been promoted as an attempt to cut down on lengthy litigation, to eventually be challenged in court.

    I think pay equity, along with a few other changes the Conservatives inserted into the budget, will be challenged in the Senate first.

    • Do you think these challenges are part of an opposition position to oppose, but not directly an open frontal assult on the budget? This would be quite clever – particularly on Ignatieff’s part – or do you regard it as a sell-out on Iggy’s part?

  2. If I am not mistaken the intent here is to prevent all those suits that were happening where they would settle with the gov’t and then go to the HR Tribunals and get another freaking settlement! Now if you really take a minute to get over the headlines and pedantic accusations and drill down to the issue. Anyone and I mean anyone who has ever had real world experience (I have witnessed more than one!) both the courts and unions knows only all too well the Union is the place to deal with workplace issues and a shop steward will get you help quicker and more effectively that any commisioner of any tribunal or god forbid lawyer (which incidentally generally take more of the settlement than people realize) my EX quit one lawyer because he demanded that she always stretch any correspondence out at least one extra page (they charge per page you know folks when they correspond with you – talk about tacky). The issue of pay as a human right is absurd. Employment is a contract between 2 parties labour for money = very simple don’t need lawyer unless contract broken … need union! (how can you tell I am an ol union guy! power to the people …)

    • Spoken as a man Wayne, but you are one, aren’t you!

    • Unions are socialism; however, in the world of business not protected by the Union need to be protected under the Human Rights Laws.  Why isn’t it a Human Rights issue?  As a woman, I feel that I should have the right to equal pay and higher management positions within companies.  This is NOT the reality within such a progressive country like Canada! 

      FYI – I used to be a Union member for 16 years, and the only equality I witnessed was the pay scale.  Although, there are many old school ways of thinking such as, “A man can do labour jobs better than women.”  Do you really believe this?  If so, you need to look around your Union shop and realize women are undervalued as employees. 

      I feel that there are many women, in labour jobs, that are far stronger, williing and hard working than some men.  We need to rid the labourforce of stereotypes.  It is also considered awkward and uncomfortable to say a man is a “Nurse?”

      Only progressive thinking people will change our existing laws which affect the gender inequality in the workplace.  Union workers are not progressive thinkers, just a lot of people that like to make a lot of noise; however, they do nothing to make Canada an equal society.


      • Yeay sisterhood. Change the inequities around in 3 weeks eh. Attack the white males … they look like a suitable victim. Jesus all this middle age white male wants is a fair tryout for a GTA transit operator job. Due to rampant employment equity I wast e my time applying and getting the rare initial interview. Females, and racialised men and women simply get all those jobs now. My dearly beloved politiciand made it all possible. The CBC was not politically correct but right. If white males need not apply then just day that.

  3. There’s way too much logic going on here for me. Let’s take a rights issue and return it to the market place to decide. This will put pols where they most love to be: ” so sorry my dear, of course we support equity in the job sector. But unfortunately the market can’t afford it right now ; do come again next year, wont you. Mind how you go now.”

  4. The Canadian Human Rights Commission and its Tribunal, supposed champions of the poor and downtrodden, just spent 22 years pursuing a 300 million dollar so-called Pay Equity award on behalf of one of the largest and most powerful unions in the country, the Public Service Alliance of Canada. The Federal Court of Canada has now ended this farce by dismissing the whole wretched affair, and in doing so, had “harsh words” (to quote the Press) for the Commission and the Tribunal.

    Why, one may ask, would any Federal Agency pursue such a matter over what the Federal Judge said was an “unreasonable” period of time during which period the Judge said they “unreasonably ignored the factual reality”. Could it be because the Human Rights Commission is full of bureaucrats who belong to the Public Service Alliance Union and have been engaged in one of the most obvious and shocking examples of conflict of interest and general corruption in the entire history of the Ottawa bureaucracy?

    As the Federal Judge stated “this case offends the public conscience of what is reasonable and responsible”. In fact, the Federal Judge went on to compare the whole incredible affair with the fictional case in the great Dickens’ “Bleak House” wherein “Jarndyce v. Jarndyce concerned the fate of a large inheritance, which dragged on for many generations. The trail finally came to an end after legal costs had devoured the entire estate”. The problem here is that the legal costs were not private, but charged to the Canadian Public by the grotesque Human Rights Commission and Tribunal! It cost the Union nothing! But it cost the Federal Employer, Canada Post, and the Public a small fortune.

    Since the inception of the first labour relations act in North America, the Wagner Act in 1935 (The United States Labour Relations Act), it has been the general rule in all governments in North America that, if a government department or agency dealt with Labour Relations matters, then the employees of that department or agency could not belong to a Union. Thus, if one works for the Canadian Labour Relations Board, or the United States Labour Relations Board, or the Ontario Labour Relations Board, etc., then one obviously cannot belong to a Union, any more than one could hold a part-time job with an Employer who had a case before the labour relations board concerned (or a judge could have an employment or financial relationship with a firm appearing before the judge). The political cretins in Ottawa changed that when they absurdly assigned certain labour relations matters to the Human Rights Commission and Tribunal (namely the matter of pay equity).

    • I’m not familiar with the history of this case. But are you seriously suggesting this dragged on for 22 yrs simply at the behest of a HRT who were in conflict of interest, and no govt attempted before this to intervene ; or indeed that none of the responsibility for the delay lies with the govt fighting a pointless regard action?

  5. Of course the Conservatives are doing this – anything to assert men’s dominance,they do.

  6. Those (including some MPs) promoting (retroactive) pay equity, start from the stereotype that women are (again) victims, claiming women earn 72.5 cents for every dollar a man earns, and that “pay for work of equal value” should be recognised (and it should be). Over the last 30 years with established legislation, federal and provincial human rights commissions, labour unions, and federally and provincially-funded women’s groups, organisations, advocates, lobbyists and their networks, which (or for how long) Canadian employer paid women less than men for the same work with the same responsibilities and level of effort? As for “work of equal value”, who objectively determines, and using which assessment criteria, in proclaiming “work of equal value”?
    The Canadian Human Rights Act dictates that the value of work be assessed on skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. If that is so, for the last 30 years, what about (private and public) employers’ hiring and promotion practices based on gender, favouring women? Also, according to those criteria, if anyone should be getting pay equity, it is the workers, mostly men, the backbone of Canada, whose “working conditions” see them risking their health and life on the job.
    Annually, 97% of the Canadian workers killed on the job are men. The majority of those maimed and injured on the job are men. Men do Canada’s dirty, dangerous and hazardous jobs. In the bowels of the earth, on off-shore drilling rigs, on noisy machinery, on construction of skyscrapers, roads and tunnels, fishing in bitter minus Celsius weather or scorching heat, men have been keeping Canada fed, serviced, comfortable and prosperous. Less than 12% of the uniformed personnel of the Canadian Forces are women, who are less than 1% of the uniformed personnel on combat duty, in harm’s way in Afghanistan, and the casualty statistics show it! What is the value of a man’s health and life, risked daily on the job? It is not the men who are invited to photo opts with the GG of Canada or meet visiting dignitaries and media in Afghanistan, safe behind bunkered shelters.
    As for employment equity in the labour force, the Canadian nursing profession, and the elementary school teachers sisterhood should conduct recruiting campaigns aimed at men, and establish the above-referenced (affirmative) hiring quota and “fast-tracking” strategies favouring men. There are many examples and strategies used, in the Canadian labour market, over the last 30 years.
    Finally, why should pay equity considerations be applied based on gender? Why not pay equity for waste/garbage collectors, and for snow removal/road maintenance personnel, among other workers holding very essential and critically important jobs?

    • As i grasp the question of pay equity, for me at least, it’s about equal pay for equal work, in the sense that if a man and a woman are doing the same job under the same conditions, and the people involved are equally qualified and educated then they should receive the same pay. The rest of yr rant is nonsensical and possibly misogynistic.

      • Amen, KC.
        Equal pay for equal work. That’s what we’re talking about here.
        I can’t quite get why some of my fellow men get so steamed about the perceived injustices done to the male gender. It’s embarrassingly emasculating, don’t you think…


        • Equal pay for equal work, agreed. What gets me “steamed” is when logic doesn’t prevail in the rulings. How can someone honestly state that Bell operators and Bell Techs should receive pay equity pay outs. Yes, almost all operators were women and Techs men, and yes the operators got paid less but that doesn’t make it a pay equity case? You could look at the hiring process and see if they are hiring the most quilified person, there may be a problem with that. Don’t forget to look at who is applying for what job to, this is often overlooked. If 90% of the applicants are female, it’s most likey going to be a majority female workforce. Pay equity. your darn right I’m steamed (I’m not an operator or a tech).
          On a more positive note, it’s nice to see some of the women shovel the tar on the paving crews and not just see them holding the signs. Equal pay mean equal work also.

      • Unfortunately KC, what you’re in favour of there is not Pay Equity. It’s Pay Equality, which is not in dispute.

        Pay Equality says similar jobs should get similar pay. The Archivist/Librarian example further on falls into that category.

        Pay Equity on the other hand is specifically intended for situations where the work is not similar. It also very clearly excludes education and qualifications (in the sense of certifications, at least) as considerations. Again, you’re describing Pay Equality if you’re for that issue.

        I’m afraid that, no matter what label you want to assign to RK, he’s the one with a firmer grasp of what’s actually being discussed.

        Pay Equity is a much more subjective policy than Pay Equality, as it asks that work ‘of equal value’ be paid equally, without regard to certifications, education, experience, or rarity of the skills in the workforce. Only skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions may be a consideration. So it’s a tougher case to make, and not at all clear-cut. A boon to lawyers everywhere.

        I agree with you whole-heartedly on the subject of Pay Equality, KC. Pay Equity seems like overreach to me, though.

        I hope that allows you to make more sense of RK’s post. At least you’ll be on the same topic. His point is relevant. If 97%of the dying is done by men, then clearly their conditions are (broadly) more dangerous, and working conditions are explicitly part of what Pay Equity is about. Does it then follow that Pay Equity legislation supports the status quo; higher pay for men than for women?

    • We should really stay on topic – it’s about equal pay for equal work. The clearest example to my mind is that of archivists and librarians – the former was historically staffed by men and the latter by women. The jobs are very similar, yet the archivists got paid far more.

      If you want to bewail society’s failure to value certain work, then get in line with caregivers everywhere – but this isn’t about that. Pay equity cases aren’t about comparing soldiers and nurses; they’re about comparing jobs that really aren’t that different from one another except that their workers are one gender or another and the pay levels are markedly different.

      • The previous three writers are mistaken in thinking that the issue is equal pay for equal work. The issue is equal pay for work of “equal value”. This means that different jobs are evaluated based on a series of subjective “standards” that have been dreamed up by the victim industry to try to address the reasons why women are paid less than men, on average. That means that a secretary might well have her pay equal to say, a manager if she is deemed by the HRC to have a similar value to the company. It’s an absurdity that has no basis in reality or logic.

        • You’re quite right about the definitions used. Thanks for the reminder.

          I’d caution, though, in thinking that the standards are all so terribly “subjective.” If we go by “skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions,” then those are things any reasonable human resources professional can get a pretty good bead on. Maybe not when comparing, say, secretaries and managers in convenient straw man arguments, but in the real world where people compare jobs that actually bear some relation to one another.

          Let’s return to the librarian and archivist example: both have essentially the same level of responsibility (in fact, the librarian almost assuredly has more staff and oversees more of a budget.) Both have masters degrees. Both exist in friendly job markets. Both jobs require similar amounts of effort, in white collar, calm, safe environments. Even the work is fairly similar (and it was moreso at the time of the dispute.) But one job was predominately male and paid a lot more, while neither has an easily discernible market value, as both work almost exclusively for the public sector.

          But, hey, it’s just like comparing secretaries and their managers.

  7. It’s quite telling that most of these “critics” gloss over the details of the legislation, in favour self-servingly broad interpretations. For example, I’ve seen dozens of criticisms from members of the public who seem unaware that the legislation applies only to public sector employees.

    • I’m aware of this fact. But why should that make any real difference? If it’s bad law [ not saying it is, i’m only really interested int the context of whether it’s entirely logical] I’m sure you didn’t mean to say, its only the public sector being screwed – so what!

      • I’m just saying that if the critics of this legislation are so convinced of the merits of their arguments, they shouldn’t be afraid to discuss details rather than platitudes.

        It seems like at least some of these critics are seriously underestimating the intelligence of their audience – which leads to comments like Deb’s (above).

        I’m also disappointed that Wherry hasn’t made any effort to examine the arguments in favour of the legislation, beyond saying that it has been “promoted as an attempt to cut down on lengthy litigation”.

        • Well maybe there aren’t any?
          Just being a smart ass. That’s a good pt and something that seema to happen too often on these posts. We often end up discussing ad-nauseam why we’re against this or that, and less often arguing why the change might be good. Then again that jus might be the natural consequence of not really being in the know and or not having enough information, or context. I beleive it’s more commonly known as not knowing what yr talking about. Whenever i am confronted with this unpleasant fact i immediately extemporize. People mostly don’t notice anyway.

          • What are they?

  8. I think this can’t be legal. What if you are not unionized? The Liberals hate pay equity as much as the Conservatives so hopefully the NDP will mount some kind of offensive on this.

  9. Hey, pay equity,while costly, isn’t half as bad as employment equity. If, when I worked in Canada for a federal agency I had to work alongside women who were (in some sense) overpaid because of pay equity but still had an even shot at promotions, I would have stayed. But I was not going to sit still and have promotions I had worked hard to get be given to someone else on account of the fact that I had external genitalia and the successful candidate did not. My former employer and the country as a whole are a whole lot worse off because of that policy. Thankfully, I am not: things are much more meritocratic down here.

  10. Pay and employment equity are simply reverse discrimination by other names. Were I a woman I would be angered by it: every promotion given and dollar earned is called into question. I’d be constantly asking myself “Did I really earn it, or was it a result of ‘equity’ laws?” Every colleague, subordinate, and potential employer would be quietly wondering the same thing.

    Thankfully, us men are the ones being discriminated against. That means we have to work harder than women to achieve the same career goals (fine by me!) but it also means that the achievements we gain were fully earned every step of the way, and more than earned because they had to be won in the face of hostile laws and quotas. I’d much rather have it this way than the reverse, but obviously the best would be a level playing field with no political advantage to anyone because of gender.

    • Hello, it’s the 21st centuary on this post!

      • yeah but its being posted on a 1990s computer by a 1950s Canadian. :)

  11. You can discus equity all you want. But the reality is that we can only strive towards equal. It is impossible to attain that because life happens and is extremely copmplicated. A lot of what I have heard regarding equity is hate and anger. Group 1 is disadvantaged so we need to degrade group 2. I never understood how attacking or hurting 1 type or definition of people will promote or better another.

    By the way, to all the ladies, keep up the fight and don’t worry. Us big hairy knuckle dragging sperm machines will still go to work and get dirty fighting for your right to spit in our faces, like me working security in the hospitals, my friend in Afganistan, my friend laying pipe in AB, my cop friend who had his arm broken defending his educated big mouthed female partner.

    Just don’t let the fact that men are the most disadvantage segment of Canadian society distract you from your segregation quest. Check the stats regarding on the job injury and deaths, unemployment and poverty, where men are the true leaders!

    • Real men are happy to do twice the work for half the credit.

      Real women, probably more of them than real men, do the same.

      Real women, however, should not be required to do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. That’s a man’s job.

      Chivalry is not dead despite what these pseudo-men would have you believe. Harper and anyone who goes along with this crap are rightly to be scorned as quiche-eaters and deserve, entirely, all the contempt that is heaped upon them. They are a blight on real men everywhere.

      • wow! James Connors is a real man! not intimidated by women but understanding us? bonus!

        real women do the same thing as real men. i dislike anyone being thought of as “half as good” if doing the same job or more/better work . i also see why integrating NAFTA’s side agreements might be a biiig problem for such small-minded ppl (some women included–the Marie Antoinette types in the conservative govt in particular who are well-kept and well-fed–too lame)

        anyway, when men begin to lose their jobs and their women have to win the bread, or when women go on strike, including in the bedroom, i guess men will have a greater appreciation of equality and better yet, complete appreciation of women in general.

    • This is a very off topic string – but since more than one man insists on carrying on this way, let’s not forget a couple of things. First, the math: If there are ten people doing the same job and they are all equally qualified, but one is a different gender, then when an accident happens (or a bomb explodes), the likelihood is that it will involve the gender that is most represented. No?

      Then there’s the time factor. It’s only been some sixty years since North American women got fully involved in the workforce outside the home (or farm), and only thirty years or so since women have fully dismissed the idea that they have to sit on the sidelines because the men have come back from the war. It’ll take a few more years and there will be more women in dangerous jobs (including going to war) and quite possibly, if it will make you feel better, more of them will be dying off just as surely.

      But perhaps not. Another thing you apparently haven’t considered is the difference between men and women. After all is said and done, the one thing we fully understand is that yes, we really are different. And even when we’re taking up the same space, each gender is subject to a different sort of climate that we generate among ourselves. In any job, a man often feels compelled to prove that he’s a man, and in dangerous jobs, that means that he will occasionally refuse to follow safety guidelines. No helmet, no mask, no checking where the power lines have been laid, taking risks, taking shortcuts, attempting things he hasn’t been properly trained to do, “going where no man has gone before”, being rash. Often it pays off. The rest of the time someone dies. Women’s “culture” is no less difficult but far less physically dangerous because it doesn’t always require proving that safey guidelines are a waste of time (unless you count dancing in stilettos) .

      Ooooh! That reminds me of that wonderful line: Fred Astaire was a great dancer, but Ginger Rogers did the same thing backwards and in high-heels.

      I’ll bet he got paid more.

      And that very distinct possibility is the REAL subject of this posting. Leaving gender out of it for a second: If two people of similar qualifications are doing similiar work in a similar environment etc. they MUST get the same pay. Can we make sure that Harper’s proposal doesn’t threaten what we’ve achieved so far?

  12. There is a problem with putting bargaining for pay equity back in the hands of the unions. For if unions have to bargain for pay equity, it means that generally something else has to be compromised. And while the fiscal update was referring only to public servants, it sets a pretty disturbing precedent, no?

    • G-d! not only disturbing Scout; it could be interpreted in other situations by some in our society as women not being worthy of the rights and freedoms afforded under our Charter, which can devolve into very abusive situations (domestic, civil, job); nothing but more suffering will come of it. more unwanted harrassment too; less chances for advancement, etc etc. but then, look at the practice and negative attitude of the current minority govt towards the vulnerable or undesirable; tells you all you need to know.

      i’m also surprised at those obvious Christians of convenience in the minority conservative govt who are happily supporting this since “Jesus” never treated women that way; but his enemies certainly did. nice witness and example fake “saints”. i hope real Christians will speak out against this. in fact, i’m counting on them to; unless they have the resources to feed and house all the miserable hungry children whose single moms can’t afford to feed them ‘cuz they’re pay is unequitable.

      why the conservatives always have to do things like this i’ll never accept or understand. the govt sets the example of course.

  13. The CHRC, along with all of the provincial HRC’s, should be scrapped. Just another long time legacy and waste of Canadian taxpayer dollars left to us by Pierre Trudeau.

    • yeah yeah Bruce, you whine and complain until you need the service. Whatever

      • Need the service? Not now, not ever, there are the real courts to rule on disputes, I and many, many others have absolutely no use whatsoever for the kangaroo variety who are there to serve only those who suffer from Leftist Mental Disorder.

        • courts that, thx to other measures enacted by the jack-up squad, ppl will not be able to access–like not having a gazillion dollars to defend oneself is a very serious impediment to having your rights respected.

  14. I noticed in the legislation that ‘qualifications’ are a reason to pay more or less.

    This is a mystery to me. Why should qualifications have anything to do with setting pay? Presumably, qualifications give eligibility for a job – the job itself should determine compensation.

  15. Ah yes… here come the conservatives, how about limiting this to people that voted conservative? This is an erosion of hard fought worker rights. The conservatives tried this recently in Australia, though, in Australia they are so embarrassed to be recognized as conservatives they call themselves Liberals (Liberal coalition). The country turfed them regardless of what sheep’s clothing they were wearing, but it will take years to undo the damage they managed to complete before they were run out of office on a rail. Expensive damage indeed. How anyone that can actually read and write could rationalize voting for these lackeys of big business is beyond me, those who voted for them deserve it, but I caution you… it will hurt every worker in the country.

    • Lackeys of big business would be the Liberal Party of Canada if you knew anything at all about political donation history in Canada, but then who are you to have a clue when you have no shoes.

      • and what about the schmeergelder that toppled Joe Clark? i wonder if it’s still circulating today?

    • Conservatives? Where? Where?!!

      Heh, the Aussies have Tories who wear Liberal clothing? We have a Reform Party that wears the gutted skin of a Tory party, like a Highland Regiment Pipe Major decked in his leopard-skin. Granted, that’s an unfair comparison; the Tories, unlike the leopard, died of natural causes. (progressive congestive mulroneyitis)

  16. Suppose all us chambermaids quit and left for you to clean the public washrooms you use and left you to make your own beds and pick up the used condoms in your costly hotelrooms.

  17. Suppose all us chambermaids quit and left for you to clean the public washrooms you use and left you to make your own beds and pick up the used condoms in your costly hotel rooms.

  18. Oemissions. So you all quit. Big deal. The Company would just hire more. And, with this recession on, probably get people for less than they’re paying you now! :-) This whole Human Rights thing has just gotten out of hand! Criminals in jail voting, the concept of re-habilitation without first suffering punishment etc. etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum! I fully agree women should be paid the same as a man provided they’re doing the same work as a man, but to try to set a value between different types of work? Give me a break! For one thing, a job IS NOT A RIGHT! It’s a sales contract between buyer (employer) and seller (employee) Get it through your thick skulls people, unless you own the Company, you’re not ENTITLED to anything more than what you can negotiate with the employer! It’s his, or her money in the Company, he or she has invested it in order to make money, NOT provide someone with a job.

    The Law of equal pay for equal work IS necessary due to some employers trying to pay women less, but equality between plumbers and electricians? You’re trying to tell me a female plumber should make the same as a male electrician because they’re both trades?

    Get a life, idiots!

    • yes “This whole Human Rights thing has gotten out of hand!” we can begin by stripping you of your rights…

  19. Realistically, if there is an issue of equal rights (which there isn`t) the Senate will catch it. Plus, I doubt you could count on only two hands the amount of women in Parliament, including the Senate. I`m sure that if the legislation is considered passible, it will undergo revision and tweaking before it reaches it`s final stage. On the other hand, if it infringes on any rights, human, gender or otherwise, it will be scrapped. Canada has been the leader of human rights, the first to abolish slavery, one of the first to implement women`s rights and equal rights. I doubt Harper can undo all of that armed with one legislation. As well, we haven`t heard all of Harper`s reasoning… maybe he has good intentions, but sloppy legislative skills.

  20. I find it hard to believe that anyone would say there is no issue of equal rights. By the way, the last stats show women being more educated and making less money compared to men than they did in the 1990s. A few years ago, I helped recruit a male friend who had no experience in my industry to replace me in a contract I was leaving (on good terms). I offered to help train him and I knew he would be good. He was. Apparently my past employer thought he would be good too as they decided the position suddenly was worth more money. Yes, he was paid more than me (me with over 10 years more experience). The only difference (other than his lack of experience) was that I am female and he is male. He was as shocked as I was, but neither of us should have been surprised. And yes, this latest legislation only affects public service workers… other than in Ontario and Quebec, there are no real pay equity laws for private workers. That's why ithe wage gap is larger in private sector…

  21. In the last 5 weeks or so I have been on a quest for information. By what government authority am I asked to fill-in a self identity form for potential employers seeking the info. It racially profiles you away from being a desirable hire but then that is OK right. I need to confirm, date and sign that I am non-racialised white caucasian so the marginalised racialised male or female or caucasian female gets priority consideration. All party concurrence and blessed by Canada’s parliament and in my case Ontario’s legislature. I mean what the fuck. I now need to apologize for being white. Oh man if you think the U.S.A. southern states had clan violence think what white guy Canadians can do. They wanna declare war that intense on a totally fucked race and gender see what results. We are aware of guns, molatov cocktails and fertilizer bombs you shithead politicians of all parties and stripes. Fuck with me this bad and somebody is going to the morgue.

  22. Pingback: How parental leave is the Trojan Horse of election promises - Macleans.ca

Sign in to comment.