Mulcair on equality


Thomas Mulcair released his plan for equality yesterday.

“As Prime Minister, I would commit to appointing women to fill 50% of all positions on the Board of Directors of Crown corporations and government agencies—and I’d use the office of Prime Minister to challenge the private sector to do the same.” Mulcair said.

Among other measures, Mr. Mulcair also says he would introduce “proactive” pay equity legislation, restore the court challenges program and develop “a more effective, better managed system of firearms registration.”


Mulcair on equality

  1. One’s sex (or race, religion, etc) should not determine one’s fitness for a job. Appointments should be based on merit, period. If that means 20% are women or 80% are, then so be it.

    I work at a company where the majority of the staff are female; I’ve had mostly women bosses; I’ve lost out to women in job competitions. I have the utmost respect for the women I’ve lost to because they got there on merit. I might not feel the same if they had been chosen based on gender quotas.

    You can’t impose equality; people are either equal or they aren’t. From what I’ve seen, quotas do little beyond causing resentment.

    • Here, here. You can’t legislate equality in an unequal world. Some individuals are intelligent, diligent workers. Others are shiftless idiots.

      A just society hires and promotes based on individual merit. Sex, ethnicity, nepotism and partonage have no place in a just society.

  2. Re: “proactive” pay equity legislation

    In the United States, no legislation to date has closed the gender wage gap — not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not affirmative action (which has benefited mostly white women, the group most vocal about the wage gap), not diversity, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act…. Nor will a “paycheck fairness” law work.

    That’s because pay-equity advocates continue to overlook the effects of female AND male behavior:

    Despite the 40-year-old demand for women’s equal pay, millions of wives still choose to have no pay at all. In fact, according to Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of “The Secrets of Happily Married Women,” stay-at-home wives, including the childless who represent an estimated 10 percent, constitute a growing niche. “In the past few years,” he says in a CNN report at http://tinyurl.com/6reowj, “many women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home.” (“Census Bureau data show that 5.6 million mothers stayed home with their children in 2005, about 1.2 million more than did so a decade earlier….” at http://tinyurl.com/qqkaka. If indeed more women are staying at home, perhaps it’s because feminists and the media have told women for years that female workers are paid less than men in the same jobs — so why bother working if they’re going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman. If “greedy, profit-obsessed” employers could get away with paying women less than men for the same work, they would not hire a man – ever.)

    As full-time mothers or homemakers, stay-at-home wives earn zero. How can they afford to do this while in many cases living in luxury? Because they’re supported by their husband, an “employer” who pays them to stay at home.

    Feminists, government, and the media ignore what this obviously implies: If millions of wives are able to accept no wages and live as well as their husbands, millions of other wives are able to accept low wages, refuse overtime and promotions, work part-time instead of full-time (“According to a 2009 UK study for the Centre for Policy Studies, only 12 percent of the 4,690 women surveyed wanted to work full time”: http://bit.ly/ihc0tl See also an Australian report: http://tinyurl.com/862kzes), take more unpaid days off, avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (http://tinyurl.com/7f2o57o) — all of which lower women’s average pay. Women are able to make these choices because they are supported or anticipate being supported by a husband who must earn more than if he’d chosen never to marry. (Still, even many men who shun marriage, unlike their female counterparts, feel their self worth is tied to their net worth.) This is how MEN help create the wage gap. If the roles were reversed so that men raised the children and women raised the income, men would average lower pay than women.

    See “Will the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Help Women?” at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/will-the-ledbetter-fair-pay-act-help-women/

    By the way, The Next Equal Occupational Fatality Day is in 2020. The year 2020 is how far into the future women will have to work to experience the same number of work-related deaths that men experienced in 2009 alone.

    • It makes you wonder what would happen if both parents took an equal share in the child rearing, doesn’t it?  We have some posters on here, I think, who are stay-at-home dads.  Presumably, their wife makes more than they do :)  And I get the impossibility of career advancement when both partners take six months off every year.  I don’t have an answer, I just wonder if pay equity is ever looked at across all job categories–not just within a company.  Not that I have an answer as to the comparable merits of, say, an electrician to a nurse or something.  Roofer vs. early childcare worker, etc.

  3. Interesting that he wouldn’t commit to filling 50% of NDP candidacies with women… or 50% of NDP MP’s for that matter.

  4. Get used to hearing the phrase “NDP’s Nuremberg Law-style quota policies”, because you are going to be hearing it a lot if this macktivist menshevik becomes NDP leader.  

    You wanna play hardball, pinkos, OK, let’s play hardball.

Sign in to comment.