The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

There's really a significant cliff between the theoretical lio45 on SSP (who is definitely not known for being a fan of turbans and Ramadan) and the lio45 whose first priority by far is to have this plant running as well as possible (given really tight schedules and other challenges).

Well, I assume you're lenient with the Muslim employee who is observing Ramadan because aside from that he is a productive worker. But if he was not and used his religion to take excessive break time to pray, complained that people ate in his face during Ramadan or that the worksite food truck offered pork dishes or that as a group you went to a restaurant where alcohol was served, you might have a different attitude towards him.

It's not the same as religion I know but I have some employees who have major challenges with their kids. It requires me to be very open minded and accommodating but on the other hand they're very good, work hard and deliver. I would be foolish to not cut them some slack. If though they were milking the fact that they have kids and not making an honest effort, I'd see things differently.

[lio45]

As an aside, I must say I loved how you made it sound so natural to describe "a Muslim observing Ramadan" as "a man so mentally incapacitated as to turn down delicious free food even as he's clearly starving" like it's just a rephrasing of the same concept


(... which it pretty much is, we agree on that)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Well, I assume you're lenient with the Muslim employee who is observing Ramadan because aside from that he is a productive worker.

Yep. Also, I knew Ramadan wasn't going to last. Had it been a year-round concept (which would be even more idiotic than it already is... and probably could not exist, i.e. Civilization A Observing Year-Round Ramadan would have been conquered by Civilization B Whose Soldiers Can Eat Nutritious Food sooner or later) then I might have made a different decision - at the very least, forcing the guy to move to Evening Shift.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's not the same as religion I know but I have some employees who have major challenges with their kids. It requires me to be very open minded and accommodating ...

This project has pushed me close to the limits of what I can tolerate/accommodate... the deadlines and challenges we have mean that I'm usually going to side with whatever is best in terms of production/quality. So far my conscience is fine with this - we're delivering greatly so far (it's almost a miracle what we've managed to do in this context) so that's the main thing.

I've been fine with accommodating homophobes so far. The next step in this escalation of trampling on my own morals would be to wonder if I'd have been ready to get rid of Conspicuously Gay Guy if that had been needed (using some pretext). I never had to even think about that, thankfully.

So far I must say that I'm letting employee quality be a big factor in my decisions.

Example, say there's a fight between a white employee and a black one.

Excellent Black Employee: "That guy called me a nigger! I want him out or else I'm out."
Average White Employee: "I admit I did but he did XYZ to offend me first."

= probably getting rid of the white guy to make sure the black one is happy.

Average Black Employee: "That guy called me a nigger! I want him out or else I'm out."
Excellent White Employee: "I admit I did but he did XYZ to offend me first."

= probably gently telling the white guy to please not do this again, and have him apologize, while telling the black guy that if he's too stubborn to accept the apology and move on, the door is right there.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

Example, say there's a fight between a white employee and a black one.

I guess I'm lucky but I've worked at a bunch of places and managed others and never had to deal with any of that. My coworkers normally come from very diverse backgrounds (e.g. out of 10 they might have been born in 4 different countries and/or have as many ethnic backgrounds). The amount of racial tension or special religious/cultural accommodation required has been 0 as far as I am able to tell.

The median person I've worked with probably has a master's degree though.

It was similar in university.

In a lot of personal or casual social settings it's pretty diverse. One thing I've noticed is that social groups are often divided by language. You will often see a "Canadian-born" group that could be white, Chinese, Indian, Caribbean, etc. mostly English speakers. Then perhaps a separate social group where people mostly speak Chinese. The Canadian-born kids with Chinese parents might bridge that gap. It stands to reason that people will tend to socialize in the language most familiar to them and the fact that the breakdown is by language and not how people look, to me, suggests that people by and large aren't that racist.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

The median person I've worked with probably has a master's degree though.

I'm pretty convinced that's it. There's a big correlation between high education and the ability to be reasonable. If everyone among my employees was like you and me (and Acajack and milomilo) there would never be any escalation of anything - all disagreements as to what's optimal procedure would be solved by discussion and one side convincing the other (if needed, ending with temporary testing implementation of whichever is the easiest to implement of the clashing suggested methods), and there would never be any disagreements that aren't about procedure.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

I'm pretty convinced that's it. There's a big correlation between high education and the ability to be reasonable. If everyone among my employees was like you and me (and Acajack and milomilo) there would never be any escalation of anything - all disagreements as to what's optimal procedure would be solved by discussion and one side convincing the other (if needed, ending with temporary testing implementation of whichever is the easiest to implement of the clashing suggested methods), and there would never be any disagreements that aren't about procedure.

People with PhDs act out by trying to work on research projects instead of practical money-generating stuff of value to other real humans...

[casper]

Originally Posted by lio45

Not really possible, since it went to the point they can't be together anymore so I have to decide which one to keep and which one to fire.

Earlier, I had a semi-similar unforeseen problem when many South Asians refused to work with our gayest employee (the only one clearly visibly gay; statistically I'm sure I have a few others). Solved by assigning gay guy to the shipping side (where there's only a few people) and all the homophobes to the production side (almost a different building). What would you have done...?

(I am assuming the correct answer to some would have been "mercilessly fire all the brown people on the sole basis of their backwards religious views", but that's not the choice I made there.)

I have been in a management role for a very long time (both in corporate and small business). I am not certain I would have solved the problem by moving people around. I would start with sitting down with the person one on one and basically say: "Look here are the company values and that drives everything we do and we do it. You don't have to agree with them, you don't have to like them but we need to follow them."

For me moving people around would be a last resort. When it comes to moving people, I like the principle that shows up in this commercial. It is from a few years ago, but on the mark. Portugal has a sizable black population and close ties into a number of African countries to this day.


• Video Link

[theman23]

Originally Posted by lio45

This project has pushed me close to the limits of what I can tolerate/accommodate... the deadlines and challenges we have mean that I'm usually going to side with whatever is best in terms of production/quality. So far my conscience is fine with this - we're delivering greatly so far (it's almost a miracle what we've managed to do in this context) so that's the main thing.

I've been fine with accommodating homophobes so far. The next step in this escalation of trampling on my own morals would be to wonder if I'd have been ready to get rid of Conspicuously Gay Guy if that had been needed (using some pretext). I never had to even think about that, thankfully.

So far I must say that I'm letting employee quality be a big factor in my decisions.

Example, say there's a fight between a white employee and a black one.

Excellent Black Employee: "That guy called me a nigger! I want him out or else I'm out."
Average White Employee: "I admit I did but he did XYZ to offend me first."

= probably getting rid of the white guy to make sure the black one is happy.

Average Black Employee: "That guy called me a nigger! I want him out or else I'm out."
Excellent White Employee: "I admit I did but he did XYZ to offend me first."

= probably gently telling the white guy to please not do this again, and have him apologize, while telling the black guy that if he's too stubborn to accept the apology and move on, the door is right there.

You should familiarize yourself with the BC Human Rights Code and also the Workers Compensation Act. A lot of the what if’s you’re describing could get you in serious trouble.

[lio45]

Out of curiosity, is there anything I've done (Ramadan accommodation, discreet religious homophobia accommodation done extremely carefully to avoid hurting the feelings of the gay employee, and I'm still undecided which side I'll be taking in the turban disrespect dispute between those two guys who now can't work together anymore) that would actually "get me in trouble"? I don't believe so - otherwise I would obviously have acted differently.

[lio45]

Thought experiment:

You were awarded a major contract in, say, Riyadh. One person important to the project, but not critical, is an European architect who happens to be gay. At some point it turns out that so many people (including key ones) refuse to have anything to do with that one guy that it is actually jeopardizing the project - and if you fail to deliver what's agreed you'll be hit (personally) with significant financial penalties. From a legal point of view, you can get rid of that architect anytime and replacing him won't be too much of a problem from the POV of the project.

(i.e. nothing you choose to do "will get you in trouble")

What do you do? As I said, I'm thankful such a situation hasn't presented itself because it wouldn't be an easy choice.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by theman23

You should familiarize yourself with the BC Human Rights Code and also the Workers Compensation Act. A lot of the what if’s you’re describing could get you in serious trouble.

I am familiar with the Quebec and to some degree federal and Ontario rules for such things. I doubt the BC ones are significantly different.

I also do not see how he could get into "serious" trouble for what he has been discussing.

For starters his deeper beliefs, biases and strategy as shared on SSP would not be not known to anyone involved in the case.

And of course employers of good faith (pardon the pun) do get a lot of leeway given that they cannot fully control the actions of employees who are individuals and also have rights as such.

Basically you need to show you have taken immediate and reasonably appropriate action. You are not really responsible for that action not being 100 percent effective.

And if this is what you are suggesting I highly doubt BC rules require an employer to immediately fire an employee who *allegedly* called another one the N word. Doing that is what might actually get you in serious trouble.

I know that due to some high profile incidents in the US especially we now get the impression that that is the case, but labour relations do not work that way. And we probably do not hear about subsequent wrongful dismissal lawsuits against employers who made that type of splash.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Thought experiment:

You were awarded a major contract in, say, Riyadh. One person important to the project, but not critical, is an European architect who happens to be gay. At some point it turns out that so many people (including key ones) refuse to have anything to do with that one guy that it is actually jeopardizing the project - and if you fail to deliver what's agreed you'll be hit (personally) with significant financial penalties. From a legal point of view, you can get rid of that architect anytime and replacing him won't be too much of a problem from the POV of the project.

(i.e. nothing you choose to do "will get you in trouble")

What do you do? As I said, I'm thankful such a situation hasn't presented itself because it wouldn't be an easy choice.

One of a number of reasons I would probably prefer to not do projects in places like Riyadh. Though the gay Euro architect would probably be one step ahead of me!

[theman23]

Originally Posted by lio45

Out of curiosity, is there anything I've done (Ramadan accommodation, discreet religious homophobia accommodation done extremely carefully to avoid hurting the feelings of the gay employee, and I'm still undecided which side I'll be taking in the turban disrespect dispute between those two guys who now can't work together anymore) that would actually "get me in trouble"? I don't believe so - otherwise I would obviously have acted differently.

Don’t think so, I was referring to some of the hypotheticals you were mentioning. For example if you had to fire the gay employee you would likely have a complaint on your hands and it would not look good. Same with if you fired the Muslim employee, as you are expected to make accommodations for him.

I’m not a lawyer, but I have a few employees that I share and we have a workplace code of conduct with regards to bullying/harassment/discrimination and ensure that all of our employees are aware of this. Its hard to say without knowing the specifics of the your exact scenario,, but WRT to the gay employee I would ensure that the involved parties are reminded of our policies and that the the discussion is documented along with the consequences of disregarding workplace code of conduct. But then again, I’m quite risk averse and maybe you are willing to tolerate more risk.

EDIT: this is all assuming that a formal complaint was raised.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The publicity of it all that a white person need not apply is exactly the fear and angst that is the basis of most racial tendencies and elects openly racist orange people like Trump after 8 years of Obama.

Nothing so perfectly highlights white privilege as the back to back presidencies of Obama and Trump. The first black President had to be damn near perfect. An in-shape well-spoken Harvard lawyer with a successful wife and two beautiful kids. Republicans found that so offensive that the party of family values followed that up with a businessman who bankrupted several businesses, had 5 kids from 3 wives, advocated for the execution of the innocent and attempted to deligitimize the first black President with one made up controversy (accusation of Harvard grades being poor) after another (birtherism). So it's hilarious when people whine about affirmative action when you see such contrast in real life.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The protest will die and nothing will change. I have much faith in the top percentile of young millennials. They really see the world differently. It's just not their time yet.

Soap box. Ballot box. Ammo box.

Let's hope the US never gets to the third one.

For the most part, I think the generational changeover in the electorate will take care of a lot of their issues. It's slowly happening in Canada on different issues.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by lio45

As an aside, I must say I loved how you made it sound so natural to describe "a Muslim observing Ramadan" as "a man so mentally incapacitated as to turn down delicious free food even as he's clearly starving" like it's just a rephrasing of the same concept


(... which it pretty much is, we agree on that)

There could be any number of personal reasons why someone had an off day or week at work... Ran a marathon, has new baby, having an argument with their significant other, having a sick relative, got sick/injured, etc. I think anyone who has spent some time in a workplace understands this.

A boss who is not willing to cut a little slack to an otherwise good employee, or does it only grudgingly while mocking who they are as a human being, is probably not a great person to work for.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I mean, where are the "Occupy" people today? That doesn't even seem that long ago.

They are probably participating in these protests too. It's not like they wear a badge.

[casper]

Originally Posted by lio45

Out of curiosity, is there anything I've done (Ramadan accommodation, discreet religious homophobia accommodation done extremely carefully to avoid hurting the feelings of the gay employee, and I'm still undecided which side I'll be taking in the turban disrespect dispute between those two guys who now can't work together anymore) that would actually "get me in trouble"? I don't believe so - otherwise I would obviously have acted differently.

I should say I am not a lawyer or an HR professional.

My experience has been with Federal regulated employers in other provinces and BC rules with my current company. If it is a larger organisation you probably have an HR team that has people who know this stuff inside out. From your description, the only two things that standout to me are being cognitive of:

1. You have some HR policies in writing, so the company ethical statement on bulling, harassment, etc. This is for two reasons, one it established clear non-ambiguous standards. The second reason is the employer has to have these in writing.

2. Your not discriminating by assigning certain work to people due to religious, sexual orientation etc. Putting people who recognize Ramadan on certain shifts is both a positive/negative in this regard.

There is something call a duty to accommodate. That means even if you have systematic rules across the board designed to treat everyone equally you still need to do what is reasonable to accommodate individual situations. If someone has a need such as not working on certain days and you can accommodate it you should.

As for the problem with the project in the middle east. I think your left with two conflicting problems. It is not legal to be gay in Saudi Arabia, as an employer it would be negligent to send someone into that environment who would be subject to arrest the minute they walk all the aircraft. That is going to limit who can be assigned to work on that project. Yes, that is in conflict with treating everyone fairly.

[ssiguy]

Comparing sexual minority rights & discrimination with similar situations with Blacks or any other minority group {ie Natives} is not a apt analogy. This is particularly true in terms of police relations and the law for one primary reason......sexual minorities are invisible and Blacks & Natives aren't.

Unless someone is walking down the street holding hands or standing outside a gay bar, there is no way a police officer will pull them aside for no particular reason. This goes the same for the law as a judge usually doesn't know if someone is gay or not. This is well exemplified by the women in NY's Central Park who called the police stating he was threatening her when all he was doing is asking her to put her dog on a leash which it was suppose to be. She was obviously reacting to the fact he is black but not to the fact that he is also, in fact, openly gay.

There is also a more subtle but still profound difference between the situation of Blacks & Natives as opposed to sexual minorities...............economic status. Gay men in particular have far higher disposable income than the average person due to being disproportionately well educated along with most not having the financial burden of children. One's socio-economic status is very relevant in relation to equal access to the legal equality

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This is particularly true in terms of police relations and the law for one primary reason......sexual minorities are invisible and Blacks & Natives aren't.

Erm.. some pass as straight/cisgender and some don't. This is particularly true if you include trans (the T in LGBT).

(And some people who have non-European ancestry or identify as belonging to an ethnic or racial minority pass as white while others don't. This is certainly true for indigenous people in Canada.)