I think @RetiredAt63 gave a reasonable summary, but you're taking something said completely out of context to the point that it misrepresents the original point. In context, the quote is discussing how DEI practices allow non-white-male-straight-Christians to be considered for jobs based on talent (rather than defaulting to white-male-straight-Christians and ignoring the others). This seems to be exactly what you were arguing should happen - and you were calling it 'anti-DEI'. What is the problem with that?
I cannot find current advertisements for the DEI fire fighters. I am sure it's out there because I remember having conversations about it. The closest thing I can find is this article.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/london/article/city-looking-for-women-gender-diverse-youth-or-transgender-youth-to-become-firefighters/
Ottawa was doing the same thing but going one step further with their radio and public transit advertising for the same thing.
Currently about 3% of firefighters in Ontario are women (
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/female-firefighters-bullying-sexual-harassment-fifth-estate-1.3305509). Women in firefighting face challenges that men do not - like sexual harassment and a 'boy's club' culture that excludes women. There has also been a long standing push for exclusionary physical tests that are not needed to actually do the job (according to a BC Supreme Court case -
https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1724/index.do), but performed the task of weeding out female recruits. In an attempt to counterbalance these structural problems that cause so many women to turn away from a career in fire fighting, a few cities have chosen to offer specific early training programs and camps to try to garner support among women. I'm guessing that 'gender diverse' and 'transgender' were added in there for the same reason that women were.
This is quite different from hiring an unqualified person because she is a woman, or because they are transgender though. This is an attempt to right an existing wrong and create a larger pool of qualified candidates to choose from. I'm not sure exactly where you see the problem here. Could you clarify a bit?
I think @RetiredAt63 gave a reasonable summary, but you're taking something said completely out of context to the point that it misrepresents the original point. In context, the quote is discussing how DEI practices allow non-white-male-straight-Christians to be considered for jobs based on talent (rather than defaulting to white-male-straight-Christians and ignoring the others). This seems to be exactly what you were arguing should happen - and you were calling it 'anti-DEI'. What is the problem with that?
I do completely agree with your take on it. Everyone should be allowed. The issue I see is that it points out DEI is anti-straight white male by definition. The ctv article above shows the only people not welcome at the training camp would be straight white males. If you want to get the DEI people to become firefighters or anything else, the answer is to be patient. The current composition of our country is 70% white, so about 35% white male. That will be naturally change over time. So I guess my ideal solution is just wait for it, don't push for it. I think it's just my belief that central planning leads to many unintended consequences.
Central planning certainly can lead to many unintended consequences, and I have no problem with questioning why something is being done. But your solution to the problem of existing inequality that heavily favours only one specific group (the white, male, straight one that keeps being discussed) is to simply hope it goes away.
Women did not get the right to vote by waiting for someone to give it to them. They had to fight very hard for it. Equal treatment for black people in Canada didn't just happen by waiting for someone to give it to them. It required a lot of fighting and pushing before it was ratified as part of our constitution. Gay people did not just get rights here in Canada . . . they had to fight for them. I can't think of many (any?) times that a socially marginalized people have simply been handed a big win without a period of struggle and slowly changing perceptions. Given this, it seems unreasonable to expect people who are currently being discriminated against systemically by the our social structures to simply wait for things to get better. That feels more like giving up on a solution to an existing problem than I'm comfortable with.
There's no 'college of trades' nationally in Canada. There was an Ontario College of Trades, but it was replaced by the Ford government in 2022 with 'Skilled Trades Ontario' (at the same time the province stopped enforcing skilled trade certification - https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-skilled-trades-enforcement-doug-ford-college-1.6109825). Either way, I was unable to find any information corroborating your claims that being gay or not white gives electrical apprentices an extra 4000 to 8000 dollars. Can you provide any evidence that this practice exists?
I am however, able to find evidence that minorities in the skilled trades are both under-represented and underpaid though - https://www.settler.ca/english/visible-minorities-in-the-canadian-skilled-trades-face-disparities/. Given this information and your previous statements about the need to prioritize quality employees over racial hiring practices, I'm curious. What would your solution be to reduce this disparity that is preventing these qualified minorities from being hired and paid at the same rate as white people?
Same question regarding the day to day sexism and under-representation of women in the skilled trades (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/women-on-site-ontario-discrimination-trades-1.6823862, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/women-construction-improvements-needed-1.7476610). What solution do you think should be implemented to resolve this problem of men being hired because of their sex over equally or more qualified women? Or to resolve the issue of skilled tradesmen not being willing to take women as apprentices so that they can become established in the field?
The name of the government agency that governs the trades changes its name every few years. Since I started in 2010 there have been 4 different names. I talked to a few people who recently went to trade school and got a bit of information. I first remember the learning about the bonus government money given to DEI people in 2018. When electrical apprentices were going to trade school they were asked a whole bunch of identity questions and they later found out that if they identified as the DEI group they would double their apprenticeship incentive grants. When I recently talked to a newly licensed electrician he mentioned that when he last went to school he would have been able to get $4000 instead of the regular $2000 if he identified as a DEI person. I told him that I can’t find anything about that online and he said he "heard rumors" that they aren’t asking that anymore. I asked another recently licensed electrician and he said that he put down he identified as a woman to try and get the extra $2000 and that he was denied. Both of these examples would have been from January 2024. One of my employees also went to school in January 2024 and he also said the same DEI money was available if he answered the DEI questions. I will look into using the way back machine to see if I can find more. I asked the guy who put down he was female where he was asked this and he said it was on the registration for the apprenticeship incentive grant.
I believe that minorities and women are under represented in the trades but I find it hard to believe they are underpaid. The pay gap could be that minorities work for minority owned companies. When I worked for a company owned by a Romanian Canadian it was mostly Romanians and Russians (all Canadian) that worked for him and we were all equally relatively underpaid. I am very confident that everywhere I worked, there were no disparities in wages from the same level of employee to employee.
From my experience, I have been the employee to first work with the new employees to get an evaluation. With the ones that fit the DEI criteria, I only had a bad experience with one, who is Chinese, and I later found out it was a difference in cultures. We talked about it after because I was very curious about it. The issue was my boss told me to install lights one way, and the guy insisted we did it a different way. I, being a good employee, wanted to do what my boss told me to do. Him being a good Chinese Canadian wanted to do what he thought was the proper thing even if it goes against authority.
To get more minorities in the trade I think it's just a matter of time. My personal experience is about 75% of the applications I get are middle eastern males. It’s just a matter of time before the majority of electricians are middle eastern males. I did want to hire one female applicant but my business partner did not want to at the time.
When I was an employee I did work with a few females and many minority males. Always earning the same amount. I think the wage disparity will only be based on working for better or worse companies. Once licensed it is very easy to find better or higher paying jobs.
You just mentioned that you were personally involved in what appears to be a discriminatory hiring decision. You wanted to hire a woman (so I'm guessing that she was qualified), but your partner didn't feel comfortable hiring her because she was a woman. This type of hiring decision is made all the time . . . and it makes it harder for women, minorities, gay people, trans people, those with disabilities, etc. to get hired into roles in trades.
Once licensed it is very easy to find better or higher paying jobs. But this only holds true if you're not going to run into biased hiring decisions like the one just outlined, right?
One issue I see for hiring women is when you are on a jobsite without bathrooms, it is very common, less so since covid. Men have an easier time with this.
My understanding is that the latest OSHA requirements in Ontario specify that some sort of washroom facility is required on all construction job sites now (
https://oasisontario.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/MOLITSD-Hygiene-Facilities-on-Construction-Projects-2.pdf) - likely because of complaints about the discriminatory practice you outlined that drives away qualified women from the field. So this isn't an excuse to avoid hiring women any more.
Another is from my experience. I have worked with 5 women on different job sites (not very many). 4 of them were your typical feminine females and, even though they were paid the same, they were kind of protected from doing “man” work. Never given the heavy or dirty work like the rest of us. The other one that was treated the same is a person of colour. She was great to work with.
If people treat a woman as though she's unable to do her job, and don't assign her work that is part of the job . . . what you're describing is pretty awful discrimination. Whether the woman looks 'feminine' or not has no bearing on the matter. This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. The problem there is the idiot 'protecting' the woman from the work she signed up to do. It does a disservice to the company, to the woman (who isn't getting proper work experience on the job), and to the other people working there who now have to pick up extra slack. It also gives people a reason to continue with discriminatory hiring practices. "Oh, we can't get a woman - because we won't give her work if we do."
But knowing others in the trade helps immensely, especially when just starting out.
This is true of any profession. Having contacts and role models helps tremendously. This is why initiatives like the one that you don't like and mentioned at the top there exist. There currently are very few women firefighters. Because of this it's harder for a woman to find a contact/role model/mentor than for a guy to do the same. Hence the need for the program, right?
