Don't forget to make contraception illegal.
Birth Control Is Next
If you look closely, attempts to limit contraception are already in the works.
Canada's birth rate is going down. The solution = more immigrants
- Thread starter Shannon Beth
- Start date
“Oh Really”
Then I suggest you actually read this. And btw the way. You know who signs my paychecks right?
www.ohrc.on.ca
And I guess I should have added a basic example. Before me are two resumes.
A) credentials in basic finance/investments, credentials in Canadian/Ontario family law, estate planning, business succession, incorporations vs sole proprietorship, Canadian tax law. And a few years doing it. Plus the ability ro get people to trust them, relate to them, open their lives to them. What’s important/what’s not ( cultural things will come into play)
B) same or similar pedigrees from Mars.
which resumes go to the top? Which serve the clients needs?
Then I suggest you actually read this. And btw the way. You know who signs my paychecks right?
Policy on Removing the “Canadian experience” barrier | Ontario Human Rights Commission
July 2013 - While the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) recognizes the significance of all of the barriers newcomers potentially face when trying to access the job market, this policy will focus on “Canadian experience” as an employment or accreditation requirement, and as a practice that...
And I guess I should have added a basic example. Before me are two resumes.
A) credentials in basic finance/investments, credentials in Canadian/Ontario family law, estate planning, business succession, incorporations vs sole proprietorship, Canadian tax law. And a few years doing it. Plus the ability ro get people to trust them, relate to them, open their lives to them. What’s important/what’s not ( cultural things will come into play)
B) same or similar pedigrees from Mars.
which resumes go to the top? Which serve the clients needs?
Last edited:
Cya
“Quoting without understanding”
while I could cite more. I’ll just go with.
“Require applicants to have prior work experience in Canada to be eligible for a particular job…
So which resumes are going to the top.A or B
“Quoting without understanding”
while I could cite more. I’ll just go with.
“Require applicants to have prior work experience in Canada to be eligible for a particular job…
So which resumes are going to the top.A or B
Last edited:
So you put resume's on the top of the stack in direct violation of the OHRC's guidelines you just quoted?
Is that your example of quoting without understanding?
Employers, representatives of employers and regulatory bodies should not:
- Require applicants to have prior work experience in Canada to be eligible for a particular job.
Lol. Seriously?
if you want to keep arguing stuff Kautilya, after pretty tame, polite explanations, hoping to avoid exactly what happened. “If you can’t see common sense”. Then when finally presented with what you should be reading. And you don’t read
to be eligible… in the first line..
Or do you expect employers to interview 5,000 people…
why don’t you examine your own behavior and the things you said… first. So it’s moot is it?????
if you want to keep arguing stuff Kautilya, after pretty tame, polite explanations, hoping to avoid exactly what happened. “If you can’t see common sense”. Then when finally presented with what you should be reading. And you don’t read
to be eligible… in the first line..
Or do you expect employers to interview 5,000 people…
why don’t you examine your own behavior and the things you said… first. So it’s moot is it?????
Ok, after you've done your hard thinking, tell us why you think this means you are required to have prior work experience in Canada.
"Employers, representatives of employers and regulatory bodies should not require applicants to have prior work experience in Canada to be eligible for a particular job"
“The Code makes it illegal for an employer to put out a job ad, use an application form, or ask applicants questions that directly or indirectly classify them under a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
“Employers must not refer to Canadian experience at the application stage since it may reveal characteristics about the person that are related to Code grounds.”
Pause……….Think hard here. You got 10,000 eligible applications…
“During a job interview, employers should not ask questions about where an applicant obtained their experience, and should consider all prior work experience, regardless of where it was obtained. Employers can only ask specifically about “Canadian” experience if they can show that work experience in Canada is a legitimate requirement of the job,”
Still need help?
The Supreme Court of Canada has set out a test for determining whether a requirement that results in discrimination can be justified (see British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3 [Meiorin]). To do this, an employer must show that the requirement:
“Employers must not refer to Canadian experience at the application stage since it may reveal characteristics about the person that are related to Code grounds.”
Pause……….Think hard here. You got 10,000 eligible applications…
“During a job interview, employers should not ask questions about where an applicant obtained their experience, and should consider all prior work experience, regardless of where it was obtained. Employers can only ask specifically about “Canadian” experience if they can show that work experience in Canada is a legitimate requirement of the job,”
Still need help?
The Supreme Court of Canada has set out a test for determining whether a requirement that results in discrimination can be justified (see British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3 [Meiorin]). To do this, an employer must show that the requirement:
- Relates to the purpose or nature of the job
- Was adopted honestly rather than for a discriminatory reason
- Is necessary to do the job, and
- there isn’t a more inclusive alternative that would avoid or reduce the negative effect (on protected groups)
- the circumstances of individual applicants are still considered and accommodated as much as possible, unless there are costs or health and safety reasons that would cause undue hardship.
Post links when you make direct quotes.
Removing the “Canadian experience” barrier – A guide for employers and regulatory bodies | Ontario Human Rights Commission
July 2013 - When an employer requires people applying for jobs to have “Canadian experience,” or where a regulatory body requires “Canadian experience” before someone can get accredited, they may create barriers for newcomers to Canada. Requiring “Canadian experience” could violate the Ontario...
Your link only says that you'd have to defend in court your practice of acting against the OHRC's guidelines and prove you aren't doing exactly what you are claiming to do by discriminating against immigrants.
You'd lose.
What’s the matter Kautilya? Can’t follow your own advice. I’ll ignore the insults and how a man would respond.
Franky.
By now you really show know better. Should know I almost always have back up. Those quotes are from the same link had you bothered to know some of it or read it. You know, think it through, help yourself kind of stuff.
you don’t deserve the help given stuff but here you go.
www.ohrc.on.ca
Franky.
By now you really show know better. Should know I almost always have back up. Those quotes are from the same link had you bothered to know some of it or read it. You know, think it through, help yourself kind of stuff.
you don’t deserve the help given stuff but here you go.
Removing the “Canadian experience” barrier – A guide for employers and regulatory bodies | Ontario Human Rights Commission
July 2013 - When an employer requires people applying for jobs to have “Canadian experience,” or where a regulatory body requires “Canadian experience” before someone can get accredited, they may create barriers for newcomers to Canada. Requiring “Canadian experience” could violate the Ontario...
You made reference to a SC ruling but posted the OHRC quote instead, that is bad referencing.What’s the matter Kautilya? Can’t follow your own advice. I’ll ignore the insults and how a man would respond.
Franky.
By now you really show know better. Should know I almost always have back up. Those quotes are from the same link had you bothered to know some of it or read it. You know, think it through, help yourself kind of stuff.
you don’t deserve the help given stuff but here you go.
Removing the “Canadian experience” barrier – A guide for employers and regulatory bodies | Ontario Human Rights Commission
July 2013 - When an employer requires people applying for jobs to have “Canadian experience,” or where a regulatory body requires “Canadian experience” before someone can get accredited, they may create barriers for newcomers to Canada. Requiring “Canadian experience” could violate the Ontario...
If you were actually well educated you'd know how to post quotes with links embedded, like this:
The Supreme Court of Canada has set out a test for determining whether a requirement that results in discrimination can be justified (see British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3 [Meiorin]). To do this, an employer must show that the requirement:
- Relates to the purpose or nature of the job
- Was adopted honestly rather than for a discriminatory reason
- Is necessary to do the job, and
That way people can see if you're bullshitting or not immediately instead of having to check your homework.
By the way, you once again missed the point by not noting that you'd fail the SC ruling for not having a legit reason for putting resumes on the bottom of the pile that you could defend in court.
You know I actually do feel bad for both of you. Nor do I actually enjoy this.Laugh all you want. The joke is on you guys. Even too lazy to read the page I linked for you. So..
The Ontario Human Rights Code
The Code is for everyone. It is a provincial law that gives everybody equal rights and opportunities without discrimination in specific areas, including employment and membership in occupational associations and self-governing professions. The Code’s goal is to create a climate of understanding and mutual respect, so that each person feels that they belong in the community and can contribute to it.
Sometimes a rule or practice unintentionally singles out particular people and results in unequal treatment. This type of discrimination is called “constructive” or “adverse effect” discrimination. A job ad or hiring process that limits the opportunity to people with Canadian experience can have an adverse impact on recent immigrants to Canada who may lack Canadian experience, even though they may have relevant international experience and be qualified to do the job. A distinction based on where a person got their work experience may indirectly discriminate based on Code grounds such as race, ancestry, colour, place of origin and ethnic origin.
The Code makes it illegal for an employer to put out a job ad, use an application form, or ask applicants questions that directly or indirectly classify them under a prohibited ground of discrimination. Employers must not refer to Canadian experience at the application stage since it may reveal characteristics about the person that are related to Code grounds.
During a job interview, employers should not ask questions about where an applicant obtained their experience, and should consider all prior work experience, regardless of where it was obtained. Employers can only ask specifically about “Canadian” experience if they can show that work experience in Canada is a legitimate requirement of the job, and that providing accommodation would cause undue hardship. The legal test for such requirements is a high one.
The Code also prevents an employer from using an employment agency to hire people based on preferences related to Code grounds. An employer cannot use an employment agency to recruit, select, screen or hire people based on whether they have Canadian work experience.
Often, there are easy ways to assess a person's skills and abilities, even if they have not worked in Canada.
Job requirements should be reasonable, genuine and directly related to doing the job. A requirement for Canadian work experience, even when implemented honestly, can be a barrier in the hiring process and may result in discrimination. The Supreme Court of Canada has set out a test for determining whether a requirement that results in discrimination can be justified (see British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3 [Meiorin]). To do this, an employer must show that the requirement:
The Ontario Human Rights Code
The Code is for everyone. It is a provincial law that gives everybody equal rights and opportunities without discrimination in specific areas, including employment and membership in occupational associations and self-governing professions. The Code’s goal is to create a climate of understanding and mutual respect, so that each person feels that they belong in the community and can contribute to it.
Sometimes a rule or practice unintentionally singles out particular people and results in unequal treatment. This type of discrimination is called “constructive” or “adverse effect” discrimination. A job ad or hiring process that limits the opportunity to people with Canadian experience can have an adverse impact on recent immigrants to Canada who may lack Canadian experience, even though they may have relevant international experience and be qualified to do the job. A distinction based on where a person got their work experience may indirectly discriminate based on Code grounds such as race, ancestry, colour, place of origin and ethnic origin.
The Code makes it illegal for an employer to put out a job ad, use an application form, or ask applicants questions that directly or indirectly classify them under a prohibited ground of discrimination. Employers must not refer to Canadian experience at the application stage since it may reveal characteristics about the person that are related to Code grounds.
During a job interview, employers should not ask questions about where an applicant obtained their experience, and should consider all prior work experience, regardless of where it was obtained. Employers can only ask specifically about “Canadian” experience if they can show that work experience in Canada is a legitimate requirement of the job, and that providing accommodation would cause undue hardship. The legal test for such requirements is a high one.
The Code also prevents an employer from using an employment agency to hire people based on preferences related to Code grounds. An employer cannot use an employment agency to recruit, select, screen or hire people based on whether they have Canadian work experience.
Often, there are easy ways to assess a person's skills and abilities, even if they have not worked in Canada.
Make sure job requirements are legitimate
Job requirements should be reasonable, genuine and directly related to doing the job. A requirement for Canadian work experience, even when implemented honestly, can be a barrier in the hiring process and may result in discrimination. The Supreme Court of Canada has set out a test for determining whether a requirement that results in discrimination can be justified (see British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3 [Meiorin]). To do this, an employer must show that the requirement:
- Relates to the purpose or nature of the job
- Was adopted honestly rather than for a discriminatory reason
- Is necessary to do the job, and
- there isn’t a more inclusive alternative that would avoid or reduce the negative effect (on protected groups)
- the circumstances of individual applicants are still considered and accommodated as much as possible, unless there are costs or health and safety reasons that would cause undue hardship.
I really do hope you don't work in HR, your company could be hit with suits all the time.
As usual you didn't note that what you are saying you are doing is against ORHC code and you'd have to justify your actions in court to prove your exception is justified.
You can't just put a resume on the bottom of the pile because they have no Canadian experience without having fulfilled all the options provided in the document you quoted but don't understand.
tell me where you disagree with this. And do keep in mind, from the beginning your behavior, plus examples annd the ways I tried to anvoid… and…I’ll just leave it at that.
“The Code makes it illegal for an employer to put out a job ad, use an application form, or ask applicants questions that directly or indirectly classify them under a prohibited ground of discrimination. Employers must not refer to Canadian experience at the application stage since it may reveal characteristics about the person that are related to Code grounds.”
Employers, representatives of employers and regulatory bodies should not:
- Require applicants to have prior work experience in Canada to be eligible for a particular job.
Step 2 the interview after thousands of applications/resumes have been rejected. Hint hint.
“During a job interview, employers should not ask questions about where an applicant obtained their experience, and should consider all prior work experience, regardless of where it was obtained. Employers can only ask specifically about “Canadian” experience if they can show that work experience in Canada is a legitimate requirement of the job,”
Make sure job requirements are legitimate
Job requirements should be reasonable, genuine and directly related to doing the job. A requirement for Canadian work experience, even when implemented honestly, can be a barrier in the hiring process and may result in discrimination. The Supreme Court of Canada has set out a test for determining whether a requirement that results in discrimination can be justified (see British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3 [Meiorin]). To do this, an employer must show that the requirement:
- Relates to the purpose or nature of the job
- Was adopted honestly rather than for a discriminatory reason
- Is necessary to do the job, and
- there isn’t a more inclusive alternative that would avoid or reduce the negative effect (on protected groups)
- the circumstances of individual applicants are still considered and accommodated as much as possible, unless there are costs or health and safety reasons that would cause undue hardship.
Read much Kautilya? Or should I say boys?
Last edited:
There really is no hope.
Its like the Jordan Peterson thread, they just can't understand.
Their step one was to put resumes on the bottom of the pile based on Canadian experience even though he notes you're not allowed to make that decision until after an interview and only if you can defend that decision in court and prove that Canadian experience is required. Not before.
Hmmm. 90 minutes after oh so much. Tried gently, tried to show how/when, my bad for saying “I refuse” ( because I just knew how it would play out including the peanut gallery) but I did anyways. Yep my bad….tried to drop subtle and not so subtley ( what you should be reading) think really really hard here…more insults, more this, more that. Even it’s “ok to just say”….
Oddly from fast and furious action to a silent room. Nothing more, from the gallery, laughing and more insults about not being able to read and more, , no “my bads”…telling that last.
Just peace. Flames out.
And hopefully, some continuation of what was a respectful thread about immigration, birthrates, and related problems.
Oddly from fast and furious action to a silent room. Nothing more, from the gallery, laughing and more insults about not being able to read and more, , no “my bads”…telling that last.
Just peace. Flames out.
And hopefully, some continuation of what was a respectful thread about immigration, birthrates, and related problems.
Last edited:
