With the present under-current of economic gloom and doom of nations globally , and with the alarming unemployment rate in the United States of America flagging at 10.4 %, in Canada at 8.2%, and more at home in Ontario at its highest, since 2007 at 9.1%, discrimination has certainly come out of the cobwebs in the workplace. The fresh take for employees now is how to keep their jobs and do their assigned ( or sometimes unassigned ) tasks for a pay-cheque. No longer, it would appear , anyone who is on a 9-5+ hour work-day can tell his boss to "take this job and shove it" ; or more enterprisingly " take this job and promote me" . The fact that food has to be on the table, bills have to be paid, shelter and clothing for themselves and their families are prerequisites for survival, means that, in the eyes of the worker, discrimination has to be thrown out of the window, rather than take a back-burner at work.
Many of us today who are in the unemployment snapshot, whether we have been laid off, terminated or let-go because companies have filed for bankruptcy, or simply quit ( not likely to hear an unemployed person simply saying this to a fellow unemployed person at a local restaurant or bar—or else your local TV station may have the pleasure of running this news longer than it takes a health reform bill to successfully pass through the senate ), are now becoming more conscious of what discrimination means in trying to obtain a job. Re-hiring may be a thing of the past, and new employment is fraught with the government’s untiring effort to create new jobs, opening up opportunities for second career programmes , encouraging people out of work to find ways to develop new skills, further their education … and the list goes on. The bottom line is this: once you think you’re ready, and you have your resume in your hand, you’re very likely to face discrimination at the door of the employer.
There are many variables which can be considered, more so from a macro socio-economic platform, why unemployed people may face a wave of discriminatory elements in trying to get a job ; not even considering finding a job. Among these variables may be age, gender, physical conditions such as health, family commitments, transportation ( think of some more, if you wish). And whether there is such a thing as justifiable discrimination will certainly raise a hornet’s nest with the Human Rights Commission of Ontario. And certainly lawyers who are specialized in labour laws may frantically litigate in every case that knocks at their door. Perhaps in many instances, workers ( unemployed or employed ) may not even be aware of any form of discrimination affecting them. So then, the big question for us lay workers, is to ask: WHAT IS DISCRIMINATION ? And the probability of 1 in 10 “workers” ( without any scientific study ), may be most of the time, if not all the time, uncertain of the answer to this question.
According to the book: “Human Rights At Work”, Third Edition (2008), which is an introduction to the Human Rights Code, DISCRIMINATION is not defined in the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE. But elements of discrimination are certainly explained ( not defined, I suppose) to warrant the comprehension of what DISCRIMINATION means at the workplace. This obviously invites philosophic debate as well as legal definition as a scholarly undertaking.
However, in my own understanding, and according to information in the book, Human Rights At Work, discrimination may be a factor if (a) consideration is not given to the worker, regarding his “unique merits, capacities and circumstances” (b) if a person (employer or co-worker) makes “stereotypical” remarks in relation to another individual’s attributes, and (c) consideration of situations that impact the individual’s rights. This explanation of discrimination , as it relates to the worker, is by no means comprehensive, or definitive ; it is intended to be used for discussion only.
This brings me to a report in the South Asia Mail, an independent internet daily, dated March 20, 2010 which I would like to add to this post for readers’ information and discussion:
AN ELOQUENT EXAMPLE OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN CANADA
C. Grover
Racial discrimination is very much alive in Canada. It is highly prevalent in the federal public service. Human rights laws exist in Canada and they are expected to protect employees from discrimination in the workplace based on factors that do not relate to personal merit or requirements for the job. These include, workplace policies, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Canada is a signatory.
These legislative outlets are expected to serve as deterrence against discrimination and to provide lasting remedies to the victims of discrimination, but this is rarely the case in the Canadian setting, specifically where federal government agencies are the alleged perpetrators. The puny victim, oftentimes jobless and without any financial backing, is pitted against the mighty Canadian government with limitless public funds at its disposal, a truly David and Goliath fight, which is almost impossible for David to win. Dr. Chander Grover is the living example -- He has been fighting against his racial discrimination in employment for over 23 years, won many times in courts, but his plight has continued because of the government�s intransigence and disrespect for its own laws.
The UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) has given failing grades to Canada and has recommended that amendments are needed in the Canadian legislation at the federal, provincial and territorial levels and the legal system enhancement so as to allow victims of discrimination full access to competent tribunals and effective remedy. The UNHRC has been saying for over a decade that Canada is in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because the Canadian Human Rights Act does not allow direct access to a competent tribunal.
Former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney has recently said � �If the government comes after you and uses resources, financial and otherwise, of the state, they can crush any Canadian citizen. This is the greatest threat to the individual liberties of the ordinary Canadian citizen that can exist anywhere, and we have to fight it.� (CTV, September 9, 2007). Clearly, Mr. Mulroney, who was Prime Minister for 9 years, knows about the Canadian government�s operations. The paradigm in the Grover case manifestly confirms Mr. Mulroney�s assertions.
To commemorate 2010 UN International Day for the Elimination of Racism on March 21st, South Asia Mail Daily will publish a series of articles which highlight the racial discrimination of Dr. Grover by the National Research Council of Canada (NRC). This is not a simple employee-employer dispute, but involves the entire management of the NRC, several Central Agencies of the Government of Canada, the federal Minister of Industry and, above all, the Auditor General of Canada, AND AN ESTIMATED COST TO THE CANADIAN TAXPAYER OF 60 MILLION DOLLARS!!
