I need a summary. No need plagiarism check
VOLUME 15NUMBER 3 Lorne Foster & Lesley Jacobs Workplace Practice and Diversity In Canada: Employment Policy in Global Modernity Abstract This paper argues that the major workplace inclusion strategies for accommodating diversity in Canada – including employment equity, affirmative action, pay equity, and diversity management – are part of a national development agenda that should be situated within a global dialogue on economics and pluralism, and this is a key to understanding and engaging sound employment policy and thus realizing social justice. Introduction Economic development literature indicates that today’s economies are becoming more globally integrated, yet invariably on highly skewed terms (Therborn, 2000; Dirlik, 2003; Munck, 2005). The degree of equality and inequality within and among nations is the main issue at stake when the future prospects and challenges of globalization are discussed. Workplace inclusion and decent work strategies are commonly theorized as a fundamental part of a global agenda for national development and modernization even under the new ‘financial crisis’ austerity, which many countries around the world are faced with in recent years. Thus the theoretical and practical question of global modernity is what sort of equality to pursue and for whom, and which legal and political institutions are the most appropriate vehicles for implementing inclusive social policy and thus realizing egalitarian justice (Jacobs, 2004). The topic of sound employment policy now constitutes a global public policy dialogue framed by international agendas and conventions for managing inequality and accommodating pluralism.1 In this regard, global THINK INDIA QUARTERLY 58 / Lorne Foster & Lesley Jacobs modernity is characterized by cross-cutting market forces that are both universal and particular, associated with the pressures of economic interconnectedness and population hybridity (Dirlik, 2003). On the one hand, globalization presents different jurisdictions with different labour market challenges and problems, which are theorized through the particularity of national and cultural circumstances. Here, a feature of the global dialogue is premised on finding policy solutions that fit the jurisdiction where they are being applied; and there is no necessary convergence or similarity across countries, or a one-size-fits-all employment policy standard. On the other hand, in coping with the different labour market challenges caused by globalization, workplace inclusion instruments and other pluralist accommodations are also theorized in many developed and developing countries alike as central to the dynamism and synergy required for a productive economy. This paper addresses the major inclusivity tools theorized by relevant social actors and agents in the discourses on employment relations in Canada, including employment equity, affirmative action, pay equity or comparable worth, and diversity management. It takes the position that relevant social actors have exercised social agency in the construction of this discourse. The worldwide dialectic of capital internationalization and population hybridization has placed a premium on workplace inclusion strategies that have been able to support both legal and discursive resources for marginalized groups; and provide a useful platform to contest resource inequality. The argument focuses on some important aspects of the major workplace inclusion instruments and steering tools in the Canadian context which have their roots in the contest between ethno-racial and feminist and dominant hegemonic cultural interests. This analysis can also be seen to illustrate Canada’s workplace environment of ‘competing equalities’; which is manifest in the contestation between ‘equal access’, and ‘access as equals’ claims of different social actors, and their trajectory in contemporary workplace integration hierarchies. 1 See – World of Work Report (2011). Also see the ILO’s Convention 111 on Discrimination Employment and Occupation (in 1958/2006); the Convention on Occupational Health and Safety (No. 155, 2007); the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (1998); the ILO’s Employment Policy Convention, (No.122, 1964); together with other ILO Conventions and Recommendations. VOLUME 15NUMBER 3 Workplace Practice and Diversity In Canada / 59 Anti-Discrimination, Anti-Gender Bias and White Masculinity Globalization has shaped the political opportunities and agendas of Canadian workplace stakeholders. For instance, the introduction of ethno-racial antidiscrimination as a formidable ‘workplace issue’ is a relatively recent development on the Canadian scene directly connected to global transnationalism. In addition, Canadian labour relations are also characterized by the longstanding gender equality struggle of the Canadian women’s movement, which has succeeded in making various forms of gender discrimination in the workplace into a contested territory ( for examples., sexual harassment, occupational segregation, glass ceilings, etc). The antidiscrimination and women’s movements in Canada have focused on the national progress/prosperity goals of the state (given by economic globalization) as leverage politics against the status quo of White male privilege. In this respect, marginalized minorities and anti-gender bias interests have attempted to use global competition as a brokering partner for claims made on the Canadian state, and against the privilege of White masculinity in the workplace. But lacking any power resources or a strong institutional base has left them vulnerable to shifting political winds and to the reactionary recoil of conservative neo-liberal ideology. As a consequence, the interests of antidiscrimination and anti-gender bias are currently being reframed through a compromise of a generic ‘diversity project’ that is leading a retreat away from positive government intervention into economic and social regulation in civic life (Foster, 1998). Since the 1980’s, in addressing the right claims of ethno-racial minorities and women, the federal government, some provincial governments, and a number of private companies have implemented pay equity and employment equity and affirmative action policies, as pro-active strategies to purge exclusionary barriers in the labour market. Yet, from the beginning the mainstream public perception of an antidiscrimination and feminist agenda for employment policy was not positive, and resistance began to coalesce almost immediately into an increasingly assertive ‘opposition movement’ that formulated a generic compromise in the ‘diversity project’. Conceptually, diversity and equity have some different value distinctions (openness vs. opportunity), goals (variety vs. representation) and approaches THINK INDIA QUARTERLY 60 / Lorne Foster & Lesley Jacobs (attitude change vs. systemic changes). They also share some similar mandates, such as broadening recruitment nets and accommodation. The intrinsic difference between diversity management and employment equity management is related to contrasts between a ‘difference inclusion system’ and a ‘barrier free system’ (Siu, 2011). As a result, the contemporary workplace continuously reverberates between perspectives on formal and substantive egalitarianism – as they relate to organizational differences in procedural equality, condition equality, and stakes equality. This trajectory of movements and counter-movements has contributed to a Canadian workplace environment of competing equalities – manifested in the tension between ‘equal access’ versus ‘access as equals’ regimes. Those who advocated mainstreaming diversity today, tend to present it as a workplace equality strategy that is both non-race and non-gender specific, therefore fair treatment to any and all. However, the data indicated that the new directions in the workplace emphasize diversity only within certain bounds (Cowan, Huggett, and Parris, 2006). Canadian businesses tend to treat dominant cultural norms and standards of professional competence as the common denominator of the marketplace. The tendency to normalize the traditions and customs of the dominant White majority has the effect of nullifying the difference in culture-based perspective; which does not serve the state or society, but rather, the Whitestream power interests of the status quo. In this regard, even Canadian employers who believe in the ‘promise of diversity’ still often fail to actualize it, when they simply seek to hire employees with diverse backgrounds and wait for the payoff, rather than leveraging diversity by making sure differences truly count. The associated ‘embracing difference narratives’ have come to dominate mainstream public discussion and have the effect of countering the long- standing ‘barrier-free narratives’ of ethno racial minorities and women’s groups; and thereby, are successfully positioned to clawed back some of the established gains of the anti-racism and feminist movements. The resulting environment in the Canadian workplace is one of often hotly contested equalities – formal against substantive, where the procedural fairness of diversity policies are reframing issues into ‘open access’ regimes, and retrenching the ‘discrimination reduction’ gains made by both those who advocate for fairness of conditions and fairness of outcomes. VOLUME 15NUMBER 3 Workplace Practice and Diversity In Canada / 61 The Inclusion Thesis and Canadian Models Employment Equity (EE) and Affirmative Action (AA) Affirmative action (AA) and employment equity (EE) programs are government initiatives that require employers to engage in proactive employment practices to increase the representation for historically disadvantaged groups. Both AA and EE share the goal of a workforce that reflects the pool of talent available in the labour market, and to ensure that no one is denied employment opportunities and benefits for reasons unrelated to ability. Employment equity legislation in Canada, like affirmative action legislation in the United States, are designed to help eliminate past and present discrimination by increasing opportunities to individuals and groups who have historically been excluded from full participation in and access to such areas as employment and education. The concept of employment equity, as with affirmative action, theorizes a barrier-free system of human resources management with a special focus on achieving equitable participation in the workplace by maintaining a workforce with fair representation of the community, and an accommodating and supportive environment for all employees. In this regard, employment equity, as with affirmative action, signifies a focus on the structural causes of economic inequality as well as on the outcomes, and is cognizant of macro-micro linkages. Therefore, employment equity, as so affirmative action, means more than treating people in the same way through procedural equality; it requires special measures and the accommodation of differences through stakes equality an equity initiatives that substantively change conditions and outcomes in the workplace. The term ‘affirmative action’ was first used in the United States in the early 1960s in concurrence with the civil rights movement, and was formulated as a strategy to achieve non-discrimination in hiring without regard to race, religion and national origin. Originally, civil rights programs were enacted to help African Americans become full citizens of the United States. The (i) Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution made slavery illegal; the (ii) Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law; the (iii) fifteenth amendment forbids racial discrimination in access to voting. The 1866 & 1964 (iv) Civil Rights Act guarantees every citizen “the same right to make and enforce contracts ... As is enjoyed by white citizens ... “ THINK INDIA QUARTERLY 62 / Lorne Foster & Lesley Jacobs In 1967, the Johnson administration expanded the executive order to include affirmative action requirements to benefit women. The term ‘employment equity’ was coined in Canada by Judge Rosalie Abella (1984) in a report issued by the Royal Commission entitled, Equity in Employment. The Abella Report became the foundation of the Employment Equity Act which came into force to replace affirmative action policies in Canada in 1986 (amended 1995).The purpose of the Act, as stated in the legislation itself, is “to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfillment of