News   Jun 14, 2024
 2K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
 1.5K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
 787     0 

Racism in Toronto Workforce

The article said that English proficiency is key, immigrants need to be able to communicate their expertise
I have to admit that I often simply hang up when I call a government office, corporate or technical support when a thickly accented, barely understood person answers the phone, since in my personal experience the call is a frustrating exercise in not being able to communicate. They could be any race or colour, I don't care, but if you can't clearly speak the language, then I don't see how you can find success in employment. When I call back and get a person who speaks English well, I am pleased, and couldn't care less what race or colour they were.

I think the day will come when we start seeing job ads that state "clearly spoken, unaccented fluency in English mandatory".
 
Adm. Beez:

I think the day will come when we start seeing job ads that state "clearly spoken, unaccented fluency in English mandatory".

Clearly spoken, yes. But unaccented? What accents should we not deem acceptable - various permutations from the UK, Ireland, provinices of Canada or what? And to go a bit further, perhaps we should apply these same rules to service users in the public and private domain.

And of course, we all know that accents carry no geographical and ethnic connotations whatsoever. To me, the issue isn't accent - but whether the person can communicate for what the position requires.

AoD
 
Okay, to clarify my point, the crux is the ability or lack thereof to clearly communicate, not the accent. In some cases a thick accent is the main cause of communication barriers, and in others it will be lack of vocabulary, poor grasp of proper grammar, syntax, etc. I don't care what the reasons are, only that if you can't communicate clearly you should expect this to affect you work prospects.
 
Look at my previous post, there are different studies on this kind of stuff... it is measurable.

Well, now we are getting somewhere. :) That statistics site is a good find and the sort of thing the article would have done well to reference. You will note that the source you posted paints a somewhat different picture than the one in the article, and one that does not support its conclusions.

I'll cite the relevant parts in full for analysis:

Some census data suggest that earnings returns to education among 25—to 37—year—old Canadian men with immigrant parents vary by parental region of origin (Aydemir, Chen and Corak 2005). For example, those with parents from Eastern or Southern Europe, and those with parents from the Caribbean, Central and South America or Oceania earned 8% and 28% less, respectively, than those with parents from traditional source countries in North America, and Northern or Western Europe, despite having almost equal levels of education. Furthermore, those with parents from Africa or Asia also earned 8% less than those with parents from traditional source countries, despite having nearly twice the rate of university graduation. Among women, earnings were more in line with education—those with parents from Africa or Asia had the highest rates of university graduation and also earned the most.

Small sample sizes in the current study prevent dividing those with two immigrant parents into groups based on parental region of origin. However, visible minority status is a useful proxy, since most of those with parents from non-traditional source countries other than Eastern or Southern Europe are likely to be visible minorities; in contrast, most of those with parents from traditional source countries are not likely to be visible minorities.

With all other variables accounted for (Model 5), young visible minority men with two immigrants parents earned roughly 38% less in year 1 than their counterparts with native-born parents (Chart B).11 Men with two immigrant parents who were not visible minorities, on the other hand, were no different from those with native-born parents. Among young women with two immigrant parents, magnitudes of earnings coefficients were very similar between visible minorities and those who were not visible minorities—neither was significantly different from those with native-born parents.

[Emphasis added]

To my mind, this odd result - that the problem, whatever it is, appears to be unique to one sex - makes it that much less likely that the observed difference is bigotry on the part of the majority population, whether overt or institutional. A Black woman is still Black, and one would think that they would be equally subject to racism - were racism the cause. It would be a peculiar sort of racism which only affected men but not women in such matters as hiring and promotion.

To my mind, a more satisfying explaination would be to look at the culture that these men inhabit - are there cultural factors which would affect young men more than women, such as a culture of machismo or social atomization/disintegration within the immigrant community itself?

For example, young women turning their backs on "traditional" culture can be a net benefit in terms of earnings - as they are likely to marry later and have less children; on the other hand, young men may well suffer by abandoning traditional values - as such abandonment makes them more likely to buy into antisocial habits (to which young men everywhere are prone, without strong social control).

These factors are mentioned in your cite, though no definite conclusion is drawn:

A large part of the annual earnings advantage among young women with two immigrant parents is also a likely product of geographic clustering. However, another large part is because they were less likely to have been married or had children. By the end of the six-year period (when they had reached the ages of 22 to 34), less than half of women with two immigrant parents had ever been married, and only a third had given birth to, adopted, or raised children. In contrast, over 60% of those with native-born parents had been married, and close to half had had children.

and

Explanations of lower earnings among visible minority immigrants usually centre on language deficits and lack of recognition of foreign educational credentials or work experience. These explanations are unlikely to apply to their children, born and educated in Canada. Other possible explanations based on cultural barriers, job networks and systemic discrimination are outside the scope of this paper because data are difficult to obtain (however see Beck, Reitz and Weiner 2002). Statistics Canada's Ethnic Diversity Survey shows that on many indicators of social cohesion and integration (such as trust, sense of belonging and perceived discrimination), visible minorities score lower in the second generation than they did in the first, suggesting that even if economic prospects are improving for many in the second generation, social inclusion is not improving (Reitz and Banerjee 2007).
[Emphasis added]

To my mind this suggests the following theory: second-generation Canadians who come from more traditional backgrounds are likely to abandon or reject the culture of their ancestors. For young women, this is actually an advantage in terms of earnings. For young men, this is a disadvantage. Hence the very noticable discrepency in results.

Now, it so happens that most of these "traditional" societies are also ones containing visible minorities - a White immigrant from Europe or America is facing much less 'culture shock'.

If this theory is true, then programs designed to address racism will be basically useless, as they will not address the (internal, cultural) cause of the difference.

No, no I agree with you on these points. Yes, one can overcome these obstacles and succeed, I don't think the writer denies that. I think the writer is saying that these problems can often make things more difficult, create unfair impediments to the goal of being out of poverty and beyond.

No doubt, but the issue is whether these are the really significant "barriers" in the first place. If there is some other more significant explaination, a program of anti-racism, though perhaps admirable in its own right, will not work.
 
Race has a lot less to do with poverty than class. Obvious, yes, but to continue: if a group of vismin immigrants arrives and this group is full of refugees, peasants, sweatshop workers, etc., they have little to no chance of working their way up the ladder in Canada to be the equals of nth generation WASPs in their lifetime, or even their children in their lifetime. As Malthus says, Jews probably experienced *far* more employment/social obstacles than the average 'visible majority' person in suburban Toronto. The Irish and Italians didn't exactly land at the top, either - it took a while to work their way up. For every "doctor driving a taxi" there's probably 100,000 racialized ex-peasants/working poor who are doomed no matter how much or how little racism exists, and 100,000 enterprising/educated people from Hong Kong or India or wherever else that thrive because they've started out from a better position.
 
Dude, you chose the wrong city... and country for that matter.
I'm fine with the city and the country. I stand by my (amended) comments that I think the day will come when we start seeing job ads that state "clearly spoken...English mandatory".

That day has come, though it must take a brave HR manager to publicly discriminate based on language ability. Let's have a look at some job ads in Ontario:

https://hp.taleo.net/servlets/Caree...dhp=hi1xegjvflgxdxy1.RJS4246_4249#topOfCsPage Requirements....Fluency in English

Even valet parking wants English speakers...http://www.hcareers.com/ca/Industry/HotelCasino/tabid/291/Default.aspx Requirements..."Ability to communicate in English"

http://cc.workopolis.com/EN/job/9906629 Ability to communicate in English - orally and in writing. (A written test may be administered in English)

http://www.miscojobs.com/jobs/L_1/C_2/job_324251.htm "Ability to communicate in English fluently as a minimum."

I guarantee you the reason these job ads and other are now asking for English fluency is that they're getting applicants who can't communicate with the public, or have had terrible experiences with previous employees who couldn't communicate.

This could all be resolved if we simply required all immigrants to pass an advanced English (or French) language test. Immigrants from many of our top markets will have no trouble passing, such as those from India, where the English speakers communicate in that language far better than most Canadians. However, we will be able to screen out those who can't communicate, and stop them from coming. The days of foreign-language immigrants thriving in Canada in manual labour roles are coming to an end. If we're a knowledge and service based economy now, perhaps communication ability should be a top criteria.
 
How do we know this is true? I'd say I actually lean slightly towards hiring visible minorities when I have the opportunity (dont accuse me of reverse discrimination please). There was a recent study that Canada tends to inflate the expectations of immigrants who often find their credentials aren't accepted here. While anecdotal, a case was presented of an immigrant senior-level civil engineer who couldn't find employment in Canada. In fact his experience had been supervising laboures who were digging ditches. I am not attempting to be funny. This man was misled, but so too are Canadians when they are constantly told that huge numbers of qualified highly educated immigrants are not finding work. I'd think that anyone here checking into a hospital would want certainty that their healthcare proffessional had been trained on up-to-date equipment and procedures etc.

The article said that English proficiency is key, immigrants need to be able to communicate their expertise - otherwise the education is useless. Australia has had large success integrating newcomers by insisting on that.
I believe Margaret Wendt published on this, but of course everyone here thinks she a nut.
 
And of course, we all know that accents carry no geographical and ethnic connotations whatsoever. To me, the issue isn't accent - but whether the person can communicate for what the position requires.

AoD

Yes, because the unaccented mumbler, or the unaccented individual who can't read their phone script properly can be just as frustrating as any of the above situations.
 
To my mind, this odd result - that the problem, whatever it is, appears to be unique to one sex - makes it that much less likely that the observed difference is bigotry on the part of the majority population, whether overt or institutional. A Black woman is still Black, and one would think that they would be equally subject to racism - were racism the cause. It would be a peculiar sort of racism which only affected men but not women in such matters as hiring and promotion.

Women earn a fraction of the amount of men. On average they hold jobs of less importance and much less income. This is partly a case of gender discrimination, but that is another subject. The point is when the gender as a whole is limited to a low level of opportunity, there can't be as much of a gap in income in different segments, simply because they're all payed lower amounts.

On the other hand, men as a gender hold most positions of power and high incomes. That is why there can be a much wider gap in income within different segments. Therefore the results in this gender are much more telling because men as a gender have far more opportunity.

To my mind, a more satisfying explaination would be to look at the culture that these men inhabit - are there cultural factors which would affect young men more than women, such as a culture of machismo or social atomization/disintegration within the immigrant community itself?

For example, young women turning their backs on "traditional" culture can be a net benefit in terms of earnings - as they are likely to marry later and have less children; on the other hand, young men may well suffer by abandoning traditional values - as such abandonment makes them more likely to buy into antisocial habits (to which young men everywhere are prone, without strong social control).

This sounds like you're reaching for something far fetched. Can you give some real life examples of these cultures for men? I mean there may be some minor affects in certain cultures, but not enough to produce such large disadvantages to the point of having signifcantly lower earnings.

To my mind this suggests the following theory: second-generation Canadians who come from more traditional backgrounds are likely to abandon or reject the culture of their ancestors. For young women, this is actually an advantage in terms of earnings. For young men, this is a disadvantage. Hence the very noticable discrepency in results.

Now, it so happens that most of these "traditional" societies are also ones containing visible minorities - a White immigrant from Europe or America is facing much less 'culture shock'.

If this theory is true, then programs designed to address racism will be basically useless, as they will not address the (internal, cultural) cause of the difference.

Again your theory is vague and doesn't sound very convincing.
 
Women earn a fraction of the amount of men. On average they hold jobs of less importance and much less income. This is partly a case of gender discrimination, but that is another subject. The point is when the gender as a whole is limited to a low level of opportunity, there can't be as much of a gap in income in different segments, simply because they're all payed lower amounts.

Don't agree.

Certainly, women on average earn less, but the notion that gender discrimination is so severe that there is in effect no difference between White women and non-White women makes no sense. Would not various forms of discrimination have a cumulative effect?

Plus, according to your position, gender discrimination is a problem which by your own admission is of far, far greater import than racism, and would thus have the first call on resources.

On the other hand, men as a gender hold most positions of power and high incomes. That is why there can be a much wider gap in income within different segments. Therefore the results in this gender are much more telling because men as a gender have far more opportunity.

Again, don't agree. There is a difference to be sure but the difference is not as stark as all that. Even if it were, if racism = lack of opportunities and sexism = lack of opportunities, one would expect that their effects would be cumulative. The fact that they are not requires explaination not dismissal.

This sounds like you're reaching for something far fetched. Can you give some real life examples of these cultures for men? I mean there may be some minor affects in certain cultures, but not enough to produce such large disadvantages to the point of having signifcantly lower earnings.

Not *my* theory alone, but one mentioned in the cite *you* produced, as I point out above.

Certainly, one can easily find numerous examples of traditional societies under pressure by immigration - one that made the news recently was the example of young Somalians attracted to after-hours (mostly Black) dance clubs, where they get introduced to a culture in which drinking, drugs and casual violence are more prevelent - much to the horror of their parents, who are however finding it very difficult to stop them.

One can imagine that a young Somali woman who rebels against her parents may in fact better her situation on average - the fact that she would be less likely to be married and producing kids at an early age (the norm in traditional Somali culture) more than balances out the temptation of the nightlife/underclass. OTOH, a young Somali man's position would be relatively worse off on average - in terms of education, financial and social prospects.

One sees this pattern repeated in Toronto, and there are no lack of examples - the fact is that young men everywhere have the potential to be attracted to a life of drinking, drugging and gang violence, and there is no doubt that this has a very bad effect on their prospects - and culture shock explains why young men from *some* cultures are more likely to succumb than others. One can hardly be ignorant, reading the news, that young "racialized' men are more likely on average to succumb to the lure of this lifestyle in Toronto. I have often seen articles in which this, too, is blamed on "racism", but once again I think this totally misses the mark. I think the cause is cultural - a breakdown of traditional cultural norms leading to young men unwilling to get married and settle down, more attracted to violent and mysogenist aspects of popular culture, more prone to gangs and drugs:

http://www.thefreeradical.ca/Rap_contributes_to_Toronto_violence.htm

My point is that this has little to do with "race" per se. Young White men feel the lure of these things as much as young Black men do, or men of any race - young men are the same world over; they are interested in sex, are tempted to think of women as sex objects, do not wish to be tied down to family and community obligations, are fascinated by male bonding and violence as a test, are interested in intoxication ...

What differs is the amount of control their cultures effectively exercise over them to keep 'em in line on the straight and narrow.

Problem is that, when comming from a very traditional culture to a comparatively liberal one, the tendency of any young person of spirit is to rebel - our (Western) culture in effect encourages and even glorifies a certain amount of rebellion. Thing is, not all rebellion is good or ends well. For those whose culture is more in alignment with the Canadian culture, rebellion can more easily be managed and contained within reasonable limits (on average). Parents may have been rebels themselves, and certainly the notion is not so horrifying or alienating. First-generation immigrant parents (and anecdotally, I've known many) are quite often horrified at what their second-generation kids are up to - and have no real idea of how to handle it. The old certainties do not work well in the new country, often they don't even know what their kids are doing, find it difficult to relate with the authorities when they get in trouble, etc.

Again your theory is vague and doesn't sound very convincing.

On the contrary, I think it explains the available evidence quite well. To my mind, the notion that the difference is all down to discrimination or bigotry does not fit the actual statistical information, does not explain why some groups such as Sikhs and Jews evidently do not suffer in spite of the fact that Sikhs at least are a very visible minority, and quite fails to account for the fact that this problem is apparently a "man only" problem.

In reality, the "bigotry" explaination appears to me to be imported wholesale from the US, which has a very different historical trajectory.
 
Don't agree.

Plus, according to your position, gender discrimination is a problem which by your own admission is of far, far greater import than racism, and would thus have the first call on resources.

Don't put words in my mouth, never said this. I said "partly a case of gender discrimination", there are other factors involved as well.

Let me get this straight... you believe that second generation visible minority males, but not females tend to go into a life of drugs, gangs, misogyny, alcohol. While white men don't, because there culture tends to control them from this type of rebellion. And you also believe that this is so common that it's significantly dragging down the earnings of second generation visible minorities compared to their counterparts. I don't think I have to argue this.

To my mind, the notion that the difference is all down to discrimination or bigotry does not fit the actual statistical information, does not explain why some groups such as Sikhs and Jews evidently do not suffer in spite of the fact that Sikhs at least are a very visible minority, and quite fails to account for the fact that this problem is apparently a "man only" problem.

Can you find me some data that shows Sikhs perform well above other visible minority groups and comparable or above those with parents from traditional source countries?
 
Don't put words in my mouth, never said this. I said "partly a case of gender discrimination", there are other factors involved as well.

Let me get this straight... you believe that second generation visible minority males, but not females tend to go into a life of drugs, gangs, misogyny, alcohol. While white men don't, because there culture tends to control them from this type of rebellion. And you also believe that this is so common that it's significantly dragging down the earnings of second generation visible minorities compared to their counterparts. I don't think I have to argue this.

Not what I said at all. You are taking my nuanced argument and making a straw-man of it. The straw man is easy to attack or, better, to hand-wave away. In fact, if you read what I wrote, pretty well each one of your "summations' is incorrect.

I did not say, for example, that men but not women would be attracted to this life; I said that on average the (bad) effects of this attraction to women are outweighed on average by the (good) effects of rebellion on incomes and social position - such as not marrying and having children young.

I did not say that Whites would not be attracted to this life (I clearly said that they would be), but rather that the culture that White immigrants find themselves in - that of Canada - is likely to be similar enough to that where they came from that they will not suffer alientating culture shock to the same extent.

I have no problems with the notion that this is common. Indeed, anecdotally, of my (White) school-mates, I'd estimate that a good 15%-20% or more ended up underperforming economically when compared to their potential due to drugs or booze. An examination of the "racialized" nightclub culture of Toronto I think would indicate a quite large effect - there is an interesting study awaiting someone. How many shootings in Toronto nightclubs involve young Black men, for example?

What any explaination anyone comes up with has to explain is the facts - cited, in fact, by you - which state unequivocally that whatever is causing the discrepancy is causing it for men and not women.

The difficulty you face is that bigotry or systemic discrimination would not work that way. My explaination fits the facts and yours does not.

Can you find me some data that shows Sikhs perform well above other visible minority groups and comparable or above those with parents from traditional source countries?

The paper I cited already states as much, though admittedly it is not a statistical study. It certainly supports anecdotal evidence from many sources - the Sikh community is quite proud of its relative success (rightly) and generally openly states as much - along the lines of "in spite of tons of discrimination against us, we made it big'. See this:

http://www.himalmag.com/99Dec/sikhs.htm

It would be an understatement to say that South Asians have generally been successful in North America. The late 1960s and 70s saw the arrival of educated professionals as well as skilled labourers from the Subcontinent to North America. Some migrants excelled at white-collar professions such as medicine, engineering and accounting, others carved out a niche in small and mid-size business, and a few even made inroads into the world of big business. What most people do not know is that the pioneers have always been the Sikhs.

Presently numbering over 300,000 of the roughly 700,000 South Asian migrants in Canada, Sikhs have always been Canada’s most prominent South Asians. This is particularly so in the west coast and in cities such as Vancouver and Toronto, where Indian restaurants offer largely Punjabi fare. Government posters promoting the value of "multiculturalism" invariably offer up the image of the turbaned Sikh.

For those who choose to remember, however, the road to integration with the mainstream has been long and rough. From the pioneer fruit farmers and sawmill workers out west to the taxi-drivers and professionals who arrived later in the cities, Sikhs have endured racism which had a particular edge because of their de rigueur turbans and uncut hair. Indeed, on this score the struggle has been continuous and extends to this day.

The point is this - Sikhs are generally successful, not only compared to other visible minorities, but I believe compared to other Canadians generally. To my mind the reason is that, like Jews and some others, their culture has resisted the atomization effect of the West (admittedly non-Orthodox Jews are assimilating rapidly now, but now it hardly matters); moreover, certain aspects of their culture - respect for learning, community focus, hard work and community cohesion - are characteristics associated with economic and social success.

Have these characteristics and maintain them, it seems, and no amount of racism can keep you down; conversely, lose them (or not have them in the first place) and no amount of race-neutrality can keep you up. On average.
 
Somalian people take up a very small fraction of visible minorities in Canada, therefore your examples have little merit. Your theory was weak anyway. You're making an assumption that a large percentage of visible minorities delve into crime for a while, which I think is wrong. Also if you're female and go into a life of being in a gang and using drugs, how would marrying and having children later in life balance out your career opportunities... doesn't make much sense.

If you want to give examples that have more importance you'd be better off going with Sikh's or Chinese. Except the temptations of gangs and drugs are harder to pinpoint on these groups.

The problem is from your perspective groups like Sikh's and Chinese who take up the largest portion of visible minorities are not lagging behind.

The reason you can't find data that show Sikh's are better off than those with parents from traditional source countries is because it is not true.
Your thinking is that because there are successful Sikh's, the whole Sikh population is well off. A Chinese guy just bought by far the most expensive home in Toronto, but this does not mean the Chinese are overall better off.
 
I think these discussions on race and poverty or race and employment miss the mark because there is never a real frank discussion on how people behave. I'm reading Malthus's arguments for instance and they are reasonable and all but they just don't gel with the facts I observe on the ground. Here is my opinion, the employment market is considerably skewed to the disadvantage and to a lesser extent advantage of visible minorities in many cases.

Now before the counter argument gets too excited let me state that this disadvantage does not necessarily imply systemic racism. Although, if you have ever played hockey or golf or sat in meetings with middle-aged anglo-Canadian management you would be shocked at the level of overt racism. Now back to the frank discussion, underlying the statistics etc. is this false sense that people get and retain jobs because of their skills. Rubbish. People get jobs primarily through personal relationships and mutual understanding or connections they make weither it is informally or formally through an interview process. This means that management will automatically skew the results towards what they know or are comfortable with. People are sometimes hired because of their skills, and this works to the advantage of visible minorites but when you are hired for your skills you are not hired to succeed in a company you are hired to be used by it.

It is natural human behaviour to group individuals and extend them general traits because it is just too inefficient to take each person you are faced with and put in the effort to assess them as individuals. This behaviour is not limited to any culture or race, it is universal. But in these discussions it is never acknowledged that these generalizations can work to advantage as well as disadvantage. If for example your plumber is Russian and he does a good job and you see that there are many Russian plumbers, you will begin to generate a positive feedback generalization that works to the economic advantage of people of Russian ancestry. If you have problems with another group you will develop a negative feedback generalization that works to the disadvantage not only of the people you have a problem with but all people you group as such. If you are working with others you will automatically build relationships and cause positive feedback loops of mutual success with people you share the most in common with. So while you may share an office with a multi-cultural staff the real question is who is on your sports team and who do you have beers with after work? For many the answer may be colour or at least culturally blind but for much of the work force my guess is it is not.
 

Back
Top