Ontario human rights tribunal orders employer to pay $120,000 in damages to Liar

[Al Doggity]

Maybe the first part will take his $120,000 away since he doesn't have the right to earn income in Canada.

He's actually a citizen now and at the time he was eligible to work on a provisional basis. Apparently a big part of Canada's path to citizenship is gaining full-time employment.

I looked into this story because someone made an inaccurate thread about a law where people in new york will be fined if they call someone an illegal alien (which was wrong) and I wanted to see if this was an example of Canada's destructive liberalism. I don't think it is. The question was illegal precisely because it's not supposed to factor into hiring someone. It would be like asking a woman interviewing for an accountant position if she has 34DD or larger breast size and then claiming you didn't hire her for lying when she lied about her breast size.

[illuminati]

He's actually a citizen now and at the time he was eligible to work on a provisional basis. Apparently a big part of Canada's path to citizenship is gaining full-time employment.

I looked into this story because someone made an inaccurate thread about a law where people in new york will be fined if they call someone an illegal alien (which was wrong) and I wanted to see if this was an example of Canada's destructive liberalism. I don't think it is. The question was illegal precisely because it's not supposed to factor into hiring someone. It would be like asking a woman interviewing for an accountant position if she has 34DD or larger breast size and then claiming you didn't hire her for lying when she lied about her breast size.

That’s the absolute Minimum Requirement for Tit Size if I’m going to Hire Them.

[Tapeworm]

He's actually a citizen now and at the time he was eligible to work on a provisional basis. Apparently a big part of Canada's path to citizenship is gaining full-time employment.

I looked into this story because someone made an inaccurate thread about a law where people in new york will be fined if they call someone an illegal alien (which was wrong) and I wanted to see if this was an example of Canada's destructive liberalism. I don't think it is. The question was illegal precisely because it's not supposed to factor into hiring someone. It would be like asking a woman interviewing for an accountant position if she has 34DD or larger breast size and then claiming you didn't hire her for lying when she lied about her breast size.

I haven't looked into it at all so maybe I'm misunderstanding but "Can you legally work?" is a perfectly reasonable question. I got asked it when I immigrated. It's something they have to know.

[Al Doggity]

I haven't looked into it at all so maybe I'm misunderstanding but "Can you legally work?" is a perfectly reasonable question. I got asked it when I immigrated. It's something they have to know.

He was legally allowed to work. That wasn't the question he was asked. He was essentially being asked about his residency/ immigration status.

[Tapeworm]

He was legally allowed to work. That wasn't the question he was asked. He was essentially being asked about his residency/ immigration status.

I still see it as a fair question. You might not want to hire a guy into a long term role whose ability to stay in the country is up in the air at the whim of the immigration department.

Shit, I get asked if I'm a citizen or permanent resident all the time. Fair enough too.  An insurer asked me that just yesterday when I was inquiring about income protection policies that would cover me in case of a jiujitsu injury. People need to be able to make an informed decision before entering into a contract.

[Al Doggity]

I still see it as a fair question. You might not want to hire a guy into a long term role whose ability to stay in the country is up in the air at the whim of the immigration department.

Shit, I get asked if I'm a citizen or permanent resident all the time. Fair enough too.  An insurer asked me that just yesterday when I was inquiring about income protection policies that would cover me in case of a jiujitsu injury. People need to be able to make an informed decision before entering into a contract.

You also might not want to hire a woman because she might consider getting pregnant. Or you might not want to hire a black guy because you feel like your customer base might not relate him as well as a guy of a different race. Or you might not want to hire a guy in a wheelchair because you have to make a construction investment and he still might get less work done.

All of those are reasonable and justifiable considerations, right? Well, then in terms of what considerations are fair, it just comes down to personal ideology.

In terms of legality, the question- along with most of the stuff I listed above- is illegal.

[Tapeworm]

The question then becomes whether such laws achieve their desired effect. I think a funny thing happens. Whereas before, maybe some employers didn't want to hire them, now nobody does. Take paid maternity leave.  In reality, is that going to make employers more likely to hire a woman or less?

"But that's illegal." Then there's a disconnect between the law and reality. Some things you just can't legislate, and when you try to you end up harming the same people you're trying to protect.

What's going to really happen in Canada now when a dark skinned guy with a foreign accent comes in to apply for a job? Dude might be a citizen for all they know but nobody is going to ask. Then they're going to say thanks for stopping by and we'll let you know.

Know who is hardly ever going to give you these kind of labor relations headaches? Some run of the mill honky.  So who is the employer going to feel safest with?

Protecting people right into unemployment.

[illuminati]

The question then becomes whether such laws achieve their desired effect. I think a funny thing happens. Whereas before, maybe some employers didn't want to hire them, now nobody does. Take paid maternity leave.  In reality, is that going to make employers more likely to hire a woman or less?

"But that's illegal." Then there's a disconnect between the law and reality. Some things you just can't legislate, and when you try to you end up harming the same people you're trying to protect.

What's going to really happen in Canada now when a dark skinned guy with a foreign accent comes in to apply for a job? Dude might be a citizen for all they know but nobody is going to ask. Then they're going to say thanks for stopping by and we'll let you know.

Know who is hardly ever going to give you these kind of labor relations headaches? Some run of the mill honky.  So who is the employer going to feel safest with?

Protecting people right into unemployment.

Exactly Right
They can’t legislate against people’s preferences
You pays the Money you Employ Who The Fuck You Want To.

[Al Doggity]

Whereas before, maybe some employers didn't want to hire them, now nobody does.

Where has this happened? I don't think paid maternity leave is mandatory anywhere in america, but the number of companies offering it has exploded over the last two decades.

Once again, getting past the actual details of this case, it's just a matter of ideological differences, but I'm definitely not of the opinion that unfair labor practices should be ignored because of a possible reductio ad absurdum outcome. It's an argument that's always made about these things.

[Tapeworm]

Where has this happened? I don't think paid maternity leave is mandatory anywhere in america, but the number of companies offering it has exploded over the last two decades.

Once again, getting past the actual details of this case, it's just a matter of ideological differences, but I'm definitely not of the opinion that unfair labor practices should be ignored because of a possible reductio ad absurdum outcome. It's an argument that's always made about these things.

I wouldn't consider it unfair for either party to be able to ask any questions they want. If everyone can get informed to their satisfaction then their contract is built on a solid foundation. It would be as unfair to the employer to have withheld "Oh btw I might have to just leave in 6 weeks" as it would be to the employee if he was told "Oh btw you might have to just leave in 6 weeks."

Everyone is their own agent and shoud have the ability to freely form agreements which they like, or walk away from ones they don't. Laws which deny you the information to make that decision impede that. People would cry foul if an employer shut up shop all of a sudden because his application for residency got denied and they had no idea that was a possibility when they took the job. Fair is fair.

Aus has mandated maternity leave and there was much rejoicing. Yay, any job I get is going to have to pay me maternity leave!  Ok, take a minute until the lightbulb over your head comes on, sweetie.  Since the employer knows that too, is that going make it more likely you'll get the job or less?  There's not a lot of head scratching required to apprehend the inverse proportion between laws which protect certain people versus those people's desirability. It's an argument that's always made about these things because it's true.

[Al Doggity]

If everyone can get informed to their satisfaction then their contract is built on a solid foundation. It would be as unfair to the employer to have withheld "Oh btw I might have to just leave in 6 weeks" as it would be to the employee if he was told "Oh btw you might have to just leave in 6 weeks."

Everyone is their own agent and shoud have the ability to freely form agreements which they like, or walk away from ones they don't. Laws which deny you the information to make that decision impede that. People would cry foul if an employer shut up shop all of a sudden because his application for residency got denied and they had no idea that was a possibility when they took the job. Fair is fair.

So, these are the types of statements that make me just say "ideological differences" . The fact that you think the way an employee affects a business is the same as the way a business affects an employee shows that this is just an issue that we are worlds away on. Even for an extremely desirable employee, there is such a massive power imbalance that a statement like that is laughable to me. Businesses hire and fire people all the time. I'm not sure about Australia, but in the US, mandates like this only apply to businesses over a certain size. These businesses would be inconvenienced by an employee not showing up. A business shutting down weeks after hiring an employee could completely destroy many workers' lives. There will always be a power imbalance when one party depends on the other for livelihood.

And there's a ton of information that employers don't share with prospective hires. For example, the actual salaries of people in comparable positions. Or the algorithm used to determine if a hire is a good fit. Most corporate interviews these days are jokes

I looked up australian mandated maternity and it appears that it's paid for by govt. So unless the employer has ideological problems with it, I don't see why the cost would be an issue.