Canadian Politics. Position of women in the work place and globalization - Essay Example

Why have equity programs failed to put an end to the disadvantaged position of women in the work place? The position of women employees in the workplaces of Canada still lags behind on many account of its announced Equity Programs. Prior to the enactment of the Equity Programs, women employment discrimination was widespread in the Canadian employment sector. However, when the Royal Commission on the Status of Women (RCSW) practically assessed the ground reality of the severity and employment challenges faced by women, the Commission concludes that the “position of women employees in the Government of Canada deserves close examination, not only because the Government employs a large number of women in a different variety of occupations, but also because the Government’s employment practices should demonstrate its principles”( RCSW, p.108). Since then, Canadian women have started experiencing some forward movement toward equality in the workplace and simultaneously, the public opinion tends to percept that women’s employment issues are by and large “solved” internationally as well ( UN, 2004,p.25). However, much is still required to be changed as such notions are perhaps overstated. The findings of the International Angus Reid poll surveyed that the employment markets in the developed nations such as Australia, Canada, United States and Great Britain found that less than a quarter of total respondents did not disagree that the gender equality in the developed nations have considerably achieved its required level; however, a majority of women in these four countries provided their consent that the governments in their respective nations ought to do more to gain the point of actual gender equality (Angus Reid, 2010). Additionally, in the same findings, Angus Reid (2010) accounts for the Canada’s ranking in the Global Gender Gap Report, which is annually published by the World Economic Forum. Canada’s current position, 31st in 2008, at number 20 is considerably lower than its previous rankings of 7 in 2005, 14 in 2006 and 18 in 2007. Prior to these facts, the Employment Equity Act was enacted into the legislature with its intent to achieve workplace equality so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or employment benefits for reasons other than ability and, in appropriate achievement of goal, and to correct the situations and conditions of disadvantage in employment faced and experienced by aboriginal persons, women and people with disabilities and members of visible minorities by providing effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also needs special measures and accommodation of differences (Employment Equity Act). Consequently, the original Employment Equity Act was passed in 1986 by the Progressive Conservative Government in response to the findings and recommendations of the Abella Commission. It came into force in 1987 requiring both federally regulated companies and Crown corporations having 100 or more employees are required to determine and develop equity programs and plans to eliminate workplace barriers to the participation of the above mentioned groups. The progress on the equity programs seems to be limited in scope and domain. The most improvement in employment tends to be for non-disabled, white women (Agocs, 2002; Leck & Saunders, 1992). In addition, while taking into account women having dual status as women with a disability or women of color, the findings have hinted that the employment equity programs seem to be affiliated with more representative hiring of women with dual status into employment in the clerical positions (Leck & Saunders,1992, p.216). Furthermore, the 2009 Senate Committee on Human Rights highlight the fact that the little data is provided to indicate whether or not recruitment rates, retention rates, representation rates or executive advancement rates offer difference for women and men within these designated groups: Aboriginal, visible minorities, and persons with disabilities (p.70). 2. How does globalization affect national sovereignty and the ability of the federal and provincial governments to formulate policies that reflect and protect the interests of Canadians? Globalization is a wide term. It is defined as a process of increasing interaction, integration and interdependence of people and countries worldwide (Azzi, 2011). After originating in the 1960s, the globalization is mostly caused by the improvements in transportation technology, communication, international investment and trade and migration as well. A separate but different actions and reactions can be observed towards the phenomenon of globalization by people and countries. For the poorer countries, the term does not receive much positive responses rather negative; on the other hand, the richer countries have welcomed this phenomenon as a source of economic, social and technological advancements. In which people eat comparable foods, listen to the same music, wear similar clothing, exchange cultural and traditional ideas, behaviors, and attitudes with those other than their cultural followers; there exists a cultural exchange that is mostly visible in the mutlicultrual society. However, there are certain issues that trigger a backlash as some locals may fear the forces of globalization may threaten or take away their local rights or national concerns. The national sovereignty is defined as the supreme, absolute and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed (Black’s Law Dictionary, web). The power that is employed without accountability to making and enacting laws to execute and implement them; imposing and collecting taxes; declaring war or making peace efforts to develop treaties of alliance or to do business with foreign nations. Furthermore, a sovereign government is assigned to represent the public authority which directs what is to be carried out by each member coming under the sway of that public authority; it is this supreme power of a national government under which any citizen, person or body of persons are under legal obligations to follow the orders of the sovereign government. Globalization is a process not a program (International Chamber of Commerce, 2000). No single country may possess an ability to drive or determine the agenda of the globalization. However, there has been an increasing demand to adapt or adjust according to the related requirements of this far-reaching process. This stipulates a need to ensure a closer cooperation between and among different countries and their provincial setups as well. The need for federal and provincial coordination has become more needed than ever before as the wind of globalization does not remain or cannot be confined within a particular setup. Additionally, national sovereignty may need not to be offended or threatened by the forces of globalization as there exist no coercion in the process. Much coordination between the forces of globalization, federal and provincial governments is needed than ever before. The related provincial governments always retain ownership and control over the certain aspects of the economic decision making. Additionally, the federal or provincial governments have inalienable right to make, enact and enforce laws, rules, and regulations to protect and defend the rights of their citizens. Additionally, this enables the respective federal and provincial governments to take the necessary measures to ensure the protection of national interests while allowing the corporations to do business or relaxing the terms and conditions of immigration policy. Although in some cases, this may not be easy for them to do so as many corporations consider this process as a threat to their right to do business freely, yet they can discuss and find a workable solution in coordination with the federal and provincial governments. All in all, national sovereign governments have inalienable right of making legislation. Through the implementation of this legislation, both federal and provincial governments become in a position to defend and protect the rights of the citizens in case of any economic, or social issues require doing so. Works cited Agocs, Carol. “Canada’s employment equity legislation and policy, 1987-2000: The gap between policy and practice.” International Journal of Manpower. Vol 23, No. 3. 2002. pp.256-276. Angus Reid Public Opinion. “Gender Equality Still Elusive in Four Developed Nations.” Vision Critical( 2010). Web. 4 August 2011. http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2010.04.19_Gender.pdf Azzi, Stephen. “Globalization” 2011. Web. 4 August, 2011. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0010595 Black’s Law Dictionary Ed.“ Sovereignty” web. 4 August, 2011. http://www.hawaii-nation.org/sovereignty.html International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), “Globalization and national sovereignty”, 2000, Web, 4 August, 2011. http://www.iccwbo.org/id1288/index.html Royal Commission on the Status of Women (RCSW). “Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada.” Ottawa: Information Canada, 1970. Leck, Joanne D. & Saunders, David M. “Hiring Women: The Effects of Canada’s Employment Equity Act.” Canadian Public Policy. Vol. 18, No. 2. June 1992. pp. 203-220. Canada. Senate. Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. “Reflecting the Changing Face of Canada: Employment Equity in the Federal Public Service.” June 2010. Web 4 August, 2011. http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/3/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/huma-e/rep-e/rep02jun10-e.pdf UN – United Nations. “UN Questionnaire to Governments on implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action (1995) and the Outcome of the Twenty-Third Special Session of the General Assembly (2000): Canada’s Response.” June 2004. Web. 4 August, 2011. http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/Review/responses/CANADA-English.pdf Read More