Discrimination is a serious problem experienced by an inordinate number of people with 45% of discrimination happening in the workplace (Ontario Human Rights Commission, n.d.). The Ontario Human Rights Code is aimed to protect innate characteristics that cannot be changed and altered by individuals. Bill 164 was written to amend the code to extend the list of protected grounds, including “Social Condition”. This term is written to include, “(a) employment status, (b) source or level of income, (c) housing status, including homelessness, (d) level of education, or, (e)any other circumstance similar to those mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d)” (Bill 164, 6(1)). All legislation is written with the purpose of improving the state of our country and must also be enforceable. The inclusion of “Social Condition” in Bill 164, targeted towards those in poverty, is irrelevant and difficult to enforce in the employment setting. Furthermore, there are many other ways of easing the problems faced by the underprivileged population rather than struggling to push legislation through the new Conservative Ontario government. This can be seen through analyzing the subcomponents of “Social Condition” that are included in Bill 164: education, housing status, employment status and source or level of income in regards to the main elements of employment.
Education can reveal many different attributes about a person including determination, integrity, self-discipline and most importantly, responsibility. No matter which industry and job, these are character traits that all employers look for in potential employees during the recruitment stage. Even when education is not the most applicable aspect in the day-to-day tasks of a job, these traits that are developed through the experience are incredibly relevant. The “Steve Jobs” and “Mark Zuckerberg” exceptions are successful because they still carry these traits and are able to demonstrate them outside of their educational backgrounds. For employers, education is the simplest way of identifying that a candidate most likely has the necessary character traits before the interview stage of the recruitment process. A study conducted by Thomas Ng and Daniel C. Feldman on education’s contribution to job performance revealed, “Hypothesis 1 predicted that education level is positively related to task performance. We found support for this prediction.” Higher education, such as master degrees and doctorates, prove other skills such as critical thinking, reasoning ability and analytical skills that are needed for upper-management positions. The ability of the management team is crucial to the organization they support. Employers looking for educated professionals to promote is completely valid as the traits education represents are necessary for the position. Differentiating between education and necessary character traits is extremely difficult resulting in little ability to actually apply the additional grounds in recruiting policy. Making adult education more accessible and increasing student funding are better ways to equalize the privilege experienced by certain people rather than alter workplace discrimination in a way that will be ineffective and unenforced.
The Canadian Observatory on Homelessness says, “Homelessness is usually the result of the cumulative impact of a number of factors, rather than a single cause.” Homelessness and poverty is a cycle that has deeper root causes than solely unemployment. Mental health, lack of accessible rehabilitation centers, and expensive housing are problems that will still exist for impoverished individuals even with employment. These issues should be what is first tackled in the journey to easing poverty. This piece of legislation will not result in actual impact for the homeless people living in Canada. When employers seek employees, they use explicit signs such as substance abuse and cleanliness regardless of the socioeconomic status of the applicant. These are some of the attributes that are correlated to homelessness and would result in individuals not being selected for the job, regardless of housing situation. This leaves this section of “Social Condition” incredibly difficult to uphold as infractions can be easily confused with legitimate and relevant reasons. These are traits that are crucial to all jobs and in particular, customer-facing positions. Breaking the cycle of poverty needs to begin with providing the necessary rehabilitation, therapy, and education. It is very difficult for those coming out of poverty to make the immediate jump from homelessness to employment. There needs to be a process to help them adjust. AlterNet writes on an organization based in California, “Community Housing Partnership (CHP) … provide comprehensive services that help their employees build skills and confidence while developing a work history, and then help them find long-term jobs, leading to greater economic security and mobility and the stability to escape homelessness forever.” This is a leading example of how Canada should be approaching poverty rather than spending taxpayer money to push through legislation that is very difficult to enforce. Only through resolving the underlying causes, can we change poverty in Canada and actually make a difference in Ontario communities.
The final two areas of “Social Condition”, employment status and level of income has very little impact on employment activities. These attributes often correlate to one another when discussing discrimination in the workplace. During the hiring phase of low-level jobs, affluence rarely has any effect on employment decisions as the applicant pool for these jobs are likely to have little to no income with low levels of work experience. Employment status refers to current employment and similar to income, the underprivileged individuals that Bill 164 seeks to aid will be applying to jobs with applicant pools that most likely are also unemployed. Discrimination against income and employment would only be more prominent in very high level jobs, and even when the opportunity arises, Canadian cultural norms restrict most from discussing specific details regarding income. In addition, discrimination on these grounds would be hard to distinguish from normal work experience judgement, leaving these proposed inclusions weak. Actual discrimination on the protected grounds impacting employment and income is already banned. For instance, women should not be paid less for the same job because of their gender and any infraction would be a form of discrimination. In addition, modern-day companies realize the positive impact of treating employees well and investing in training. Creating strong corporate culture leads to higher levels of productivity that benefits the company in the long run. Spencer Rascoff, the CEO of Zillow says, “Companies that don’t invest in talent management will be left behind. This is not just HR gobbley-gook, this is mission critical work.” He is backed by many other CEOs such as Michelle Buck from Hershey and Brian Krzanich from Intel in a Forbes article published in 2017. There is an overall trend forming through these companies, building appreciation for all employees, regardless of actual employment status and income level.
Bill 164, like all legislation, is meant to make real change. However, in its vague use of the term “Social Condition”, the amendment is rendered unenforceable and weak, particularly in its application in the employment setting. Through dissecting the term into its basic components: education, housing, employment and income, and analyzing their impact in the workplace, we can see the gaps that are left wide open. Applying “Social Condition” to the Ontario Human Rights Code is a temporary band-aid that does not heal any of the deep, scarring issues faced by the impoverished people in our society and only provides an illusion of change that causes us to ignore their need for real solutions.