Abigail B. Bakan provides a good analysis of systemic discrimination in the Canadian market. She provides a good interconnection between the policies that govern live-in domestic care employment and employment equity and the challenge of unfree labor markets. This concept of systemic discrimination provides an opportunity to examine and reflect critically on the assumption of universal equality.
Reflection
Looking back at Bakan’s analysis, she digs deep into the complex issues around systemic discrimination, which stems from the postwar principles of liberal democracies. The Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP) is the leading case as it reveals how neutral policies can normalize discrimination. The LCP, even with its restrictions on labor mobility, shows broader trends in temporal migrant labor programs instead of curbing systemic discrimination (Bakan, 2010). However, the Employment Equity Act (EEA) gives an alternative solution as it calls for proactive approaches to counter discrimination in employment, even though its scope remains limited.
Discussion
From the discussion, various issues required a critical analysis to address unaddressed issues. First, the comparative analysis between LCP and EEA helps us discover some dimensions beyond their goals. However, how do these policies address different issues contributing to or challenging systemic discrimination? What is there to learn from the similarities and differences between these two? As Bakan addresses the effectiveness of the Employment Equity Act in challenging systemic discrimination, she says this act has excellent opposition and limited effectiveness. How can we boost the impact of the EEA considering the opposition and limitations? Can we find better and alternative approaches that may be more effective?
This issue is vital with increased global transport and internet technology. Her discussion relates to this globalized society, and I am left worried about the implications of these technological trends on systemic discrimination in different areas. For this to be relevant, are there areas from other parts of the globe that can inform our understanding? In the discussion about the unfree labor markets, she adds knowledge to our understanding, but issues still need to be addressed. How does this concept comply with modern-day labor practices? Will it increase our understanding of systemic discrimination, and how? Is it possible to identify examples of unfree labor markets and their impact on society? Lastly, her attention to how vulnerable some groups, such as women of color, are is significant. However, how does this affect our formulation of policies? If not, which other dimensions of identity should we consider in policy-making?
Connection to the Current Society
The issues raised by Bakan have a relevant relationship with contemporary society. Various sectors have shown temporary labor across sectors. Currently, the gig economy involves short-term engagements, which often lack employment benefits, as explained by Bakan. Looking into these kinds of issues helps us understand systemic discrimination in the modern day.
Conclusion
In conclusion, systemic discrimination in the labor market requires us to question the set policies, analyze their impact, and explore areas that need improvement. The comparison between the LCP and the EEA emphasizes the need to develop robust policies that eliminate rather than increase systemic discrimination. Therefore, as we engage in these discussions, let us focus on the complexities of these policies and relate them to contemporary issues to develop successful policies.
References
Bakan, A. (2010). Systemic discrimination in Canadian context: Employment equity, live-in domestic care, and the challenge of racialization. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1666004
write