Human rights violation?

**Human rights issue? **
From “CHIBO II”

“AN INDIVIDUAL’S PERSONAL BACKGROUND WOULD BE PRESENTED, THROUGH A STRUCTURED APPLICATION FORM COMPLETED BY THE INDIVIDUAL, WHICH MAY BE SUPPLEMENTED IF NECESSARY THROUGH AN INTERVIEW.”

AS DEFINED IN THAT SAME DOCUMENT;

" PERSONAL BACKGROUND-

  • AN INDIVIDUALS COMBINATION OF PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES EDUCATION, TRAINING AND / OR WORK EXPERIENCE
    *THIS INCLUDES GENERAL BACKGROUND AND TECHNICAL TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE SPECIFIC TO AN OCCUPATION
  • THE INDIVIDUAL MAY BE REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR ABILITY TO APPLY KNOWLEDGE AND / OR SKILLS AND WHERE RELEVANT, DEMONSTRATE PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES"

I’m no lawyer and don’t even play one on TV but it seems to be clear that a certain now defunct national programme has breached all of our human rights by requiring candidates to submit to some kind of ‘personal background’ check. So, if the ‘industry leaders’ didn’t like where you were born, what your father did for a living, your religion, what kind of accent you had, maybe even the colour of your skin, under the definition of “PERSONAL BACKGROUND” you could be refused entry into those hallowed halls.

Now, I am sure that this never happened of course. But it does smack of the kind of discrimination that saw ‘Blacks’ sent to the back of the bus, kept Italians out of certain neighbourhoods and kept Jews off the golf courses. And even more interesting that this could appear in a programme that was supported by all Canadian’s tax dollars.

Maybe some inspectors who were kept out of the ‘club’ should get a lawyer to look into this issue? Again, I am sure that there was never an intention to discriminate against anyone. There never is.

Is it any reason that over 95% of inspectors in Canada stayed out?

How do you know inspector’s were kept out of the club except for poor HI background experience/lack of training/failing the TIPR inspection?

My own application took quite a few months to process due to the fact that I did not take any recognized HI formal training but had taught in an university architectural program, trade schools; sat on CSA/WETT/CGSB boards/committes; worked for an electrician for 2.5 years; had worked in civil engineering surveying,testing concrete, asphalt, etc; ran my own energy retrofit, renovation company for 10 years; did litigation work against contractors, HI’s and architects; and on and on. I didn’t come through the now common HI school/program but had years of field based experience but… it took time for them to check out my “claims”. For a while, due the time passed, I thought I wasn’t going to be accepted…I did my TIPR 13 months after I applied!! To do things properly, takes time.

And this was with knowing someone at the top levels…no favouritism for me…that’s the way it should happen. Either I’m being naive or the process eventually worked as it should…you guys seem to insinuate that the process is flawed or being run secretly with insiders feeding at the trough…IMHO, the NCH was not OAHI!!

“Is it any reason that over 95% of inspectors in Canada stayed out?”

Yeah!! They had been burned by OAHI, were too cheap or did not appreciate/ care to understand what the NCH was all about or could do for the profession in the future. Again, getting a program up and running took time because getting even a few “independent, stubborn, know-it-all” HI’s to agree on the time of day is a miracle!! Like herding cats!!

Lat’s forget about all the splinters that hurt like hell even when small and get back to looking at the NCH again. Remember it is accepted by the first and only Canadian jurisdiction to regulate HI’s in any meaningful way.

That is the whole point Brian. We don’t know that there wasn’t discrimination against inspectors. Your “I got in, so everything is OK” attitude is the same attitude taken by those who sat at the front of the bus or vetted members for the golf and country club.

This whole programme was rife with personal agendas, possible discrimination, self appointed ‘industry leaders’ and elitism. Think of the ALLIANCE of CANADIAN HOME INSPECTORS as the plunger for this blocked toilet of a failed programme. ( Did I just describe the A.C.H.I. as a toilet plunger ??!!? :shock::D:D)

The so called “national” which is now run by small, private organizations at the provincial level ( so it is hardly national anymore) will be replaced by FREE education, apprenticeship, mentored in-field training and ultimately recognition of our industry as a trade. That is the only way to guarantee fairness to all Canadian Home Inspectors.

95% of Canadian Inspectors cannot be wrong.

JOIN US AT;
http://www.theachi.org

Most times it takes only 1 sheep to turn right (or left; no bias here) and the other 99 will follow. Critical thinking can be omitted or let slide at times.

And those who got cheap/free training, etc through NACHI (which is $$$$$ supported behind the scenes by many entrepreneurial interests in various ways) definitely would not want to cough up even more $$$ for a Canadian set of standards that may actually get cross country recognition…Heaven forbid, we do it on our own…not the Canadian way!!!

Again…what are you doing in Ottawa??? If not for $$$$$, are you trying to get hold of the NCA as your ace-in-the-hole??

Perhaps to offer my opinion - George indicated - “I’m no lawyer and don’t even play one on TV but it seems to be clear that a certain now defunct national programme has breached all of our human rights by requiring candidates to submit to some kind of ‘personal background’ check. So, if the ‘industry leaders’ didn’t like where you were born, what your father did for a living, your religion, what kind of accent you had, maybe even the colour of your skin, under the definition of “PERSONAL BACKGROUND” you could be refused entry into those hallowed halls.”

If you read the “full” application form you would have noticed it did not, ask any of those alleged “personal” bits of information that you have suggested. In approximately 500 applications, those questions were NEVER, EVER, asked! So why choose to go there?

Your suggestion that the application and background review process, requires more; indicates that you want to make statements that are unfair and unsubstantiated. Perhaps start by comparing other professional organizations that use that same or very similar method of review. Thus your comparision is (respectfully) way of the mark. Colleges and organizations such as OACETT would also be alleged to be in violation with your claim.

BTW: As Bill Mullen noted much of that money was invested in “consulting fees” and other duties to “design the program” and “test” the program. For you or anybody to suggest that this was wasted tax dollars, is equally incorrect. Not one penny was spent on the NCA that was not part of dues (fees) collected by individuals.

It’s too bad that some people choose to believe in that claim, about the waste and failure. Yes, in something that simply involves some “critical thinking”. Call it what you may - but I see your claims, as biased, distorted, partial, uniformed or down-right self serving.

This is nothing short of fear mongering, and based on assumptions. It is truly unfortunate and unnecessary, and shows the real value and openness of what you are propagating as honest provable “fact”!

Perhaps with that stated, your new alliance is really based on ________________. Feel free to fill in the blank(s). (I ask because your claims don’t seem to match the statements posted regarding the ACHI.)

Claude, I know that this pains you, but I have only asked a question. Did you not see the question mark in the title of this thread? The facts are that the quotations came directly out of the CHIBO II document. It matters little what one document says when another is so clear. This wording can be justified in any manner you wish, and such justifications have been used throughout the ages to keep one or another group down or out of the club or at the back of the bus.

The fact is that the CHIBO II document, appears to promote the exclusion of applicants on the basis of ‘personal attributes’ and without a definition of ‘personal attributes’ against which those who are judging others may be held accountable , it leaves the field wide open to all sorts of mischief including human rights abuses.

The simplest answer, all the huffing and puffing aside, would be to simply remove the offending wording. Is that asking too much or is it more important to stand in defense of the indefensible, than it is to admit a mistake and fix it?

"Your suggestion that the application and background review process, requires more; indicates that you want to make statements that are unfair and unsubstantiated."

I have suggested no such thing. I have asked if the wording allows judgments to be made on issues that would normally be governed by the Human Rights people. Far be it my place to lecture a ‘professor’ on the subject of English and it’s usage, but ‘suggestions’ are not ‘statements’ and I asked a question, which does not require substantiation. Words have meaning Claude.

George - no pain involved, no huffing, no puffing!

There is nothing wrong with the way “personal attributes” is worded!

“attribute” - A quality or characteristic inherent in or ascribed to someone or something.

As Bill Mullen noted in another forum, this was already vetted by legal counsel and found acceptable.

Words also have acceptable definitions, an inductive definition, one that defines a word in terms of itself, so to speak, albeit in a useful way.

Better yet, let’s start a make work project to define all words on any written document. That should keep a ton of people really busy for a long, long time!

George, are you insunuating that 95%of Canadian inspectors already joined your union? If so I must have missed the train:twisted:

Claude, you know how lawyers can dig for words and meanings. Your definition ;

"attribute" - A quality or characteristic inherent in or ascribed to someone or something.

is exactly what I was talking about. Without a clear definition and limitation that definition can include everything from hair colour to religion. It seems to me that the easiest thing to do would be to remove the words or define them more clearly.

Yuri, you haven’t missed the train yet ! But it is in the station . . . . . ( and Yuri, I know that you think it terribly clever but the A.C.H.I. is not a union )

JOIN US AT;
http://www.theachi.org

George you are reading way too much into this. Perhaps in the lawyers should have sought your advice.

Equally so, why was another organization plagiarizing it, for their own purpose.

As I stated before the application has worked, and your alleged concerns have never, ever been an issue, so why pretend that it is one. Cheers, Claude

Claude, I am sure that all persons involved are honourable gentlemen, however as long as the wording is present the possibility for misuse is present too. I am sure it would never happen but we have heard that again and again over the years.

In fact, as I have been told that I wouldn’t “have a hope in hell” of ever being accepted, despite the fact that I have never applied or sent in any information that would have been reviewed by anyone, it makes me ask both on my behalf and on behalf of many others who did not make the grade, if that “would never happen”, happened. In my case it doesn’t really matter as I will never apply, but there are others who did.

George, optimistically, if it was under my watch, I am open. I believe in fairness to one and all. However, never underestimate the power of the almight “veto” that was held by the body claiming ownership.

I can equally say that personalities, and political differences, should also never be a factor. I cannot stress that all deliberations from the NCA were held for the best interest of all home inspectors.

On the other hand, I became very frustrated along with a number of others that also served based on a number of decisions made by CAHPI or by CAHPI through its provincial chapters. Particularly those that I deem not inclusive in their decision making. We were promised independence, but seemed to never quite achieve it. Even my draft, and many months of creating two suggested operating agreements got nixed.

That is why there are many NCH’s and a large group of supporters joining and equally also many wanting to see the new “independent” body represent the best interest of the industry in the National Certification Program. It simply cannot and should not be controlled by any home inspection association - period!

"I can equally say that personalities, and political differences, should also never be a factor."

There are just two of the issues that lend themselves to the possibility of misusing the power that “personal attributes” lends to those who would wish to do so for personal reasons. I am not saying that anyone did, but anyone could. And if anyone can you can be sure that someone will.

I am sure that the ‘national’ will be around in one form or another for some time yet, but inspectors are cautious animals and once spooked will not return. The collapse of the programme and the airing of the dirty linen has illustrated to the 90% that they were right to stay away. I think that they will continue to do so. Especially when there is a welcoming, supportive alternative that will lead to recognition as a trade not a made up certification.

JOIN US AT;
http://www.theachi.org