discusses employees suing their boss because he wouldn’t let them speak their native language on the job (or on break or lunch). Now I’m the first one to say that an employer has a right to be sure his employees are communicating clearly with the customer (i.e., fast food joints and the like). But I feel that a person should be able to communicate in their native tongue when they’re on their own time.
My husband works in a place that is 95% Hispanic; many to most who speak just enough English to barely eek by. It’s frustrating when you give a directive and the work isn’t completed properly because the employee doesn’t understand that much English and you can’t tell if they actually understood what you said.
Whaddya think about this? I’d also like to know if any of youze dopers are ESL, and which language you use on the job.
Well, you’ve got two different issues there, methinks.
The issue of people who aren’t allowed to speak their native language on their lunch breaks.
The issue of ESL workers, and co-workers and customers not being able to understand them.
As for Issue #1, here’s what it all boils down to:
Insecurity and paranoia, say I. What difference does it make if employees call someone a bitch in English, Spanish, or Esperanto? Forbidding them to use their own language because, oh no! they might call someone a bitch [and the person might not understand them and then they’d all snigger nastily] sounds pretty paranoid, IMO.
And anyway, nasty muttered asides happen all the time in life, no matter whether you understand what’s being said or not.
I would much rather my employees insult customers in a language they don’t UNDERSTAND, fercrissakes! But I think in general, you should speak the language of the majority of your customers. In California or other places where it’s pretty even-steven, you should be bi-lingual, which ain’t tough to be.
If you don’t deal with customers, I still think you should speak English, at least when you’re having a work-related conversation.
So the lawsuit isn’t about whether it’s OK for the employer to not allow people to speak languages other than English, it’s about whether the employer discriminated against the employees based on their country of origin.
Also, I don’t know what the law is in this area,* but I’m very much in favor of the market figuring things out on its own. If an employer can’t find enough employees that will abide by the policy, then the employer will either go out of business or change the policy. If enough customers learn of the policy and don’t buy from the employer based on thier disagreement with it, then the employer has the same choices. If neither the employees nor the customers are unhappy with the policy, then I don’t see why the government has an interest in not letting the employer set its own policy.
*Here’s another quote on this point, indicating that the EEOC is being quite the activist:
When I spent the summer in a foreign country on a short notice job assignment I acquired enough of the language to get by. Had it been a long term assignment I would most certainly have invested the time and effort to carry on in an intelligent manner.
By and large the immigrants of today are looking for the pot of gold and have no real interest in citizenship if they can get by without it. They want all the benefits with none of the responsibilities.
Witness those who come into the US for reasons of childbith at little or no cost to the mother and the child then becomes an instant citizen with all of the benefits pertaing thereto.
This same situation happened to my mother. She works in a clinic as a Registered nurse. Her main job is to interpret for the doctors and patients. Then management came down on them and said she and the other interpreters could not speak any other languages at work except in the said situations. This included breaks and lunch. She sued them and instead of going to court, management relented and threw out the policy.
I am fluent in my native tongue and english and never use anything but english while on the job. Ive learned a long time ago that people do not like it. They always assume you are talking about them in front of them. In reality, Its all general talk. Hi, hows it going, I did this yesterday, etc… When I do speak it, I do it more as a way of practicing so I dont lose the ability.
You won’t find an exact count, because it’s generally against the rules for county hospitals, welfare agencies, the police, etc. to ask people their immigration status. But this guy takes a crack at it.
Speaking as an immigrant with no immediate plans to seek US citizenship, I’d love to hear what responsibilities you think I’m dodging ? I’ll give you a freebie - I’m not eligible for jury duty - but apart from that, I’m bloody well paying my taxes, obeying the laws and generally speaking doing my bit, thankyouverymuch.
Actually no he doesn’t. That article is on a par with spingear’s post, a whole lot of unsupported ranting. As I understand immigration law, while someone born in the US to foreign parents can claim citizenship they can not do so until reaching some legal age of consent. I’m not sure if that’s 18 or some other number. So spingear and the linked article would have us believe that these illegal immigrants are travelling to the US, not for any benefits now, but for the possibility of reaping some reward 18 years down the line.
I call BS, much easier to just sneak in without being pregnant and finagle legal status some other way.
bayonet1976, just about anyone born in the US is automatically a US citizen. What they can’t do before adulthood is use their citizenship to sponsor their parents for permanent residence.
Employee A comes to me and says that employee B is making sexual suggestions, etc. in their mutual native language. Employee B denies this, however B continues to complain. I have no way of knowing what is said, making this a pure he said/she said situation.
What are my obligations to avoid liability for Hostile Work Environment?
What you actually claimed was that a baby born in the U.S. to an illegal immigrant mother did not become a citizen until 18, but that was shown to be wrong.
I guess you are right in one sense. Illegal immigrants can avail themselves of a large fraction of the American social “safety net” without citizenship anyway, so there is not much point in sneaking across to have your baby in the U.S.
I just re-read my statement, and you’re right. What I thought I said, and meant to say was that until the child turned 18, actually I just found out it is 21, the child’s citizenship means nothing as far as benefit to the parents. From this site
So, the crux of what I say remains true, those who claim that immigrants are coming to the US to have babies who become immediate citizens, and are somehow using that baby as a “loophole” to immigrate are, to put it mildly, full of it.
Unfortunately, this was not a typo but an example of Kalhoun, sporting a dunce cap, trying to spell a word she’s never written before. What IS the actual spelling of that word?(hangs head in shame and heads for the tavern)