Happened to me once, working with 3 guys on a programming project and all of a sudden they switched to Arabic. The paranoia angle was a factor, but more than that it felt very excluded, because the topic was important to the job to be done, and on top of that there seemed to be many jokes. Not surprisingly, they dropped me shortly thereafter and continued working on it themselves.
Reminds me of a bumper sticker: “Welcome to America, now learn English.” We have an official language here, and those who refuse to abide by it are asking for social friction.
The concept of ‘official language’ has nothing whatsoever to do with social situations. (In case you hadn’t noticed, America’s not the only country to have an official language.)
What if these non-English speakers are making crude & sexual remarks about the new female waitress, laughing each time they make a comment? Is it legal because she can’t understand what they’re saying? How would the managers know? Just something to think about.
In my experience, having groups speak different languages can add a lot of tension to the workplace. I always felt excluded when I’d be with a group of coworkers and suddenly they’d switch to Spanish or Filipino, leaving me in the cold. How is this not rude? What if four people are sitting at a table and two of them start passing notes between them, laughing each time they read what the other wrote? Is that OK? It’s the same as switching to a different language that you know others present can’t understand.
We’ve never had a problem with them dealing with customers, it’s just the “chatter amongst themselves” that has everyone panicing.
Legal or illegal, it’s not creating a happy atmosphere. Whereas our turnover has been extremely low in the past, I forsee a drastic increase in the next couple of months
It is most definitely RUDE to speak in a language that others cannot understand, unless there are mitigating factors. It is exactly the same as whispering in front of people, just as others have already pointed out. It would be rude if I and a coworker were both bilingual, fluent in the second language, and we began speaking English in front of others who couldn’t understand us. It would be excluding them, intentional or not (and I can’t see where much of the time it isn’t intentional). After all, what reason would there be, if you are fluent in their known language, to speak in a tongue they don’t know, unless you don’t want them to know what you’re saying?
I grew up in a place where there was a sizeable Mexican population. There were MANY times the Mexican kids would get together around those who didn’t know Spanish and let fly. They would let you know with sidewise looks and knowing chuckles that they were indeed talking about you and ridiculing, and if they weren’t really doing so, they wanted you to feel as if they were. They were the first to get their britches in a knot when we had a lot of Vietnamese people move in who didn’t know much English, and spoke their own language (amongst themselves, till they learned more English). They absolutely HATED not being able to understand and they started many a fight over it. So not all of our objections are paranoia, and English-speaking people aren’t the only ones who don’t like being done that way.
As to the legalities of the OP–I don’t know. But I can understand the WHY of it.
This seems a little severe. I would have thought a warning would have sufficed.
In any case, even if the managers do drop this new rule, I doubt the workers will be happy.
In fact, it will probably give them more cause to say bad things about managers in private.
About the rudeness, I don’t think its rude if its unintentional. Whispering is intentional. If they are doing it out of habit, then its not their fault.
I don’t know about the legal aspect, but I don’t really see an issue here. It seems to me there can’t be sexual harassment or an hostile environment if nobody feels harassed and nobody feels the hostility. For instance, let’s assume, I’ve a dozen of porn pictures in my desk, in a closed drawer that nobody can nor is allowed to open. Would this constitute an hostile work environment? What if half the males in an office have dirty thoughts about a female colleagues they never voice out?
Since in your example nor the new waitress, nor the boss can understand the crude remarks, hence nobody will ever know that crude remarks were ever made, it’s a complete non-issue, IMO. Similar to the “this guy could have crude and sexual thought about me” in my example.
Yes, they could be making crude comment about the waitress. They could make fun of the boss. They could plot a murder. It seems quite paranoid to me to forbid the use of a language you don’t understand just because they could be saying something you wouldn’t like. Besides, if they’re inclined to do so, they would do it also, in either language, when you’re not around. What does it change?
Following that logic, nobody should be permitted to speak at all without a manager present, otherwise they’ll never know what’s being said.
No it’s not (that just makes it the common language, not the official one), and no it doesn’t (otherwise you need to suggest some sanction for those who do not fulfil that ‘requirement’?) And in any case, as I pointed out earlier, it’s perfectly possible for people born in an English-speaking country (as in the OP) to not have English as their mother tongue.
I really don’t understand why it’s rude to speak in another language in front of people. If they are not in the conversation, what’s the problem? Lots of times you have conversations around other people who are not involved - waiting in lines, for example. Should we be forced to speak the language of those around us (whatever it may be) so they can eavesdrop? Sure, people can make fun of you in other languages, but they can do that too in English. So? I don’t think everyone around me should cater to my monolinguism for fear of tripping my paranoia.
This is my take on it: If you are in a lunchroom and a table next to you is speaking another language, it’s not rude. It’s none of your business what they’re saying. Same goes for on the bus, train, elevator, or whatever. If some students (or coworkers) are grouped together on the other side of a room having a private conversation (one that you are not remotely supposed to be interested in), it is none of your business what language they’re using.
If, however, they are right in front of you, and you might normally be included (or not unwelcome) in the conversation, then yes, it’s rude. Let’s get back to the people seated in the car analogy. There are 5 of us, all chatting away, and all of a sudden my sister and I (who are serious pottery geeks) start talking about “firing to temperature,” “cone 05,” “crazing,” “kiln wash,” and “sgraffito.” Everyone else in the car, who is not pottery-savvy, is going to be left out of the conversation. So to just jump into such a conversation, without any explanation or apology, is simply leaving them out. It’s rude. And the pottery example isn’t remotely as rude as jumping to another language—at least if we started nattering on about pottery, people would know it was something uninteresting (to them), instead of slander or juicy gossip.
Very close to the example I was going to give! In college, I was a little bit of a computer dork, but nowhere near as much as my housemates, who could go on and on about the virtues of DIMMs and SIMMs and x86 motherboards for just about ever. When I and my housemates and our friend Liza (who wasn’t a computer geek at all) were hanging out with them and they started doing this, she and I would sometimes start talking to each other in our rudimentary Spanish, as a way to make fun of them and point out, “Hey! Guys, it’s rude to talk another language around your guests!”
Similarly, I’m a big old gaming geek, and a lot of my friends are. But my wife isn’t, so when we’re all hanging out, I try real hard to keep the D20 talk to a minimum.
It seems of a piece to me: when you’re in a social situation, it’s rude to structure a conversation in a way that excludes some people without good reason.
However, it doesn’t sound to me like the manager needs to be part of this social situation anyway. If these coworkers were discussing, say, the merits of different soap opera actors, none of whom the manager knew, would that be a problem? I doubt it: it’s not his conversation to be a part of in the first place. So the fact that they’re having a conversation that’s none of his business in a language he doesn’t speak is immaterial.
This happened to my mother. She is a registered nurse at a local clinic here in minnesota. Her supervisor had implemented one of these “English Only” policies. Due the nature of her work, there are lots of languages being spoken. The nurses threatened litagation and the company backed off.
Monstro, why do feel you entitled to hear everyone’s conversation around you? Howabout you just concentrate on working and stop eavesdropping.
Seriously, look at 2 people talking (wether in any language) and you will see their gaze wander from time to time. The body language is the same. Christ, they’re no different from anyone else. They’re probably talking about last nights CSI.
And how about you stop assuming that I’m eavesdropping. Were you eavesdropping before you posted to this thread? No. It’s the same thing in real life, when people are talking around you within “chiming in” range.
Eavesdropping occurs intentionally. One would have to eavesdrop to hear a conversation occurring in the other room. When a conversation takes place in your own damn car, however, you should be allowed the courtesy of participating in it. If a conversation occurs between two people sitting on either side of you, it’s not eavesdropping when you listen to it. It’s unintentional to “listen in”. If the conversation is that private that you don’t want people listening, go to another room. It’s rude to have a private conversation when other people are RIGHT THERE in front of you.
Another analogy (just in case you still don’t get it) would be if posters in this thread suddenly, with no rhyme or reason, started posting in binary code instead of English. Suddenly you can understand what the hell is going on and the next, you can’t. Is it “eavesdropping” to simply desire what’s being communicated? Why is the rudeness of such a scenario so hard to understand?
I am also in healthcare and the analogy you give is far from the one presented by monstro . Most hospitals, clinics, etc are very aggressive in being prepared to interpret a sick or injured individual’s needs if the situation presents. My hospital keeps a database of employees who speak other languages and encourages multilple languages for this very reason. We also maintain direct links to translation services. The nurses were correct to protest “English only” as it could backfire on the hospital big time.
I don’t think is the type of situation *monstro ** describes. IANMM, but willfully excluding one individual from a confined group conversation is rude. Period.
*confined - I use this word because it appears the group monstro mentions are in essence forced, at least temporarily, to be a “group” ie, monstro did not just happen upon them and want to know what they were talking about.
Terrible analogy. A message board is intended to be publicly-available. It’s more like writing in runes on a postcard, and the postman complaining that he doesn’t understand it.
Getting back to the legalities and away from the etiquette, the Society for Human Resource Management has this to say in an article on its website
"Any business that imposes or plans to impose language rules over their workforce should carefully review their policy in light of the foregoing principles. First, employers should decide whether language skills are an integral component of the position being restricted. If language is merely superfluous or peripheral to the essential functions of the position then the restrictions may be unnecessary. Next, employers must precisely define why the policy is needed. Does the language rule help to market the business or is it necessary to adequately service customers? Mere references to the creation of a more efficient workplace may not be sufficient. Why is it more efficient to place restrictions on the language used by the employee? Finally, employers must narrowly tailor any restriction to fit its justification. A rule that restricts use of language during work breaks or rigidly prohibits some foreign languages while ignoring others may be inappropriate. "
This is from a SHRM Legal Report, Beware The Native Tongue: National Origin And English-Only Rules
By Jana Howard Carey and Larry R. Seegull
Spring 1995
And here is the EEOC guidance
EEOC Guidance on National Origin Discrimination
Section on English Only Rules
Sec. 1606.7 Speak-English-only rules.
(a) When applied at all times. A rule requiring employees to speak only English at all times in the workplace is a burdensome term and condition of employment. The primary language of an individual is often an essential national origin characteristic. Prohibiting employees at all times, in the workplace, from speaking their primary language or the language they speak most comfortably, disadvantages an individual’s employment opportunities on the basis of national origin. It may also create an atmosphere of inferiority, isolation and intimidation based on national origin which could result in a discriminatory working environment. Therefore, the Commission will presume that such a rule violates title VII and will closely scrutinize it.
(b) When applied only at certain times. An employer may have a rule requiring that employees speak only in English at certain times where the employer can show that the rule is justified by business necessity.
No, this is a terrible analogy. The postman does not share communication with the recipients or senders of the mail he delivers, excluding the delivery information. He/she is never a part of the “conversation”. We generally don’t know the postman. If we sent an anonomous post card that read: “mailmen suck”, we could get away with it since the mailmen would not know who we were and mailmen really shouldn’t be reading our mail anyway.
I actually don’t know what’s wrong with the message board analogy. As it relates to real life, it’s like we’re at all a party. All Dopers invited. And like a party, we’re standing around talking. Some clumps of people are talking about how evil Bush is. Some people are talking about menstrual cramps. We are free to mix and mingle, listen in and “chime in” when we feel like it. Exclusive conversations are held somewhere else.
Now if you’re standing in a clump of people and they decide to change topics, that’s one thing. But if people suddenly switch to another language “just because”, that’s another IMHO. You lose your ability to participate with that group FOR NO GOOD REASON. Fortunately, in this scenario, you can just pick up and go to another clump. But in real life, this isn’t always the case.
Very close to the example I was going to give! In college, I was a little bit of a computer dork, but nowhere near as much as my housemates, who could go on and on about the virtues of DIMMs and SIMMs and x86 motherboards for just about ever. When I and my housemates and our friend Liza (who wasn’t a computer geek at all) were hanging out with them and they started doing this, she and I would sometimes start talking to each other in our rudimentary Spanish, as a way to make fun of them and point out, “Hey! Guys, it’s rude to talk another language around your guests!”