Does Your Dispatcher Speak English?

[layoutshooter]

I guess I have never worked in one of those jobs. Everywhere I have ever worked required the ability to understand instructions. They have all required the ability to communicate for problem solving.

Yes, I am well aware of what immigrants USED to do, being only second generation here. My grandparents ALL learned to speak, and read, enough English to pass a citizenship test, ON THEIR OWN, without an interpreter OR documents in their native tongue. They WANTED to become American's and were PROUD of the fact that they could. It took GREAT effort, to prove their abilities that made them worthy of citizenship in this country.

Today's "immigrants" must either be "too lazy", or "too stupid" to do what millions before them did. That is unless they are here to tear down what has been built by those who immigrated legally. There is no valid excuse to not learn Standard American English, or 'Merican" as I like to call it. NONE what so ever.

 

[davekc]

It depends on why they were actually fired. Not on the claims made by those who were fired, but the real, actual reason they were fired. It's highly unlikely that someone who can't speak English would be hired in speaking English were a requirement, just like someone isn't likely to be hired if they don't posses any other required skill. The plaintiffs are claiming discrimination, despite the fact that other Asians and Latinos still work there, and that other Asians and Latinos have been hired since their firing. The company claims the workers were fired for substandard performance. Some people, without having heard the facts of the case, have already figured out who is telling the truth and which claims carry the most weight. These are not people I'd want to have as jury of my peers.

Back in the 80s in Nashville I hired a girl from Peking to work in the restaurant. She spoke as much English as I do Mandarin. The language barrier did not affect her job performance. If it did I'd have fired her (just as soon as I could make her understand she had been fired ).

That was my original point. If language was a barrier, they didn't have to hire them in the first place. Now the government hiring is much different, but a private company isn't obligated to hire them if they didn't speak English. They just simply don't tell them why they weren't hired.

 

[Ragman]

Some people, without having heard the facts of the case, have already figured out who is telling the truth and which claims carry the most weight. These are not people I'd want to have as jury of my peers.

Sort of like some on this board.

 

[Turtle]

That was my original point. If language was a barrier, they didn't have to hire them in the first place. Now the government hiring is much different, but a private company isn't obligated to hire them if they didn't speak English. They just simply don't tell them why they weren't hired.

Which is why one has to wonder if the claims made by the fired employees are true. If English was a requirement for the jobs they were being hired for, they'd have never been hired in the first place. The fact they were hired and later fired indicates something other than language was the cause, especially since others speaking the same languages have been hired since the firings, and others speaking the same languages were hired before the firings and they're still working there.

There must so much about the case we don't have a clue about. For all we know the factory hired a manager from Hong Kong who speaks English and Cantonese fluently, but didn't like those nasty Mandarins and Mexicans talking about him where he couldn't understand them.

 

[Pilgrim]

I guess I don't understand this. I have NEVER worked a job, at any level, where a lack of the ability to understand everyone involved was NOT important. In many jobs I have worked that lack of understanding could have cost lives, or caused severe injury, at the very least.

If I could not tell my employee to "Please straighten up the ice lure rack" and have then know what that meant, it would affect performance. Not to mention that if they did not speak "Detroitese" they would have NO idea what a customer would be looking for.

Finally, a post with some specific examples. Personally, I'd like for someone to provide some specific examples of jobs in today's factories where communication with co-workers in English would not be necessary to perform the job effectively on a continual basis. Granted, there might be some like sweeping floors or tasks that are so repetitive and elemental that these people do the same thing every day with the same routine. Everything works fine until something changes or needs to be done differently - then the new job task needs to be explained and understood. These people need to understand what they're supposed to do, when they're supposed to do it, how much they're going to get paid, how and when they're paid; then they've got to understand how ObamaCare or their health care plan works - let somebody explain that to them in English, let alone some Chinese dialect.

Getting back to Obama - personally, I have no hesitation in laying a lot of these problems at his feet because he and his administration have made existing problems worse through their policies, regulations and disregard for the laws of our land. A prime example of this is the escalating crisis of hundreds of thousands of illegal alien children pouring across our southern border. Yesterday he was in TX for fundraisers, but steadfastly refused to even go near this crisis area. His plan of action...spread them out all over the country in the homes of other illegal aliens, refugee camps, forster homes or anywhere else they can be stashed until they can ultimately be absorbed into our welfare and health care systems and our schools - where they can't understand English and are likely illiterate even in their native language. Being illiterate, the older ones won't be able to get jobs, so they'll probably resort to joining gangs or living on the streets as bums or petty criminals.

What makes Obama different from past presidents is that he's the only radical liberal candidate who openly promised five days before his election to FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM the United States of America. Unlike so many presidents before him he is faithfully keeping his promise, and in the process is balkanizing our country under the liberal notions of social justice, multiculturalism and diversity. And unlike so many of his predecessors, he finds out about all the crises involving his administration from reading the newspapers.

 

[layoutshooter]

Picture this, the place is about to blow up, or a tornado is on it's way. How many languages are going to be needed to warn everyone to bend over and kiss their butt goodbye?

 

[muttly]

Everything is debatable. But if you read the law, it's not all that debatable, and plenty of judges, liberal and conservative alike, have agreed.

Yes, I'm sure many would.

It appears that way because you are getting your facts from a biased source with an agenda you agree with, and have made no attempt to get at the real facts because what you've already found agrees with you and that's good enough. The real facts are the English-Only rules have been a part of the US Code of Federal Regulations since July 1, 2000 and were placed officially into the EEOC regulations when they were updated in the EEOC Compliance Manual Section 13: National Origin Discrimination on December 2, 2002. But, I'm quite confident that these pesky little facts won't get in your way.

All of which is a deflection from the issue, and is an attempt to create a mountain out of something that doesn't exist. Like I said, this case is not unique, unusual, rare, or remarkable in any way. You're simply using it to manufacture a reason to scream, "Obama is responsible for this travesty of justice!" despite no travesty existing, and despite Obama not even being responsible for the decision to bring the suit.

Nobody, least of all me, is saying anything of the sort. What I'm saying is that Obama isn't responsible for the day-to-day decisions of all of the federal agencies that he is responsible for. Versus you wanting to blame each and every decision these agencies make which you do not agree with on Obama personally.

Tea Party groups, yep. Health care company, nope. Wisconsin plastics company, nope. Got any other examples of where Obama has influenced the EEOC in language discrimination cases?

So are you gonna maintain that there were no English-only cases before Obama was elected, and that they didn't start up until 2009, coincidentally when Obama first took office? Like I said, Obama does enough stuff on his own that are worthy of blaming him for without desperately having to make up stuff or grasp for stuff that's not even there.

Here is one from someone that isn't agenda driven. In fact, he was probably an Obama supporter at one time. He also references 2009. I'm not saying there hasn't been a case prior to that, but the EEOC have definitely kicked it up a notch or two with their erroneous interpretations of the laws . You even said they have been a little rambunctious lately. That is what happens when Obama and his minions appoint such radicals to various posts. They tend to get a little rambunctious with stretching the laws.
With regards to Obama being responsible, it goes with the territory. Just applying the same standard as previous administrations. They are held accountable for all the appointments that they make, and what erroneous actions they take in government . Just ask Think Progress about Bush.
From article:
The EEOC said that the action was taken after relatively short interviews to judge the English ability of the employees. In 2009 the agency issued a controversial order making a workplace English rule illegal.

While clearly any threshold rule can be used for superficial and discriminatory ways, the Obama Administration seems to view English only rules as per se discriminatory as opposed to an “as applied” discriminatory practice. However, I could see legitimate reasons for a business to want a single language to be spoken by all employees from efficiency to safety concerns.
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/07/0...for-requiring-all-employees-to-speak-english/
Question(yes or no) Was Bush responsible for his appointments and subsequently for their actions?
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/01/17/34948/bush-43-worst/

 

[Turtle]

"He also references 2009."

Yes he does. I think it's hilarious and that he, and a really, really lot of others reference 2009, using the same.exact.wording. It's almost as if they read it somewhere and that's as far as their investigative research went.

"In 2009 the agency issued a controversial order making a workplace English rule illegal."

It leaves the impression, likely because they believe it, that the EEOC for the first time ever, issued a new order making English-only rules illegal. The fact is, the EEO issued an order, as a result of a court ruling, to one specific company saying the English-only rules at that company were illegal. And it wasn't all that controversial to anyone other than the company. It wasn't the first language ruling the EEOC had ever made. Not by a long shot.

Any thoughts on how Obama and his minioned regime managed to get the English-only rules into the US CFR way back in 2000? Oh, wait, never mind. I already answered that myself. "But, I'm quite confident that these pesky little facts won't get in your way." Trudge on, my friend, trudge on.

 

[cheri1122]

Finally, a post with some specific examples. Personally, I'd like for someone to provide some specific examples of jobs in today's factories where communication with co-workers in English would not be necessary to perform the job effectively on a continual basis. Granted, there might be some like sweeping floors or tasks that are so repetitive and elemental that these people do the same thing every day with the same routine. Everything works fine until something changes or needs to be done differently - then the new job task needs to be explained and understood. These people need to understand what they're supposed to do, when they're supposed to do it, how much they're going to get paid, how and when they're paid; then they've got to understand how ObamaCare or their health care plan works - let somebody explain that to them in English, let alone some Chinese dialect.

Most factory work is of the repetitive kind, and simply showing what needs done is sufficient. Those who don't speak English learn to catch visual cues about what's happening [the buzzer means break time is starting or over], and there are usually some with enough English to help with the sticky bits.
As for how and when they get paid, or understanding their health care benefits, that's entirely their own problem to solve however they can - the employer is not responsible for ensuring they understand any of it, unless they ask.
The same is true for those workers who do speak English.

 

[cheri1122]

Picture this, the place is about to blow up, or a tornado is on it's way. How many languages are going to be needed to warn everyone to bend over and kiss their butt goodbye?

Just one: pantomime.

 

[Turtle]

Most factory work is of the repetitive kind, and simply showing what needs done is sufficient. Those who don't speak English learn to catch visual cues about what's happening [the buzzer means break time is starting or over], and there are usually some with enough English to help with the sticky bits.
As for how and when they get paid, or understanding their health care benefits, that's entirely their own problem to solve however they can - the employer is not responsible for ensuring they understand any of it, unless they ask.
The same is true for those workers who do speak English.

Besides, people who don't speaks English will still pick up enough to get by, at least from the point of view of understanding it, even if they don't speak it fluently. A few months ago I spent 3 weeks on the Mexican border shuffling back and forth between border towns. Near the end I was waited on at Whataburger by someone who didn't speak a word of English to me, and I understood, mostly, what all she said.

There really is no valid reason to require someone to speak English at all times, including breaks and at times when doing so doesn't affect safety or productivity. There are certainly times when it's absolutely necessary. There are states, mostly along the Mexican border, where being bi-lingual is a requirement for some jobs, where you must speak both English and Spanish. If you don't, you won't be considered for the position. That outta chap the tender behinds of a few in here, too.

 

[layoutshooter]

An employer, regardless of what the feds want to demand, has the right to hire the most qualified person for the job. It is also the right for that employer to determine what those qualifications are. IF that employer determines, for what ever reason, that being able to read, write and speak, too what ever extent he deems necessary, that is within his rights.

Any immigrant who wishes to become an American should, and can, become proficient in Standard American English. That ability is to their benefit. We, as a nation, should return to the time when our citizenship test was given in Standard American English, as it was when my grandparents, took it, and passed it, without the aid of an interpreter or having it presented in their native language.

Legal immigration benefits everyone. Immigrants who chose to come here, to join us, to contribute, to introduce new, fresh ideas, are golden. Those who don't seek to come legally, who demand that we meet their language needs, subtract from us.

Our borders need closed and controlled. The congress has to get off their butts and put together a real, workable immigration bill, one that include language, health and education, requires. It must NEVER contain amnesty for those who defied the laws of this Nation from day one.

Our open borders have put this Nation at risk. One of the most basic, primary functions, of the federal government is to provide for the common defense. They are NOT doing that.

 

[Pilgrim]

Most factory work is of the repetitive kind, and simply showing what needs done is sufficient. Those who don't speak English learn to catch visual cues about what's happening [the buzzer means break time is starting or over], and there are usually some with enough English to help with the sticky bits.

Try telling that to a production manager in most any factory in the country. It sounds good in theory, but in most cases it doesn't work in the real world. It might work in garment sweatshops or with construction work like roofing crews or bricklayers, but in most of today's factories communication is critical to not only safety and compliance with OSHA regulations, but also with quality control.

As for how and when they get paid, or understanding their health care benefits, that's entirely their own problem to solve however they can - the employer is not responsible for ensuring they understand any of it, unless they ask.
The same is true for those workers who do speak English.

Nonsense. The employer is absolutely responsible for making sure his employees get paid properly, get the benefits to which they're entitled and that they comply with all the govt regulations, OSHA requirements, etc. Suppose some unscrupulous supervisor tells the non-English speaking factory workers that they've got to work an extra 2 hours per day for the coming week but they're not going to get paid overtime, while smiling and nodding his head in a friendly affirmative manner. They smile, nod back in agreement and everything's fine with factory management until their payroll dept gets audited. Then who suffers the consequences?? Hint: not the employees, English speaking or otherwise.

 

[cheri1122]

Try telling that to a production manager in most any factory in the country. It sounds good in theory, but in most cases it doesn't work in the real world. It might work in garment sweatshops or with construction work like roofing crews or bricklayers, but in most of today's factories communication is critical to not only safety and compliance with OSHA regulations, but also with quality control.

Perhaps you could try telling your version to the production managers who hire non English speaking people, because they seem to believe otherwise.



Nonsense. The employer is absolutely responsible for making sure his employees get paid properly, get the benefits to which they're entitled and that they comply with all the govt regulations, OSHA requirements, etc. Suppose some unscrupulous supervisor tells the non-English speaking factory workers that they've got to work an extra 2 hours per day for the coming week but they're not going to get paid overtime, while smiling and nodding his head in a friendly affirmative manner. They smile, nod back in agreement and everything's fine with factory management until their payroll dept gets audited. Then who suffers the consequences?? Hint: not the employees, English speaking or otherwise.

Yes, the employer is responsible for providing accurate information regarding pay and benefits, but it is not his responsibility to ensure that anyone understands it. Because seriously, how is he supposed to know whether they do or not? There are English speaking workers who don't understand their health insurance all over the country - I've met them.
Regarding your hypothetical, I'd say the solution is not to allow unscrupulous people to get their bosses in hot water - but if they don't already know that, they're doomed anyhow, lol.

 

[cheri1122]

Contraction at its finest.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums mobile app

I think the word you wanted there is 'contradiction'?
Which I don't think it is. You [of all people] know that I will speak up when I think someone has been slammed without provocation or justification. As for my snarky remark, it's justified by the poster pointing out on more than one occasion that he is posting because he has nothing better to do, rather than because he actually has something to say. To me, that's like going to a party and saying you're only there because you have nowhere else to go - not exactly complimentary, is it?
But for the sake of argument, let's say it is a contradiction. You know what they say about consistency being the hobgoblin.....
I bet you don't know, though. So you can look it up, and learn something from the time spent here.

PS: you're welcome.