Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That market is required if that business wants to make money that's why. Plain and simple. Those are the facts as well.
So employees should all be able to speak a foreign language to accomodate residents in our country who refuse to learn English or don't want to speak it and or illegal aliens? Oh yeah, pandering for dollars while discriminating against native English speakers in hiring practices for the almighty dollar. Anything for a buck, right?
So employees should all be able to speak a foreign language to accomodate residents in our country who refuse to learn English or don't want to speak it and or illegal aliens? Oh yeah, pandering for dollars while discriminating against native English speakers in hiring practices for the almighty dollar. Anything for a buck, right?
The business is pandering to their customers. Capitalism. Build a better mousetrap. An Employer can have all the requirements he needs. should someone without a college education be mad because the business wants a college grad? No. What about lifting 50 pound? Speaking as a second language is a skill and employers pay for that scale just as they pay for other skills
So employees should all be able to speak a foreign language to accomodate residents in our country who refuse to learn English or don't want to speak it and or illegal aliens? Oh yeah, pandering for dollars while discriminating against native English speakers in hiring practices for the almighty dollar. Anything for a buck, right?
They are not discriminating against native English speakers. A native English speaker can be fluent in other languages, in fact, I know plenty who are.
Government agencies will cater to the locale.... The government agency in a polish area here do have polish speaking employees. Similarly, a predominantly Spanish speaking area has offices with people that speak Spanish.
Many things in life are 80/20 rule driven. You cater to the 80 percent and try your best to accommodate to the 20 percent left over. Trying to cater to 100% can be extremely expensive.
Courts are required to provide translators... but they can't keep all translators of all languages on retainer all the time. So they ask that you call ahead and schedule for one.
Similarly on the phone, there are 100s of languages in the world... you can't possibly make a user experience with the system that caters to all of them. There is no denying that Spanish is the 2nd most spoken language... so it isn't a surprise that the systems are designed for that in mind.
It isn't a discriminatory problem, it is a logistics one.
I am a software developer. The application I design needs to meet translation requirements. You can't possibly expect my company to translate the product into 100s of different languages. As such, there are a set of 8 most common languages that I need to have my message files translated for. It doesn't mean that I am discriminatory against the others... it simply means that it isn't cost effective and the internationalization requirements for software (i18n) recognizes this.
btw... the translation effort for just 8 languages is a HUGE effort and a royal PITA. I'd rather not do it.. but it is a requirement.
There is a very simple solution. Due what my host nation does. If you can't speak the language bring a translator. There is absolutely no reason what so ever that someone wishing to conduct business in a government office, shouldn't have to bring their own translator. There is no reason to impose that cost on the people.
The court I can understand, but not government offices or schools.
They are not discriminating against native English speakers. A native English speaker can be fluent in other languages, in fact, I know plenty who are.
I was speaking of mono-lingual native English speakers. I didn't think I had to spell it out for you.
There is a very simple solution. Due what my host nation does. If you can't speak the language bring a translator. There is absolutely no reason what so ever that someone wishing to conduct business in a government office, shouldn't have to bring their own translator. There is no reason to impose that cost on the people.
The court I can understand, but not government offices or schools.
And they do! What makes you think they do not ? Now who decided to press 1 or 2 happened when I was about 8 yrs old . I don’t know why, but I know it started 58 yrs ago
There is a very simple solution. Due what my host nation does. If you can't speak the language bring a translator. There is absolutely no reason what so ever that someone wishing to conduct business in a government office, shouldn't have to bring their own translator. There is no reason to impose that cost on the people.
The court I can understand, but not government offices or schools.
Not possible unless you change the law. Give it a try... see how far you get. btw.. people do bring their own translators to these offices but you were complaining about 1) english etc... on the automated phone service. My response remains the same.. It think it is a good thing.. not bad. It defines us differently from other countries like your host nation.
But you still missed my point.
As your response implies, this isn't a case of discrimination that you and others make it out to be. But rather a logistical one.
The business is pandering to their customers. Capitalism. Build a better mousetrap. An Employer can have all the requirements he needs. should someone without a college education be mad because the business wants a college grad? No. What about lifting 50 pound? Speaking as a second language is a skill and employers pay for that scale just as they pay for other skills
This.
Again.... Old Glory. Are you for or against private business rights?
I was speaking of mono-lingual native English speakers. I didn't think I had to spell it out for you.
How are they discriminating if they need a skill, and someone does not have it? Sure, in a technical sense it is discrimination, just as it is discrimination to hire a heart surgeon with the education and experiencing over others who do not have it. But legally and socially speaking, it is not discrimination. An employer needs someone with a specific language skill set, they will hire such person, it is not discriminating against people who do not have the skill set.
Are you a pilot? Can you fly the 777? If not, is United Airlines discriminating against you because you do not have this skill?
At that, there is such thing a discrimination in hiring, language requirements is a way to discriminate in hiring. if a person suspects this, they need to file a complaint with the EEOC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
