English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

A machine shop in Deep River, Connecticut is being sued by five workers over a company dictate that while on their job that employess only converse in English.

The company posted a Common Language Policy which requires employees to speak English during work hours, except during an employees scheduled breaks and lunch. The company asserts that the only reason for the policy is safety, efficiency and product quality.

Please share your thoughts on this.

2007-11-24 13:39:03 · 12 answers · asked by genaddt 7 in Society & Culture Other - Society & Culture

12 answers

Barbara, I see no ulterior motives in this at all. I think it's best where safety is concerned that there is absolutely no errors of translation. It may also encourage employees to learn the english language.

2007-11-25 09:43:15 · answer #1 · answered by Semp-listic! 7 · 3 0

Barbara,
I agree in principle on the grounds of "safety, efficiency, and product quality". X-Ray points out a gray area of racism; however, anyone can claim anything if that person disagrees with something. ("My boss is stupid; therefore, I want YOU to hire a boss that looks like a hot model - but has the brains of an Einstein and the strategy of an Eisenhower - if you don't do this I will file a law suit" kind of thing). More importantly and likely too are the potential legal liabilities with having a policy such as this.

For profit/private companies should do as they feel appropriate for their level of business and product that they deliver. The only question I have is whether this company required employees to sign an acknowledgement clause that explains this in a forthright manner. Having such a tool isn't going to prevent law suits from becoming filed - it will show that employee Jane Smith and John Doe fully accepted this when they were hired in at position XYZ for salary $1-2-3.

Would you know whether that company has such a tool for the policy in place? My next question would be on the number of employees the company has, what State laws are in association to that number, and whether current State law protects the right of this company. On the outside I would be concerned that continued court filings and legal manuevering could lead to the U.S. Supreme Court opinions - going that far could bankrupt or severely hurt the company bottom line. Reality is however, the bank or local finacial pool this company works with on the retirement fund will likely have the final word before any litigation even occurs - who are they (the financial institution)?

A right to do this? Certainly. Practical? Questionable.

Gerry :)

2007-11-24 15:05:54 · answer #2 · answered by Gerry 7 · 2 0

A private company can enact a policy such as that, because safety is paramount, efficiency & ensuring product quality being the ultimate goal to gain profitablity -- it is simply a smart way to conduct business & stating the reasonable legal grounds for it is the right thing to do.

If workers don't like the policy they can go work elsewhere. That is their choice. If they refuse to follow company policy they can -- and will most likely -- be fired, or at least receive a warining put in their personnel file, in case there are reoccurrences of the policy violation.

2007-11-25 04:13:33 · answer #3 · answered by Andy K 6 · 1 0

One language makes for a safe and rumor free environment. Mainly the people paying the health care bill want the workers to understand each other so no one gets hurt.
The military is one language and it seems to work well. Air traffic control is one language also. So are most police and fire departments.
Unfortunately the outcome of this will be the shop will close because of these 5 and everyone is unemployed. This is new America, where common sense is gone in court, and judges chambers. How sad during the holidays too.

2007-11-24 18:52:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

It is just a policy it does not violate freedom of speech, for me, it just bridges the gaps of misunderstanding, and since you are in America, you are obliged to speak the language of the majority. This policy does not restrict you to speak your own language or any languages you like. This just ensures effective communication between workers and who knows someone might speak in another language, English speakers cannot understand that they are already saying bad things against them. So you see, it is also another way of guarding one's security. They could communicate through their own language during break somehow, it is still fine by me.

2007-11-24 19:20:26 · answer #5 · answered by hufflepuff_headboy 2 · 1 0

As much as it is desirable to speak English, it is a free country and a dictatorial approach to speaking only English while at work contradicts this right of free speech.

What if the employees happen to use a foreign word or phrase in between speaking English and the boss hears them- he can then fire them on these grounds (even worse if the boss had a problem with other races.) Who monitors how well the English is to be spoken? With this level of intolerance then the English standard may also be set impossibly high. It could give rise to victimization.

Companies want manual laborers at cheap rates and they know that there aren't high levels of formal education amongst their employees, otherwise their employees will be doing better jobs.

You should be obligated to speak English, not punished if you don't.

2007-11-24 14:37:47 · answer #6 · answered by X-Ray 4 · 2 3

sure all individuals ought to. All international places ought to have a countrywide language, and individuals ought to have English as theirs (i'm an American). there is somewhat no reason to why English should not be the national language of the U. S., particularly whilst maximum texts interior the U. S. is English text fabric. in spite of the incontrovertible fact that, there ought to be reinforcement of getting to grasp different languages in colleges with English.

2016-09-30 02:59:30 · answer #7 · answered by beisch 4 · 0 0

I don't see anything wrong with this. Am not sure why people who come to America don't love or respect the country enough to learn the language. I don't see why it is everyone else's responsibility to make accommodations or provide intrepreters for people who refuse to learn English.

2007-11-25 03:58:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

I do not see anything wrong with it. If you are living in the US, you need to learn to speak English. Especially when it comes to safety issues involving co-workers.

2007-11-24 13:45:10 · answer #9 · answered by Catnip 4 · 5 1

IT'S WAS AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE OF ALL KNOWLEDGE. Then , why not , for the benefits of goods knowledge for the whole world.

2007-11-24 21:07:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers