Firefighters Being Fired For Not Speaking Spanish

[Texsox]

The class in in Spanish, theres no English speaking people lined up for the job. There are firefighters that speak English that had the job though.

 

You actually proved my point even more. The guidelines book is in English and the test is in English so why should it be illegal to require people to speak English?

 

Also, I hope you realized you compared speaking English in the U.S. to being in a wheelchair.

 

Then you missed my comparison. I noted that what would be discrimination in one setting, would not be discrimination in another. Not hiring someone in a wheelchair as a NFL ref, is not discrimination. Not hiring someone in a wheelchair as an accountant, is discrimination. The demonstrated requirements for the job determined what is, and is not, discrimination.

 

Using your argument, if someone applied to the Bible Institute who only spoke English, and they were not hired, it would be discrimination. Likewise if the school lost their contracts and switched their focus and decided on an English only curriculum, firing those who only spoke Spanish would not be permissible. That's crazy.

 

People are laid off all the time. Changing business conditions is one of them. When the business conditions changed , people lost their jobs. Guess what, happens all the time. If Oregon switched vendors, there is a good chance people would have lost their jobs.

[DrunkBomber]

Yes, you can fire someone for not speaking a language. If you can legally not hire them for a reason, you can fire them for the same reason. I have posted several jobs that require speaking a foreign language, I could also post some jobs where speaking English would be a requirement. For most of the country, it would be a natural requirement for a police dispatcher to speak English. If that person suddenly decided they would only speak French, they could, and should, be fired. The ability to coimmunicate over the phone with the residents of that town as a police dispatcher would outweigh their legal right to work. Why does that not make sense to you?

 

Two decisions were made.

 

1. Oregon required that Firefighting Crews must speak a common language. Legal. Do you disagree?

2. Companies were required to meet that law. *They* decided how to do that. Again, Legal. Do you disagree?

 

The companies could have offered language training, they could have fired specific workers who did not meet the requirements. They could have insisted everyone learn French. Disagree all you want how those private companies met that requirement, but the requirement to me seems necessary.

 

Unless you can demonstrate that speaking different language is as safe as speaking the same, you argument doesn't hold water. All it will take is a company to sue that crews speaking the same language is not necessary to safely perform that job and the law would be changed. So far, that has not happened.

No, I dont agree because there are other things that they could have done instead of firing people for not speaking Spanish. Spanish was not a requirement for this job.

 

In the description of the what violates language discrimination it says what you can and cannot do. The issue here is, that law might say that they have to speak the same language, but it doesnt say anything about being allowed to fire them. If they were that concerned they could have put forth an effort to help the two groups communicate with each other instead of firing one side and not the other, or in the least divided the groups by language.

 

Now since the *new* rule doesnt mention *firing* anyone and only says they have to speak the same language either one of these options would be the LEGAL way to do it.

 

Nowhere in the new rule does it say to fire anyone or say that they are exempt from discrimination laws.

 

So unless you saw something that says to *fire* anyone who doesnt speak Spanish, it is still language discrimination. Also, you keep talking about not *hiring* certain people, save it, these people were already employed and met all the criteria for the position and they tried to make a BS loophole to allow discrimination but it still doesnt permit firing.

 

For how much this country bends over backwards to try to accommodate everyone its amazing how people will all of a sudden turn around and say something like this is OK because the victims arent what people would like to traditionally consider victims.

 

At the drop of a hat liberals want people fired for saying something on the radio, or jobs and spots at schools reserved for minorities and whatever else the flavor of the week cause is. Then, regular English speaking Americans are fired for not speaking Spanish in the U.S. and we get a liberal to say, well thats ok, its survival of the fittest. Its the most hypocritical argument Ive ever heard. Since safety is the default argument you guys have I would like to know why Spanish speaking firefighters are safer than English speaking ones. Would it not be *safe* to divide them into different groups by language? Is that not safe?

 

It shouldnt matter who you are or what you believe politically, these people were fired unjustly, and by definition it is against the law. If you want to defend firing these people for whatever reason thats your choice, but in this country, no person should ever have to go home and face their family and have to figure out how to put food on the table because they were fired for speaking English.

 

 

Also, that wheelchair argument is still ridiculous. Are you really going to try and say that a fireman who only speaks English is as unsafe as an NFL ref in a wheelchair? Ill be sitting by my mailbox waiting to get my handicapped parking pass because I only speak English in America.

[Texsox]

No, I dont agree because there are other things that they could have done instead of firing people for not speaking Spanish. Spanish was not a requirement for this job.

 

In the description of the what violates language discrimination it says what you can and cannot do. The issue here is, that law might say that they have to speak the same language, but it doesnt say anything about being allowed to fire them. If they were that concerned they could have put forth an effort to help the two groups communicate with each other instead of firing one side and not the other, or in the least divided the groups by language.

 

Now since the *new* rule doesnt mention *firing* anyone and only says they have to speak the same language either one of these options would be the LEGAL way to do it.

 

Nowhere in the new rule does it say to fire anyone or say that they are exempt from discrimination laws.

 

So unless you saw something that says to *fire* anyone who doesnt speak Spanish, it is still language discrimination. Also, you keep talking about not *hiring* certain people, save it, these people were already employed and met all the criteria for the position and they tried to make a BS loophole to allow discrimination but it still doesnt permit firing.

 

For how much this country bends over backwards to try to accommodate everyone its amazing how people will all of a sudden turn around and say something like this is OK because the victims arent what people would like to traditionally consider victims.

 

At the drop of a hat liberals want people fired for saying something on the radio, or jobs and spots at schools reserved for minorities and whatever else the flavor of the week cause is. Then, regular English speaking Americans are fired for not speaking Spanish in the U.S. and we get a liberal to say, well thats ok, its survival of the fittest. Its the most hypocritical argument Ive ever heard. Since safety is the default argument you guys have I would like to know why Spanish speaking firefighters are safer than English speaking ones. Would it not be *safe* to divide them into different groups by language? Is that not safe?

 

It shouldnt matter who you are or what you believe politically, these people were fired unjustly, and by definition it is against the law. If you want to defend firing these people for whatever reason thats your choice, but in this country, no person should ever have to go home and face their family and have to figure out how to put food on the table because they were fired for speaking English.

 

 

Also, that wheelchair argument is still ridiculous. Are you really going to try and say that a fireman who only speaks English is as unsafe as an NFL ref in a wheelchair? Ill be sitting by my mailbox waiting to get my handicapped parking pass because I only speak English in America.

 

Do you even acknowledge there was a safety concern that prompted this?

 

Allow me again try to explain why it is legal to lay someone off who does not speak a language.

 

Let's pretend you own a software company and offer technical support. You have a customer in Canada who you have a contract to supply support for one year. They are acquired by a Quebec firm and moved where they only speak French. Are you seriously telling me that you could never lay off these people, even though you no longer have a position for them?

 

This contract was changed. Because, as you noted, Spanish is not safer than English, it was left up to the private company to meet the new requirements any way they could. The state gave them an opportunity to require English only and for whatever reason they elected to go this route. You believe the state should have required English only. That would be the greatest burden to place, the most intrusive demand the government could make, typical for do gooder liberals. They can always run a business better than the actual owners. I believe that government, when given a choice, should always chose the smallest burden on businesses. I know that is very conservative and I've said many times, when it comes to business and guns, I'm clearly with the GOP.

 

I never said it was a handicap. You keep talking about discrimination, again, I used the wheelchair as an example that discrimination is based on the requirements of the job. You never countered it, only misstated the intent of the remark. When it is a legitimate requirement, it is allowed.

 

Yes, there is other things the private company could have done, but they chose not to.

 

Requirements change for positions all the time. Imagine the morse code operator who lost his job. The requirements for the contract changed. They change all the time to adapt to technology, to discovered hazards, etc. Are you suggesting the government should never change the specs and never change vendors because someone will lose their job?

 

If they did require English only, what level of literacy would you require? There are plenty of illiterates that were born in the US. Would you also exclude them from the job force? Would you set different levels based on jobs? Should the government say what level of literacy is required to run a printing press or Alpha (he owns a printing company)? I for one trust Alpha to make that decision, not some Senator with no experience in printing.

[Texsox]

Further,

 

One role I think is legitimate for the government to be involved in is the safety of people within their borders. I support OSHA's mission, as long as it leaves the smallest necessary footprint. To add requirements to jobs outside of safety, is an area that should be treated very cautiously. Imagine if now employees have to prove some level of literacy before being hired. Do we create a standardized test? Have one set of requirements for professionals and another for common laborers? Who decides what literacy is required? A new government agency? No thanks.

[DrunkBomber]

Do you even acknowledge there was a safety concern that prompted this?

 

Allow me again try to explain why it is legal to lay someone off who does not speak a language.

 

Let's pretend you own a software company and offer technical support. You have a customer in Canada who you have a contract to supply support for one year. They are acquired by a Quebec firm and moved where they only speak French. Are you seriously telling me that you could never lay off these people, even though you no longer have a position for them?

 

This contract was changed. Because, as you noted, Spanish is not safer than English, it was left up to the private company to meet the new requirements any way they could. The state gave them an opportunity to require English only and for whatever reason they elected to go this route. You believe the state should have required English only. That would be the greatest burden to place, the most intrusive demand the government could make, typical for do gooder liberals. They can always run a business better than the actual owners. I believe that government, when given a choice, should always chose the smallest burden on businesses. I know that is very conservative and I've said many times, when it comes to business and guns, I'm clearly with the GOP.

 

I never said it was a handicap. You keep talking about discrimination, again, I used the wheelchair as an example that discrimination is based on the requirements of the job. You never countered it, only misstated the intent of the remark. When it is a legitimate requirement, it is allowed.

 

Yes, there is other things the private company could have done, but they chose not to.

 

Requirements change for positions all the time. Imagine the morse code operator who lost his job. The requirements for the contract changed. They change all the time to adapt to technology, to discovered hazards, etc. Are you suggesting the government should never change the specs and never change vendors because someone will lose their job?

 

If they did require English only, what level of literacy would you require? There are plenty of illiterates that were born in the US. Would you also exclude them from the job force? Would you set different levels based on jobs? Should the government say what level of literacy is required to run a printing press or Alpha (he owns a printing company)? I for one trust Alpha to make that decision, not some Senator with no experience in printing.

Ok, thats all I was looking for. I honestly wasnt trying to say its OK to do it to Spanish speakers and not English speakers, I just want consistency. If you think that when faced with situations like this is should be left up the the company to decide which burdens them the least I agree. Im just picturing people saying this is OK and then if the shoe were on the other foot all of a sudden its discrimination. I agree that businesses should be allowed to govern themselves on decisions that affect the day to day operations. If you think it would have been OK to fire the Spanish speakers if they chose to than thats fair.

 

Im sure there are a lot of underlying issues that surround this situation that I would never want to debate in this arena, in terms of this all I wanted is fairness and consistency.

[Texsox]

This is one of those instances where each step seems logical and fair but brings us to a result that seems really unfair. And it would be unfair to whomever was fired. Since the requirement has not been challenged in court, it appears that it is a valid requirement.

 

To me it all goes back to the job. In a community where 99% of the people speak English only, a residential fire fighter, EMT, Police officer, etc, better speak English. That isn't discrimination, it is a logical requirement for the job. Likewise here, a store clerk who does not speak Spanish hurts that business. So we see many ads that state applicants must speak Spanish, or bilingual preferred.

 

Thanks for the debate.

[EvilMonkey]

Alpha, which is better for America's economy?

 

An offshore customer service line where everyone speaks English, or a US based company where everyone speaks Italian?

Tex, in the last 2 months, I have had to cal AT&T, SBC, Wells Fargo and Adobe several times. 3 different times, i have talked to someone named 'Mitch' who is no more a 'Mitch' than I am a 'Mary'. I don't care that they are told to adopt an American name, and you can say that they can 'speak' English. I cna't understand a damn word they say, or at least only every third one. I have gotten to the point that I refuse to talk with them, and ask for a manager. And when I get a manager that I can't understand (yes, SBC, I am talking about you!) I just go ballistic. As for what is better, the one that keeps dollars here in the states is better. I would never use any of those 4 I listed above again if I had a choice, but I don't. Well, the Wells Fargo I DO have a choice, and I am researcghing switching that one right now, but may take a bit.

[Texsox]

Tex, in the last 2 months, I have had to cal AT&T, SBC, Wells Fargo and Adobe several times. 3 different times, i have talked to someone named 'Mitch' who is no more a 'Mitch' than I am a 'Mary'. I don't care that they are told to adopt an American name, and you can say that they can 'speak' English. I cna't understand a damn word they say, or at least only every third one. I have gotten to the point that I refuse to talk with them, and ask for a manager. And when I get a manager that I can't understand (yes, SBC, I am talking about you!) I just go ballistic. As for what is better, the one that keeps dollars here in the states is better. I would never use any of those 4 I listed above again if I had a choice, but I don't. Well, the Wells Fargo I DO have a choice, and I am researcghing switching that one right now, but may take a bit.

Same problem with Time Warner. I'm having an intermittent problem with my Internet and phone.

 

1-800-222-5355

1

1

956 XXX-XXXX

 

Hello I am "fake name" how can I help you?

Your service sucks

"I am sorry you are having this problem?

For security reasons, may I have your phone number, address, and last four digits of your social security.

 

I've been calling you people every day for the past month. I am so f***ing sick of repeating my address, phone number, and social for security reasons. I just transfer $3,000 between my bank account and my mutual fund and all they required for security was a four digit pin.

 

I understand sir, thank you. Now may I have your phone number?

I have caller ID, why the hell can't y'all afford caller ID? Give them number to home

 

Is there an alternative number?

That is my alternative because your service sucks. I never give out the number because during the day, it never works.

 

I understand you are having a problem with your telephone service. I can help you.

Arggggh

[EvilMonkey]

Can police be next?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...ilingual26.html

Feds order town of two languages to bridge the gap

By Stuart Glascock

 

Los Angeles Times

 

PREV of NEXT

 

 

 

MATTAWA, Grant County — Nearly everyone in this small farming community speaks Spanish — nearly everyone except those in city government and the police department, where English is spoken.

 

And almost everyone who speaks one language does not speak the other.

 

It is a language barrier that has engulfed the community, which has grown over the past 20 years from 300 to about 3,200 year-round residents. Nine of every 10 Mattawa residents speak Spanish at home, and eight of every 10 adults speak English "less than very well," according to the 2000 U.S. Census.

 

The Columbia River basin community, surrounded by miles of fruit orchards and vineyards, has tried to deal with its language barrier informally. From the first gas station to the last retail shop, signs advertise goods and services in Spanish and English. The tiny library offers bilingual story time for families. For years, police often relied on bystanders to translate at crime scenes. City administrators grabbed bilingual speakers as ad-hoc interpreters.

 

But the gap between an English-speaking city government and an overwhelmingly Spanish-speaking population has grown so wide that the federal government has stepped in to mandate that the city bridge the divide.

 

After a Civil Rights Act complaint filed by a legal aid group, the Justice Department worked with the city and its police department to develop a language-assistance plan.

 

Adopted in March, the plan is unique in Washington and is seen as a bellwether for cities with similar demographics. The plan requires Mattawa to employ at least one bilingual employee during regular business hours and to make vital information available in Spanish as well as English. It also requires police to have qualified interpreters on call at all times.

 

For a long time, the Northwest Justice Project knew that Mattawa police did not speak Spanish and did not use interpreters, said Judith Lurie, senior attorney for the group that launched the federal complaint.

 

A call for help in a domestic-violence case then focused attention on the issue.

 

Mattawa police allowed the suspect to leave the scene to go and find someone to interpret, Lurie said. The man never returned. Police had tried to use the couple's children as interpreters, but they were too traumatized by the fighting. Their terrified mother drove them some 60 miles to a safe house.

 

"Victims of domestic violence rely on the police to protect them," Lurie said. "They were not being adequately protected [in Mattawa] because the police were not using interpreters to communicate."

 

The Justice Department said the town had to provide interpretation and translation for people who aren't English-proficient. In places that have a high percentage of monolingual Spanish speakers, that means all city services, including law enforcement, have to be available in Spanish.

 

 

Hiring bilingual police officers and city staff costs money the town doesn't have, the mayor said. Mattawa employs one provisional and three full-time officers.

 

"We are in a huge competition with every city," Esser said. "It is tough to find bilingual people, especially when the state patrol and county sheriff pay more."

 

Mattawa, about 150 miles east of Seattle, is not a wealthy place.

 

The local government struggles with growing pains and has a limited tax base. More than half of property owners don't pay taxes because they are subsidized or nonprofits. Esser called the growth of farmworker housing "much needed" but a strain on other systems and services.

 

Streets are lined with prefabricated houses and run-down mobile homes. Chain stores and fast-food restaurants bypassed the town. Immigrants can find authentic meals from their home countries at El Jato, El Caribe, La Popular, La Parilla, Rallito de Luna and La Maravita. Inside, satellite TV beams in Spanish-language news and soap operas.

 

The Catholic Diocese of Yakima Housing Services operates low-income housing in Mattawa. The state's migrant council runs a child-development center that has a long waiting list. Residents point with pride to the new high school and community clinic.

 

Jose Fernandez manages an unusual migrant housing project: the Esperanza, a village of 40 reconstructed cargo containers. Six people squeeze into each unit. Families pay $10 per day; singles, $3.

 

Fernandez sees Mattawa police on patrol regularly and gives them credit.

 

"They relate. They work with the people," he said. "They do their job."

 

Maria Belen Ledezma, a 35-year resident who works in agricultural services for the state's employment office in Mattawa, said police should work harder to resolve the language barrier.

 

"How would [spanish-only speakers] understand what law enforcement is requesting? If they are stopped, how would they know what their rights are?" she asked.

 

Former Mattawa City Council member Blanca Fernandez recently moved to Yakima, although she still works in town. She sometimes serves as a translator for Mattawa police.

 

"There has been an effort to deal with the language issues," she said. "We live in such a rural area. It's a hard labor pool. Things are getting better. People are trying to fix things."

 

Again, why aren't these people learning English? Since they are called 'permananet' residents there, they are not migratory. They live here, do not pay taxes, use government services, and then need special treatment also? Not right.

[NorthSideSox72]

Can police be next?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...ilingual26.html

 

 

Again, why aren't these people learning English? Since they are called 'permananet' residents there, they are not migratory. They live here, do not pay taxes, use government services, and then need special treatment also? Not right.

I tend to agree. Mind you, I don't think its a bad thing for a police department in a town like that to try to recruit officers who are bilingual - that should give them an advantage in fact. But IMO, there is a far cry from the PD making an effort like that, and the feds coming in and requiring someone be available who speaks something other than English.

 

People who defend these sorts of policies usually do so by way of saying that people shouldn't have to give up their culture. But to me, that's an argument no one is against. No one is saying people can't speak other languages, or practice whatever cultural idioms they desire. Do whatever you want to! But in order for society and government to function, there needs to be a common language - and since English is far, far and away the dominant language in this country, I'm afraid that's the one we need to standardize on.

 

If you are going to force government agencies to deal with a language barrier, then do it in such a way that the legal residents of that area are putting in a little elbow grease and showing some respect for the country that is giving them these opportunities. Provide some free or low cost get-by English classes at the local JuCo. Its not that hard.

 

[EvilMonkey]

I tend to agree. Mind you, I don't think its a bad thing for a police department in a town like that to try to recruit officers who are bilingual - that should give them an advantage in fact. But IMO, there is a far cry from the PD making an effort like that, and the feds coming in and requiring someone be available who speaks something other than English.

 

People who defend these sorts of policies usually do so by way of saying that people shouldn't have to give up their culture. But to me, that's an argument no one is against. No one is saying people can't speak other languages, or practice whatever cultural idioms they desire. Do whatever you want to! But in order for society and government to function, there needs to be a common language - and since English is far, far and away the dominant language in this country, I'm afraid that's the one we need to standardize on.

 

If you are going to force government agencies to deal with a language barrier, then do it in such a way that the legal residents of that area are putting in a little elbow grease and showing some respect for the country that is giving them these opportunities. Provide some free or low cost get-by English classes at the local JuCo. Its not that hard.

The article did mention that they try and recruit people who speak both, but with no money, due to their small size and huge percentage of tax freeloaders, they can't compete with the surrounding communities. Your last paragraph is most excellent, and I agree with 100%.

[Texsox]

Can police be next?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...ilingual26.html

 

 

Again, why aren't these people learning English? Since they are called 'permananet' residents there, they are not migratory. They live here, do not pay taxes, use government services, and then need special treatment also? Not right.

 

They have jobs, they shop in stores.

 

What we need are more Americans to go up their and take those jobs. To live in those houses. To work those fields.

[Texsox]

What education level are we dealing with here? Read how they are living for an opportunity to live in America and work our farm fields. Do you think these are University educated humans? Try and learn Spanish and see how far you get, I tried. I worked in Mexico.

 

Just saying learn English discounts the realities of actually making that happen.

 

The solution is getting our kids to take those jobs. To live in remanufactured cargo containers and pick crops.

[EvilMonkey]

What education level are we dealing with here? Read how they are living for an opportunity to live in America and work our farm fields. Do you think these are University educated humans? Try and learn Spanish and see how far you get, I tried. I worked in Mexico.

 

Just saying learn English discounts the realities of actually making that happen.

 

The solution is getting our kids to take those jobs. To live in remanufactured cargo containers and pick crops.

The solution is them making an effort to fit into the society they have chosen to live in and learn enough of the language to get by. You don't have to be university educated to pick up enough to survive. You had difficulty learning Spanish. If you decided to actually live there, surrounded by it all day, you would learn it, or at least enough to get by.

[jackie hayes]

Can police be next?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...ilingual26.html

 

 

Again, why aren't these people learning English? Since they are called 'permananet' residents there, they are not migratory. They live here, do not pay taxes, use government services, and then need special treatment also? Not right.

I'm almost certain permanent residents pay taxes.

[EvilMonkey]

I'm almost certain permanent residents pay taxes.

The local government struggles with growing pains and has a limited tax base. More than half of property owners don't pay taxes because they are subsidized or nonprofits.

[Texsox]

The solution is them making an effort to fit into the society they have chosen to live in and learn enough of the language to get by. You don't have to be university educated to pick up enough to survive. You had difficulty learning Spanish. If you decided to actually live there, surrounded by it all day, you would learn it, or at least enough to get by.

 

You would be surprised at how much learning that takes. In a HS class, it would be a couple years.

 

Far better for some High School graduates to move into those Cargo containers and start working the fields.

[jackie hayes]

The solution is them making an effort to fit into the society they have chosen to live in and learn enough of the language to get by. You don't have to be university educated to pick up enough to survive. You had difficulty learning Spanish. If you decided to actually live there, surrounded by it all day, you would learn it, or at least enough to get by.

Huh? The society they are surrounded by uses Spanish "overwhelmingly", according to the article.

 

It is a much bigger challenge than you are letting on. I've known people who took such courses, and really they still can't function without a translator. Languages are very tough to pick up as an adult.

[Texsox]

They pay sales tax on their purchases and income tax. But no matter what language you speak, the poor receive more in benefits then they pay out.

 

We give economic incentives to businesses here who relocate from other areas. Typically, those property owners do not pay property taxes either.

[NorthSideSox72]

Huh? The society they are surrounded by uses Spanish "overwhelmingly", according to the article.

 

It is a much bigger challenge than you are letting on. I've known people who took such courses, and really they still can't function without a translator. Languages are very tough to pick up as an adult.

I don't think you can look at this issue in a community-level vacuum. The reality nowadays is that people are more transient, and get around a lot more. I'd bet that in that county, and that state, English is far and away the primary language.

 

If communities start cobbling together different primary languages as an expectation of base communication, that will start to add enormous costs and problems to businesses all over the country.

 

[jackie hayes]

In that sense, it doesn't bother me at all. They are playing by the same tax rules as every American, so I don't see what the issue is. Those that own a home pay property taxes, and those who work pay income taxes. Same as everyone else.

[Texsox]

I don't think you can look at this issue in a community-level vacuum. The reality nowadays is that people are more transient, and get around a lot more. I'd bet that in that county, and that state, English is far and away the primary language.

 

If communities start cobbling together different primary languages as an expectation of base communication, that will start to add enormous costs and problems to businesses all over the country.

As far as businesses, as noted in the article, many spring up that speak Spanish and make money. We expect private business to offer customer service for their customers, but we demand that government does not offer that same service. We point to how inefficient government is, but when they start acting like a private company, we complain.

 

Read again the living conditions they are enduring to pick our crops. You think $4.00 per gallon gas sucks, we can drive less. Food costs are something we cannot escape.

[NorthSideSox72]

As far as businesses, as noted in the article, many spring up that speak Spanish and make money. We expect private business to offer customer service for their customers, but we demand that government does not offer that same service. We point to how inefficient government is, but when they start acting like a private company, we complain.

 

Read again the living conditions they are enduring to pick our crops. You think $4.00 per gallon gas sucks, we can drive less. Food costs are something we cannot escape.

I really don't see what that second graf has to do with this discussion, so, I'll pass on that.

 

As for business vs government in the language issue, private business can do whatever the heck they want. But if governments allow regionalized languages to become prevalent, you are making a whole lot of businesses that are non-local a lot less efficient. You are adding costs in the long run.

 

[EvilMonkey]

As far as businesses, as noted in the article, many spring up that speak Spanish and make money. We expect private business to offer customer service for their customers, but we demand that government does not offer that same service. We point to how inefficient government is, but when they start acting like a private company, we complain.

 

Read again the living conditions they are enduring to pick our crops. You think $4.00 per gallon gas sucks, we can drive less. Food costs are something we cannot escape.

Businesses wouldn't print their order forms in 30 different languages if the cost to do so would outweigh the benefits of doing so. If the government doesn't do that, they get sued by the ACLU. Hell, we may have to redesign and print all our money because a minority doesn't like that they can't use it (blind people). So the cost to accomodate blind people will be in the billions, for both government and private businesses who have to adapt to whatever new money designs come out. Not a very efficient use of resources to offer 'service for our blind customers.' Should we start printing our money with Spanish words as well? If the people are going to work here, live here, use social services here, at least try to fit in, just a little bit. Nobody is asking them to become white, just learn a little language to get by.

[jackie hayes]

I don't think you can look at this issue in a community-level vacuum. The reality nowadays is that people are more transient, and get around a lot more. I'd bet that in that county, and that state, English is far and away the primary language.

 

If communities start cobbling together different primary languages as an expectation of base communication, that will start to add enormous costs and problems to businesses all over the country.

But the statement was that Tex would learn Spanish adequately because he was surrounded with it. If he moved to an area with a large English-speaking community, went to bars that beamed English-language broadcasts on the tvs, and had access to English-language newspapers at the Siete-Once every morning, I don't see how he would be surrounded by Spanish, at all. No little once-weekly English (or Spanish) class is going to overcome that.

 

We can criticize people for living in such a community, but asking people to live in enforced loneliness is something I could never honestly demand of anyone.