Firefighters Being Fired For Not Speaking Spanish

[EvilMonkey]

Because there has never been an official language in the United States, just a dominant one.

And I think that is wrong also.

[DrunkBomber]

I'm also sure that there've been plenty of black gay males that have been fired for just being bad at their jobs, and there was no outcry from anybody because there was just no reason. Now if they were fired because they were black and gay...

If it was a matter of getting fired for not being good at their jobs than thats completely different. These firefighters werent demoted or laid off because they were bad at their jobs, it was because they didnt speak spanish.

[jackie hayes]

If it was a matter of getting fired for not being good at their jobs than thats completely different. These firefighters werent demoted or laid off because they were bad at their jobs, it was because they didnt speak spanish.

Uh, no. Unless you think safety is not part of the job description, it does affect performance.

[DrunkBomber]

Uh, no. Unless you think safety is not part of the job description, it does affect performance.

Speaking Spanish wasnt part of the job description, and if they want to use the reasoning of safety than they should have fired the people who cant speak English. Youre reasoning for defending this is my whole point. If it starts here where does it stop? There are tons of jobs where communication is vital for safety and all this does is open the door for this to happen other places. Safety isnt the issue I have with this situation, its fairness. I agree that safety should be stressed in jobs like this. However, under no circumstances do I think people should be punished for not speaking Spanish.

 

So based on your reaction, Im assuming you think this is fair and the right thing to do? Do you not think that in this country if a situation arises like this that 100/100 times the English speakers should keep their jobs? Also, do you not think that if they would have fired the Spanish speakers that there wouldnt be more outrage? Thats the problem and as much as you guys got a laugh out of my first post you continue to cement my point with every response. You bring up safety and seem to think its ok because now their safe, but would they not have been safe if they kept the English Speakers? So its OK to lay off or demote these guys because they dont speak spanish in the United States?

 

Since you are using their job description as a point of reference can you please find me in where it says they HAVE to speak Spanish? The crews should have to speak the language of the supervisors, not vice versa.

 

So, they fire the English speakers and people claim its in the name of safety, but if the Spanish speakers were fired it would be discrimination.

 

 

[DrunkBomber]

Well heres a line from the job requirements packet:

 

Requisite Skills: The ability to communicate in writing and to interpret accidents,

injuries, occupational illnesses, or death reports.

 

Thats on page 15 in case you were wondering. It doesnt say anything about having to be able to speak Spanish. I also noticed the sample questions for the written test are in English. Thats odd I guess. You would think this whole thing would be in Spanish. Im curious how someone who doesnt speak English would pass a written test anyway.

[jackie hayes]

Speaking Spanish wasnt part of the job description, and if they want to use the reasoning of safety than they should have fired the people who cant speak English. Youre reasoning for defending this is my whole point. If it starts here where does it stop? There are tons of jobs where communication is vital for safety and all this does is open the door for this to happen other places. Safety isnt the issue I have with this situation, its fairness. I agree that safety should be stressed in jobs like this. However, under no circumstances do I think people should be punished for not speaking Spanish.

 

So based on your reaction, Im assuming you think this is fair and the right thing to do? Do you not think that in this country if a situation arises like this that 100/100 times the English speakers should keep their jobs? Also, do you not think that if they would have fired the Spanish speakers that there wouldnt be more outrage? Thats the problem and as much as you guys got a laugh out of my first post you continue to cement my point with every response. You bring up safety and seem to think its ok because now their safe, but would they not have been safe if they kept the English Speakers? So its OK to lay off or demote these guys because they dont speak spanish in the United States?

 

Since you are using their job description as a point of reference can you please find me in where it says they HAVE to speak Spanish? The crews should have to speak the language of the supervisors, not vice versa.

 

So, they fire the English speakers and people claim its in the name of safety, but if the Spanish speakers were fired it would be discrimination.

Nope. If you mean it "should" be that way because the companies will make more money from a policy like that, I'd say that companies tend to know their own business a hell of a lot better than you do. If you mean there's some moral imperative to keep English speakers employed, even at the cost of people who speak Spanish and the company's own profit, I'd say that's bulls***.

 

As for the job description, I don't know what the f*** it says. I don't even know if anyone has been fired, as I haven't seen any documentation of that. Everything I've said and am saying is speaking hypothetically.

 

That is, if it were to happen that a company reorganized its work force to comply with new safety regulations, and in the process laid off particular supervisors because they do not speak Spanish, I would have no outrage over that. It's no different than anyone else who gets laid off because they do not have the skills necessary for a changed environment. I don't have any malice towards them, in fact I do feel bad for them, but it would be a decision made because they would now be unable to perform the job the company wants them to do. That's a legitimate firing, not discriminatory at all. Sometimes old jobs require new skills, and those unable to acquire the skills lose their jobs. It sucks, but it's not a new story.

 

If they found it more efficient to lay off the workers who could not speak English, I would have zero problem with that, as well. Again, IT IS JOB RELATED. That is all I ask about situations like this.

 

You keep making this claim that people would riot if Spanish speakers were fired, which is nonsense. The vast majority of jobs available in the US REQUIRE English proficiency, at least. (And for good reason.) Where are all these riots happening now?

[DrunkBomber]

Nope. If you mean it "should" be that way because the companies will make more money from a policy like that, I'd say that companies tend to know their own business a hell of a lot better than you do. If you mean there's some moral imperative to keep English speakers employed, even at the cost of people who speak Spanish and the company's own profit, I'd say that's bulls***.

 

As for the job description, I don't know what the f*** it says. I don't even know if anyone has been fired, as I haven't seen any documentation of that. Everything I've said and am saying is speaking hypothetically.

 

That is, if it were to happen that a company reorganized its work force to comply with new safety regulations, and in the process laid off particular supervisors because they do not speak Spanish, I would have no outrage over that. It's no different than anyone else who gets laid off because they do not have the skills necessary for a changed environment. I don't have any malice towards them, in fact I do feel bad for them, but it would be a decision made because they would now be unable to perform the job the company wants them to do. That's a legitimate firing, not discriminatory at all. Sometimes old jobs require new skills, and those unable to acquire the skills lose their jobs. It sucks, but it's not a new story.

 

If they found it more efficient to lay off the workers who could not speak English, I would have zero problem with that, as well. Again, IT IS JOB RELATED. That is all I ask about situations like this.

 

You keep making this claim that people would riot if Spanish speakers were fired, which is nonsense. The vast majority of jobs available in the US REQUIRE English proficiency, at least. (And for good reason.) Where are all these riots happening now?

Spanish isnt s skill that theyre lacking and isnt required of them to do their job. Nobody should have to learn a different language because foreigners are coming here and cant conform. The application is in English and the test is in English so why would someone think they would have to learn another language in a country where English is the norm.

 

So youre saying that it would be fair if I went to a country that didnt speak English and became a fireman, and there were only a handful of people that spoke English and since we coulnt communicate with anyone else that they should fire everyone except us?

 

No other countries do anything this stupid and theres a reason for it. Nobody that lives in the US should have to learn a second language for a job to conform to people that havent learned English.

 

Also, firefighters arent private companies so this isnt a situation like that. Also, if you dont know what the f*** the job description says than how about not using it as an example to prove a point. I showed you what it said and it was nothing about having to learn Spanish.

 

*to save you, the state is still responsible for whoever any private company chooses to hire and they still have to meet the states requirements.

Edited May 24, 2008 by DrunkBomber

[DrunkBomber]

Fired for Not Speaking English? Pelosi Says No Way

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is holding up a $53-billion appropriations bill that will provide funds for the FBI, NASA and Justice Department to block an attached amendment, passed by both the Senate and House, that protects the Salvation Army and other employers from federal lawsuits over their English-only policies, reports The Wall Street Journal. The EEOC is suing the Salvation Army for allegedly discriminating against two employees at its Framingham, Mass., thrift store "on the basis of their national origin." The charity gave the employees a year's notice, telling them they had to speak English on the job, but not on breaks. They were fired after they did not learn English, reports The Wall Street Journal.

 

Thats weird, some companies tried to make their employees speak English, while at work only, and gave them a year to learn the language and Nancy Pelosi is trying to get rid of the amendment that protects employers from federal lawsuits over English only policies. That seems fair...

[DrunkBomber]

ProEnglish Likely To Appeal Lawsuit Ruling

 

“You’ve got it. It’s oral, in English.” Thus did U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema refuse ProEnglish attorney Barnaby Zall’s request for a written explanation of the legal basis for her decision Aug. 16th to dismiss ProEnglish’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Executive Order 13166 (E.O. 13166).

E.O. 13166 was signed Aug. 11, 2000 by President Clinton and requires all recipients of federal funds to provide translations and interpreters for people who don’t speak English, or risk prosecution for violating their civil rights. The order applies to almost every federal, state, and local government agency in the country as well as private contractors receiving federal payments including doctors who are reimbursed for patient care under Medicaid and Medicare. Because E.O. 13166 demands that all these entities pay the cost of translation services out of their own pocket without reimbursement, it amounts to a huge un-funded federal mandate costing billions of dollars. On March 11th ProEnglish and four physicians filed suit in federal court charging that E.O. 13166 was an unconstitutional exercise of executive power. The court hearing on August 16th was in response to a government motion to dismiss ProEnglish’s suit.

In comments she made during the hearing, Judge Brinkema justified her action on the narrow technical grounds that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had not yet issued its “final” policy guidance to implement E.O. 13166 and that therefore ProEnglish’s suit was premature [“not ripe’] because the policy was not in effect. In response ProEnglish attorney Barnaby Zall quoted from an official HHS memorandum dated August 16, 2000, saying that the order was “effective immediately” and cited HHS sources telling Congress the agency was spending nearly half a million dollars a year to implement it.

Yet they insisted that because HHS had not issued a “final” version of its implementing policy guidance, the policy was not yet “effective.”

Reacting to the judge’s ruling ProEnglish’s executive director K.C. McAlpin said, “We are disappointed but not surprised that Judge Brinkema, a Clinton appointee, would refuse to give ProEnglish and our co-plaintiffs the opportunity to prove our case that the government is acting illegally when it carries out E.O. 13166. Fortunately, she is only one judge. Now we are weighing our options to appeal her decision to the entire 4th Circuit, or re-file our suit when HHS issues its “final” policy guidance.” McAlpin added, “I can assure our supporters of this: ProEnglish will not stop fighting until this unconstitutional order is overturned.”

A complete transcript of the August 16th court hearing will be made available on ProEnglish’s website, www.proenglish.org. It is also available free to ProEnglish members who write to request a copy: ProEnglish Publications, 1601 N. Kent Street, Suite 1100, Arlington, VA 22209.

[DrunkBomber]

Miami-Dade Employee Fired for Not Speaking Spanish

 

A 16-year employee of the Miami-Dade County court system was abruptly fired by her supervisor for not being able to speak fluent Spanish after a campaign of harassment and discrimination because of her non-Hispanic background, according to news reports.

 

Zita Wilensky, had compiled an exemplary work record while working in various departments of the county court system over 14 years. But Wilensky was transferred into the court's domestic violence unit after her previous job was eliminated for budget reasons. In the office where she was assigned, she was the only non-Spanish speaking employee.

 

Spanish fluency was an advantage in her office because many of the calls that come into the domestic violence unit, were in Spanish. But Wilensky's job was primarily working with computers and she was only occasionally needed to screen incoming calls.

 

According to Wilensky, soon after she began working in her new assignment she was subjected to a pattern of discrimination and harassment due to her non-Hispanic background and inability to speak Spanish. Fellow employees commonly excluded her from office conversations that were conducted only in Spanish, and openly referred to her as "the Gringa" or "the Americana." In one of the cruelest incidents that took place at the height of the Anthrax scare, her supervisor asked her to sniff a suspicious looking envelope containing white powder in front of her fellow workers. When she refused she was ridiculed and told it was "a joke."

 

The final act came when her supervisor told her that she had 60 days to learn Spanish or lose her job - even though Spanish fluency was not part of her official job description. Thirty days later her supervisor placed a call to Wilensky, concealing her identity, screaming in Spanish, and pretending to be a victim of domestic violence. When Wilensky transferred the call to one of her Spanish-speaking co-workers, she was fired.

 

In response to the news reports, ProEnglish executive director K.C. McAlpin said, "I have spoken to Ms. Wilensky several times and seen her tell her story on TV. I believe she is telling the truth." He added that, "Not only does it appear that she was fired because she couldn't speak Spanish in a state in which English is the official language, but she appears to have been the victim of a campaign of intentional harassment simply because she was not Hispanic. Until and unless Zita Wilensky is reinstated or given an equivalent county job, I am asking all ProEnglish members to join a national boycott of the Miami-Dade County area to protest this injustice." McAlpin noted that Alex Penelas, the mayor of Miami-Dade had refused requests for an independent commission to thoroughly investigate Wilensky's firing.

 

In the meantime, Zita Wilensky continues to pay a heavy price for the controversy over her dismissal. As the mother of two including a special-needs foster child she is adopting, she is now unemployed and urgently searching for work. But she has good reason to believe that negative references from her former employer continue to intimidate prospective employers, despite an untainted 16-year work record in the county court system.

 

ProEnglish members who want to express their opinions about Zita Wilensky's treatment directly to Miami Mayor Alex Penelas can write or e-mail him at the address below:

 

[jackie hayes]

Spanish isnt s skill that theyre lacking and isnt required of them to do their job. Nobody should have to learn a different language because foreigners are coming here and cant conform. The application is in English and the test is in English so why would someone think they would have to learn another language in a country where English is the norm.

 

So youre saying that it would be fair if I went to a country that didnt speak English and became a fireman, and there were only a handful of people that spoke English and since we coulnt communicate with anyone else that they should fire everyone except us?

 

No other countries do anything this stupid and theres a reason for it. Nobody that lives in the US should have to learn a second language for a job to conform to people that havent learned English.

 

Also, firefighters arent private companies so this isnt a situation like that. Also, if you dont know what the f*** the job description says than how about not using it as an example to prove a point. I showed you what it said and it was nothing about having to learn Spanish.

 

*to save you, the state is still responsible for whoever any private company chooses to hire and they still have to meet the states requirements.

What is so hard to understand here? The state sets a basic safety requirement that nobody in his right mind could object to. It leaves it up to contracted (private) companies to implement that requirement as they see fit. So "firefighters arent private companies" is just flat wrong, whatever disclaimers you put after it.

 

Spanish is a skill and anyone who would be fired (again, I don't know if anyone has or hasn't been) is lacking that skill. So that's wrong, too. And it is required for their jobs, because the crews speak Spanish and they must have the ability to communicate with them.

 

You will say that it is not required, they could just fire all the non-English speakers. Okay, then you could use the same logic to argue that the non-English speakers can not be fired, since they could just fire all the non-Spanish speakers. One side has to lose.

 

You simply assume that it has to be the non-English speakers. Why that is, I don't know. If you want to explain your moral theory of language, go right ahead. I won't care, but feel free. Personally, if someone can do the job, I don't care if they speak Aramaic or Pig Latin. If hiring firefighters who speak English is considerably more expensive (which I'd guess is the case here), I'd hire (legal) non-English speakers, too. And I'd sleep damn well, thank you very much.

[DrunkBomber]

What is so hard to understand here? The state sets a basic safety requirement that nobody in his right mind could object to. It leaves it up to contracted (private) companies to implement that requirement as they see fit. So "firefighters arent private companies" is just flat wrong, whatever disclaimers you put after it.

 

Spanish is a skill and anyone who would be fired (again, I don't know if anyone has or hasn't been) is lacking that skill. So that's wrong, too. And it is required for their jobs, because the crews speak Spanish and they must have the ability to communicate with them.

 

You will say that it is not required, they could just fire all the non-English speakers. Okay, then you could use the same logic to argue that the non-English speakers can not be fired, since they could just fire all the non-Spanish speakers. One side has to lose.

 

You simply assume that it has to be the non-English speakers. Why that is, I don't know. If you want to explain your moral theory of language, go right ahead. I won't care, but feel free. Personally, if someone can do the job, I don't care if they speak Aramaic or Pig Latin. If hiring firefighters who speak English is considerably more expensive (which I'd guess is the case here), I'd hire (legal) non-English speakers, too. And I'd sleep damn well, thank you very much.

When the application, training information and tests for a profession are in English that is the language that is expected to be used. The reason why its wrong is because its discrimination.

 

I posted that article talking about how companies are no longer protected from law suits if they try to fire someone that doesnt speak english. All things being fair, do you think that any company should be allowed to fire employees if they dont speak English? If its OK to fire people for not speaking Spanish than it should be OK to fire them for not speaking English but Nancy Pelosi is making a s*** about that not being fair. Which brings me back to my original point, when it becomes ok to fire people that dont speak English than something like would be more acceptable, but its not because its DISCRIMINATION.

 

Also, I love the logic of using safety as a guideline and then jumping immediately to saying that they should do it because its cheaper. Maybe when these CHEAP non-English speaking fireman are in a situation where they have to communicate with civilians that dont speak Spanish and someones safety is compromised than youll realize cheap labor might not be the best idea for all jobs.

[DrunkBomber]

What is language discrimination?

 

Language discrimination occurs when a person is treated differently because of that person’s native language or

other characteristics of that person’s speech. In an employment situation, for example, an employee may be

being subjected to language discrimination if the workplace has a “speak-English-only” policy but the employee’s

primary language is something other than English. The employee may also be the victim of language

discrimination if he or she is treated less favorably than other employees because he or she speaks English with

an accent, or if the employee is told he or she does not qualify for a position because of a lack of English

proficiency. Outside the employment context, language discrimination may also occur if a person is denied

access to businesses or government services because he or she does not speak English.

 

Amazing that it only mentions Non-English speakers. I guess I can add English speaking to my point. Straight, white, English speaking men are the only group not protected by discrimination laws which is BS.

 

Why is language discrimination illegal?

 

The laws mentioned above make it illegal for employers to discriminate against an employee because of his or

her national origin. (“National origin” refers to the country that a person, or that person’s ancestors, came from.)

But because the primary language a person speaks is closely related to the place that person came from, or the

place that person’s family came from, being discriminated against for using that language, or because of

characteristics having to do with that language, is essentially the same as that person being discriminated

against because of his or her national origin.

 

When can an employer require an employee to speak only English at

work?

 

California law generally prohibits employers from having “speak-English-only” policies in the workplace. Such

policies violate California law unless: 1) the employer can show some “business necessity” for the policy - that

is, that there is an overriding and clearly job-related need for the policy, and 2) the employer notifies its employees about the policy, and when employees are required to abide by the policy. Even if the employer shows a

“business necessity” for the policy, it must also show that there is no alternative practice to the policy

that would achieve the business goals just as effectively.

 

Now even though these laws and guide lines are geared towards people that DONT speak English they still say exactly what Language Discrimination is. Now, the company is irrelevant in California and it says that Language discrimination is illegal. Is this not language discrimination?

[jackie hayes]

When the application, training information and tests for a profession are in English that is the language that is expected to be used. The reason why its wrong is because its discrimination.

 

I posted that article talking about how companies are no longer protected from law suits if they try to fire someone that doesnt speak english. All things being fair, do you think that any company should be allowed to fire employees if they dont speak English? If its OK to fire people for not speaking Spanish than it should be OK to fire them for not speaking English but Nancy Pelosi is making a s*** about that not being fair. Which brings me back to my original point, when it becomes ok to fire people that dont speak English than something like would be more acceptable, but its not because its DISCRIMINATION.

 

Also, I love the logic of using safety as a guideline and then jumping immediately to saying that they should do it because its cheaper. Maybe when these CHEAP non-English speaking fireman are in a situation where they have to communicate with civilians that dont speak Spanish and someones safety is compromised than youll realize cheap labor might not be the best idea for all jobs.

You say it's wrong because it's discrimination. But if you define it that way and object to any such firing, you must say either that the law is bad or that discrimination is okay for other people (non-English speakers), just not non-Spanish speakers. So morality's applicability to you depends on the language you use, which strikes me as a sick morality, but you're clearly an authority on such things. You then rant about something else you posted, which has nothing to do with anything I've said, but you're on your own personal crusade, so you go girl. Then you talk about civilians, which is odd, given that these are forestry firefighters. But since you don't want anyone to be required to know Spanish, I guess it would be just dandy with you if non-Spanish speaking city firefighters were unable to help Spanish speaking civilians in the same way. I mean, requiring Spanish language skills would be discrimination! Better to let those people burn to a cinder, right?

 

Do not bring up the SA case again. The whole point of that is that it was NOT job-related, and I've consistently said that language requirements are just fine when they are job-related. Either address the argument I ACTUALLY MADE or don't bother, but don't go off on these ridiculous tangents.

[DrunkBomber]

You say it's wrong because it's discrimination. But if you define it that way and object to any such firing, you must say either that the law is bad or that discrimination is okay for other people (non-English speakers), just not non-Spanish speakers. So morality's applicability to you depends on the language you use, which strikes me as a sick morality, but you're clearly an authority on such things. You then rant about something else you posted, which has nothing to do with anything I've said, but you're on your own personal crusade, so you go girl. Then you talk about civilians, which is odd, given that these are forestry firefighters. But since you don't want anyone to be required to know Spanish, I guess it would be just dandy with you if non-Spanish speaking city firefighters were unable to help Spanish speaking civilians in the same way. I mean, requiring Spanish language skills would be discrimination! Better to let those people burn to a cinder, right?

 

Do not bring up the SA case again. The whole point of that is that it was NOT job-related, and I've consistently said that language requirements are just fine when they are job-related. Either address the argument I ACTUALLY MADE or don't bother, but don't go off on these ridiculous tangents.

If the law was enforced both ways it wouldnt be bad but its not and thats the problem that I have with it. It says in black and white what language discrimination is and this case is a perfect example of it. However, because the language is Spanish and not English its ok? If the law worked both ways I would have no problem with it but it doesnt. You jump around from point to point because every circumstance you use contradicts something you said earlier. First its safety, than its cost. Well which is it? What makes this fair? I hate to break it to you but English is the predominant language in this country and should suffice any job.

 

Than you try and manipulate things that I say and twist them around in another poor attempt at validating yourself. Find where I said its only OK to fire people that dont speak English and not Spanish. You use it as a point over and over so please show me where I said that. All I said is that if there are going to be laws protecting people from discrimination than they should work all the way around and not stop at the minority because you and MTV say so.

Language discrimination occurs when a person is treated differently because of that person’s native language or

other characteristics of that person’s speech. In an employment situation, for example, an employee may be

being subjected to language discrimination if the workplace has a “speak-English-only” policy but the employee’s

primary language is something other than English. The employee may also be the victim of language

discrimination if he or she is treated less favorably than other employees because he or she speaks English with

an accent, or if the employee is told he or she does not qualify for a position because of a lack of English

proficiency. Outside the employment context, language discrimination may also occur if a person is denied

access to businesses or government services because he or she does not speak English.

 

Substitute Spanish for English. So not speaking Spanish because your native language (from that small country called the U.S.) is English so you are treated differently makes you a victim of discrimination.

The laws mentioned above make it illegal for employers to discriminate against an employee because of his or

her national origin.

This means that it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of their national origin. Even if it is that third world sewer the U.S.

 

California law generally prohibits employers from having “speak-English-only” policies in the workplace. Such

policies violate California law unless: 1) the employer can show some “business necessity” for the policy - that

is, that there is an overriding and clearly job-related need for the policy, and 2) the employer notifies its employees about the policy, and when employees are required to abide by the policy. Even if the employer shows a

“business necessity” for the policy, it must also show that there is no alternative practice to the policy

that would achieve the business goals just as effectively.

This says, having exclusive language policies are illegal unless:

it is a business necessity (to save you, Spanish wasnt a business necessity in this case, it was a choice)

the employer notifies the employees and tells them they are required to abide by them (obviously not the case here either)

 

So let me grab your hand and stroll you through this:

We figured out what language discrimination is: Since the English speakers were treated differently because of their national origin they were discriminated against

then we learned about discrimination laws and how they apply to this case: the English speakers were treated differently because their nation of origin had a different language than the employer wanted...thus, being illegal because...

 

...Spanish is not a NECESSITY for firefighters (I googled elementary debate tactics so I already know youre going to try and say that Spanish was in fact a necessity, and you will be wrong so save it)

 

This brings us to the grand finale. Firing people because they dont speak spanish when it is not a necessity is in fact discrimination, and is in fact illegal, and is in fact being overlooked because drumrolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

 

There are no discrimination laws protecting straight, white, english speaking men between the ages of 18 -59.

[Texsox]

I worked a job in Mexico and spoke no Spanish. All our customers spoke English and almost every office employee was bilingual. Match the tool for the job. If you have an eager employee who can work a job without speaking at all, what does it matter?

[jackie hayes]

If the law was enforced both ways it wouldnt be bad but its not and thats the problem that I have with it. It says in black and white what language discrimination is and this case is a perfect example of it. However, because the language is Spanish and not English its ok? If the law worked both ways I would have no problem with it but it doesnt. You jump around from point to point because every circumstance you use contradicts something you said earlier. First its safety, than its cost. Well which is it? What makes this fair? I hate to break it to you but English is the predominant language in this country and should suffice any job.

 

Than you try and manipulate things that I say and twist them around in another poor attempt at validating yourself. Find where I said its only OK to fire people that dont speak English and not Spanish. You use it as a point over and over so please show me where I said that. All I said is that if there are going to be laws protecting people from discrimination than they should work all the way around and not stop at the minority because you and MTV say so.

 

 

Substitute Spanish for English. So not speaking Spanish because your native language (from that small country called the U.S.) is English so you are treated differently makes you a victim of discrimination.

 

This means that it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of their national origin. Even if it is that third world sewer the U.S.

 

 

This says, having exclusive language policies are illegal unless:

it is a business necessity (to save you, Spanish wasnt a business necessity in this case, it was a choice)

the employer notifies the employees and tells them they are required to abide by them (obviously not the case here either)

 

So let me grab your hand and stroll you through this:

We figured out what language discrimination is: Since the English speakers were treated differently because of their national origin they were discriminated against

then we learned about discrimination laws and how they apply to this case: the English speakers were treated differently because their nation of origin had a different language than the employer wanted...thus, being illegal because...

 

...Spanish is not a NECESSITY for firefighters (I googled elementary debate tactics so I already know youre going to try and say that Spanish was in fact a necessity, and you will be wrong so save it)

 

This brings us to the grand finale. Firing people because they dont speak spanish when it is not a necessity is in fact discrimination, and is in fact illegal, and is in fact being overlooked because drumrolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

 

There are no discrimination laws protecting straight, white, english speaking men between the ages of 18 -59.

 

You say something is "illegal", then say there are no laws against it. And you claim to be promoting English. Alrighty, then.

 

Spanish is not a necessity. English is not a necessity. Agreement of languages IS a necessity. In that situation, the firm is free to choose whatever course they find preferable that fulfills the requirement. If someone were fired because his boss just dislikes non-Spanish speakers, that would be illegal. If, however, a particular person were fired because someone(s) has to be fired and firing him is the most efficient way for the firm to meet the legal requirement, that would not be illegal.

 

You keep saying, Spanish was not a necessity! Spanish was not a necessity! At least I do know you're a Chicagoan, because you graduated from the Daley School Of Debate -- scream something loud enough and long enough, and you'll win. But the "business necessity" is agreement of the languages (do you disagree that this is a "business necessity"?), which can't be accomplished if the supervisors can't communicate with their crews.

 

Now, the bolded part. Maybe that would be, oh, I dunno:

Do you not think that in this country if a situation arises like this that 100/100 times the English speakers should keep their jobs?

You set up a choice between the two, then you say that the English (which I assume means non-Spanish -- since speaking English does not really preclude speaking Spanish -- but anyway) speaker "should" keep his job -- always.

 

Finally, f***, man, I haven't ever watched MTV. I didn't even have it growing up, even though all my friends did. (That SUCKED when Michael Jackson was big, I will say.) I sure as f*** don't watch it now. So, one, don't tell me where the f*** I'm getting my ideas from. I haven't classified you as drooling, slack-jawed, Rush-worshipping hick, so why don't you save your f***ed-up stereotypes of liberals for someone else? And, two, if you're going to do the 'hand-holding' bit, which is pretty ghey (message board "ghey" -- totally different than "gay", of course), you could at least address what I actually argued instead of just repeating the hackneyed s*** you just regurgitated for the millionth time. Address what I actually say, or stfu.

Edited May 25, 2008 by jackie hayes

[DrunkBomber]

I worked a job in Mexico and spoke no Spanish. All our customers spoke English and almost every office employee was bilingual. Match the tool for the job. If you have an eager employee who can work a job without speaking at all, what does it matter?

I agree to a point, Im about fairness, if someone can do the job speaking a different language than other people than more power to them. The problem I have is when they fire someone for not speaking said language and because of certain circumstances its not illegal.

[DrunkBomber]

You say something is "illegal", then say there are no laws against it. And you claim to be promoting English. Alrighty, then.

 

Spanish is not a necessity. English is not a necessity. Agreement of languages IS a necessity. In that situation, the firm is free to choose whatever course they find preferable that fulfills the requirement. If someone were fired because his boss just dislikes non-Spanish speakers, that would be illegal. If, however, a particular person were fired because someone(s) has to be fired and firing him is the most efficient way for the firm to meet the legal requirement, that would not be illegal.

 

You keep saying, Spanish was not a necessity! Spanish was not a necessity! At least I do know you're a Chicagoan, because you graduated from the Daley School Of Debate -- scream something loud enough and long enough, and you'll win. But the "business necessity" is agreement of the languages (do you disagree that this is a "business necessity"?), which can't be accomplished if the supervisors can't communicate with their crews.

 

Now, the bolded part. Maybe that would be, oh, I dunno:

 

You set up a choice between the two, then you say that the English (which I assume means non-Spanish -- since speaking English does not really preclude speaking Spanish -- but anyway) speaker "should" keep his job -- always.

 

Finally, f***, man, I haven't ever watched MTV. I didn't even have it growing up, even though all my friends did. (That SUCKED when Michael Jackson was big, I will say.) I sure as f*** don't watch it now. So, one, don't tell me where the f*** I'm getting my ideas from. I haven't classified you as drooling, slack-jawed, Rush-worshipping hick, so why don't you save your f***ed-up stereotypes of liberals for someone else? And, two, if you're going to do the 'hand-holding' bit, which is pretty ghey (message board "ghey" -- totally different than "gay", of course), you could at least address what I actually argued instead of just repeating the hackneyed s*** you just regurgitated for the millionth time. Address what I actually say, or stfu.

Ive tried to avoid having to use this because I know its very hard to defend, and believe it or not I do put thought into things I stand up for or that Im against. But seriously, the unofficial language of this country is English, I know it, you know it and everyone else knows it. In this country, if you speak English, you should never be fired because of communication issues involving language. Signs are in English, Emergency broadcasts are in English. Now you can go ahead and say that it isnt the official language, Im sure its coming which is why I didnt bring it up till now but it would only be a poor argument chip because if you say that you dont think English is the national language here you are either severely naive or lying.

 

Someone has to walk you through this because what your saying is ridiculous, Im actually embarrassed for you if you think what youre saying makes any sense. Just because you avoid anything that you cant answer and keep eluding to non-issues doesnt mean youre proving anything.

 

Bottom line, you saw the definition of language discrimination. What happened is language discrimination. just because 'private companies" hire them doesnt mean they are pardoned from obeying discrimination laws.

 

We can go through the process of elimination to figure out where you get your facts...you say it wasnt MTV. That leaves a semester of poly sci at community college or off a pamphlet from a feminist rally.

[DrunkBomber]

You say something is "illegal", then say there are no laws against it. And you claim to be promoting English. Alrighty, then.

 

Spanish is not a necessity. English is not a necessity. Agreement of languages IS a necessity. In that situation, the firm is free to choose whatever course they find preferable that fulfills the requirement. If someone were fired because his boss just dislikes non-Spanish speakers, that would be illegal. If, however, a particular person were fired because someone(s) has to be fired and firing him is the most efficient way for the firm to meet the legal requirement, that would not be illegal.

 

You keep saying, Spanish was not a necessity! Spanish was not a necessity! At least I do know you're a Chicagoan, because you graduated from the Daley School Of Debate -- scream something loud enough and long enough, and you'll win. But the "business necessity" is agreement of the languages (do you disagree that this is a "business necessity"?), which can't be accomplished if the supervisors can't communicate with their crews.

 

Now, the bolded part. Maybe that would be, oh, I dunno:

 

You set up a choice between the two, then you say that the English (which I assume means non-Spanish -- since speaking English does not really preclude speaking Spanish -- but anyway) speaker "should" keep his job -- always.

 

Finally, f***, man, I haven't ever watched MTV. I didn't even have it growing up, even though all my friends did. (That SUCKED when Michael Jackson was big, I will say.) I sure as f*** don't watch it now. So, one, don't tell me where the f*** I'm getting my ideas from. I haven't classified you as drooling, slack-jawed, Rush-worshipping hick, so why don't you save your f***ed-up stereotypes of liberals for someone else? And, two, if you're going to do the 'hand-holding' bit, which is pretty ghey (message board "ghey" -- totally different than "gay", of course), you could at least address what I actually argued instead of just repeating the hackneyed s*** you just regurgitated for the millionth time. Address what I actually say, or stfu.

In response to the bold are you being serious? As Ive said THE WHOLE TIME, language discrimination IS illegal but they overlook it when its against the demographic Im talking about. That doesnt mean its not illegal does it? That just means its tolerated to much because you Paris Hilton and P Diddy are busy burning flags for the little guy.

[jackie hayes]

Ive tried to avoid having to use this because I know its very hard to defend, and believe it or not I do put thought into things I stand up for or that Im against. But seriously, the unofficial language of this country is English, I know it, you know it and everyone else knows it. In this country, if you speak English, you should never be fired because of communication issues involving language. Signs are in English, Emergency broadcasts are in English. Now you can go ahead and say that it isnt the official language, Im sure its coming which is why I didnt bring it up till now but it would only be a poor argument chip because if you say that you dont think English is the national language here you are either severely naive or lying.

 

Someone has to walk you through this because what your saying is ridiculous, Im actually embarrassed for you if you think what youre saying makes any sense. Just because you avoid anything that you cant answer and keep eluding to non-issues doesnt mean youre proving anything.

 

Bottom line, you saw the definition of language discrimination. What happened is language discrimination. just because 'private companies" hire them doesnt mean they are pardoned from obeying discrimination laws.

 

We can go through the process of elimination to figure out where you get your facts...you say it wasnt MTV. That leaves a semester of poly sci at community college or off a pamphlet from a feminist rally.

I'm a dude, so I'm not exactly familiar with feminist rallies.

 

And I guarantee I have a better education than you. That said, I've known many people who went only to community college, or had no college, and the vast majority of them could distinguish "elude" from "allude", so I'd think twice the next time you think about talking down to people.

 

You said absolutely nothing substantive in this post, so there's really nothing to respond to. As for your mewling about English being the "unofficial language", it has nothing to do with anything that's been discussed. So...that's nice?

[jackie hayes]

In response to the bold are you being serious? As Ive said THE WHOLE TIME, language discrimination IS illegal but they overlook it when its against the demographic Im talking about. That doesnt mean its not illegal does it? That just means its tolerated to much because you Paris Hilton and P Diddy are busy burning flags for the little guy.

No, you said "There are no discrimination laws...", you didn't say they weren't enforced.

 

I mean, f***, when I quote your EXACT WORDS, you still deny it.

 

Now, "Paris Hilton and P Diddy"? You claim I watch too much MTV?

[DrunkBomber]

I'm a dude, so I'm not exactly familiar with feminist rallies.

 

And I guarantee I have a better education than you. That said, I've known many people who went only to community college, or had no college, and the vast majority of them could distinguish "elude" from "allude", so I'd think twice the next time you think about talking down to people.

 

You said absolutely nothing substantive in this post, so there's really nothing to respond to. As for your mewling about English being the "unofficial language", it has nothing to do with anything that's been discussed. So...that's nice?

An insult and a threat in one post not bad. English doesnt have anything to do with a thread about people losing their jobs for not speaking spanish? I think you have this thread confused with your discussions about Oprahs book club. So you and your community college cronies can continue fighting the good fight one rainbow at a time. Im assuming the substance you were looking for was something like you calling me gay, saying you are more educated than me, telling me to stfu or calling me insensitive for not caring about your feminist rally but just know...you have reached one person at least. I now realize that its ok to fire people because they dont speak spanish because its cheaper and safer.

[DrunkBomber]

Is it too early for nominess for post of the year?

 

Thread title: Firefighters Being Fired For Not Speaking Spanish

 

Quote: As for your mewling about English being the "unofficial language", it has nothing to do with anything that's been discussed. So...that's nice?

[DrunkBomber]

--Couching an insulting statement, i.e. "if you think/do X, you must be an idiot". This is the same thing as calling someone and idiot, and is not OK.

--Baiting or pushing people over the line, i.e. posting the same silly request repeatedly, as if they didn't hear you the first time.

--The use of ridiculous hyperbolic statements that are so far over the top, that no resonable response of discussion can follow them.

--Sarcasm as a way of insulting other posters, like saying "oh yes, because so-and-so knows everything, we must bow to his wisdom!!!!11!1!1!!"

--Making threatening or questionable statements about elected officials or others in the public eye, i.e. "someone needs to assasinate that SOB"

 

I guess this stuff only applies when someone who sees it disagrees with who is saying it.