lieve it is a place of business, a place where someone, the owner, is trying to make a profit. The rights of the employee do not include the right for cultural expression at work. Title VII does not protect cultural expression, only the disparate impact on the national origin ( Bennett-Alexander and Pincus 307). Cultural expression should be reserved for home. The workplace is for work, not a place to express the cultural heritage behind one's national origin. All of this talk about the employees, what about the employer? The employer has rights also, after all, it is his company. Should the employer be able to understand everything that is said at his company or is that an unreasonable assumption? I do not believe so, it is his company, he should be able to understand everything. If I were the owner of a company and I could not understand my employees, I would get very frustrated. The employer should have the right to dictate which language is spoken at his company.He should want to understand everything that they say. What if they are talking about one of the other employees or of one of the management personnel? That shows disrespect of the leadership. Speaking to someone when only those two understand each other at a place of employment shows disrespect in more areas than once.Lastly, I'll put a twist on the whole situation. What if only the employer and his right-hand man spoke two languages? They could give the briefing for that day and then turn around and start talking about the work crew. I seriously doubt the work crew would like that. The work crew would probably try to sue the employer under Title VII somehow.In closing , the business ultimately belongs to the owner, and he can keep almost any policy he wants, within reason. He employee should be thankful for the job. The employer should put this policy in writing in the application process. All of this just goes to show what some people will do to mak...
