To Speak or Not to Speak, Business, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Business

To Speak or Not to Speak

To Speak or Not to Speak To start with, we may not live in England, but the language we speak is supposed to be English. So, one would think that a person would have no problem speaking this language at the workplace unless the job calls for a different language, This is not so. Countless people have challenged this policy of several different companies and this is what I will be discussing, in English. First, most of the workers speak English, maybe not as a primary language, but speak it to the best of their ability. This policy, to speak only English at the workplace, was completely and totally law-abiding since all the employees spoke English. Now, the employer did not say they could not speak Spanish during their break times. Only that while they were working, they were to speak English. This problem happens a lot in the Army because Hispanics' make up a considerable part of our Army. This problem should not come up though, because it is the United States Army. The US speaks English as its primary language. In the Army however, we can make a correction because if it is not directly related to the job, it should not be happening. It still does however, because it has become commonplace. Second, many employees speak Spanish and English, so these employees are bilingual. They could be saying one thing in English and switch to Spanish in the middle of a sentence. This can get very aggravating, for example, two employees are giving a demonstration to an important client, who only speaks English. The two employees get confused about something in the demonstration and automatically revert to the language they are most comfortable with, Spanish. The client meanwhile is getting very frustrated. While the two employees speak Spanish, the very important client decides he has had enough, and leaves the demonstration. In the end, a big deal is lost because two employees decided that speaking Spanish would be easier instead of English. For example, one question we need to ask ourselves is, Won't "English Only" laws speed up the assimilation of today's immigrants into our society and prevent their isolation? In fact the correct answer is, contrary to what "English Only" advocates assume, the vast majority of today's Asian and Latino immigrants are acquiring English proficiency and assimilating as fast as did earlier generations of Italian, Russian, and German immigrants. For example, research studies show that over 95 percent of first generation Mexican Americans are English proficient, and that more than 50 percent of second generation Mexican Americans have lost their native tongue entirely ( aclu.org/library/pbp6.html). Next, why should there be more than one language at the workplace? Communication at the workplace if there was only one language to worry about. Just imagine being the employers, and after every employee meeting once a week, they all start speaking Spanish right after you leave. I believe that would get very intolerable in the end, not knowing if they are talking about you and the information you just discussed with them. One might want to know how "English Only" laws deprive people of their rights? The ACLU believes that "English Only" laws are consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth Amendment. For example, laws that have the effect of eliminating courtroom translation severely jeopardize the ability of people on a trial to follow and comprehend the proceedings. "English Only" laws interfere with the rights to vote by banning bilingual ballots, or with some childrens right to education by restricting bilingual instruction. Such laws also interfere with the right of workers to be free of discrimination in the workplaces where employers have imposed " speak English only" rules ( aclu.org/library/pbp6.html). The next question is whether or not an only English speaking policy would restrict cultural expression. I do not believe so, I believe 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 make people for something that the other person thinks they did wrong to them. All in all, I think the justice system works to the best of its capability, but there are always going to be those individuals that try to take advantage of the system. In the end, all a person can do is try to raise their children so they learn the right way to treat people. Bibliography:

Word Count: 1056