General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2174763

    Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace?


    by tomsal ·

    I’d like to toss this out there and see what comes back. We have several spanish speaking employees, they talk fluent US-English as well. Through the majority of the day they are speaking english but at certain times (lunch, when they look irritated, walking side by side down the hallways, etc.) they talk in spanish to each other.

    Well it appears that some folks in the company are not liking this and they are getting offensive, claiming that the spanish talk is used to say derogatory things against the company as a whole or specific individuals who work here.

    Now HR is looking into legal issues for possibly mandating an “English only while in the building” policy of sorts.

    This has nothing to do with me, personally I really don’t care because A) If I don’t understand what you are saying — how can I be offended? and B) If you are going to be “brave” enough to speak bad at someone — have the guts to say it in the language they understand and right to their face. (oh and C) If I really wanted to know if someone is insulting me I can just ask my best friend who speaks 5 languages in addition to English fluently, which comes in handy at

    Btw, this proposed policy hasn’t been announced company wide — only myself and like 4 other folks know its even being considered so far.

    Case in point: Is this legal? Isn’t it considered a form of discrimination or violation of free speech rights at least to say you must only speak “the language of the company” when at work?

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3348537

      What kind of company

      by cactus pete ·

      In reply to Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace?

      Public or private? I should think that would make the difference. If they make a blanket statement that applies to the business as a whole, then there you go…

      I can see it being made as “all business shall be conducted in English” but I doubt they can regulate any personal speech.

      • #3348530

        Its a private company

        by tomsal ·

        In reply to What kind of company

        I tend to agree, I don’t think (at least in the USA) that you can regulate private speech.

        • #3348512

          Business / private chat

          by liame ·

          In reply to Its a private company

          There is a clear distinction between the 2 and I beleive its equally as clear what the business can insist on.

          Any company can insist that all business conversation is conducted in a language of their choosing. The reasons for wanting, indeed needing, to do this include safety and the need to avoid comunication errors where possible.

          When it comes to private chat, if the guys want to chat in swahili or klingon its no business of their employers. You might as well try to ban any conversation in the office building that is not overheard by at least one company representative, or the use of any slang, or wispering etc. No chance.

        • #3334802

          Business is business!

          by davidg8 ·

          In reply to Business / private chat

          An employer can ban anything they choose to ban on company property. If you choose to work there, you follow their rules. A company policy, unless in “violation” of a law, will be enforced. Like a dress code stating no tennis shoes will be worn on company property. You can go to lunch, as long as you leave the building and wear tennis shoes, but as long as you “choose” to stay on company property, follow their rules. Of course, a company can terminate you for just about anything and they don’t have to state the real reason… By the way, breaks are not covered under any federal wage laws. Look it up, there is nothing there! Breaks are company “perks” extended to employees. Common misception is breaks are a right. Wrong! Having been on both sides, let me just say employees are being to paid to do whatever the employer wishes, short of illegal or immoral. The employee does have the “right” not to work there if he does not agree with what the company decides to make as a rule… I believe it is rude to carry on a conversation in another language when someone else is in ear shot. But then that just my opinion…

        • #3235448

          English only…….

          by tek ·

          In reply to Business is business!

          I’m a foreigner and I live by the rule that if you are in a different country you learn the language and you speak the language. I feel that I am rude to my co-workers if I run around speaking german, spanish or sweedish in my office(Yes I do speak those languages). Besides it keeps me from coming up on “weired” situations among my colleagues when they have no clue what I talk about. I got 2 kids one born in germany and one here in the US and none of them speak my native language. They live here, they speak english. If they want to learn another language they will have to aask me to teach them….

        • #3339467

          Texas Labor Laws

          by jbaker ·

          In reply to Business is business!

          Texas labor laws are slightly different than elsewhere in the country. One thing that Texas says is that when a company defines a labor policy, it must stick to that policy, no matter what it is. So, if a company wanted to make its employees work 20 hours with one fifteen minute bathroom break, and no lunch, then as long as they observe that policy throughout the company it is okay. On the otherhand, if that was the policy, the company would have no employees, so it balances out. Companies define what is basically a balance between them and the employees to establish an acceptable workplace.

        • #3127643

          Wow ! Here goes a Live Slavedriver !

          by peon ·

          In reply to Business is business!

          How is it living in the 18th century ? You sure miss those boat rides to Africa and back, don’t you ?

          I appreciate that I live in a civilized state, not the US or wherever you are !

          HERE in Germany breaks are part of my work contract with a US outfit. Business language is English and yes, when someone makes derogatory remarks about me talking German to coworkers, I just tell them to learn German if they want to understand me. If I deal with them directly, I’ll speak English.

          And no, the company DOES NOT OWN me. I will not jump off the bridge, just because a moron manager tells me so. ;-(((

          If I ever should encounter SUCH an employer as you describe it, I’ll tell them what I think in plain English and leave.

        • #3127563

          Na, so!

          by chipmicro ·

          In reply to Wow ! Here goes a Live Slavedriver !

          Ein Paar gute Punkte, aber diese Ideen wegen ‘Zivilisierung’ und wie es in den US geht (bzw. nicht geht) sind ganz und gar vom Pferd!

          Wenn Sie in Deutschland den T?rken richtig behandeln, und denen aus Jugoslawien, und nicht mehr Gift gegen alle Amis ins gesamt plaudern, DANN d?rfen Sie von Zivilisierung jammern!

          Passen Sie mal auf – egal ob es unglaublich ist, ohne uns gibt es keine EU mehr. Und eben so f?r uns mit euch! Wir sind Geschwister-Staaten – daher wurde den EU erst als Wirtschafts-verbund geschaffen, um mit den US-Dollar egal gemessen zu sein.

          Der Mensch soll mindestens lebenslang das Beste von anderen erwarten. Falls jemand verarschung macht is das von denen gemacht, nicht ihren Land oder Kamaraden! Wir sind im Form ?nhlich, vielleicht eines Tages werden wir auch in gleichrechtigkeit so sein!

          I am the sum of my parts, not the lowest common denominator of where I live. True civilization cannot exist where lines on a piece of paper are allowed to confer significant quality differences, either positive or negative. In other words, don’t hate me because of where I was born, or the hard work I do, and most definitely don’t judge me when you don’t know me.

          Sweeping generalizations have caused mass pain and suffering throughout global history, gell?

        • #3128747

          Rude to talk in another language?

          by rschroots ·

          In reply to Business is business!

          Then it is also rude to talk in a low voice. As this is obviously with the intent that others don’t understand what you are saying.

        • #3233788

          Scandanavian Star

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to Its a private company

          There was a show on NGC about a north sea ferry catching fire and killing 100’s of people.

          Problem is much of the staff was from third world countries (Nigeria for example) and spoke little or no english or scandanavian languages.

          I think for some jobs there should be a requirement that they are ABLE to speak the prevailing languages.

          Also the freighter that crashed into the dock in the Gulf of Mexico (new orleans?) had same communications problems. The pilot who boarded had problems communicating with captain and crew.

          While I don’t think they should be able to restrict what they speak to each other, I think it is reasonable to test for proficiency in certain languages.

      • #2811254

        Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace?

        by notallpeoplearedense ·

        In reply to What kind of company

        i agree with you that it should be ok, that business is directed in english, but in FLORIDA ….. my boss says they can speak over the communications radio i am given in spanish. like my username says….notallpeoplearedense…i am not dense.

    • #3348529

      I see no problem with them speaking Spanish..

      by montgomery gator ·

      In reply to Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace? long as they do not expect the rest of the company to speak Spanish. What they say to each other should not be a concern of the company. However, official correspondence should be in English, or anything between them that is business related, such as e-mails, for example. I think the other employees are just paranoid. What is stopping the English-speaking employees having private conversations with each other that are derogatory? Nothing!!! I am in favor in making English the official language of the USA for all legal and government purposes, but see no need to restrict people from speaking other languages amongst themselves, or even posting signs and conducting business among themselves in another language. Just learn some choice Spanish derogatory terms, and only become concerned if you hear them.

      • #3332554

        other languages spoken in the office

        by frank.urtuzuastegui ·

        In reply to I see no problem with them speaking Spanish..

        Does our freedom of speech extend into the work area? Its interesting to note that a great debate took place at the time this great nation was being founded. Shall German or English be the langage of the land? In some parts of our country Spanish is routinely spoken, as it has been for hundreds of years. Native languages are also spoken. Our company is a global company and we employ people from many nations. Many languages are spoken at the office. The official business language is American English. However, many discussions take place in languages other than English, yet all official business discussions and correspondence are done in American English. Its common for co-workers to speak in non-English langauges, either in work groups, lunch or work break. I have not heard a single compliant against non-English spoken in the office. Its probably because the final work product is in American English and we are all too busy to be listening or concerned with the sound of other languages.

      • #3334769

        HR violation waiting to happen

        by chrystoph ·

        In reply to I see no problem with them speaking Spanish..

        “What they say to each other should not be a concern of the company.”

        This is horridly bad advice. It lends it self readily to harassment, discrimination and, while not technically illegal, cliques in the company.

        It is always the company’s concern as to what is said on the property, as, by law, the company can be held responsible for the conduct of its employees.

        As an example, what happens when the Spanish speaking men in the company are talking to each other about how sexually attractive they find a fellow employee and that employee speaks Spanish, as well? The management may not even be able to find out what was said, but that will not prevent them from being held accountable.

        Regardless of the topic of conversation, the schism of two langauges makes both a perception and a reality of separation. Some party is excluded, either by design or by accident. That causes morale problems and, if one of the speakers is the excluded person’s superior in the organization is a defacto case of dicrimination. The reason for this is the perception, regardless of circumstance, of favoritism toward the other speaker.

        • #3334747

          1984, plus 21?

          by hermit47 ·

          In reply to HR violation waiting to happen

          So at what point will we be seeing the gestapo crashing the break room. Prying open the canteen machines to remove the illegal taco and jalapeno chips, microwave burritos, and French pastries.

          Try this scenario.

          Learn the second language, it wouldn’t hurt you and you could feel more secure around the fellow employees you do not trust. Lets face it folks, at least those people took the time to learn two languages, and seem to get by just fine that way. Why do we Americans need to be so blind and lazy? No wonder they have remarks about us. Look how infantile we can be sometimes.

        • #3335284

          I learned some Espa?ol

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to 1984, plus 21?

          I just can’t write it here, since I learned the naughty words from my Spanish speaking friends when I was growing up in Miami 🙂

        • #3234124

          A bunch of assumptions

          by chrystoph ·

          In reply to 1984, plus 21?

          First off, your response is horridly emotional and not at all helpful to the discussion. I am speaking of legal realities, not some Orwellian scenario. Regardless of how you feel about the situation, the fact remains that a company has an obligation to all of its employees.

          Secondly, you assume, wrongly, that I am not polylingual. Whether I can speak the language in question is not the issue. The issue is whether or not there is just cause and legality in enforcing one language.

          Third, you insult both me and the country I live in. A sound arguement is based on logic and evidence, not belittling your opponent. Your entire statement is nothing more than harassment behind the shield of internet anonymity and emotional rhetoric.

          Try this, give a good reason why multiple languages should be allowed in a work place. By good reason, I mean one that has a basis other than, “Americans are blind and lazy”. I’ll even help with an example: Our help desk needs to support Spanish speakers because we sell our product in Mexico, which has Spanish as its national language.

        • #3128715

          Learn the 2nd language?

          by rschroots ·

          In reply to 1984, plus 21?

          Nice gesture, but you shouldn’t need to. It’s a lot of effort to learn another language. And what if the office is not bi-, but multi-lingual?

          Just don’t think that people are talking about you, or the company, when you don’t understand them.

      • #3234083

        What they say to each other should not be a concern of the company

        by psifiscout ·

        In reply to I see no problem with them speaking Spanish..

        I agree, if it is not business related it should not be a concern. But it is just plain rude.

        • #3233898

          It MUST be a concern of the company…

          by eric-barnett ·

          In reply to What they say to each other should not be a concern of the company

          A radio talk show host said it well: “Words mean things.” The company has every right to demand that all conversations held on company property or at company sponsored business events or dealings be held in any language they (the company) chooses. As previously mentioned, this is HR nightmare.

          Employees could be giving out corporate secrets, talk about others sexually, or, describing how they plan to do illegal acts. Think I am going too far off the edge? Wait til it happens; how will you feel about it then?

        • #3339910

          Surely you jest.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to It MUST be a concern of the company…

          NO one has the right to regulate PRIVATE speech, regardless of where and when it occurs.

          In this country, the underlying principle is that that which is not prohibited by law is allowed.

          To qoute Ben Franklin, “Any man who would give up a small essential freedom for a little temporary security is a scoundrel, and deserves neither freedom nor security.”

        • #3340247

          Not regulating personal speech, regulating professional etiquette

          by justjoel99 ·

          In reply to Surely you jest.

          Any business has the right to regulate the speech of its employees while they are on the company clock. While you are being paid to perform a job, your speech ceases to be private and is now representative of the company that you work for. This is why a company can be held liable for sexual harassment made by a manager under its employ, and why a person can be fired for insubordination for “telling off” a superior or a customer.

          Off the clock, you have every right to say whatever you want; the First Amendment gives you that right. What you are not entitled to is to be employed by any company that finds your words and/or behavior disagreeable or unprofessional.

          In the case of the Spanish-speaking employees, it is simply a case of rude, unprofessional behavior. Since these employees are able to speak English, yet choose not to in certain situations, it can be inferred that they are trying to hide information from the employees (and potentially customers) that are unable to understand Spanish. This creates a divide between the employees that can erode team morale.

        • #3340885

          Very narrow

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to Not regulating personal speech, regulating professional etiquette

          So, do you think that the company can prevent me from scratching myself at my own desk? What about personal phones calls, if they are allowed at all, in a language other than English?

          There are nuances that other languages have that simply can’t be expressed teh same way in English. Besides, this isn’t really about language… It’s about supressing those that are different than you.

          If someone has a problem with another person speaking a language they don’t understand, they should either learn that language (!) or ask them, politely, to not do that in the former’s presence.

          If it’s rude to speak a language someone else doesn’t speak, then isn’t it rude to go behind their backs, over their heads, and generally around the issue to regulate this without their input?

          Hey, maybe they were talking with each other about the soccer game, broadcast on a Spanish chanel, and felt the context was best expressed in the original language.

          Sheesh, I’m tired of the holier than thou attitude from so many people in this discussion… Go read the bible in the original language.

        • #3340937

          Read the Bible in its original language?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Very narrow

          Perhaps that too is forbidden.

        • #3340938

          Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Not regulating personal speech, regulating professional etiquette

          1) Your speech while “on the clock” does not automatically constitute that of an agent for the principal, i.e. the employer. Such is true ONLY when dealing with 3 parties, on behalf of the principal, and within the scope of one’s authority as an agent.

          2) The principal has no legal right to regulate private speech.

          3) The principal has the right to regulate public speech only to the extent that such is necessary to advance a necessary purpose of the principal.

        • #3128701

          “It MUST be a concern of the company”

          by rschroots ·

          In reply to It MUST be a concern of the company…

          I.e. you would WANT to “demand that all conversations held on company property or at company sponsored business events or dealings be held in any language they (the company) chooses.”
          Problem is, legally and in practice, you can’t.
          Just imagine 2 arabs, turks, dutch, danes, or swedes, speaking in english to each other.
          Can you imagine two americans in the office in a foreign country, fluent in that language, not speaking english, just between the two of them?
          I can’t!

      • #3244416

        i agree

        by elliottlynne ·

        In reply to I see no problem with them speaking Spanish..

        Just learn some choice Spanish derogatory terms, and only become concerned if you hear them.
        You can not force them to speak english to each other.You can force english as the workplace language.
        But always check with your local laborboard fist.

        • #3244770


          by deepsand ·

          In reply to i agree

          Reply for purpsoe of making invisible post appear.

      • #2811255

        I see no problem with them speaking Spanish

        by notallpeoplearedense ·

        In reply to I see no problem with them speaking Spanish..

        tatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatata over my communications radio is the reason.

        i am sick of it… they understand english… so speak it or fire me and see me an unemployment line and in the court of law because i am american!!

      • #2434402

        Distinciton between business related laguange and private language

        by mihbizz ·

        In reply to I see no problem with them speaking Spanish..

        First of all, in a team setting, where a portion of the “team” is, for example, bilingual Spanish/English but often morphs into Spanish in the conduct of company business to the exclusion of non-Spanish speakers on the team…. there is no real team.

        A Company has every right to require that company related communication/business be conducted in English only (for legitimate business reasons).

        The problem, as I see it, has to do with a lack of allegience, a lack of respect, a lack of gratefulness for the country being visited where jobs and many, many no cost and low cost resources are being provided – education, hospitals, clinics, low-income housing….

        Sure, the visitor or new imigarant’s being a hard worker is to the benefit of the host country. HOWEVER… takes more than being a hard worker to be a good resident and worker (here legally here or not).

        I’ve witnessed first hand the resentment that can rise in the workplace when exclusive language skills are used by the bilingual group to collude and exclude for for the very purpose of together, gaining and maintaing workplace advantage. . .

        My jaw dropped when recently I heard a biligual employee who, first off, happens to be a “green-card” worker who’s card has long-time been expired… Although, admittedlly he is a hard-working, still he is illegally present and working while ther ARE legally present, qualified workers who’d love to have his $600 per week job as a store clerk which he also uses as a base from which to offer his unlicensed services (on the down-low of course)….and without one ounce of hesitation in openly stating to his co-workers and select customers that he is unlicensed to perform the work so will give a “really good deal”…..and with all this….boldly defending what he sees as a right regardless of whether it might negatively impact his bosses workplace, to speak in Spanish at his election….saying “No one can force me to speak English if I don’t want to” when the question of “English only” is raised…. Even further, challenging his English speaking, legally residing co-workers that he is more valuable as an employee so would never be fired….Further, same employee indicates he’d have no problem instructing his children to not solute the American flag in the American classroom because they are NOT American but are proud Mexicans! . . .

        Another related example. . .One day, I returned to the office, from a sales call where along the way, I’d approached a maintenance worker on the site of the company I was visiting. The worker was standing by his work truck, a large corporate name. I asked….”Sir do you have a business card”? I’d like to contact your company on business”. He responded….”if you want this kind of business, use me…I do it on the side too…If you call this company” , pointing down to the truck logo sign on the side of the truck, they’ll charge you a lot of money…$1200, but I’ll do it for only $200″….This worker was barely English speaking (Spanish speaking). Again, I’m shocked…maybe just naive. . .I took this story back to the office and shared it with the above mention co-worker…..His response….”what’s wrong with that?. . .It’s o.k. if he needs to make a little extra money. . .” I see similar senarious time and time again in my community.

        I mean…I just don’t get this. . .I know I’m getting a little off topic but I see this whole debate about English only in the workplace related to much bigger issues regarding immigration. . .

        It’s one thing for the country to put on blinders regarding immigration status when there are so many honest people standing in line to enter the U.S…..but with that, you’d think our Spanish speaking guests would do all else possible to play nice….. including being respectful citizens and work-place team players!…..Grateful for the open armed welcome…

      • #2434400


        by mihbizz ·

        In reply to I see no problem with them speaking Spanish..

        The problem comes when effective company operations and team building and company morale are negatively impacted by it…..

    • #3348510


      by jaqui ·

      In reply to Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace?

      it would be a violation of freedom of speech.

      trying to control what language is used when an employee is not working is not something that should be supported.

      when they are working, I still wouldn’t try to stop other languages from being used.
      just think, if they had reason to be speaking with client on the phone, and the other person ( client ) was more comfortable using spanish, then the company would get the benefit of positive opinion from client because they were able to communicate in a language they were more comfortable in.

      here in Canada, a lot of companies want multilingual staffing for just that reason.
      to increase customer satisfaction.

      • #3348493

        It would not be a violation of freedom of speech

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to imo

        Why is “freedom of speech” SO misunderstood?

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

        I don’t think Congress will get involved in this.

        • #3348462

          NO but racial discimination comes into play quite well

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It would not be a violation of freedom of speech

          You cannot descriminate against someone for speaking their native tongue outside the office, ie. on lunch, in the halls, out for a smoke etc.

          This would be no different than saying nobody can talk about the company unless it is done in a group forum. OR nobody can bad mouth anyone in the ocmpany behind their backs.

          Or as a recent post suggested, expecting people to not smoke off hours due to increased health costs?

          When does it stop?

          So we advocate the company is alowed to track whether we smoke AWAY from the office, now we are supposed to advocate English only offices?

          What’s next week? Back to the white hoods and flaming cross?

          This is all so interesting after arguing that American’s think that they have a more multicultural country than others?

          Sure you can come here fromANY country you choose, if you don’t have an undesirable religion, language or personal habit?

          The noose gets tighter in the good ole US of A.

          Racial paranoia, brought on my a fear of the unknown, much like Iraq. Most seem to have supported it because they were scared what they didn’t understand. Too many ‘what if’s’ for me.

          What if these people were just playing head games, they may have been talkign about the weather and just MAKING it appear like they were slagging someone. Knowing MANY people from various different races, I can tell you this is VERY common entertainent for them.

          Who makes the call? You? The Boss?
          Let’s say you go to China,you learn VERY basic Chinese (good luck with that)and have an American friend you meet up with at lunch, would you not complain if you were both told you cannot speak English with each other at lunch time?

          Somehow I think you would be writing a ‘Dear GWB’ letter in a hurry.

        • #3348453


          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to NO but racial discimination comes into play quite well

          Though I generally agree with your sentiments here (surprise!!), I don’t know if racist is the correct term. People of all races have been known to speak most languages. For example, in college, I had a friend of Chinese ancestry who was fluent in Spanish. In fact, it was his native language because he was from Peru. So, would it be racist (anti-Asian in his case) to say he could not speak Spanish, a language that originated in Europe? Race and language are not always linked.

        • #3348404

          That’s where it will go

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Racist?

          It will end up as civil suit of racial descrimination, you can’t believe for one second that it won’t be construed as racism can you? That’s the golden gauntlet of the minorities.

          I’m sure more than one racial descrimination suit will be filed almost instantly, I couldn’t tell you how many times I’ve seen that card played in courts. It has nothing to do with multilingial people, it as EVERYTHING to do with Latino people people told not to speak their native language. There’s no way an employer could enforce such a rule. We aren’t talking about business or conduct in an office, we are talking about hallways, elevators, smoke pits etc. As the original post indicated, ‘over lunch’ even in a company lunchroom you cannot dictate a single spoken language.

          If that happened here, half of Canada’s businesses would be closed tomorrow. It is common for an entire ‘group’ of people of a certain race to immediately bond through common language and isolate themselves from others (sometimes two or three different groups), you never know WHAT they say about you,but then again…who cares what they say anyway?

        • #3349362

          Latino a Race?

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to That’s where it will go

          I was unaware that Latino is a race. I have known Latinos (and Latinas) of many different races. First there is my Chinese-Peruvian friend I mentioned. I have also known black, white, and “native American” Latinos, and even a Latina from Cuba who was of Japanese ancestry. Peru used to have a president named Fujimori, which sounds like he might have been of Japanese ancestry. The president of Mexico is named Fox, which does not sound like a “typical” Spanish name (his father is of Irish-American ancestry), but I am sure he considers himself a Latino. Salma Hayek (one of my favorite Latinas) is part Arab. Many Spanish-speaking people are of mixed race. You are probably right that it would be handled as a “racial” issue, but Spanish, like English, is spoken as a native language by people of all races.

        • #3349257

          NO you’re right

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Latino a Race?

          I didn’t want to say Mexican or Spanish and that’s the only thing ‘generic’ that came to me. As you explained yourself, you cannot pinpoint that languageto a race, much as the same would lead people to saying English speaking people were British. But nationailty was not given and therefore it was a quick and irrelevant term based on common generalizations of latino as used all over North America. The word itself has no relevance to the comment being made though, it could be ANY race.

        • #3348398


          by tomsal ·

          In reply to Racist?

          As I mentioned in my post, the friend of mine that speaks many languages she’s portuguese by birth, by of all the langauges she can speak she seems to enjoy speaking Italian and French a lot. Italian and French have nothing to do with her race though.

          Unless I’m missing something here.

          Anyway just for added info the spanish speaking associates here are all Puerto Ricans.

        • #3332491

          Not racist, but discriminatory (a.k.a. the Big Words problem)

          by bounce ·

          In reply to Racist?

          An English-speaking manager once told me to stop using big words.

          True story. He thought I was using obscure vocabulary to a)humiliate him and b)undermine his authority. His response was more about power than language, however, and I’d guess that’s what’s going on with the Spanish-speaking employees, too.

          One problem with mandating English is that, by focusing on obvious language issues, the company ignores more serious problems. Yeah, there’s a communication problem, but language is just a wart. The underlying problem — us-vs.-them culture — is the virus, and suppressing language might just spread it.

          A bigger problem is inconsistent application. The company in this case could readily identify the communication gap (English vs. Spanish), but its “solution” can’t be consistently applied. What if it banned the use of acronyms, big words, code phrases (TPS report, anyone?), or other language it found threatening? Most employees would see that as a problem.

          And that’s the rub. Prohibiting Spanish in the workplace may not be racist, but it is selective — and therefore discriminatory.

        • #3332487

          It is racist

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Not racist, but discriminatory (a.k.a. the Big Words problem)

          In fact it is both, ‘racial descriination’.

          You cannot descriminate what language choose to speak outside of the office or away from your clients.

          Descrimination is an act, what fuels the descimination in this case is the language of a different race that is not understood by those (englich speaking people) who wish to know what people are talking about in THEIR chosen language. Therefore it constitutes RACIAL DESCRIMINATION.

          You cannot speak YOUR languae because YOUR race has a different language than we accept in an English speaking compeny.

        • #3332358

          descriination, no wait – DESCRIMINATION – uh..

          by warnerit ·

          In reply to It is racist

          does someone need a spelling lesson? 😉

          I think the point about this whole topic is really not so much about language. It’s about something entirely different, the language example is just one of the symptoms. You said in another post that you know people who purposely speak in a foreign language in the hall or the break room at work as an amusement, for their own entertainment, because they know it freaks the other employees out and makes them paranoid. So in other words these people are purposely trying to annoy, harass and intimidate their co-workers for their own amusement. Well, most companies have an emphasis on teamwork and teamwork is built with mutual respect and trust. People who try to purposely annoy, harass and intimidate their co-workers are not contributing to a positive work environment, they are not helping to build up the team. It doesn’t matter if they are on their lunch break, a bathroom break or whatever. If they are at work, they need to act respectfully toward their co-workers, not try to intentionally annoy and harass them. I see that as the real heart of the issue here.

        • #3332352

          Of course

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It is racist

          And if you read my other posts you would see that I have also mentioned that the language is not the issue. The boss needs to address dissention in the office or it will be a cancer. It’s not a matter of firing someone for acting that way, it’s a matter of dragging the issues out of them. For all you know, MANY people feel the same way about something the company does but aren’t speaking up either, it is in the boss’s best interests to find out WHAT the issues in the office are.

        • #3334405


          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to It is racist

          Oz wrote:
          “You cannot speak YOUR languae because YOUR race has a different language than we accept in an English speaking compeny.”
          I thought we already went over this. Races do not have languages. Otherwise, I would automatically be able to talk to anyone of European ancestry and be mutually understood, but I know that is not true. If they do, what is the language of white people? What is the language of black people, or native American people, or Asian people, etc? There is no race that has one single language, and most langugages are spoken by people of many races, especially major languages like English, Spanish, and French. Discrimination it may be, but not racist.

        • #3334402

          Excuse Oz’s spelling

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to It is racist

          Oz Media has been known to have lunch at the pub, then come back to work and post here.

        • #3334315

          I’d buy a ticket

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It is racist

          Based on your defense of it not being racism, I’d love to buy a ticket to that court case.

          It would be a short one though and you would lose hopelessly. any lawyer, and I mean ANY lawyer would jump on such a descrimination case in a heartbeat and be clearly displaying the racial descrimination card on his forefead.

          Now you said there is no WHITE language, BUT we are not talking about black race vs white race.

          We are talking about American, vs Mexican, Chinese, Japanese etc.

          ANY time you desciminate based on ANY cultural difference, it is considered racial discrimination. Look it up in a legal library someday.

          Sit in on a few cases, you’ll soon get the idea. I have seen more than my share to know exactly how it plays out.

        • #3334314

          No I am not

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It is racist

          I have never had lunch at the pub and come back here.

          I work at home, I use a laptop on TR because of mobility and I have poor typing skills, especially on a tiny keyboard.

          NEVER apologize for me, and you don’t have any form of proof to substantiate such an absurd comment. I don’t care if you were joking or not, it was completely off base.

        • #3334308

          And here’s what International Law has to say about it.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It is racist

          As defined by International Law, sorry no link you’ll need login ID.

          [b]The right to be free from racial discrimination[/b]

          [u]7.1. International Law[/u]

          “Racial Discrimination” is defined in article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination46 (hereinafter CERD) as meaning:

          Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

          Reports in 1996 reveal that the PRC authorities continue to directly discriminate against Tibetans in various spheres of life including public representation, education, employment and housing for reason of their race. The rights of Tibetans as a minority group have also been denied. These rights are recognised in article 27 of the ICCPR which states:

          In those States in which ethnic, religious or [b]linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.[/b]

          So based on International law, THIS IS LEGALLY CONSIDERED RACIAL DESCRIMINATION DUE TO THE RESTRICTION OF A MINORITIES SPOKEN LANGUAGE. Get it yet? Not a leg to stand on for THAT employer!

        • #3334293

          Discrimination, maybe yes, racist, no.

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to It is racist

          This international law quoted seems to have its terminology messed up. I still say race and language is not necessarily connected. I have a coworker of Indian descent who is a native English speaker for example (he is from Trinidad, so he has a Trinidadian accent). I have another coworker of Chinese descent who also is a native English speaker, but knows very little if any Chinese. I could go on with other races/ethnic groups, but you get the idea. Race is inherited from parents, but language is learned. Adopt someone as a baby who is of a different race from the adopted parents, and they learn the language from the parents with no “foreign” accent. Also, depending on what country you live in, this law may not apply. The United States has its own laws to govern its citizens, and international law does not apply within the boundaries of the United States. International law is of concern of the United States only when dealing with other countries and international business. We have our own laws regarding discrimination, so as other posts indicate, the jurisprudence on this issue is confusing in the United States, it all depends on the situation, and is best to consult a lawyer.

          BTW, sorry about the pub comment. Just making a joke in reference to a previous post where you were talking about it. We all have typos now and then, and small keyboards are a pain in the backside!!!

        • #3334266

          legal discrimination

          by bhunsinger ·

          In reply to It is racist

          It is illegal to discrimate against anyone on the bases of race,color, religion, country of origin, previous condition of servitude, and is many cases gender. All other discrimination is legal. That company’s settle cases rather than litigate is based on cost assessment, not legal standing

        • #3334197

          Re. Legal Discrimination

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to It is racist

          Contrary to the above post, whether or not any particular discrimination is legal is NOT determined by any universal criteria, such as the list presented would have one believe.

          Rather, it depends on the specific circumstances of a specific case, which include, at the very least, the sovereign law, statutory law, & body of case law relevant to the specific venue in which the act in question has happened or may happen.

          One size does NOT fit all.

        • #3333388

          Tom, please understand

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It is racist

          The MAIN post is regarding whether or not it is LEGAL to stop someone speaking in their native tongue AROUND the workplace.

          Well whether or not you agree with how racial discrinimation is defined, it is a matter of international law. The law has CEARLY defined it, even referring directly to language.

          It is not debatable whether or not it is legal or racial discrimination. It just isn’t, as outlined IN the law.

        • #3333387

          The post is a general question

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It is racist

          You cannot discriminate based on language spoken around the workplace. Obviously you CAN dictate what language is spoken to communicate within in the business and to the company’s clientele though.

          This is a no brainer, I don’t believe that some people actually feel you can. Ask a lawyer next time you meet one if THEY would take a case as a racial discrimination suit. Yes, it will be settled out of court, that doesn’t make it legal.

        • #3333306

          International Law?

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to It is racist

          Regarding the definition of international law, it depends on your jurisdiction. I do not know about Canada and its policy towards international law, but from my understanding, in the United States, issues such as this is governed by our own laws, not by laws imposed from outside by international bodies. We value our sovereignty, and only concern ourselves with international laws when dealing with international relations, not when dealing with internal affairs.

        • #3333123

          Welcome to reality then

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It is racist

          Yes Canada, the US, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Australia and most others all follow the uidelines of international lawsin such situations. LOCAL laws in these cases are derived from international standards. America may lead you to believe it is a single entity but it really isn’t. You are reliant, cooperative (sometimes) and dependant on global unity just as most others are. Perhaps this is where Americans get the , “we don’t need the world but the world needs us” mentality?

        • #3333116

          Perhaps American law will help

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It is racist

          Will American laws restricting such practice be more understandable then?

          “[u]When Can an Employer Require an Employee to Speak Only English at Work?[/u]

          The EEOC generally views “speak-English-only” policies as being illegal under the Civil Rights Act unless justified by business necessity. However, a recent case in California refused to follow the EEOC Guidelines on these policies, instead holding that English-only rules must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. (Garcia v. Spun Steak Co) (16)

          This decision came in a case where two Latina meat processing plant workers were disciplined for speaking Spanish on the job. Under this ruling, which applies to California and eight other western states, the court stated that an employee may challenge a “speak-English-only” policy in the workplace under federal law if:

          1) the rule is applied to employees who speak no English or who have difficulty speaking English; or

          2) the policy creates, or is part of, a work environment that is hostile toward national origin minority employees. Examples of a hostile work environment would include, for instance, the rule being applied in a very harsh manner, or a pattern of harassment in addition to the English-only rule.

          If an employee is able to show that either of those conditions applies, then [b]the employer must show a “business necessity” for the policy — that is, that the rule is “necessary to safe and efficient job performance,” [/b]and that there are no other alternatives which would serve the employer’s legitimate interests with a less discriminatory effect. (Dothard v. Rawlinson; Griggs v. Duke Power Co; Civil Rights Act of 1991) (17).

          [b]The business necessity standard is hard to meet.[/b] Unless an employer can show that the work in question genuinely requires that communications between employees be in English (as opposed to any other language), that all workers must be able to understand all communications between all other workers, and that the consequences of a lapse in communication are serious, [b]it is unlikely that the standard can be satisfied.[/b] ”

          “as recently as 1991, the court ruled that in some cases, language-based discrimination should be treated as race discrimination”

          “Other courts have also protected the right of language minority groups to be free from discrimination. Those courts have reasoned that even if language and national origin were not synonymous, language-based discrimination disproportionately harms national origin minorities and can, for instance, violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination because of national origin.”

          So whether you view international law or US federal law, it is still viewed as illegal as well as a breach of rights, whether civil rights, racial discrimination or language discrimination.

          It is unethical, poor business practice and illegal. Thus the initial question is answered quite clearly. Given the circumstances provided, there is NO grounds for this company to claim it “genuinely requires that communications between employees be in English (as opposed to any other language), that all workers must be able to understand all communications between all other workers, and that the consequences of a lapse in communication are serious,”

          This is an issue of employee dissention, nothing to do with business or effective communictaions issues between workers.’ Just a dialike for foreign chatter. In the casewe are dealing with here, this is even HARDER to enforce as we are discussing language spoken outside of conducting business with clients or employees. An even weaker straw to grasp than the weak one you MAY grasp in ‘specific’ situations.

        • #3333069

          Condition precedent

          by bhunsinger ·

          In reply to It is racist

          Oz read your post. First there must be these conditions:
          1) the rule is applied to employees who speak no English or who have difficulty speaking English; or

          2) the policy creates, or is part of, a work environment that is hostile toward national origin minority employees. Examples of a hostile work environment would include, for instance, the rule being applied in a very harsh manner, or a pattern of harassment in addition to the English-only rule.

          As sety forth in the rule, the activity being targeted were those with good english skills not using them. The issue is hiding discrimination by saying language.

          Please note: I am discussing what is legal, not smart.
          Also note, Those of us in the United States DO believe in maintaining sovriegnty. Our Constitution requires that all treaties be viewed on the same level as contitutional requirements, prempting laws enacted by Congress and the various state legislatures. If we sign and ratify a treaty, provisions of it can be enforced in court.

        • #3333055

          Treaties and International Law

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to It is racist

          True, US Constitution Article VI states “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” However, the USA has not ratified all treaties that make up the body of International Law. For example, Kyoto and Law of the Sea treaties have not been ratified, and the USA does not recognize the jurisdiction of the World Court in Belgium over citizens of the USA. I do not know if the International Law quoted by Oz was ratified by the USA or not, but our internal laws are sufficient to handle language discrimination in the workplace, and may be in compliance anyway.

          The American people need to be vigilant whenever a treaty comes before the Senate, because of the danger they might ratify a treaty that takes away our hard-earned freedoms. I would be in favor of amending the US constitution Article VI so that its provisions apply to US law as long as the provisions do not infringe on the rights of American citizens and the relations of the Federal government with the states, as defined by the constitution, and that treaties ratified by the Senate may only concern international relations and have no power to enforce or overrule internal affairs and laws. Article VI has the danger of allowing the Senate to have a “back door” amendment to the constitution passed by ratifying a treaty. For example, an international arms treaty would be valid, but any treaty regulating what American business can produce and sell within the boundaries of the United States would be invalid under my proposal. Such a change would protect our sovereignty.

        • #3333047

          Wrong again

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It is racist

          I knew SOMEBODY would pick up on that, thus I highlighted the issue about how next to impossible that is to take as a defense.

          There are VERY tight and VERY strict rules in place and it is POSSIBLE that they could be ignored but not quite as simply as you seem to think they are. Read it again, that premise, especially in this case do not apply.

          The section I looked up was about four pages long, far too much to include here. A link isn’t available in this case as I took it from a law library and cannot share login info. Yet I am sure you can look it up yourself and find reference to it, law is law afterall.

          Here’s the part you failed to take notice of:

          “If an employee is able to show that either of those conditions applies, then the employer must show a “business necessity” for the policy — that is, that the rule is [b]”necessary to safe and efficient job performance,” and that there are no other alternatives which would serve the employer’s legitimate interests with a less discriminatory effect.[/b] (Dothard v. Rawlinson; Griggs v. Duke Power Co; Civil Rights Act of 1991) (17).”

          Unfortunately, a case of telling people they cannot speak a foreign language in the lunch room or halls of a building hardly falls into this. The employer doesn’t even have a SLIM chance of having a law BENT to suit his needs unless, they can show a “business necessity” that enatils how this is “necessary for safe and efficient job performance”.

          In other words unless your company is an Air Traffic control center where a different language would restrict the employee from doing their job safely, or if your company is an ALL English company and ONE employee can’t train others due to a language barrier you have no leg to stand on, as in the case cited at the beginning of this thread.

          THIS issue is because people don’t LIKE others not speaking English AROUND the office, specifically stating that they do conduct their jobs properly.

          You’d be sued in a heartbeat and they would laugh all the way to the bank.

        • #3333043

          What are you TRYING to say though, Tom

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It is racist

          You are trying to say that such discriminatory laws as written into US law do not apply in the US?

          Are you trying to say that the court does not see it as racial discimination? Which is has and does.

          Or are you trying to say that you can decribe the effect of US law in comparisson to national and state laws, constitutional laws?

          The bottom line here is, you CANNOT dictate what language is spoken around the workpalce. In MOST cases, save but a few very strict accpetances, you can’t even dictate what language is spoken IN the office between employees.

          Your own laws show a much stricter standard than those I had originally outlined that protect language spoken away from the office. Your own laws state that you can’t even discriminate against what language is spoken INSIDE your office unless in VERY specific cases and those are determined on a case by case basis, in which it clearly states that it is NOT in the employers favour to even try as much.

          The only acceptions relate to safety and communication restricting efficient business. This hardly says that you can dictate what language is spoken AROUND the office and even between employees.

          So if you wish to argue your own country’s laws, certainly you have a senator you can offer YOUR interpretation of what the law means.

        • #3333006


          by deepsand ·

          In reply to It is racist

          The ensuing discussion re. treaties & jurisdiction is why I asked the question in my post at

        • #3332999

          Posted below you rother post

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It is racist

          I replied to the link you offered, forgetting that it would post farther down.

        • #3332863

          International Law? It Doesn’t Apply

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It is racist

          To suggest that an employer in the USA is subjected to “international law” as it applies to rules he may or may not set forth in his workplace is ludicrous. All “International Laws” are governed by a law of treaties signed between sovereign nations, either specific or general, and no such treaty exists.

        • #3332842

          To Oz, argument is not whether it is discrimination

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to It is racist

          I was trying to point out that the international law may not apply to the United States. American law considers it discrimination depending on the situation. MY point is that it may very well be discrimination, but its is not of the racial kind, since race and language are not necessarily tied together. I agree that companies have no business dictating what language may be spoken during breaks, lunch, comments between coworkers between themselves that are part of the banter that makes work easier, etc. Much of so called “International Law” does not apply within the boundaries of the United States, since the United States is reluctant to sign treaties that takes away its sovereignty. That is why Kyoto, The Law of the Sea (currently being debated in our Senate), and the World Court do not apply to the United States, since those treaties have not been ratified. I have no problem with anti-discrimination laws, they are a good thing. I just don’t want some international body imposing them (or any other laws governing our internal affairs) on the United States, and would urge my fellow citizens to tell their Senators to not give away our sovereignty through treaty. We can guarantee our freedom without having to sign treaties to do so. Just let treaties govern trade, alliances, and other international affairs, and let internal law govern internal affairs.

        • #3332718

          You could at least read the conclusions Max

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It is racist

          Civil law also dictates this is illegal. As America is considered signatory to international law, you must also follow those laws WITHIN you country, otherwise it would be just a tad hypocritical don’t you think?

          Thus I posted an excerpt from US law that says the same thing.

          You wouldn’t possibly be challenging the fact that this is also a Civil RIghts issue are you? As I was probed and prodded by some who feel that language disrimination is legal where the US does as they please, I also posted excerpts from your OWN laws that echo the exact same thing.

          You should also notice that I have explained how international law echos your own laws and how anything else would truly be two-faced. The reason I posted International Law was that’s what I cam across first in the law library at UBC, after some people felt that the USA is independant and doesn’t abide by international law, I then dug deeper to find examples of US law that also prohibit it.

          Hopefully between the two, Americans won’t be dunb enough to actually think you can legally dictate language in or around the workplace, especially due to the fact stated in the original post where people don’t like it because they don’t know what the foreign people are saying. That’s just laughable and I can’t believe ANY company even considered it for more than a split second of frustration.

        • #3332715

          Last time Tom

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It is racist

          This splitting hairs is REALLY getting tiring. That the question has been answered with facts from US law, yet you are TSILL trying to hang onto the racial discrimination issue? Discrimination of language due to nationality will be immediately pushed into a racial discrimination charge.

          First off, if YOU don’t think it will be considered racial discrimination, try it and let eknow when you get out of court just how many times tha racial discrimination card was played against you. I’ve seen it first hand, I don’t need to wonder.

          RACE is not JUST color, racial discrinimation is descrimination against the language of a RACE too, yes I know you have friends that speak multiple languages, that is not the case here. WE are talking about someone’s NATICE TONGUE, therefore you are deiscriminating against THAT races language.

          As I aready outlined and even hightllighted the DETAIL about this RACIAL DISCRIMINATION being broughtin front us the US court (the example cited was 1991) I wil let YOU dig for it as I have already provided it. If you can’t read and follow a reply, why should I repost it. In fact that paragraph is repated TWICE in this discussion already, for your reading enjoyment.

          “as recently as 1991, the court ruled that in some cases, language-based discrimination should be treated as race discrimination”


        • #3251512


          by computer dude ·

          In reply to It is racist

          Oz, you think everything is racist.

          Why does it always have to come down to race?

          What if the employees are speaking German or French? Would it be racist to prohibit that?

          Why do you left-wing nut jobs have to equate everything to race or racism? What’s the hangup?

        • #3348432

          People have already been fired for this one.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to NO but racial discimination comes into play quite well

          “OR nobody can bad mouth anyone in the ocmpany behind their backs.”

        • #3348401

          I’d welcome it

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to People have already been fired for this one.

          A few years pay to take some time off.

        • #3348953

          Good luck in your quest.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I’d welcome it

          Generally, companies may let go employees they feel don’t have the company’s best interest at heart.

          The pisser is when you have the company’s best interest at heart, but your boss doesn’t.

        • #3348929

          Nothing to do with best interests

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Good luck in your quest.

          Any company can fire you for any reason if they choose, they usually lose the lawsuits though.

          We foten read about how so and so has taken action against an employer and how employers fire peopl efor whatever reason they choose. However if that reason is unjust, we RARELY see how they lost that case whenit is for a few thousand or even a years pay.

          I have successfully sued FOUR employers now, for poor business practice, failure to adhere to Employment Standards, Failure to pay out what is necessary instead of what THEY deem neccessary and wrongful termination whie I was in a coma.

          Companies fire employees unjustly all the time, because they feel that the person will not see value in a lawsuit.

          I come from a family that includes coroprate lawyers, I have all the defense I need in such situations, and yes, I can assure you that I would be paid by THIS company for an extended vacation until I decided to go and find work somewhere else.

          It costs me less to come up with a top corporate lawyer than it does the company I am suing, once this is ralized the out of court settlements start coming in.

          My last contracted employer actualy had a lawyer present me with the breach of contract dosumentation and the outstanding penalty they needed to pay the same day they requested to beach the contract for outsourcing to Turkey. I am still living on full pay now, they breached in November and they will pay me until June, in the meantime I still earn a living and they are simply finding my camping, booze and horse racing vices.

          If I o my job as well as anyone else does,and don’t publicly defane the company, there is nothign they ca do if I think they are absolute idiots. I can talkwith whomever I want in the offie about it too. You just can’t be responsible for turning people against the company or spreading defanatory comments about them.

          The ocmpany pays me to work, not like work. I go to work for a paycheck, not because I like to work. Even if I like the place I work, I am still only there for money, who would work for free unless for themselves? What I am getting at is that you cannot be expected to like the company you work for, they cannot enforce it if you don’t, as long as you do your job well and don’t PUBILCLY defame them. Speaking your mind with others, privately, about your issues is not their business.

        • #3235542

          AMEN to that

          by charlieharley ·

          In reply to Good luck in your quest.

          you can say that again…

        • #3334906

          Smoking ban

          by longennamer ·

          In reply to NO but racial discimination comes into play quite well

          Somebody already has banned employee’s from smoking. On and off the job site.

        • #3234936

          could be made to not be discriminatory

          by jck ·

          In reply to NO but racial discimination comes into play quite well

          as long as the policy does not delineate human characteristics protected under law, it would be legally non-discriminatory…especially in racial aspects.

          Whites, blacks and asians can all learn to speak Spanish as well. As long as the policy blankets everyone, it’s not racially discriminatory.

          However, there’s a hitch. If your company services Spanish-speaking customers, how do you provide them with your business if Spanish is the means of communication with that client base? How do you tell if they’re really talking business or bad-mouthing you to a Spanish speaking client?

          I agree…it’s silly…let them speak their native tongue…if you’re so worried, go to a public service course at the local uni, learn the language, and learn what they are saying…then, reprimand them for it if it’s defamatory to the company image or co-workers.

          I’m wholly in support of ideas such as the U.S. government not printing documents in 20+ languages and declaring the official language as English simply as a cost savings for the taxpayer. However, restricting what language people speak to other people is silly. If it gets your panties in that big of a bunch, personally handle the issue…take initiative…and see if there is some coversion occuring of something that is bad for the business. Then if not, you’re more educated, more informed, and most importantly not worrying yourself over something/nothing.

        • #3235442

          Issues of discrimination are not the prime concern.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to could be made to not be discriminatory

          The regulation of private speech is a violation of civil rights.

        • #3235297

          private speech

          by jck ·

          In reply to Issues of discrimination are not the prime concern.

          If you are openly conversing in a public area, it is not “private” under the law. Neither language nor dialect determine the privacy of communication. Just like a letter placed on a table in an open area, conversation at that table is too open to the public.

          I think free speech should not be hindered…so long as it is not a detrimental infringement on the welfare of others and is not legally in the wrong, i.e.- in the original case…damaging to the image of the company, in violation of a contractual clause, etc.

          I just commented on racial discrimination because it was the sub-thread I replied to.

        • #3233681

          “Private” vs “Privacy”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to private speech

          The former deals with the content, in this case, of speech; the latter, with whether of not the content becomes known to others.

          The venue is irrelevant to the former; with respect to the latter, it defines the reasonable expections of such remaining unknown to others.

        • #3348338

          Wide of the mark

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to It would not be a violation of freedom of speech

          The issue is not whether or not this is a matter subject to Congressional oversight, but whether or not it is a matter subject to regulation by a business.

          The U.S. Constitution is one of enumerated powers, with those not reserved onto Congress accruing to the States & the People.

          The Commonweaths and most States, particularly the non-codified ones, i.e. those founded on English common law (e.g., former English colonies), as opposed to the codified ones, i.e. those founded on the Napoleonic Code (e.g., former Franco-Spanish territories), have Constitutions which in great part mirror the principles found in the Federal Constitution, including that of enumerated powers.

          So, if a state’s constitution does not reserve onto that state’s legislature the power to regulate speech, such right accrues to it’s people.

          It is important to note that rights do NOT accure onto LEGAL entities, only REAL entities, i.e. people.

          Therefore, it is generally the case that a business can only regulate speech to the extent that such serves a legitimate business purpose.

          Cases such as this have already been tried. So far, the general opinion of the courts seems to be that:
          1) Companies may not regulate private conversations; and, that
          2) Companies may regulate non-private conversations only to the extent that such is necessary for the company to execute its intended function(s).

        • #3348176

          I was only correcting a misconception

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Wide of the mark

          I wasn’t addressing the premise of the question. I was only addressing a misapplication of the “freedom of speech” clause.

          The “freedom of speech” clause is one of the most misused and misunderstood things, and people throw it around like it’s a license to behave however they wish and wherever they wish. And generally speaking, it has nothing to do with business-employee relations.

          Sure, you can exercise your “freedom of speech” by public protest against the government, but try doing it against your company and find out how fast your boss exercises his “freedom of speech” (yes, in intended and sarcastic misuse), and says, “you’re fired”.

        • #3348030

          You’re fired

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I was only correcting a misconception

          Well Max, now that we are a few more episodes in, what do you think of teh newest Apprentice?

          Man these guys are just wiping the floor with the book smarts guys!

          MAybe people will begin to realize certs aren’t a right of passage.

        • #3347624

          I like it

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You’re fired

          Book smarts versus street smarts.

          And the last guy that got fired not only deserved that, but he should have had his butt kicked as well.

        • #3347622

          It’s priceless isn’t it?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I like it

          NOw I know these guys aren’t your AVERAGE HIgh School grads, they are unique, have energy and drive that has helped them to succeed. But they DO represent that TYPE of person, and it just puts it very clear that drive an dability outweighs education in many situations.

          How many times has that argument come up here?

          I say all the power to them, in fact compared to the others, I would almost prefer to se that show have High School grads competeing against each other form now on. I have always thought some of the idea were way to textbook to be effective on that show.

          Now we see what drive and experience does, and I think Trump has too, I wonder how this will change the eyes of HIS HR personnelle?

          I know you are a person who believes in education but you ALSO believe in personal drive, which is where I see our common ground. We both feel that it is up to the individual to get up and make something for themselves.

        • #3347589

          Oz – Street smarts versus Book Smarts

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I like it

          If a person wants to play the “corporate game” and work his or her way up the existing corporate ladder, a college degree will beat out the lack of one every time. There’s absolutely no question in my mind, as that’s how “the game” is played. The ONLY exception might be if a person starts his own corporation, such as Bill Gates and many others. (I’m sure there are other exceptions, but they are certainly far and few between.) And I think that in the existing “corporate world”, a person without a college degree will never go as far and as high — or earn as much — as a person with one. It’s just the nature of the corporate environment.

          But when it comes to a situation where you have to rely totally on yourself, I might place my bets on the people who don’t have the degree. The typical college stereotype of fraternities and all that crap, by definition, lean on each other, support each other, and they might have a tendency to be complacent, rely on a “club” or “click” environment, and so on.

          So I think a college degree will go further than the lack of one within the “existing” corporate structure, but outside of it, all bets are off.

          You know that my life almost revolves around my son, in as much as putting him in the best position to “take-off” on his own; and that’s one reason why I chose to send him to a particular private school, guide him into scouting, teach him to play chess and golf, teach him to get his hands dirty and rely on himself, and so on. And it’s also the reason why I’m sending him to college. However, I’m only paying for half of it; he’s paying for the other half by way of his current savings as well as working himself while there. In addition, I’m going to strongly encourage him, possibly even help him, start his own business while in college as the means to his source of income. I want him to have BOTH street smarts and book smarts.

        • #3347537

          Oh I can see that

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I like it

          I understand that given the opportunity and the proper guidance, college is a definite asset in ADDITION to a well trained working mentality.

          As for corporations, I suppore you MAY be right in many cases, but I have passed a LOT of people on my way up the coporate ladder and reached several quite repectable executive level positions, until I didn’t want to accept further promotion and a relocate to Toronto.

          That’s when I quit THAT life and went into BCIT for automotive training. Just a life change, I got tired of the phony game that everyone played and realized how very few REAL people there were.
          It was WAY worse than phonies in the music industry, those people are grounded in comparisson. These corporate people would appear and pretend to be so far above those that worked for them and would end up going home to some dump in the burbs.

          Where I had worked my way up from entry level positions, I had a much more grounded respect for the people that REALLY made the company run well, and I thinks THAT’s what made me so successful, I was ‘in touch’ with and respected the teams.

          I’ve noticed this is a common quality in all of the Street Smarts guys in the Apprentice too. They have worked at the bottom, hey understand how it works and why it works, they get a great deal more respect and show more respect for each other, because they aren’t phony, they’ve been there before and it shows.

          I wouldn’t want to deny someone further education, but my point is that with enough drive, sucess can be found without it in many cases.

          As for corporate ladders, these people (stree smarts) would not generally work that field anyway. The mentality is generally far too independant and entrepeneural for the corporate grind, I found I got very bored of it myself, it was like being a well paid Dilbert. Sure you get a fancy ofice with a view and all the goodies, but you still suit and tie it to an office everyday and play the game everyday. (NO I am not equating my personal success to the people on The Apprentice, but I am sure that I would still have much in common with them as far as personality, stumbles and drive ).

        • #3347999

          Speech vs Actions; and, the Law of Unintended Consequences

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I was only correcting a misconception

          You are quite correct in that all too many people behave as though they believe that the act of excercising a right is, or at least should be, absolutely unencumbered by a commensurate responsibility for the results of such; i.e., no consequences should accrue to them.

          In your example, the utterance “you’re fired” is merely speech; however, the termination of the employee is an action, which may or may not be lawful.

          And, even if lawful, there may still be undesirable consequences for the employer.

          I’ve earlier addressed this issue in another post; please see

        • #3334278

          Right On

          by bhunsinger ·

          In reply to It would not be a violation of freedom of speech

          Freedom of speech is by the Government. However each state has rules about what a company can regulate.

        • #3334191

          Wrong On

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Right On

          “Freedom of Speech”, in the U.S, is a Civil Right granted by Sovereigns (both Federal & States/Commonweals), through Constitutions.

          The respective governments grant Legal Rights, by way of Statutes.

          Therefore, if the Federal Sovereign grants a Civil Right, such cannot be denied, either by the Federal government, or by any State Sovereign or it’s government.

          If a State Sovereign grants a right, such applies only within the territories of said Sovereign, and cannot be denied by said Sovereign’s government.

          Lastly, Civil Rights accrue only to real persons; businesses, not being real persons, have no Civil Rights. They can only acquire Legal Rights, such as may be granted by the government of the Sovereign from whom they obtained their Charter.

        • #3333067

          Trying again

          by bhunsinger ·

          In reply to Wrong On

          Freedom of speech is a limitation on government- the government is prohibited from limiting your speech. Workplace rules are subject to the states as well as federal gov regulation of what a company can dicipline you for. Much different standard.
          Also, Freedom of speech is not ‘granted’ by the various constitutions, It is just a clear statement of what the Government is not allowed to do.

        • #3333009


          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Trying again

          The forbiding of one party from controlling an act of another IS to grant a right to the latter.

        • #3332736

          Political theory answer

          by bhunsinger ·

          In reply to Huh?

          The political philosophy under which the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution is written is that the individual has the Natural right to do anything that the individual wants. Government is a compact/contract in which individuals give up certain rights-ie. the right to pludner- in re turn for group action -protection from being plundered. Rights belong to the individual. The inalienable rights metioned in the DofI are never on the table.
          Historically, the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) were added to the US Constiturion to get the states to ratify it, spelling out what the government may not do, or which rights the Federal government was not to have.

        • #3333934

          None of which …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Huh?

          invalidates anything that I have said.

        • #3334939

          Yes it does

          by bhunsinger ·

          In reply to Huh?

          “Freedom of Speech”, in the U.S, is a Civil Right granted by Sovereigns (both Federal & States/Commonweals), through Constitutions.
          This is a quote I took form your post. The Constitution does not grant freedom of speech, it guarentees that the federal goverment does not have the power to limit speech. The people set limits on the government, not the other way around. It always tries to, but it is important to rember the way it is supposed to be.

        • #3334879

          Missing the point.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Huh?

          All civil rights flow SOLELY from the Sovereign; that the Sovereign has granted such so as to secure the fealty of the People is irrelevant.

          There is, for example, no legal impediment to amending the U.S. Constitution such that “free speech” can be exercised soley at the pleasure of the Sovereign.

        • #3330270

          The People are sovereign

          by bhunsinger ·

          In reply to Huh?

          Not the Government. Look at the Preamble to the Constitution. “We the people , of the United States, in order to establish a more perfect union,… do ordain and establish this constitution of the United States of America.”
          or the Declaration of Independence ‘That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”

          And there are several legal impediments to removing the First amendment- a super majority of both senate and House, as well as ratification of 3/4 of all the states.
          Also, the second amandment.

        • #3331649

          Only in a pure democracy, which ultimately leads to …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Huh?

          either a tyranny of the majority, which the Constitution seeks to thwart, or anarchy.

          1) The Declaration of Independence is NOT Law; it was, and remains, but a statement of intent & the reasons for such;
          2) The Constitution is the OLDEST, and therefore, the SUPREME Law of the U.S.;
          3) The Constitution established a Republic, NOT a Democracy;
          4) While the People enjoy no small measure of freedom, their powers are subordinate to the Constitution, the Republic, and their respective States;
          5) That the bar to altering the Constitution was set high with great deliberateness does not constitute a LEGAL impediment to such, merely one of practicalities;
          6) While the People do, though their respective States, exercise some degree of power re. amending the Constitution, they are not the ultimate arbiter of such; therefore,
          7) Given that the People lack the requisite supreme power of an ultimate arbiter (see definitions below) it cannot be in fact maintained that they are sovereigns.

          The People & the Sovereign are not one and the same; this is a very important distinction between very different entities.

          Main Entry: sov?er?eign

          Variant(s): also sov?ran /’s?-v(&- )r&n, -v&rn also ‘s&-/
          Function: noun
          Etymology: Middle English soverain, from Old French, from soverain, adjective
          1 a : one possessing or held to possess sovereignty b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere c : an acknowledged leader : ARBITER

          Main Entry: sov?er?eign?ty

          Variant(s): also sov?ran?ty /-tE/
          Function: noun
          Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
          Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soverainet?, from Old French, from soverain
          1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
          2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
          3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

      • #3332532

        Just MHO

        by warnerit ·

        In reply to imo

        you know, there is a difference between using a different language on the phone because that is what a customer is most comfortable with and with employees bursting out into a foreign language when they are angry or they are in a social situation with other employees around who don’t speak that language and the foreign language is being spoken in front of the other employees as a way to hide what is being said in plain site. I’ve seen it done a number of times and it does cause hostile feelings when you have say 2-3 employees standing in the break room speaking Spanish amongst 5-6 other non-Spanish speaking employees. If derogatory things are being said, you can usually tell by the tone and inflection even if you can’t understand the words. I knew enough Spanish to pick out that they were making fun of co-workers – right in front of those people – and thinking they were so smug for doing it right in front of the people and getting away with it. That just isn’t right. People who do that have no sense of teamwork, they are out to pull down the teams and the company as a whole. I have no need for people like that in my organization.

        • #3332481

          Then it’s HARDLY a language issue at all

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Just MHO

          THat is dissention amond employees, no matter WHAT language is used it is counterproductive.

          Will them speaking English be any better?

          How about taking them aside and mentioning,

          “I noticed that you often speak amongst yourselves in your native language. I don’t understand WHAT you are saying but the TONE used leads me to believe that you are unhappy about either people or policies in the workplace. If you are unhappy with something, my door is open and I encourage you to share it with me. We don’t want to lose you and I am not sure how I can help you if I don’t understand your complaints. It is not acceptable to speak about people when they are around, if you have personal issues with staff, let me know and we’ll address them. If not, perhaps keep your personal issues out of ear shot of other employees because when they can’t understand you they ‘think’ you are talking about them, you know how paranoid some people get when others whisper and chatter, and it causes dissention in the office”

          There is no racial descrimination, language is NOT the issue but the reason for the negative conversation IS your business while they are around the office.

          Why do people ignore the fact there are issues that need to be addressed and focus on the language used instead? The same problem could be seen in a simple scowl or negative expression with NO words spoken.

        • #3332439

          But, is it ok if, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Just MHO

          they insult or ridicule you in English?

          And, if not, what is your legal claim to freedom from such?

      • #3334804

        Would agreed for the Canada comment

        by another canadian ·

        In reply to imo

        I am in the military and even there you will not hear that even on a unilingual English or French Unit the only obligation you have is when you communicate officialy with the unit level and outside it and that is not for your personnal case but the unit case you have to use the language of the unit in the occurence English or French or both if this Unit is designated as Bilingual in that case both language must be used but only if you are giving directive.

        Would not like to live and work in a place were people are so paranoid that they think that if they talk in their own language it is against them.

        My though

    • #3348500

      Aprenda El Espa?ol

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace?

      No pienso que una compa??a podr?a hacer cumplir una pol?tica del “ingl?s solamente” cuando viene al di?logo personal entre los empleados. Pero qu? puede ser que haga, especialmente si esto est? limitada para estar alrededor por un rato, Aprender?a reservado espa?ol, quiz? un curso acelerado — soltar solamente ?l en ellos en el mejor tiempo posible, si usted sabe lo que significo.

      • #3348467


        by cactus pete ·

        In reply to Aprenda El Espa?ol

        No, I don’t know what you mean.


        • #3349404

          Wassa’ Matta’

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to hahaha

          Doncha unerstan incorrect and unintelligible Spanish?

        • #3349396

          Stop that

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to Wassa’ Matta’

          You’re torturing me!

        • #3349363

          Language and Culture Barriers

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Stop that

          An American tourist went into a restaurant in a Spanish provincial city for dinner, and asked to be served the specialty of the house. When the dish arrived, he asked what kind of meat it contained.

          “Senor, these are the cojones,” the waiter replied.

          “The what, you say?” exclaimed the tourist.

          “They are the testicles of the bull killed in the ring today,” explained the waiter.

          The tourist gulped but tasted the dish anyway, and found it delicious.

          Returning the following evening, he asked for the same dish. After he finished the meal, the tourist commented to the waiter, “Today’s cojones are much saltier and smaller than the ones I had yesterday.”

          “True, senor,” agreed the waiter. “You see the bull, he does not always lose.”

      • #3349230

        Which translation program did you use?

        by awfernald ·

        In reply to Aprenda El Espa?ol

        Not perfect, but not too bad, got the idea across at least.

        • #3349157

          My Translator Program. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Which translation program did you use?


          It’s funny to translate BACK to English:

          I do not think that a company could make only fulfill a policy of the “English” when it comes to the personal dialogue between the employees. But what can be that it does, specially if this is limited to be in favor around of awhile, It would learn reserved Spanish, perhaps an accelerated course — to loosen only he in them in the best possible time, if you know what I mean.


          I wonder if other’s around here use various translation programs to post messages? If they do, it’s no wonder they appear, shall I say, “strange”…..

        • #3347923

          Hmmm …

          by voldar ·

          In reply to My Translator Program. . .

          I don’t think that anyone here would do such a thing, but well … it’s “a free forum”, rumor says. BTW – I don’t know spanish (never learnt it, or study it) but I understand it very well. When it comes to speak .. well .. I need some practice with a spanish woman 😉 (not too old though 25 to 35 is good enough). And I may say that your first “spanish paragraph” was not THAT bad.
          Good luck in practicing your spanish – when you know “plusieurs langues, t’as d?j? un AS dans ta poche.”

        • #3347735

          I don’t think that should be allowed

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Hmmm …

          Seeing as this is an English forum, I think TR should make it mandatory that anyone posting here does so in a common English language.

          Sound pretty stupid doesn’t it?

          I wonder how a company can justify trying to tell people what the speak when not conducting work?

          It’s a complete joke to even consider it really, how a company would think such a ludicrous rule would create a better workplace I really don’t know.

        • #3347670

          I second that one

          by house ·

          In reply to I don’t think that should be allowed

          Who cares what language is spoken when you are not part of the conversation.

          What are they worried about? Security? What a joke. They need to grow up. If they really need to know what is being said, then learn the friggin’ language. I would be more than happy to have such a diverse language skill-set among my associates – this opens doors in communication on the client side as well.

        • #3233774

          Learn the language!

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to I second that one

          Then the paranoid boss would find out that they REALLY WERE saying bad things about him and he could fire them!

      • #3332490

        Well, with that Spanish, Who can understand anything anyway?

        by rbernal ·

        In reply to Aprenda El Espa?ol

        This writeup in Spanish is one of the funniest and most difficult to understand texts I’ve seen. Sounds like the Spanish spoken by the wife of Hank (King of the Hill).

      • #3332434

        Eso no es espa?ol

        by bachas ·

        In reply to Aprenda El Espa?ol

        You have to try harder if you really want to convince someone with your espa?ol

        • #3334270

          I wasn’t trying to “convince” anyone. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Eso no es espa?ol

          …of anything, mi amigo.

      • #3334807

        Aprenda El Espa?ol

        by jcrobso ·

        In reply to Aprenda El Espa?ol

        Dose this mean that you are going to send all of us a million dollars?? John

      • #3127570

        No Espa?ol es CASTELLANO

        by saher ·

        In reply to Aprenda El Espa?ol

        En primer lugar en Latinoamerica y el Caribe se habla CASTELLANO no ESPA?OL. Y realmente a ti te falta mucho para entenderlo y mucho mas para escribirlo correctamente. El hablar un segundo idioma es beneficicio no solo para el individuo sino tambien para la compa?ia en que trabajas. El hablar mal de un compa?ero de trabajo o alguna politica de la compa?ia no es nada nuevo y se hace en cualquier idioma. Lo que pasa es que la curiosidad e interes de enterarte de lo que pasa es bien grande. Asi que el aprender uno o mas idiomas es bueno.

    • #3348488

      Disregard – double post

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace?


    • #3348487

      Maybe it could be

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace?

      In December 1996, a freighter steaming down the Mississippi River crashed into a New Orleans shopping mall, injuring more than 100 people. The accident has been blamed on a Chinese crew that couldn’t understand its English-speaking captain.

      In 1995, an American Airlines jet plowed into a mountain, killing 150 passengers. The tragedy was blamed on an air-traffic controller, barely able to speak English, who was unable to warn the plane’s pilots that they were off course.


      I believe that if a person is in a position where he or she must advance the cause of the company “in English”, but might be struggling with learning the language and/or correctly conversing in the language, then an employer might indeed be within his rights to insist that these people speak English at all times, at least while “on the clock”, in order to get more used to using the language correctly.

      • #2634850

        Pilots and Air Traffic Control

        by softwaremaven ·

        In reply to Maybe it could be

        Regarding the second, it is already required worldwide that pilots and air traffic control speak English. That controller should never have been allowed behind the microphone.

        Regarding the first, is it the crews fault or the captains? Note the difference: “The accident has been blamed on an English-speaking captain that couldn’t communicate with his Chinese speaking crew.”


    • #3348480
    • #3348477

      Don’t know about legal, but I wouldn’t allow it…

      by mrafrohead ·

      In reply to Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace?

      I see it like this:

      What country are you in?

      What is the language of that country?

      There you go!

      Whenever I visited a foriegn country I was expected to speak their language, rules don’t change just because you come here.

      • #3349565

        holy blind spot batman!!!

        by husp1 ·

        In reply to Don’t know about legal, but I wouldn’t allow it…

        gee I hope you take a trip to wales! try speakin that. what if you moved to Ireland and the company you worked for spoke Irish-galic? (a dead language by the way.) your right with the statement that this is America but if you were to speak native american which would you choose? remember that the only true Americans are the Indians we are all from different cultures and backgrounds. (If you are Indian then disreguard this post)

        • #3349536

          Dead language?

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to holy blind spot batman!!!

          You’ve never been to County Galway! I had a very difficult time in one town where most of the available people while I was there barely spoke English, and what they did had a very hard accent.

        • #3349503

          Indians are true Americans?

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to holy blind spot batman!!!

          I have an Indian coworker, and he does not consider himself an American. He is still a citizen of India, and his native language is Tamil (although he also knows Hindi, and he speaks English very well, also).

        • #3349493

          What if he married. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Indians are true Americans?

          … Eskimo? Would the politically correct crowd call their kids, Intuitive Indians?

        • #3348207


          by ·

          In reply to What if he married. . . .

          I *really* like that one

        • #3349482

          the only true Americans are the Indians ?????

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to holy blind spot batman!!!

          Tom Wigginton commented on your “Indian” reference, and I’ll let the extreme politically correct crowd correct you by suggesting you call them “Native Americans”, lest you “offend” someone (heaven forbid), but I’ll take you to task for suggesting that people other than “them”, whatever you call “them”, are the only “true Americans”. That’s nonsense. That’s beyond nonsense. That’s utterly ludicrous.

          A “true American” is either:

          1. Someone born in the United States of America.

          2. Someone who moved to the United States of America and subsequently became a citizen.

          If you want to limit the definition of a “true American” to those people whose ancestors were indigenous to the land before “America” even became a country, how far back do you go? Two hundred years or two thousand years, or something in-between? Or why stop there? Why not go back, maybe, two hundred thousand years?

          And while I’m at it, there’s no such thing as a “Something”-American. Where in the hell is “Africa America”, or “Asia America”, or “Italy America”, or “Ireland America”, or “Native America” for that matter?

          I would never insult someone by calling them a hyphenated-American. What a silly concept.

          Like I said, political correctness run amok.

        • #3349446

          Was that not you

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to the only true Americans are the Indians ?????

          I may be wrong, Max, but a few months ago I am pretty sure you were defending the Afro-American PC term when I used the term ‘black’ to describe a friend.

        • #3349412

          Nope – Never – Not Me

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Was that not you

          What you probably remember was my “objection” (for the lack of a better word) to any reference whatsoever to a person’s race. I don’t want to live in a world where race is a factor. Therefore, it should never be relevant, so I never make it an issue.

          That’s what you probably remember; and I think I even remember the discussion to which you are referring. When you jumped to that conclusion, however, I don’t think I said anything at all.

          I would never call such a person my “African American” friend, my “Afro American” friend, my “African Canadian” friend, my “black” friend, my “colored” friend, et al. In my estimation, that’s as silly (and as insulting) as calling someone my blue eyed friend. I would much prefer to just call him my friend. Discriminating because of skin color or pandering to it, both are just as distasteful in my colorless eyes.

          I always leave that question blank whenever it comes up in various forms. I left it blank on the most recent 2000 census form that I mailed in. Coincidentally enough, that was the only time a census taker knocked on my door to “randomly verify” information. Yea, right; random my butt.

          And quite frankly, I wish everybody else would get over their obsession with skin color.

        • #3349744

          Beware of “Never”

          by kaceyr ·

          In reply to Nope – Never – Not Me

          I don’t mean to sound like I’m knocking your position, but sometimes racial assumptions based upon visible and/or audible indicators are necessary (and even helpful).


          You’re walking down the street in, just for fun, south central LA (that’s the southern end of the central portion of the city of Los Angeles, California in the United States for those unfamiliar with the place).

          While minding your own business, a pair of hoodlums leaps out, one in front, one behind, both with firearms, and demand your wallet.

          You hand over your wallet, watch, ring, glasses, coat, shirt, belt, pants, whatever they want.

          They (mysteriously enough) leave with their ill gotten gain.

          You make your way to the nearest police station and report that your were mugged at gunpoint.

          The police take you to an interview room, get you a cup of coffee, ask you to explain what happened, where it happened, and when it happened, then they ask you to describe the perpetrators.

          I’d like to know how you do that WITHOUT making assumptions about racial background.

        • #3349728

          Belabor the obvious

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Beware of “Never”

          I was almost going to use “police description” as an exception, but when I said that skin color is as insignificant as eye color, by default it would also mean that skin color would be significant when the other was. And in your example, the police will also ask for eye color, etc.

          If you didn’t understand my point, it’s you who should be arrested.

        • #3349736

          Fair enough

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Nope – Never – Not Me

          I thought you were a little mo eloquent that that too.

          As far as saying ‘my black friend’ that is being taken a little too literally.

          IF I am speaking about meeting ‘A’ friend after work I will say that.

          If I am talking about an issue of racism and use an example of a freind who is BLACK, then it fits as a descriptive and qualifying term.

          When I am talking about a group of freinds, there is ‘that blonde girl, or ‘that guy who was wearing glasses’, or ‘he’s was the black guy in the studio that day’. Just as he refers to me as ‘The white guy that was talking to….’

          It’s just a descriptive term of reference not a racist term.

          It sure beats saying ,
          ‘you know that guy who was talking to Ben?’
          ‘Which one, the one who was too drunk to remember where he was?’
          ‘No, the other guy about 5’10 with black curly hair.’
          ‘You mean the guy that was talking to that 5’4″ woman with the pretty nadbag?’
          “no the BLACK GUY!!!’
          ‘oooooooh , why didn’t you say so!?’

          It is a descriptive term, much easier than other descriptive terms but not derogatory or racist in ANY way sape or form.

          People referred to me as the short guy with the British accent for years, until I lost the accent.

          NOw technically I COULD choose to be offended by the term short AND the point of my accent. But that would just be ridiculous. People decribe what they see, or hear, and that is not racial or prejudiced to me, or any of my black, yellow, or red friends. It has even a joke between us now. We laugh at how politically correct the world TRIES to be, so we all ask about each other in FAR more derogatory terms just to get a rise out of people.

        • #3233763

          Never seen one of those..

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to Fair enough

          Curious about the gal holding a ‘nadbag’

        • #3233622

          ROFLMAO Neither have I !

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Fair enough

          I think I meant ‘handbag’. If I had a nadbag I would also like to see it used as a hand-bag of course.

          I would think it would be warm, VERY protective and rather flattering, comes in one size, XXXXXXXL. 🙂

        • #3347902

          I don’t fill out my color either.

          by mrafrohead ·

          In reply to Nope – Never – Not Me

          I will always answer “clear”.

          You know how pissed off that makes people??

          I just look at it like this.

          WTF difference does it make as to what color I am?

          Unless we’re talking about a medical question, there is no relevance I can see that my color would have to do with anything.

          Medically, off the top of my head the only thing I can see color making a difference would be “scicle cell anemia” and “melanoma”. I think that’s the last one, although that may be what colors the skin. I’m thinking of the skin cancer thing that blacks are more susceptable to.

          Other than that, we’re all the same on the inside.

          OH SNAP – I did forget one thing though. The “BBQ” and “Dance/Sports” gene.

          I don’t mean this to be offensive, it’s just how I see it, but we honkeys got RIPPED on that one!!! It’s funny to go to a club and watch white men try to dance. That’s right, TRY, because they can’t do it. Just can’t. Don’t know why.

          And my black friends, BBQ to no end. Put my cooking to shame. And I have always considered myself a good griller… ;p

          Granted, yes there are a few exceptions to the rule, but they are far and few between. ;p

        • #3347777

          What do you mean by FILL OUT your colour?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I don’t fill out my color either.

          Do you mean on a job application?

          You aren’t allowed to ask that in here, along with MANY other new additions on an employment application, like birthdate and sex.

        • #3347766

          That’s a strange one

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to I don’t fill out my color either.

          Applied for a job last year. Got my cv, agreed to interview. When I arrived, I got an application form to fill in as usual, 75% of the details were on my cv. (HR are lazy gits everywhere). Included as part of a study on applicant diversity by the equal opportunities commission, were religion and ethnic group. I flatly refused to fill out this section as at the top of the form it said Job Application Form.
          The HR beetch filled it in for me, then I refused to sign it, walked right out of the door, didn’t even bother with the interview. Don’t want to work for people who might hire someone to make up the numbers to look like they weren’t racists. If they are that sensitive about it they probably are.

          I always answer human to race, religion varies, been using zoroastrian recently, confuses the hell out of them.

        • #3347755

          Tony: Since the last UK census,

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I don’t fill out my color either.

          I believe that Jedi Knight is now officially a UK religion as enough people filled that in the relevant box.

          I haven’t had the balls to use it yet.

        • #3347750

          Try ‘I Am god’.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I don’t fill out my color either.

          Religion? ‘Maybe’, ‘it’s ok with me’, ‘I AM god’ etc.

          What an ignorant and ridiculous question to ask when you are seeking a person to perform a job, other than as a priest.

        • #3347665

          Neil : I was out of the country

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to I don’t fill out my color either.

          when they did it, so I missed my chance to p1ss them off.

        • #3233762

          and under another box

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to I don’t fill out my color either.

          Sex, put ‘Y’
          (unless of course it is No)

        • #3349431


          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to the only true Americans are the Indians ?????

          Wow! “Pompous resident Englishman”, eh? You’re giving ME lessons on this one.

          Tell me, how do you describe a selection of your countrymen with a common racial origin who are proud enough of the heritage of that origin to celebrate it? More importantly, how do they refer to themselves?

          I wouldn’t think that the term “Irish-American” offends any normal person. If it does – and I’d like to know – then I will offer you an unreserved apology.

        • #3349758

          How do I describe?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Amazing!

          Simple – as Americans. And in your Irish example, as Americans who want to drink some green beer.

          And how someone might refer to himself is really none of my business. A person could call himself a blender, for all I care. But I won’t presume to call him one.

          The problem is when people of the same ethnic and/or racial and/or religious and/or heritage and/or whatever group have different preferences. How would “an outsider”, such as myself, know what to call “the group” if some want it one way, while others want it another way? Yes, it happens. I know people that some would automatically call “African American”, but who personally loathes that term. So who am I to make the decision for anybody? I never look at anybody and jump to the conclusion that he is ______________________. (Fill in the blank.)

        • #3348385


          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to How do I describe?

          You would have loved my granparents political hero, John Diefenbaker. He also loathed hyphenated terms like Polish-Canadian etc.

          And African American does not sit well with all “people of colour” in Canada. First off, someone from Africa, who has dark skin, is not “american” in our Canadian cultural mosaic. They are very differnt than the descendants of the loyalist blacks who fought for the British in the American Revolution(mostly in Nova Scotia) or the descendants of runaway slaves who came up the underground railroad(Ontario) or the masses of economic immigrants from the Caribbean countries. They all have different backgrounds and histories.

          I don’t have an answer to the question, except to say its complex. At a minimum, as long as respect is involved and intended, its a good start.


        • #3347905

          I don’t care for it.

          by mrafrohead ·

          In reply to Amazing!

          I posted a response a few up that actually deals with this before I read what you wrote. Otherwise, I probably would have posted it down here.

          Either you’re American or you aren’t.

          That’s all there is to it.

          Do you think the Irish look at you as an Irish American? Hell no, you’re just an American to them.

          You say Irish American to me, and I think you’re just Irish. Can’t accept who you really are. You’re one or the other, not both.

          I also, don’t buy that dual citizenship bullcrap either. I had a friend that was of Swiss and American nationalities. I always called bullshit on him for that. You’re one or the other.

          You can’t have your cake and eat it too…

        • #3347803

          Distinctions WITH a difference

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I don’t care for it.

          To say that one is American is to identify one’s citizenship.

          To say that one is Irish American is to identify one’s ethnic and/or cultural heritage.

          Quite different matters.

        • #3347795

          Deepsand’s reply was what I was expecting

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I don’t care for it.

          The fact that YOU choose not to use labels to describe identifiable racial and/or cultural groupings within your population isn’t anything that I care about. My original – simple – question was as to whether some or all of those groups indentify THEMSELVES with that sort of label and if they were any way acceptable to THEM.

          If you say “Irish American” to me then I think of someone in Boston or New York proudly celebrating St. Patrick’s Day and mainly indistinguishable from your fellow citizens for the rest of the year. Sounds reasonable.

          I wouldn’t think it was anything to get excited about, though. I was only asking – I’m neither Irish nor American – and I wasn’t expecting quite such a sharply nationalistic response.

        • #3347773

          I see the terms used incorrectly

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Deepsand’s reply was what I was expecting

          I would see someone who was born and raised in Ireland and then moving to America being considered Irish-American, to name everyone of a particular decent by a hyphen is just ridiculous though.

          How many people considered African-American’s were born in Africa?

          If you are born in a country, you are then a native of that country. If you move to a country you can be a dual citizen or landed immigrant with permanent resident status.

          But to hyphenate someone based on cultural origin is just plain rude. My always bug a friend that he is ‘Canadian-American’, because he always complains that he was called Afro-American in America and yet his family had lived in Alabama for many generations. So I just make him feel at home. 🙂

        • #3347582

          I think that you misunderstood

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Deepsand’s reply was what I was expecting

          I was NOT objecting to people using terms such as “Irish American” or “African American” to describe themselves.

          Rather, I was pointing out that there is a distinction, with a difference, between those terms and those which merely denote nationality of citizenship.

        • #3347776

          Dual citizenship

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I don’t care for it.

          You crossed two terms there.

          Dual citizenship is not really dual nationality.
          You may be a dual citizen but it is not dual nationality. As you said, you are one or the other, but you can be acitizen of more than one country,especially in countries that are or were part of a shared colony.

        • #3347754

          Oz: I haven’t really got an answer to my question

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I don’t care for it.

          but it doesn’t matter.

          I rarely (never) use any xxx-American term as I just don’t have the need! I was just idly asking what term, if any, cultural and racial groups use themselves.

          Why is everybody getting so EXCITED?

        • #3347747

          Actually it wasn’t too exciting

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Oz: I haven’t really got an answer to my question

          I have never heard someone of a different race say I am an XXXXXX-Canadian or XXXXXX-American.

          I have heard MANY who are trying to be ‘politically correct’ do so when trying to reference someone of a different origin.

          That is why I say it is a term created by those who wish to be politically correct, though in doing so they are segregating the people no differently than calling someone by the term they are trying to avoid.

          Being OVERLY sensitive has in turn isolated people instead of seeing them as Americans or Canadians.

          I don’t see this in Canada at all, ever. I see and hear it ALL the time from the US though.

        • #3347907

          Either you are AMERICAN or you AREN’T!!!

          by mrafrohead ·

          In reply to the only true Americans are the Indians ?????

          There’s none of the hyponated BS either.

          If you are so inclined to HAVE to include some other country in your name other than your own, then go there and stay there.

          I’m an American! That’s all.

          No more, no less.

          It HIGHLY offends me to see all of these lame ass stickers everywhere, ***pride and ***thatpride.

          What ever happened to AMERICAN PRIDE???

          And hyphonated countries… That craps for the birds. I think that’s just from people that are confused as to whether they’re coming or going. You are here or you aren’t. Pick one!

        • #3347807

          What is an American?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Either you are AMERICAN or you AREN’T!!!

          Merely one who holds U.S. citizenship.

          Nothing more.

        • #3187995

          i’m a mexican, and i, too, am an american

          by joe mctroll ·

          In reply to What is an American?

          People from the USA are usually very ignorant of the world’s reality outside their country. They expect you to speak to them in English whenever they get out of their country, and they want US to speak in English if we get into theirs…

          By the way, calling “American” someone from the USA is blatantly incorrect. “American” is someone who comes from “America”, and last time I saw the map, “America” is the name for no country at all, but a whole continent.

          Thus, Mexicans, Brazilians, Peruvians, etc. are as “Americans” as the people from the USA (“gringos” or “yankees” or whatever) I don’t care if the USA hasn’t developed a right term for describing it’s own people, I do care for them hijacking the term applied originally for the people from this continent

        • #3187978


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to i’m a mexican, and i, too, am an american

          No further comment.

        • #3347770

          I don’t think it was THEM that created the issue though

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Either you are AMERICAN or you AREN’T!!!

          People USED to be called by there origin, often in a very derogatory and racist way. Typically this was an black/white issue that took too many years to become accepted.

          AQfter fighting for personal rights and freedoms for so long, the PC police took it to the next level and instead of ACCEPTING people as equals they decided to further segragate them again.

          It became politically incorrect to realize a persons origins, ‘black’ people went from being cvalled ‘***gers’ to becoming Afro-American, instead of American. For some reason it was unfair to call them by a derogatory term, yet then they found it unfair to forget and not appreciate somebody’s cultural origins. So they skipped them being ordinary American’s and went on to segregate them as Afro-Americans.

          Other minorities were then automatically seen the same way.

          It doesn’t show ANY respect, as the term was originally intended to, it’s just another way of seeing people as NON-Americans and thus continues to segragate Americans.

          In Canada, we have Canadians and French Canadians, this is the CHOICE of the French Canadians though as they have fought for such segragation, instead of acceptance as ‘Canadians’.

          I am considered Canadian, though I am not a native Canadian nor even a Canadian or dual citizen.

        • #3251503


          by computer dude ·

          In reply to Either you are AMERICAN or you AREN’T!!!

          Mr. Afrohead, I wish there were more like you.

        • #3251356

          Missing the point.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Tuche

          1) There is a difference between nationality & ethnicity.
          2) There is no such thing as an ethnic American.
          3) One’s nationality neither alters nor removes one’s ethnicity.
          4) A truly free nation will neither ask nor require that one deny his ethnicity.
          5) To ask that one refrain from expressing his ethnicity is un-American!

        • #3235152

          Blah, blah, blah….

          by computer dude ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          And so on and so forth…

          If that were really true then why are only minorities allowed to celebrate ethnic pride. Whites are racists if they do that.

        • #3235141


          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          As for the comment made that whites can’t celebrate pride in their ethnicity, white is not an ethnicity. I don’t normally beleive in race(social not biological construct to me) but to me when people start talking about white pride they are talking about race.

          Every year I go to Highland games to celebrate my “ethnicity”. People celebrate irish heritage on St. Patricks day. The fact that I share the same skin colour as someone from Eastern Europe doesn’t forge a link to them in my view.

          And take the case of some of my friends from the Caribbean. Their ancesters are from China and India, but their families lived in the Caribbean (in former British colonies)for hundreds of years, and now they live in Canada, another former British colony. Do you want to call them Chinese and Indian? It wouldn’t do justice to their heritage. They have been influenced by British religion(anglicans), Caribean culture(food, approach to work) – you can’t typify them by skin colour or “race” but by all the things that influence their heritage.


        • #3235090


          by computer dude ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          You have a point. White is a race, not a ethnicity per se.

          But, in regards to non-whites, why would you suggest that they are encouraged to have blanket celebrations of their race? Asian-American this(Oriental), Hispanic this, African-American that (black) and Native American something or other. I see the distinction you’ve made about race, but it seems contradictory when every other person is practically encourgaged to celebrate their race, not merely their ‘ethnicity’.

        • #3235047

          Why? ok…

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          “European-American” just sounds bad.

          But I *DO* hear people say Irish-American, Spanish-American. Scottish-American…

          As for “African-American”…That’s as close to the region as some people can get for their genealogy.

          Since the US is supposed to be a melting pot, why not allow those who are proud of their heritage to announce it? Who cares?

          No one is thrusting those labels upon you. No one is telling you to celebrate them – they are simply celebrating themselves. That’s rather American, if you ask me. Something like “the pursuit of happiness” which I don’t believe you should begrudge them in any fashion.

          And believe me, there are PLENTY of people in this country who proudly profess “I am an American.”

        • #3235440

          Well, “Dude,” that was certainly cogent and well reasoned.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          It seems to be that you adhere to the maxim that, if you can’t dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with bullsh*t.

          Would you care to try again, this time with a logically sound argument?

        • #3235336

          My intelligent response

          by computer dude ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          The only thing I’m trying to say is that there is a very obvious double-standard with race and what’s acceptable and encouraged for different races. I don’t think that anyone can live in this country and disagree with that. Look at the way race bias crimes are reported on the news for example.

          And don’t fall back on the ‘we’ve had it so good for so long’ excuse. That’s a completely hollow argument.

        • #3233991

          Still missing the point.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          The issue at hand is the civil right of “private speech.”

          You may not value your civil rights enough to defend them, but there are still many who do.

          If you do, you are obligated do defend the rights of others to exercise the same.

          And if not, you have no right to require that others relinquish their’s.

        • #3339528


          by computer dude ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          I’m a white male. I don’t qualify for Civil Rights.

          And it’s not my duty to protecy anyone else’s anyway.

        • #3339299

          ALL Americans have civil rights.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          And, all citizens have a duty to defend such; to do otherwise is to ensure their erosion.

        • #3339296

          Un Civil Rights

          by computer dude ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          I can be legally disqualified for a job or a University position because I’m a white male.

          As I said, I don’t qualify for Civil Rights. Wrong skin color.

        • #3339289

          Reverse discrimination is prohibited.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          Such is a violation of the Civil Rights Act you refer to.

          However, successfully prosecuting a case of such very much depends on the venue in which it is tried.

        • #3339278

          Prohibited? Really?

          by computer dude ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          Someone here in VA didn’t get the memo, because every time I turn around Affirmative Action is still being crammed down everyone’s throat. We have policies on the books here to indicate that AA is still alive and well. I don’t know how it is in PA. Please show me some documentation stating that AA is against the law.
          I was probably dreaming last year when the US Supreme Court upheld racial discrimination on US campuses, so long as the person being discriminated against was white.

          This is why I say, again, that I do not qualify for Civil Rights.

          In fact, if you are opposed to AA you are a racist bigot.

        • #3339271

          Principle vs Practice.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          Proving reverse discrimination based on race is no more easily done than is proving age discrimination; and, in each case the burden of proof rests with the claimant.

          Only recently has there been any move at the Federal level to lower the bar in the case of the latter; unless and until such happens for the former, we White Niggers are sh*t out of luck.

          Very interesting; the “N” word escaped TR’s PC police!

        • #3339244

          Reverse Discrimination

          by computer dude ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          Is not something that needs to be ‘proved’. It’s policy written in black and white. We have people whose job duties revolve around enforcing it. Deepsand, I’m not sure you and I are from the same country because AA is the law down here (yes I’m bitter about it). Are you from PA in the US or somewhere else?

        • #3340543

          Let me try to explain by restating differently.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          Note the distinction that I make here between civil & Civil.

          We all have civil rights under our Federal & States’ Constitutions.

          There is also the Federal Civil Rights Act which, in its application, frequently makes a mockery of Constitutional law, as do all too many Federal laws.

          So, while we have civil rights, the Civil Rights Act & others make it difficult for some to exercise their civil rights at all times and in all regards.

          And, since Federal laws & Regulations are enacted & implemented by the Federal government, which represents the Federal Sovereign, we can sue only in the Federal courts, and then only if the Sovereign waives its immunity.

          The only other way to prevail is for the US Supreme Court to agree to hear the matter & overturn those portions of the Law and/or Regulations that violate the US Constitution.

          So, we have civil rights, but they are often of little or no use to many of us.

          The irony is that the Civil Rights Act was intended to ensure that minorities were not denied the exercise of their civil rights, with the unintended consequence that some non-minority citizens subsequently found that they has lost the ability to exercise theri civil rights.

          Hence my reference to White Niggers in my previous post.

        • #3340397

          When AA is repealed…

          by computer dude ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          and more emphasis is actually given to someone’s merit and skill instead of their skin color and their minority status, then I’ll come around to your way of thinking.

          As it stands now, reverse discrimination is the law where I live.

        • #3340940

          Revrse discrimination is the EFFECT of the law, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          , as practiced, not intent of the law itself.

          In case it’s not clear, I do concur with you re. merits vs. entitlement.

        • #3246698

          Merit vs. Entitlement

          by computer dude ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          Is precisely the reason that I’m apposed to AA. But I think that some politician with some good sense will eventually lobby against it and the ball will be set in motion.

          I do not accept responsiblity for things that happened to others in the past, and I will not be held accountable for it.

        • #3246696

          Merit vs. Entitlement

          by computer dude ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          Is precisely the reason that I’m apposed to AA. But I think that some politician with some good sense will eventually lobby against it and the ball will be set in motion.

          I do not accept responsiblity for things that happened to others in the past, and I will not be held accountable for it.

          I do have to object to deepsand’s point number 4. In this nation and others, you are asked to deny your ethnicity if you are white; if you are a minority then you are encouraged. I also resent that.

        • #3246466

          Anybody else hear an echo?

          by computer dude ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

        • #3247712

          What echo, … echo, ……echo, ……..

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

        • #3247711

          AA’s nothing compared to the demands of some for …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Missing the point.


          Actually, if we are going to do it objectively, based on economic effect, and if we get the accounting correct, many of them will end up owing us!

        • #3247610


          by computer dude ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          …might call for a second Civil War.

        • #3248675

          My 1st question to those who demand such would be …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          “Would you be better or worse off than you are now, assuming that you would even be alive, were you not a descendant of a slave?”

        • #3246824

          That’s not fair…

          by computer dude ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          ….you can’t ask if they would be better off or not. That question would require a common sense answer and it’s not fair to ask that from some people.

        • #3248040

          Not my problem.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          That they may lack common sense does not at law make them part of a protected class.

          Therefore, their inability to to provide a substantive response does not discharge their obligation to so do.

          Bottom line – the burden of proof is on them.

        • #3248035


          by computer dude ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          P.S. What is a ‘protected class’?

        • #3247919

          A “protected class” is one both defined & protected by law.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          Common examples of such classes are groups defined by race, ethnicity, age, gender, religious beliefs, etc..

          Not all such classes have equal protection at law.

          Each law that provides for one or more protected class both defines & enumerates such.

          For example, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, one’s religious beliefs have no legal standing. Only those who meet the definition of being “disabled” fall into its protected class.

          In instances where neither the empowering statute nor the implementing regulations provides for a sufficiently well defined definition of the protected class(es), it falls to the courts to determine the intent of the legislature which wrote & approved the statute.

          A present example is the as yet to be decided issue of whether or not a smoker, by virtue of his addiction to nicotine, a legal drug, shall be considered a member of the protected class, as are those addicted to illegal drugs.

        • #3248501

          So it sounds like everyone…

          by computer dude ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          …by virtue of some unchosen physical characteristic or some silly little idiosynchrasy, can be part of some sort of protected class. I assume this is where hate crimes laws come into play.

          Sounds a little overly-bureacratic to me.

        • #3249179

          Re. “Hate Crimes”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Missing the point.

          Your deduction is correct.

          So called “Hate Crime” laws are naught but an attempt to punish one not only for the ACT committed, but also for committing the act against a specific CLASS of persons.

          So, given that such occurs in a jurisdiction with the appropriate statute(s),if you beat the crap out of, for example, a homosexual, you face a stiffer punishment than if the victim were heterosexual.

          Personally, I find such laws exceedingly offensive, because:

          1) They are unnecessary, in that the penalty phase of a trial is supposed to determine any mitigating and aggrevating circumstances germain to the determination of just punishment; and,
          2) Just as do mandatory sentencing laws, they usurp powers that are to be reserved to judges & juries.

          They are not unlike Statuatory Rape laws; she may have consented, even lied about her age, but the law says she’s too young to legally consent. Result – you get screwed again.

        • #3127533

          North American or South American?

          by jonathanpdx ·

          In reply to Either you are AMERICAN or you AREN’T!!!

          Canadians are Americans. Mexicans are Americans. Venezuelans are Americans. Chileans are Americans.

          Perhaps you meant to say that you are a citizen of the United States of America (note that our nation has no official “name” per se, only a description of what it is, namely a collection of States united under a centralized government.) More correctly, you could say you are, for example, an Arkansan or Texan or Washingtonian, but still an American, too. Or perhaps you could call yourself a United Statesian of America!

          As far as a language, I speak English and a smattering of a few other languages as well. I’m not so ignorant to think that everywhere I go, everyone should speak my language. But if I were to go to Spain to live, I would be expected to learn Spanish. In France, to learn French. In Thailand, to learn Thai, etc.

          Why should we be any different here in the United States? Our official language should be English. It should be incumbent upon anyone seeking to gain citizenship or to do business within our borders to learn our language, as we would be required to do elsewhere.

          As far as inthe workplace, if two people can communicate better with each other in Spanish or Chinese or Mongolian, who cares? So long as they can comunicate with me in my language when necessary. If we’re afraid they’re talking about us behind our back (or right in front of our face), then perhaps we should not give them anything to talk about. Better yet, learn their language so we know what they’re talking about. They don’t have to know you know…and just think how fun can that be!

        • #3334259

          True american?

          by bhunsinger ·

          In reply to the only true Americans are the Indians ?????

          Gee, one of my ancestors came here from Germany in 1632 (roughly). Bet the poster didnot mean me. And don’t tell my aunt that it is an insult to be called Irish American. (She still has a wicked backhand at 70).
          In the 50’s, adding the word American was correctness. Politenes was Irish or Italian. common was mick and guinea.
          The best part of the United States is being allowed to keep your heritage. Talk to the Kurds or Armenians in Turkey.

        • #3251516

          Kurds and Armenians

          by usrules ·

          In reply to True american?

          Hunsinger should read up a bit before throwing thoughts out. Turks have had Armenians live on its nation for 1,000 years. The Armenians, Jews and 30 other ethnicities that lived in Ottoman Turkiye maintained their languages and cultures for 1,000 years, whereas he claims that his ancestors that came from Germany have lost their tradition.

          The Kurds and Armenians of today have many hatemongering groups that are mainly supported by Western terror/intelligence circles. They generate fabricated material and propaganda that most “readers” assume as facts. The Kurds for one have three large terror groupds, PKK, HADEP, DHKP and the Armenians have ASALA, ANCA and others that are involved in extortions, threats and even sponsorship of so-called “Historians”. They often threaten Kurds/Armenians that reject their mission. The Greeks are very helpful to their cause of the obvious. They started 2 wars on Turkish soil in the last 100 years, and publicize to the world of the BIG BAD TURK that is a potential threat, not emphasizing that the Turks have never threatened the Greeks in 100 years.

          One wonders how long the TURKISH patience will last…

          Just a correction to the the uninformed statements of Bhunsinger.

        • #3251500


          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Kurds and Armenians

          I am neither Turk nor Armenian nor Turkish. I am a reader of history.

          I was living in Ottawa during the Armenian terrorist attacks on Turkish embassy personnel and I in no way support that kind of action. It was terrorism.

          Are you though denying that millions of Armenians were slaughtered in the dying days of the Ottoman empire(1917)? Yes Turkey has come a long way since, but do you think possibly there might be some justification for Armenian anger?

          There is hate mongering and fear mongering on many sides, not just the ones you oppose.


        • #3333394

          Amen to that

          by warnerit ·

          In reply to the only true Americans are the Indians ?????

          well said

        • #3251510

          I agree with Maxwell

          by computer dude ·

          In reply to the only true Americans are the Indians ?????

          Indians being the only true Americans is such a ludicrous idea that it doesn’t merit further discussion.

          But we need all the labels for everyone. How else can we keep the poplulation into easily managed bite-sized pieces that can be easily manipulated into a constant state of quarelling with each other. Isn’t that what equality is all about?

        • #3251354

          A Distinction WITH a Difference.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I agree with Maxwell

          As I noted above, you continue to fail to make the distinction between nationality and ethnicity.

          Ethnicly, the Amerinds ARE the true Americans.

          With regards to nationality, many have dual citizenship, by virtue of being members of their respective Indian nations.

        • #3339525

          If you say so

          by computer dude ·

          In reply to A Distinction WITH a Difference.

        • #3339300

          I do, as a matter of fact, so say.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to If you say so

        • #3339294

          Well, hurrah!

          by computer dude ·

          In reply to If you say so

          I’m glad to hear it.

        • #3339269

          If you’re glad, so am I.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to If you say so

        • #3339243

          Good, then we’re agreed…

          by computer dude ·

          In reply to If you say so

        • #3340547

          So it would seem.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to If you say so

        • #3220605


          by realtechguru ·

          In reply to the only true Americans are the Indians ?????

          Dear sir,
          I must comment on your question, ” Where is Africa-America”? hyphenated America is this very land, and yes I believe that indigenous Americans are the only true Americans. Lest you forget that the history of this great country is stained with the blood of Africans and for that matter indenious Americans. The founding fathers with great wisdom brought slaves to this land as property. The laws of this land thru the 1960’s reflected a racist agenda. Furthermore, this “silly concept” is one that is grounded in the facts of Jim Crow Slavery. This is not political correctness but an attempt to recognize the heritage of Africans that were stripped of thier dignity. Still today the scars of this mistake plague my brothers and sisters. This may be a year later from the date of your original post, but it is still true today.

        • #3348328

          I thought that the natives were …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to holy blind spot batman!!!


        • #3348208

          Dead Irish Gaelic?

          by ·

          In reply to holy blind spot batman!!!

          Not quite, possibly moribund though. Still compulsory in schools up until the age of about 15 (top of the most-hated subjects list!); basic Irish is also, as far as I know, still required to qualify as a teacher and for many jobs in public service…

          Nothing much to do with the original post… as an ex-pat Brit living in multilingual Switzerland, I have no vested interests here – hahaha.

          The whole thing is basically paranoia: why does everyone automatically assume that these guys are bad-mouthing other employees or running the company down? Pause for Freudian ‘hmmmm’

        • #3347908

          Maybe way back when, but not anymore…

          by mrafrohead ·

          In reply to holy blind spot batman!!!

          Things have changed, and I was born here with things this way. I owe no one jack nadda!

          And I mean NO ONE!

          The language of the country I was born in is English, therefore, that’s what I speak. That’s it.

          I don’t buy that Indian crap, sorry…

        • #3332524

          What are you smoking?

          by warnerit ·

          In reply to holy blind spot batman!!!

          The only true Americans are native Americans? LOL! That was true maybe a couple hundred years ago or so but not in this modern day. Come into the 21st century. The USA has its own culture and identity now, it has evolved and it is not Navajo, Hopi, Iraquois, whatever. Though regrettably we don’t have an official national language, English is the most common language.

          I agree that if you go to another country, you need to speak their language – if you go to live and work in France you need to speak French, if you go to live and work in Japan you need to speak Japanese. If you come to live and work in the USA you should learn to speak English.

        • #3233385

          That’s right! speak majority language

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to What are you smoking?

          Speak English, or maybe Spanish since spanish speaking peoples are now the majority in US!

        • #3335485

          Irish-gaelic a dead language?

          by garret` ·

          In reply to holy blind spot batman!!!

          if you think so then “Pog ma thon!” 😉

      • #3348330

        The Language of the U.S. is …

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Don’t know about legal, but I wouldn’t allow it…

        that of every immigrant who settled here.

        In short, there is none!

        P.S. I’ll kindly ask that from now on, you post in either Germand or Russian, as those of the countries of origin of my ancestors. I trust that this will not be burdensome for someone so obviously erudite as are you.

        • #3347901


          by mrafrohead ·

          In reply to The Language of the U.S. is …

          Those that settled here came to to be one of us. They chose to give up their past and merge with our future.

          WE speak English.

          And if you look at my heritage you will see all kinds of crap, but it doesn’t mean that I speak it, nor does it mean that I will allow it to be spoken in my house.

          I am an American and we speak English. That’s it.

          This multi-language crap that I have been seeing everywhere. Spanish on this and that, has got to STOP. Unless this country is declared a Spanish speaking country, then it should not be.

          And that goes with any other language.

          And here’s a quickly poorly translated post just for you deepsand, just for the sport of the whole thing. You translate it back to me word for word and I’ll tell you if you’re right. You best include my mistakes too… Because they’re in there, intentionally.

          Die, da? hier zu vereinbart kam zu sein eins von uns. Sie beschlossen, ihre Vergangenheit und Mischen mit unserer Zukunft oben zu geben. WIR sprechen Englisch. Und wenn Sie mein Erbe betrachten, das Sie alle Arten crap sehen, aber es bedeutet nicht, da? ich es spreche, noch bedeutet es, da? ich erlaube, da? es in meinem Haus gesprochen wird. Ich bin ein Amerikaner und wir sprechen Englisch. Das ist es. Dieses Multisprachcrap, das ich ?berall gesehen habe. Spanisch auf diesem und dem, mu? STOPPEN. Es sei denn diesem Land ein spanischsprechendes Land erkl?rt wird, dann sollte es nicht sein. Und das geh?rt zu jeder m?glicher anderen Sprache.

          Good day

        • #3347815

          American vs English

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Wrong

        • #3347894

          First of all you keep missing the practicality of the whole thing

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to The Language of the U.S. is …

          There should be a single language of communication within different ethinic groups and cultures in a country and immigrants should be expected to learn and speak (not fluently perhaps but nonetheless enough to get through life and do the basic things) that language.

          Think of it as a uniform standard…you are in IT, you know what uniform standars is don’t you? Now how easy is it for us to support, troubleshoot, design, create, upgrade, and build stuff because of standards?

        • #3347814

          Wrong issue

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to First of all you keep missing the practicality of the whole thing

          The issue at hand is “private” speech.

        • #3347771

          No its speech on private property

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Wrong issue

          Namely company’s property, on company time. Noone is coming to your house and telling you should only speak English. Understand the issue first.

        • #3347733

          Understanding the issue

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to No its speech on private property

          “Through the majority of the day they are speaking english but at certain times (lunch, when they look irritated, walking side by side down the hallways, etc.) they talk in spanish to each other.”

          We are not talking about speaking English IN the office, as the post clearly stated that they speak English IN the office.

          Are you are trying to say that an office, most likely in an office building, is allowed to restrict what language is spoken between two individuals in the hall while on lunch?

          I thought you guys fought for freedom in your country?

        • #3347728

          Stop clouding the issue

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Understanding the issue

          If you work in an office building, for a company, are you required to come into work at a certain amount of time every day? Are you required to come into work dressed in a certain way? Yeah I thought so. So why is language an issue again?

        • #3347719

          CLOUDING the issues?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Understanding the issue

          That would be you sir.

          The issue was spoken language while on breajs or in the halls.

          Which I addressed as most others have very directly.

          IN the office I am on YOUR time, AT luch, I am on MY time.

          IF I am supposed to stay IN the office at lunch or be available for work, the employer MUST pay me for the lunch hour, which means they will also have to ad a half hour to the end of my day for a break, NOBODY does this unless an on-call position. Even on-Call, when you are not on the job, you are free to do as you wish.

          Now to address your incorrect analogy, IF I wanted to wear coveralls and army boots at lunch I am well withing my right to do so, so long as I am NOT representing your company.

          As long as I wear appropriate attire IN the office, I cando whatever I want in the elevator, smoke pit etc. Unless the employer OWNS the property, not just office space. I was in court against one employer who thought it was his business what we did across the street after work.

          He had NO grounds to dictate our actions, UNLESS in the office.

          YOU have missed the point, which is why I copied the POINT in the last post, after you had tried to insinuate someone else was off track.

          TO reiterate once again. The ‘issue’ is about what language speak when, NOT ON OFFICE TIME OR IN THE OFFICE.

        • #3347712

          Walking the halls is “ON” company time

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Understanding the issue


        • #3347708

          Not neccessarily.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Understanding the issue

          Depends what halls they are walking. I have worked in many offices where the halls were not the company premises but those of the building owner. THe company had an office/floor in the building, when you walked out of the elevator, you walked down a hall and into the office.

          The hall is therefore NOT the company’s and I am NOT on company time. As Tom said in his initial post, they speak English in the office for the most part, so the issue is when they are on lunch, coffee, the washroom whatever.

          In case you haven’t noticed, the debate here has been over whether people can speak OUTSIDE of the main office area in a foreign language.

          We have pretty much ALL agreed that ON company time, it is the company’s business. OFF company time or when outside of the office, it is not their business.

          There’s no grey area, everyone seems to have been pretty clear on the difference of when it is acceptable.


          EDIT: The company can complain if I am smoking and runnign around goofing off in the halls, this is just conforming to the rules of the office building that he is bound to as a tennant. But the building owner isn’t about to try and enforce a language policy.

        • #3347667

          It is important

          by house ·

          In reply to Understanding the issue

          To socialize even while on the clock. Are you trying to tell me that you do not agree with personal relationships and social interaction in the workforce? That is ridiculous.

          What about Sign-language? Oh-oh – now I’ve opened up a bag of tricks. You can’t tell me that you are going to discriminate against an employee because he/she uses sign language to communicate with another due to the condition of one of the parties in question.

        • #3347573
        • #3347572

          Well then, why not child labor?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to No its speech on private property

          Just get the parents to sign on the dotted line, and anything goes!

          You may place little value on your rights, but I’ll keep mine, thank you.

          Or, is it perhaps that you consider your rights superior to those of others?

          LIVE FREE OR DIE.

        • #3347765

          Atta boy

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to First of all you keep missing the practicality of the whole thing

          Compare mankind to IT, well done!

          We are talking about humans from every wok of life, not a piece of binary code that is globally universal how can the two be compared as far as standardization is concerned? We don’t order immigrants that suit OUR standards, that is racism.

          At what time do we become manufactured?

          Now in your defense, I also agree that IF you choose annother country over your country of origin, then that means that yuo prefer the culture anf lifestyle, not just the better laws and freedoms. You should then make an EFFORT to learn to communicate in that country and LEARN to live by THAT country’s cultural standards.

          WHat I don’t like is when people come here from foreign lands, to get away from whatever in their homeland, and then refuse to learn the language, try to insist that THEY should be allowed to operate businesss, advertise and create strip malls of ONLY their ethnical origin. This ACCEPTANCE of culture then soon becomes, legal issues too.

          You get “My religion says I can carry a shirkin in India and you are repressing me by saying I cannot in Canada.”

          Nobody is repressing your right to your religion, yet it is illegal to carry a knife of that size in public in Canada.

          But if you CHOOSE to speak your language around your family and friends,if you choose to celebrate your own cultures special days I don’t care.

          If you speak ONLY your langiuage of origin but are TRYING to speak English, I can accept it and will try a fumble through a converstion with yout, his is the best way to learn a language afterall, immersion.

        • #3347767

          So which are you

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to The Language of the U.S. is …

          A german-American or a Russian-American?

          Or is there a new term out now, maybe Gerssian-American?


          Ein Deutsch Amerikaner oder ein Russe-Amerikaner?

          Oder gibt es einen neuen Begriff aus jetzt, vielleicht Gerssian-Amerikaner?

        • #3347574

          Meanya zavoot

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So which are you

          Herr Russki.

      • #3332929

        Not true

        by cou-cou ·

        In reply to Don’t know about legal, but I wouldn’t allow it…

        It’s not true fot your statement. Many people in different countries will use American English with Americans visiting their countries.

        Tell us how many foreign languages can you speak?

    • #3348476

      Here as well

      by nd_it ·

      In reply to Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace?

      We have quite of few Hispanics working here as well. A lot of them came from down south as migrant workers, and some of them can barely speak english. One of my co-workers, who is also hispanic has to do some translating for HR sometimes. But the same thing happens here, a lot of them speak Spanish when they look disgusted or talk about someone behind their back they don’t want heard. Personally, I am not bothered by this, but what has bothered before is HR has this idea for having Spanish classes offered to employees, when the majority speak English. Why not offer some English classes to those that aren’t quite fluent in English, not vice versa. Everything else that happens in the company is in English and if I wanted to find out what some people might be saying, I would just ask my co-worker. Now, would it be leagal to “ban” one language? I would think it would be a discrimination of free speech, no matter what language.

    • #3348473


      by maecuff ·

      In reply to Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace?

      What is wrong with people? What are they saying? Are they saying bad things about me? I’ll focus on this instead of the job I am being paid to do. My 6 year old is more mature.

      • #3348460

        LOL..Exactly, I agree…

        by tomsal ·

        In reply to sheesh..

        Like I said in the original post…if you are insulting me but I can’t understand it — how am I supposed to get offended? LOL

    • #3348472

      Maybe a Lose Lose for the compamy

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace?

      A Spanish speaking person could sue an employer under the anti-discrimination clause of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for having an English only rule.


      An English-speaking worker has successfully sued her employer for providing a discriminatory work environment because her coworkers were isolating her by consistently speaking a foreign language she didn’t understand.
      …..Sarcasm alert! Sarcasm to follow:

      Employers are all scum-bags. Don’t you know that? Regardless of what they do, it’ll be wrong.

    • #3348471

      If a private company

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace?

      then you can set this as you see fit.

      Freedom of speach is protecting you to say what you want, not how you say it.

      You can’t discriminate based on race, but you can maintain the work envornment you wish.

      • #3348308

        Not quite correct.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to If a private company

        See my post re. the legal issues, at

        There is, of course, the omnipresent Law of Unintended Consequences; i.e., you can’t do just one thing.

        For example, suppose that I work at a company which cannot regulate the language that I speak, but would like to. Further, suppose that this is in an “at will” employment state; that is, an employee can be terminated at the will of the employer, withou requiring cause.

        Therefore, if I excerise my right to speak in my language of choice, I may find myself unemployed.

        Furthermore, this is not necessarily the end of the chain of consequnces. For, although my termination may have been lawful, but not for cause, I may now be eligible for unemployment benefits, and my former employer may now be held liable for all or part of the cost of funding such!

        • #3332824

          But you don’t always get a reason

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Not quite correct.

          I have seen people “let go” because they weren’t working out. How do you fight that?

          Freedom of speach, to say what you wish. Does that really cover saying it HOW and WHERE you wish?

          One of our plants (manufacturing) is in a high Hispanic area of Grand Rapids Michigan. I would say 90% of the workers in the plant CAN’T speak ANY english. So I just nod and walk on by when I need to work on the network equipment in the plant. I have no idea what they are saying, but I don’t care for the way they point and laugh….

        • #3332807


          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to But you don’t always get a reason

          Its one thing to say people were let go because they weren’t working out. But if you are the manager, this doesn’t hold water except for contractors(with the right clause in the contract), and people on probation.

          In Ontario at least, if you fire someone for “cause” you have to define what the cause is. What often happens is that instead of firing someone for a questionable cause, they will lay someone off instead.

          When I was laid off, my director, who I had also worked for at a previous employer, was very quick and took great pains to explain that my layoff was not one of those layoffs that should be firings, in other words no performance issues.

          Its kinda of dangerous to have people working in a modern plant with no english, as thats the language that the safety information is in.


        • #3333927

          Even in “at will” states, where no “cause” need be shown …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Legalities

          as grounds for termination, it is not unusual for an employer to use the “lay off” mechanism, so as to diminish the risk of adverse legal action, even if such action(s) would be without merit.

          By choosing this route, the employer trades an unknown cost & liability for a known fixed cost.

    • #3348465

      Dangerous ground

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace?

      I can only imagine what would happenif a company ATTEMPTED to impose such a rule in Canada.
      We would be less one Canadian for sure.

      INthe workplace, it may be mandatory to use a common language, IN the hall, on LUNCH (which you specifically pointed out) etc. you cannot disctate what language people speak.

      This is aggravating I know, many East Indians and Chinese in teh Lower Mainland will hold two converstaions, one with you and the other in their natice language to whoever they are with, right in front of you. I learned the basic Hindi and Pakistani swear words and snide comments from some friends just so I know when it’s time to knock someone out.

      As for the workplace, between themselves you cannot dictate what language they speak, even if they stare and point while they giggle or scoff at you.

      But, America is a pretty wierd place,certainly some backwards hick somewhere will find a little town of sup[orters to help him carry his claim and burn them on the steak.

      What they are doing is RUDE, to descriminate against their language is illegal though.

      As for meafrohead, I HATE it when people do that too. BUT, you are wrong in saying you are expected to learn the language when you visit other countrues, Germany, Japan, France, Spain, Portugal, Hong Kong ALL hae a large population of English speaking people, they accept your business anyway they can get it.

      I despise it when people flee their horrible homeland for Canada and then expect to have all the little laws that they LIKED follow them across the world. Such as Indians and the ‘Shirkin’, certainly if it is a religious symbol, we will not descriminate against your religion, but they should me forced to have a licence to carry it, only to and from church, it cannot be concealed etc. Much like transporting a legal gun.

      As for language, I understand that some parents will not adapt to English too well, it’s much harder as you get older, but they shoudl make SOME form of an attempt at fitting in with the new society that they so happily chose over their own.

      I think many races segregate THEMSELVES they for their OWN minorities by choice. Many asian businesses in RIchmond only cater to their own race, you can walk in a store and be feared like an alien, you can line up at a counter and the business owner will serve people of his own ace first, regardless of the line. So English Canadians stop visting the foreign shops, the foreign shops deal only with their own kind and we are left in a segregated world full of minorities that have created their own minority.

      • #3348458

        What is the Quebec situation?

        by montgomery gator ·

        In reply to Dangerous ground

        Is it true they have a law saying that all signs (including private businesses) must be in French? BTW, did you see the Conan O’Brien special when he was in Toronto, when Triumph the Comic Insult Dog visited Quebec City, and changed the name of the street signs? I thought it was hilarious.

        • #3349402


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to What is the Quebec situation?

          And every labelon EVERY product, regardless of origin, must have a French labelon it.

          You get used to reading ONE side of the label, the other’s always french, but you learn how to say Apple Juice, Toilet Paper and many other useful words in French, so it’s educational.

          French Canada is it’s own entity, they have chosen to separate, as far as they can.

          This is fine by me, dig a trench around Quebec, Nothward through Hudsons Bay, and I will go over and help push them off…or do they still actually want to be Canadian and reap the benefits of Canada’s government? hmmmm.

          But you also have to realize, they basically fought for Canada just the way you fought to gain America’s independance. So it’s the whole, ‘we were here first issue that kinda makes it tricky to just say ‘adieu, meilleur de chance ? vous’.

          But hey, you know? Dere aren’t too many of dem dere, ‘ow you say, Frakophone out west ‘ere anyway, you know?


        • #3349371

          French Label in USA sometimes, too

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Yeah

          We get just as many products with French labels here as in Spanish. Must be products that are sold both sides of the border, and do not want to make separate labels to sell in Quebec.

          BTW, did you see the Triumph skit I mentioned in the previous post? I think you would get a kick out of it.

        • #3349291


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to French Label in USA sometimes, too

          NO I guess I missed it, got a link?

          We have these chinese areas too wher eNOTHING is in English, and it seems no matter who they are or what they sell, they all wear white lab coats. You never know whether you are buying cigarettes or visiting a proctologist. I’ll keep to the idland, I know an indian when I see one (they gotta stop wearing the feathers and swinging tomohawks though if they want to fit in).

          Then there’s Surrey, but at least they have multicultural signs because such a large portion of the East Indian/Punjabi and Pakistani communities can’t speak anything but English.
          But the cab service in Surrey is great!

          I won’t offer my normal closing comments on that as, while they make many chuckle, some take them seriously.

        • #3349370

          Some French words are funny

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Yeah

          One time, I was staying in a hostel in Ottawa, and the showers were labeled both “Showers” and “Douche”, since Ottawa is on the border with Quebec just across the river. I thought that was funny, how the French word for Shower, means feminine hygeine product in English. So, do they take vineger showers in Quebec? 🙂

        • #3349289

          No but you were in the wrong shower

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Some French words are funny

          You were supposed to stand on your head.

          I am surprised that some pissed off woman hasn’t invented the ‘male cathetor douche’, my wallet’s not big enough for everything though, bad enough my change purse no longer holds change but some indestructable and unopenable package.

          The one that always threw me for a loop was how some women refer to their perfumes as toilet water. That’s attract ’em all right..flies that is? Talk about NASTY!! And why would you spend so much money on it? If you were going to cover yourself in toilet water, would you not want tp use your own? Maybe that’s the attraction, for a women to dabble it behind her ears would take some interesting contortions, a guy, well we can pee all over ourselves no problem.

          okay, I am way too far off line now to explain further without becoming offensive, ta ta!

        • #3349278


          by growlingone ·

          In reply to Yeah

          Signs in Quebec have to have both english and french but the french letters must be larger than the english ones and must come first on the sign. But only in Quebec!

          Yeah I watched that episode of Conan in fact it was broadcast from here in Toronto…just down the street come to think of it. I thought the skit was kinda stupid and disrespectful. I’m no fan of hard core Francophones…but that seemed rude.

          As for the labels on things, yeah by law you have to have english and french on all products. Its part of the agreement of Canadian confederation. The British and the French hammered this stuff out ages ago.

          This whole different languages at work thing….get over it people! Man, embrace multiculturism to its fullest. Hell, go take a Spanish class for crying out loud. It’s an easy language to learn.


          Yes it is rascist and yes it is discrimination to MAKE them stop. But you could nicely ASK them to stop. In fact if they can speak fluent english and they are around people who can’t speak spanish at all it’s just rude for them to continue in spanish. But if that’s their first language…it would be like english speaking people meeting up in Japan who are fluent in Japanese. You should be speaking Japanese but your more comfortable speaking in english.

          Same difference.

        • #3348204


          by ·


          Here in Swizerland everything on all labels is in THREE languages… and then stores tell us that is the reason for prices up to 50% higher than the EU…

          You can’t legislate against rudeness… unfortunately. Or fortunately, who knows. But just imagine the benefits of applying all the revenue generated in fines to the budget deficit???

        • #3347919

          Sorry Oz

          by voldar ·

          In reply to Yeah

          How many times you came here, to Montreal? And how many times when you addressed a question in English you got no response? This is just a “hear what I hear” storry you say. Come on, you can do better than that!
          In Montreal there are signs in both languages – english/french (as everywhere on the highways) and signs only French or only English, as STOP or ARRET. Depends on the town municipality.
          The problem should be seen like this: – why a “french canadian”, if he goes to Toronto, can’t get a proper, no, I rephrase, at least an intelligible answer from an “english canadian” when he askes something in french? They are both from the same country, isn’t that right? And much more, why once you are billingual you got a “star” in your resume when it comes to look for a job in Toronto?
          The hell is not that dark as you portrait it.
          All the best to you Oz … and BTW, how is the weather there, I might take the plane to go there one of these weeks.
          P.S. – I am here since one year and a half now, but I never had problems to speak either french or english when I needed. And I am working for a gouvernmental company, and still, I have english natives co-workers. Can YOU imagine that???? 😀

        • #3347741

          Why sorry, you haven’t argued anything I’ve said.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Sorry Oz

          How many times have I been to Montreal, at least 10 in the last 15 years (most being short stops on route elsewhere but I have spent time in Montreal).

          As I was saying, French and English labels are mandatory for all goods sold here, that is a fact.

          If the French Canadian WISH to separate from Canada, let them, nobody says you HAVE to be Canadian here.

          As for street signs and such, I made no mention especially in downtown Montreal.

          When it comes to spoken language, I have made MANY MANY calls to the British High Comission, where every call is answered in French. Once I answer in English, they quickly start speaking a similar language to English, which I can understand but it’s not English. That has nothing to do with my point though.

          The rest, I assume was for someone else, it doesn’t reflect on any comments I’ve made.

          Weather: Well I have the windows and blind open, it’s about 10 degrees and the sun is HOT.

          Been like this for a while now. They keep rpedicting a possibility of rain, it was supposed to be from Mon-Wed, then Fri-Sun, and today it’s STILL sunny and bright with the rain being pushed into next week.

          The weather has been AMAZING here, we had about an inch or two of snowy sluch a while back, lasted three or four days and that was that. Flowers are starting to bloom already, it’s REALLY suny and while the temperature is still only 8-10 degrees, it is really warn when out in the sun. I went to the driving rane the other day and was peeling off layers in no time. Guys are wearing shorts and t-shirts around the harbour, andit’s usually pretty nippy by te water here.

          We atre pretty sheltered here though, the West Coast of the island screws up the incoming Hi and Lo fronts, they seem to split off as they near the coastline and either head to the BC interior or to the States.

        • #3347657

          Let them seperate!

          by growlingone ·

          In reply to Why sorry, you haven’t argued anything I’ve said.

          The absolutely hilarious possibility if Quebec were to seperate from confederation….I have heard (and I believed the legal eagle) that Quebec would only be entitled to a 50 KM radius around Quebec city as their actual “country”. The rest of the land would automatically revert to Native Canadian ownership! LMAO!

          Not sure which document that is stated in, but its an old one to be sure. Besides it will never really happen anyway. Quebec can’t go it alone without tax money from the rest of the country.

        • #3347623

          It’s just a farce I know

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Let them seperate!

          I have no problem with people being here, I’m not a Canadian citizen myself, I am just fortunate enough to live here.

          The again, I have no problem with someone NOT wanting to be part of Canada. IF you think you can go it alone, I will back you all the way to the door.

          I have always liked the thought of Canada just saying “Fine! Have it your way!”

          Get out the backhoes and dig a big ditch around them and push them off Northward through Hudsons Bay like an ice berg, float away into your own little country, best of luck to you and all that!

          “Look out, Quebec coming through! Watch your toes.”

          “Ladies and Gentlemen, you will be floating at about 1″ per year indefinitely. Please keep your arms inside the Province as we pass the great White North, we’d like to thank you for deciding to separate and poutine will be served at 1PM.”

          “Les dames et les Messieurs, vous flotterez ? environ 1″ par l’ann?e ind?finiment. S’il vous pla?t garder vos bras dans la Province comme nous passons le grand Nord Blanc, nous aimerions ? merci pour d?cider de s?parer et poutine sera servi ? 1PM. ”

          Buh Bye, er…Buh au revoir

        • #3347580

          Why do you people

          by voldar ·

          In reply to Let them seperate!

          act always like that? Either you realy hate them or you are too self-centered. Or both of them. I am here, in Montreal, and yes, there are some dick-heads that dream about “ancient times” (what times, what ancient it’s not my concern), but this is NOT the majority will. I will never understand how do you like to put a “name” on something you know very well that’s not true. I think that THIS ATTITUDE OF YOU make parties like PQ to have a place in the society. Any society! Don’t you get it?
          I think Qu?bec has also its proudness – and you should be proud as well – it’s part of Canada for heavens sake! As much as I know, the best University in Canada (and an English one, not a French one) – McGill – by “hazard” is in Montreal – Qu?bec. Where the ***** you see discrimination? Maybe in your dreams, I hope. Wake up man, look around, and enjoy life, because you and me are blessed to live here!

        • #3347535

          Who me?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Let them seperate!

          I LOVE this country and everyone knows it.

          I also have NO problem with Frencg Canadians, as I said before , they were here first. British Imperial Army and French saved Canada.

          But as I said too, if someone DOESN’T want to be part of Canada, who am I to force them? You want to go at it alone? Best wishes, have a nice day.

          I am not even Canadian, I am the LAST person who will say who belongs here and who doesn’t, I just love living here and couldn’t care if others are red, black, yellow or green. If you don’t like it though, you can
          A) Leave
          B) Separate if a mass interest, have it your way, it’s a free country.

        • #3347330

          Not you Oz

          by voldar ·

          In reply to Let them seperate!

          I was not talking about you or to you.
          I know what you like and what you don’t like, what you are and what you aren’t (in most cases). And that’s why I like you – in terms of person – because we are somewhat alike.
          But it was just a thought I had, and I felt the need to “spit it out” – you know, like the acid on the tongue, better through it out before it burns out your brains.
          No hard feelings guys … just walking on “clouds” for some time now. Shhhh…, it’s snowing again!
          C?lis! (hope this is how they spell it out :D)

        • #3334797

          Hi OZ Meida; I am a French Canadian Soldier Here

          by another canadian ·

          In reply to Yeah

          I am glad you see the difference and I am glad that not everyone want me to leave a country that I did and defend now and keep defending meaning (Canada) and glad that the “Speak White” is not and issue anymore in most part of Canada.

          I think that given the choice of “Independance” that the French want today and what you see in the rest of the world it is easy to appreciate that we are French and English Canadian very civilize about it.

          My Father was English from birth and me I am French from Birth and wife too altough my Kids are English go figure :). I got the you can’t speak French when I was onboard a HMCS Ships of our Glorious Navy and I stand my ground and did not destroy the career of that Fellow worker and we are best budy today it was a revelation for him to see someone not calling the Language Police and give hime the translation of my insult to him 🙂 in English world for world after I did calm down hehe :). It would have been easy for me to destroy that career in a snap having all the withness I needed at that time.

          I will never give up my difference and looking at what you see in the rest of the world our distinction is no more a “pain in the a….ss” so to speak.


          My though

        • #3334722

          I think I see what you’re saying.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Hi OZ Meida; I am a French Canadian Soldier Here

          I think i get your point, certainly your English is better than my French! 😀

          Anyhow, I know I have very light feelings when it comes to those who wish to separate, if you want to be alone then you all have my best wishes. But for those such as yourself who truly see several nationalities living in the same country and accepting the differences, all the power to you.

          I too am an immigrant to Canada, I am still a full fledged British Citizen (in fact I just received a new passport yesterday). I cannot judge an immigrant, even if I DO speak English first, as I am not a Canadian citizen and many who speak foreign languages in Canada ARE Canadian citizens.

          I just enjoy Canada for what it is…..gorgeous and free. That’s good enough for me, I prefer to just keep the other issues out of my life as I see them as unimportant. Speak whatever you choose and shout it from the rooftops if you wish, I’m going camping! 🙂

          P.S. We don’t get too many Canadian Military peers here, (we don’t have too many Canadians in the military either !) :D, so thanks for all you do to keep our country and our allies safe. No matter language you choose to do it in.

          Yell ‘Tabernac’ at a few bad guys for me.

        • #3334643

          You are welcome

          by another canadian ·

          In reply to I think I see what you’re saying.

          Yep I serve and will continue to serve.

          For the separation it is a none issue now unless some dumm Ass in a isolate place burn the Canadian or Quebec flag and proclame this country as only one language yep maybe it will start again but I think we have now reach the understanding.

          At least it was never and will never be like Ireland conflict. We should be happy for that:)

          Have a nice day.

    • #3348435

      Reply To: Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace?

      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace?

      I would think an employer could make such a rule covering employees who are “on the clock”, but I don’t know about lunch time. You have no “free speech” while on company time.

      • #3347998
        • #3347892

          You missed his point

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Wrong, wrong, & wrong

          A company has the right to tell you to how behave according to their rules WHILE you are on the clock (more often for us it is 9-5 etc).

          However what you do on your own time is none of their business.

          They already use dress codes, when to show up and when you can leave, parking, location you can work at etc. Again every company is different and if you don’t think the rules are acceptable for you, then by all means, you can go look for another job. Competition is wonderful.

        • #3347808

          Once again, wrong issue

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You missed his point

          The issue at hand is “private” speech.

          An employer/employee relationship is NOT that of master/vassal; rather, it is a contractual principal/agent one.

          Furthermore, in most cases it is a contract of adhesion; i.e., the terms of the contract are dictated by one party, with the other merely choosing whether to not to accept it.

          In contracts of adhesion, it is a long established principle that, in disputes re. the meaning of such contracts, owing to errors of omission, comission, vagueness, contradictions, etc., such that the contract allows of multiple reasonable interpretations, such shall be contrued to the benefit of the adhering party; in this instance, to the benefit of the employee.

          Constitutional, Statuatory & Contract Law have historically repeatedly yielded decisions which make it clear that employers do not have unfettered powers to impose their wills on employees.

        • #3347768


          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Once again, wrong issue

          “Furthermore, in most cases it is a contract of adhesion; i.e., the terms of the contract are dictated by one party, with the other merely choosing whether to not to accept it.”

          Right. You don’t like the contract that the employee gives you, find another job. What is so hard to understand about this?

          “n contracts of adhesion, it is a long established principle that, in disputes re. the meaning of such contracts, owing to errors of omission, comission, vagueness, contradictions, etc., such that the contract allows of multiple reasonable interpretations, such shall be contrued to the benefit of the adhering party; in this instance, to the benefit of the employee.

          Constitutional, Statuatory & Contract Law have historically repeatedly yielded decisions which make it clear that employers do not have unfettered powers to impose their wills on employees.”

          What unfettered powers dude? It is their propery, their time, and you work for them. In a sense they already state and informed you (on paper) what to wear for work, what time to show up, etc….why is language a issue here? If you feel that this is not the case, I suggest you go in the middle of your cafe and scream obscenities and see if you get reprimanded.

          Again noone is stating that the employer will comeinto your house and interfere on your time. Stop confusing yourself and the issue.

        • #3347732

          Contract terms

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Hmmm

          The company has the right to draught draft a contract within the guidelines set out for employment in your state, country.

          A company cannot start making up contracts that restrict rights, they cannot descriminate.

        • #3347726

          Do company policies change?

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Contract terms

          Thats what I am saying about the company’s legal rights in regards to standardize the work place. Again I don’t know all the legalities…but based on what I know, I can’t see how a company doesn’t have the right to make a company policy to speak French, Dutch, or whatever when they can already say the time of work, place of work, and dress codes…etc while you are on company time.

        • #3347718

          Two different animals

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Contract terms

          The company can require you speak English, or French or Chinese, if that’s the nature of the company’s business, not because they don’t like a certain language spoken in the office.

          So you can only say you need a multilingual or fluent English person IF it is neccessary in their line of work. Just as the company will ask you to wear appropriate attire to conduct business, weld steel, drive a bus etc. They CANNOT say you have to wear the company uniform in the halls, at lunch or anywhere else though.

          eg. My employer cannot tell me I have to wear the company shirt he gives me when I am on lunch, it doesn’t apply because I am not under HIS control unless on the clock.

          So in the case cited, this is happening mainly on lunch breaks, in the hall, etc. When they are ON company time they speak English.

          I have also worked as a facility manager where three East Indian girls had issues with other staff. They would speak amongst themselves (about those they didn’t like) in the office in their native language.

          I quietly took them aside and asked if they wouldn’t mind keeping such issues out of the office as it was a) rude to speak about people in the office, b)private issues should be addressed with me so as no morale was lost and it was not acceptable work ethic. It had nothing to do with the language spoken but the intent behind it.

          They stopped IN THE OFFICE, and that’s all I can ask, legally.

        • #3347714

          What do you think walking in the hallways means?

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Contract terms

          You are still working on company time no? During lunch or whatever, then yeah I would agree with you or anyone that says the company has no rights, but during work, you shouldn’t imo. It is rude and I would support any company’s efforts to provide a uniform work place so everyone is on the same page and can communicate properly.

          As far as it being a business need, if I was the company I would say it is a business need as it is interfering with daily operations as some employees are offended by this…etc. I am sure the lovely lawyers can cook up something and either way I am curious to see how this turns out.

        • #3347709

          Hallways means MANY things.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Contract terms

          An office building has many halls, they go to and from the elevator, to and from the lobby etc. If your company has an office on the 15th floor, they can’t dictate what language you speak until you are in the door.

          As for a court case, I would love to see a company dumb enough to drag this to court, it’s a losing issue all they way.

          The WHOLE issue is not the language used though, it is WHY they are complaining.

          The issue is NOT due to the language spoken, it is the dissention among staff, the negative effect it may have on production and morale in the office.

          If there is condesention among employees, it is the employers business to address it, not the language it is spoken in.

          If people are complaining about work, then the boss needs to find out why. If they are negative and it is effecting THEIR work, anyone else’s work etc. they can be let go on that premise, NOT because of the language used. That’s just poor management and sheer stupidity.

        • #3347575

          Still missing the point

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Hmmm

          1) Civil rights accrue only to people & sovereigns (in the U.S., sovereigns are the States & the U.S.A.)

          2) A businesses is neither a person nor a sovereign, but a legal entity; therefore, a business has no civil rights.

          3) A business has legal rights only to the extent that they are bestowed by a sovereign.

          4) People cannot contractually relinquish their civil rights.


          5) A businesses cannot condition employment upon the employee agreeing to refrain from exercising a civil right.

          As I’ve noted elsewhere in this discussion, the courts have generally held that a business may regulate employee behavior only to the extent that it serves a legitimate business purpose.

          In the case which gave rise to this discussion involves certain employees who claim to be offended by the use of the Spanish language by other employees. To hold that to avoid having employees being so “offended” serves a legitimate business purpose is, at best, a specious argument.

          Were this to be presented in an equity court, odds are that it would be dismissed as arbitrary, capricious, and/or discriminatory.

          As one with experience in such matters, both in upper management for a national company and, at present, as a business owner, I am perforce keenly aware of the limits to an employers “power.”

          Any business owner who seeks to rule by fiat is courting disaster.

    • #3348433

      The UK are going out of their way to make this happen!

      by neilb@uk ·

      In reply to Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace?

      Welsh is spoken by significant numbers of people in very few parts of the Wales but this hasn’t stopped recent governments from trying to artificially force the uptake of Welsh.

      The Welsh Language Act of 1993 stipulated that Welsh speakers should be able to have access to all public services in Welsh, should they wish.

      Despite being the son of a bilingual Welsh father, I think this is madness – and Dad agreed with me! One of the greatest cohesive forces in any country is a common language and it should be encouraged. Last time I looked, Walse was part of the UK.

      All (Welsh, for now) government institutions are required to accommodate and promote the use of Welsh. Plans are submitted to the Welsh Language Board (Bwrdd yr Iaith Gymraeg) for approval. Private businesses and groups can do it if they wish but are not legislated so to do – yet! We have the ludicrious situation of the General Electric plant near Cardiff, where few of the workers are Welsh-speakers but ALL are English-speakers, having to install bilingual signs and take other steps.

      Supporting Welsh has become a sign of corporate cool and speaking Welsh around English-only colleagues has become quite a common form of elitism.

      I still support the Welsh Rugby Team – but I’ll continue to do it in English.

      • #3349395

        Great supporting argument

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to The UK are going out of their way to make this happen!

        You made a point and supported it by what the WELSH are doing?!? 😀

        My god man, you’ve lost it!

        I can sit on a rocket and fly across the Arizona desrt. I can then call Acme and order a giant set of spring boots so that I can bounce all the way back to Canada. At least that’s what they said on the Bugs Bunny Road Runner Show.

        I know it’s a bit of a strong comparisson, but the Bugs Bunny Road Runner show is one up for common sense on that lot.

        But you’re right, the rugby really rocks!

        If you are Welsh, mate, all just a bit of fun you know. 🙂

        (How can I say that, you way to intelligent to be Welsh!)

        • #3349203

          I’m a half breed

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Great supporting argument

          Well, 62.5% Welsh, 3.125% Native American (so says family history) and the rest English – whatever THAT means. You may insult any part of me or my heritage that you wish, burn any of my flags so long as I am upwind of the smoke. No point in being too precious about anything.

          Hey! I’ve just realised that with me being part Native American I could maybe justify having Maxwell deported back to wherever his ancestors came from. Maybe I own the land that his house is on.


        • #3349132

          …having Maxwell deported back to wherever his ancestors came from

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I’m a half breed

          I, too, have American Indian in my heritage.

          I’m part Winnebago and part Eskimo, so you can send me to Alaska in style.

        • #3349078

          If you’re part Winnebago…

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to …having Maxwell deported back to wherever his ancestors came from

          Can’t you just drive yourself to Alaska in style?

        • #3348854

’s not Eskimo anymore…

          by growlingone ·

          In reply to …having Maxwell deported back to wherever his ancestors came from

          Actually the true indigenous folks up north have prefered Inuit instead of Eskimo for quite a few years now. Calling them Eskimos now is like calling a Black or African(American or Canadian) coloured(Canadian Sp. 😉 ).

          Thought you should know.

        • #3348832

          Political Correctness run amok

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to’s not Eskimo anymore…

          People are too sensitive.

          “Most Alaskans continue to accept the name Eskimo, particularly because Inuit refers only to the Inupiat of northern Alaska, the Inuit of Canada, and the Kalaallit of Greenland, and is not a word in the Yupik languages of Alaska and Siberia.”

          – From Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks

        • #3332435

          Not in this case

          by pmpsicle ·

          In reply to Political Correctness run amok

          The word Eskimo means “Eater of Raw Meat” and it is a Cree word. Since the Cree and the Inuit did not (as they say) see eye-to-eye, it isn’t a good name to call an Inuit.

          Sort of like calling a Jewish person a Kike or an African-American a Nigger (coloured is too tame) and then incorporating it into the language as the proper name.

          Not exactly a case of taking PC too far.

          The reason the Alaskans don’t call themselves Inuit is that they aren’t (Inuit). That’s a Canadian thing!

          Glen Ford

        • #3332415

          Shouldn’t that be back …

          by pmpsicle ·

          In reply to Political Correctness run amok

          I couldn’t remember the name of the Amerindian tribe (the Cree) so I asked an Inuit friend of my wife’s.

          She suggested that maybe you should be thinking about returning to Mongolia rather than Alaska :} (that is she sort of gasped it out between laughs).

          Just as an aside I notice one of my comparison words got censored … and yet the other two didn’t despite the fact that they are just as insulting… Hmmmm….

          And before anyone asks I didn’t pick on my own background because I couldn’t think of anything nasty enough … Canuck just doesn’t cut it.

          Glen Ford
          (A proud Canuck).

        • #3334404

          Name for Canadians?

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Political Correctness run amok

          How about “Beady Eyed Floppy Head Canadians” to borrow from South Park? 🙂

        • #3349079

          ooops I forgot

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I’m a half breed

          You aren’t one of those overly defensive types that takes any comment with his nation mentioned as a personal attack.

      • #3349355

        Just in Wales, or throughout the UK?

        by montgomery gator ·

        In reply to The UK are going out of their way to make this happen!

        I can understand if they do this within Wales, but does the entire UK have to support the Welsh language? I guess it is an outgrowth of Welsh Nationalism, but the way you describe it, it is going too far. My grandmother was from Cornwall. Will the people of Cornwall insist on speaking Cornish next? And how about Scots Gaelic in Scotland? And Irish Gaelic in Ulster? And Manx on the Isle of Man? The UK will sound like the Tower of Babel if you take it to the extreme, especially when you add the immigrant groups from South Asia and their languages.

        • #3349314

          Tom, I hope not.

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Just in Wales, or throughout the UK?

          The current fad for “Regional Government” is part of it. Wales and Scotland have subsidiary parliaments and the current Labour Government are trying for English Regional parliaments with much less success.

          Home Rule for Yorkshire for Tony?

          Hopefully, it will stay with the nutters in Wales. I don’t think too many Glasweigans speak Gaelic or would want to. There are attempts to revive Cornish but nothing formal, yet.

          The formally bilingual stuff is only Wales but it is driven by UK, rather than Welsh, legislation. Every form is twice the size as its English counterpart. Every road sign, information board, you name it is in both languages. Some schools teach entirely in Welsh.

          To a certain extent, I can understand it on the basis of national identity but I don’t like deliberate sectarianism. We need less multi-culturalism, not more.

        • #3349185

          Speaking of “Regional Government”

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Tom, I hope not.

          I have some relatives in Rutland who are still upset that it is no longer a separate county, having been absorbed by Leicester when the counties in the UK were reorganized some years ago. Anyway, I get your point, and agree. Hopefully, there will be no need to worry about Mercian or Northumbrian separist movements. 🙂

        • #3347772

          It’s coming. Regional Assembly

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Tom, I hope not.

          being debated now. Actually the region includes other parts of the North East, but we should be able to build Geoff’s wall around God’s own county soon.
          (For the uninitiated, the Geoff is Geoffrey Boycott, a great yorkshire cricketer, with a useful surname for the pun.)

          As for the main topic, I don’t care what language people speak. When I was in Holland, some english fellow made the unbelievably stupid assumption that the dutch didn’t understand colloquial anglo-saxon. Fortunately for him he ran well, as the dutch seem to average out at over six feet.

          As for a company regulating what you language you speak, well more stupidity. How well you can communicate is relevant, but how you do is not.
          The one point I agree with whole-heartedly is some do stick to their birth language in order to emphasise their separateness, makes you wonder why they came in the first place.

        • #3334442

          UK Local Government and Ethnic origin

          by wgrahamt ·

          In reply to Just in Wales, or throughout the UK?

          Multi-ethnic language policies are applied in the UK. I live in London in a Borough called Ealing… this is their web site – you will note under the Search bar that there is a menu taking you to pages that are written in different languages : Punjabi, Arabic, Farsi, Polish, Urdu – this policy also applies to printed materials I receive from my local government, such as tax bills.

      • #3349217

        Ireland too

        by justinf ·

        In reply to The UK are going out of their way to make this happen!

        Ireland has bilingual rules too, the national TV station has to have a quota of Irish language programmes, road direction signs have to be in Irish & English and Irish is still compulsory in school, all the way to secondary school graduation. Trouble is that the only thing most people can say in Irish is “an bfhuil cad agam dul go dti an leithreas” which is asking for permission to go to the toilet!!! You had to ask in Irish in primary school or you couldn’t go!!

        • #3349624


          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Ireland too

          I recently found out I have a little bit of Irish ancestry (have to go back to 4 greats grandparents, name is Barton, might be related to the Irish wine merchants), but now I know how to take a dump in Gaelic. 🙂

      • #3332425

        There’s good reason for it though …

        by pmpsicle ·

        In reply to The UK are going out of their way to make this happen!

        You’re forgetting that supporting Welsh as a language was a hard-learned lesson. By the turn of the century (1900 not 2000), Welsh had almost died out in Wales under the official onslot of the Saesnig.

        Like Gaelic in Cape Breton and La Vieux throughout the Maritimes, Welsh was only saved by a concerted effort to bring it into the schools and government.

        And it happened long before the language act of 1993. When I visited in the 1970s bilingual signs were common – as was speaking in Welsh throughout Wales.

        Which is a good lesson to learn for anyone who actively tries to stamp out a language (even in the workplace).
        Glen Ford

    • #3349401

      In the U.S….

      by dc_guy ·

      In reply to Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace?

      A number of cases of this type have gone to court and the results are inconsistent. Some companies have gotten away with mandating that all employees speak English at all times when on the premises. Others have not. The reason seems not to matter as much as the jurisdiction. They’re less likely to get away with that in California than in Texas, the home of the Bush Dynasty, where the DJ’s on the Latino music radio stations all speak English on the air.

      As for Europe, I disagree with both comments. They don’t expect you to know Icelandic or Macedonian, but English is not the universal language. I found that German is understood practically everywhere. “Vay tsay?” is the universal way to say, “Where’s the bathroom?” in any country; it’s the German pronunciation of “W.C.”

      As for bilingual Canada, did you see the movie “Canadian Bacon,” one of John Candy’s last? When they drove their truck across the border, they were made to get out and translate all the signs on it into French. They even had to translate a graffito that someone had scrawled on it, “Eat my shorts.” It came out, “Mange mes briefs.”

      • #3349288

        Dublevai tsay

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to In the U.S….

        You would not want to botch THAT pronounciation in Asia. Vai dammit, NOT Vee !!!!

        People should be able to say what they want, when they want. If you can’t walk up to my face and tell me in plain English exactly what you think, I am not interested in how you mumble with ‘your own kind’, that’s spineless. Just don’t expect a reserved reply.

    • #3349281

      If employers can make

      by garion11 ·

      In reply to Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace?

      a policy of dress codes, time in and out, company rules and policies…language isn’t certainly that far off. IMO, an employer has EVERY right to restrict the language that is spoken. Wasn’t there an employer somewhere in the midwest who restricted his employees from smoking while on the job/premises? It is after all the company property and time and they can do whatever they want….and you as an employee has to respect that.

      If I am not mistaken what the employer can’t do is base their hiring decision on on the potential candidate’s language??

      • #3349276

        I wouldn’t work for that employer!

        by growlingone ·

        In reply to If employers can make

        Any employer with that kind of back woods mentality would suck to work for! Stop being so damn paranoid!


        Healthy employees make more money for themselves and their company.

        • #3349155

          Yep, I doubt that kind of employer would attract many good workers..

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to I wouldn’t work for that employer!

          But, even though I keep my mouth shut alot simply because it would take to long to post a reply to everyone who says otherwise…

          What people don’t understand is employers can pretty much do whatever the hell they want in the USA as long as no constitutional rights are stepped on and the employer isn’t running any illegal operation (laundering money, drug dealing, mob hits, etc.).

          Its sooooo interesting to me how so many folks ASSUME things as boggles the mind…

          “You can’t stop people from smoking at work or fire them if they smoke outside of work”….actually yes an employer CAN prevent you from smoking on company grounds and it doesn’t matter if its company time or not…just that you are on their property — there’s no federal law that says otherwise and many states (including mine) have no such laws either. In the state where the report came out about the employer preventing smoking period (even when the employee is on THEIR time; I think it was Michigan) there is no law in that state that makes that illegal!

          Finally, people confuse discrimination along with free speech greatly.

          Discrimination is not as gray as so many think it is, its very finite in fact. Restricting a “non-common language” on company grounds during business hours (of course why would you care outside of business hours) is not discrimation and violates no state law (talking about this state).

          And here’s an amazing tidbit…you can deny someone employment because of their language! Its not illegal! If an employer is sued for this…and as long asthe employer in court explains well enough to the judge that all business, including contracts and all the companies clients conduct business in a specific language — communication skills the applicant does NOT possess..the court will hold the employer harmless.

          Just like a strip club could use similar defense for not hiring someone who is way out of shape — because its the nature of the business.

          Anyway, its very interesting the things we assume just because to our own value system something is not appealing.. “no that can’t be right”. Rule of thumb in life: If its too good to be true, it probably isn’t. Rule of thumb with laws: If it sickens or shocks you, then the law probably allows it.

        • #3349071

          Just like a strip club could use…

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Yep, I doubt that kind of employer would attract many good workers..

          “Just like a strip club could use similar defense for not hiring someone who is way out of shape — because its the nature of the business.”

          The club doesn’t hire the strippers, they hire an agency. The Agency decides who can or cannot represent them. In the case of only hiring nice looking women, they are providing women who they think will turn on the hungry eyes. This doesn’t fall into a descrimination issue at all, it is a job requirement. Just like a 90lb guy will never make WWE, it’s not descrimination. I cannot get a job as a surrogate mother, this is also not descrimination, I am not able to do the job.

          A smoking ban has nothing to do with this, they can’t be compared. Unless it is a ban because you are working in a health club, in which case you are not suitable for the job.

          There’s a BIG difference between not being suitable or a position and being descriminated against.

          If I spoke ONLY Spanish and wanted to work in an English service center, I am not suitable for the job, I do not have the required skills.

          Being told NOT to speak my native language outside, in the lunch room because people I am not speaking to can’t understand me. Or even worse, being told I will be fired if I don’t stop speaking my language AROUND the office, is pure and 100% racial descrimination. To top it right off, you could persue MANY charges, including your ‘loss of privacy’. When on MY lunch break, I should not be required to share my converstaion with everyone if I don’t choose to.

          Believe me Tom, I have seen these cases in court many many times, the employer doesn’t fair well even if they win, there is generally a hefty fine and at least 10 charges against the company, in which most are quickly dismissed but a few stick and get the plaintiff a year or so paid time off.

          But it is not a case that’s even similar to hiring thin strippers only, THAT is a job requirement, speaking English on your free time is not and can’t be a job requirement.

          You’re right though,US companies do whatever they want, until someone does something about it.

        • #3349042

          Thanks for your post, I happen to agree..perhaps I just should of explained

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to Just like a strip club could use…

          You are correct in what you said and pointed out. A job skill and being discriminated against are different, I should of made my point more clear. Yet I think I did get the basis of my point which is some folks are shocked to learn that (even in a job skill incident, or lack thereof I should say) you can be passed over for the job on something like language ability and physical appearance.

          I do think its wrong to limit folks how they speak during personal time, like lunch and I definitely see the trouble waiting for an employer who wishes to pursue cracking down on that.

          If I was the head of the place I’d just say “look our customers and all our documents are written using the English language so we all must conduct business in English. However if you speak 15 other languages and want to talk to your friends on your breaks or lunch…that’s fine with me.”.

          As simple as that.

          As for smokers, I’d just make it rule you can smoke but only outside in a designated smoke area and if the smokers throw their butts all over the place then those privileges are gone.

          I basically see no value in “busting people’s b@lls” on every little thing. Its lame, its pointless and it does not make for a happy work environment.

        • #3348928

          Well said

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Thanks for your post, I happen to agree..perhaps I just should of explained

          I agree, just had to comment on the analogy you used.

          I get miffed at all the inapplicable analogies that are used here too often.

          Hey have you heard the new Juda Priest yet?

          The video is unreal, I don’t like the video production or edits, too basic and familiar, but it brings sound from a a cross between Sad Wings of Destiny or British Steel and Screaming for Vengeance and even some of the newer sound work from Halford. Gonna be a great tour this fall in North America.

          Angel of Retribution:

          Great to see Rob back!

        • #3348906


          by tomsal ·

          In reply to Well said

          Its definitely good to hear Rob’s back, the shame of it is the last Priest I actually bought was Jugulator. I thought that album sounded closer to Slayer than anything “Judas Priest” and I haven’t bought a Priest since and didn’t really keep track of them since then. I listen to British Steel, Screaming for Vengeance, Defenders of the Faith, Turbo, etc. etc.

          Now that he’s back — I’ll give a listen to the new stuff! Thanks for the heads up!

          Oh yeah….switching to Iron Maiden…how is “Dance of Death”? worth getting?

        • #3348847

          I find it redundant

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Well said

          Slap me for saying it but IM hasn’t been dazzling me lately.

          I’m an old sucker for Powerslave, Piece of Mind etc.

          I found that after 7th Son, they seemed to really over focus on the longer rhytm lines and too many choral type songs. They have adopted a more modern European sound, very progressive and mezmorizing but not as hard as it used to be. Iron Maiden was tight enough to rock while still sounding clean. It all seemed to take a turn around the same time as the Adrian Smith an Jannick mess.

          Jan is a great showman, he is becoming more a part of the band, but he’s like a beat up David Coverdale with a zippy guitar, IM doesn’t need another guitar. He’s a ‘noodler’, on his guitar, which is always turned WAY down so he can just add frilly fills and pose (he’s the ultimate poser on stage).

          I dunno, I’d take Flash of The Blade from Powerslave, Quest for Fire or Revelations over Dance with Death.

          “In a time, when dinosaurs walked the earth!
          When the land was swamp and caves were home
          In an age when prize possession was fire
          To search for landscapes men would roam.

          Then the tribes they came to steal their fire
          And the wolves they howled into the night
          As they fought a vicious angry battle
          to save the power of warmth and light.”

          Now THAT’s good stuff! \m/

          I think the two things I don’t like about Dance are that it doesn’t have the classic Eddie artwork (yeah, what’s happening here? I don’t like an IM cover?) and it is too polished.

          I said the same thing when they did Somewhere in Time though, “MAIDEN’S gone Pu**y!” but it is now a classic.

          I just can’t get into the Jannick Gers thing and the ‘neuveau-euro-metal’ style they are into now.

          But don’t take my word for it, check out the sound bytes on the IM site for yourself.

          The Priest….IS…..BACK!!

          Gonna be a good year!

          up the irons, mate!

          “O God of earth and altar
          Bow down and hear our cry
          Our earthly rulers falter
          Our peolple drift and die
          The walls of gold entombe us
          The swords of scorn divide
          Take not thy thunder from us
          But take away our pride”

          -G. K. Chesterton

        • #3349662

          Reply To: Is it legal to restrict what language is spoken at your workplace?

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to Well said

          I hear you man! I largely agree with you, 7th Son was the last album that really gave me that “Iron Maiden” feeling of old. I have Powerslave and Somewhere In Time in the car right now. As for cool Eddy artwork, I used to have a Stranger In a Strange Land shirt back when I was about 18/19 it had Eddy in a trench coat with that trademark sinister stare, gun in hand…it was one of the coolest “rock t-shirts” I ever seen.

          Revelations — great tune… about Die With Your Boots On? (I always liked those lyrics)

          Die With Your Boots On
          Another Prophet of Disaster
          Who says the ship is lost,
          Another Prophet of Disaster
          Leaving you to count the cost.
          Taunting us with Visions,
          Afflicting us with fear,
          Predicting War for millions,
          In the hope that one appears.

          No point asking when it is,
          No point asking who’s to go,
          No point asking what’s the game,
          No point asking who’s to blame.
          ‘cos if you’re gonna die, if you’re gonna die,
          ‘cos if you’re gonna die, if you’re gonna die,

          If you’re gonna die, die with your boots on.
          If you’re gonna try, just stick around,
          Gonna cry, just move along,
          If you’re gonna die, you’re gonna die.

          In 13 the Beast is rising,
          The Frenchman did surmise,
          Through earthquakes and starvation,
          The warlord will arise.
          Terror, Death, Destruction,
          Pour from the Eastern Sands,
          But the truth of all predictions,
          Is always in your hands.

          If you’re gonna die, die with your boots on,
          If you’re gonna try, just stick around,
          Gonna cry, just move along,
          If you’re gonna die, you’re gonna die.

          Up the Irons!!!

          later man!

        • #3349716

          Damn lyrics!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Well said

          In 1983 I saw Powerslave tour “World Slavery Tour” (no wonder poeple get the wrong idea from metal bands!)

          After reading your lyrics, I still see Bruce in those bright red Spandex pants of the 80’s running around the stage behind the guitars and wailing away to that one.

          But before I typed this I sudenly had an urge to put the CD on.

          I had a shirt with Eddie in the Union Jack, from The Trooper. I ALMOST got the Eddie tattoo with him carrying the flag through the battlefield.
          I was thinking about ordering a new Powerslave T-Shirt from the site, they even have the same one I had as a kid with the Vancouver tour date on the back.

          But I am too pumped on the new JP, I have ben giddy as a schoolboy ever since I heard He was back. MOST definitely working for backstage passes this time out!

          I worked with Ripper Owens for about 6 months when he was doing his solo thing in the US. He’s a pretty cool guy and has a great voice, he is really well trained. But he sure as hell aint Rob Halford. I met Priest about 5 years ago after a show at a Vancouver Nightclub (Dehumanizer tour), Glen was sick as a dog, Ripper was his usual self, KK never stopped talking, that guys just a motor! And Ian Hill well, cool as always, but he’s a really reserved family man.

          Funny how old all these guys are getting now, hasn’t seemed to slow them down though. It’s hard to call yourself too old to play metal when there are people like Ozzy around who can thump it out year after year and still upstage the kiddie bands on OzzFestm but this year, JP outshone Ozzy on his own tour, probably reunion excitement.

        • #3347761

          Judas Priest & Iron Maiden

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Well said

          Never like either myself, always used to annoy me Heavy Metal fan eh, you must like Iron Maiden.
          No actually, was about the politest response I could come up with.
          Led Zep, Slayer and early Metallica & Motorhead.
          Creme of course and Hawkwind, quite like some of the new stuff coming out as well. Strokes and Jet.
          Though maybe the sound is n’t all that new.
          Can’t go wrong with a bit of Nirvana either or Thin Lizzy.

        • #3347737

          Geez Tony that’s all over the place!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Well said

          Heavy Metal fan, me? Not as a rule.

          I manage/promote several heavy metal bands in Europe, sell CD’s around the globe, but I am not just a heavy metal fan thgouh, and my taste in Heavy Metal doesn’t include many North American bands at all. I used to run a talent agency and would take North American bands into the European Market where they could get work and earn a living. Now I just promote them and help them seek dealsm, I get paid for distribution, percentage of singing bonus and first year income in most cases, I only manage two group now. Locally I organize shows/festivals,promote and book artists here.

          I think Metallica WAS okay at one time, Slayer is a freak show though. SOMEHOW these guys have been seen as a band that actually changed heavy metal, they just don’t have the age or back catalogue to support the claims though. Perhaps Slayer changed Heavy Metal in the US, but then bands like Biohazard and Machine Head came out of the States and made Slayer look like Poison.

          I like Motorhead, Maiden, Priest, Helloween (before Kai Hansen left for Gamma Ray) and many others including of course AC/DC, ZZTop, and all the real musicians who are from hard workign ands that stand the test of time. The latest Metallica is teh result of Lars Ulrich’s ego trip and actually has the worst engineering I have ever heard released on a label, it is 100% focused around a drum lead, the snare is to hot, the cymbals are too sibilant and the music is just redndant and cloned from older albums. Lars just got a big ego and thinks he’s an industry wiz after the Metallica vs Napster crap.

          That was all coming from the SAME band that once released a tape that said COPY AND SHARE OUR MUSIC WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY right on the cover, as they didn’t care for money grabbing record companies. Then they started making money and the ttitude was changed.

          I toured with JP and Annihilator one year, and with A festival (as a promoter for two warm ups)another year. the face of metal in Nort hAmerica is a laughing stock around te world though, that’s why most bande don’tbother with North America anymore, except a few cities where they are guaranteed four show sell outs, like Radio City Music hall, Long Beach Arena.

          Nirvana were better before they were signed, as are MOST North American bands. Take Nicklebackfor instance,before selling out, they wrote pretty much cowboy punk music. They used to rehearse in the studio beside my old office on the mainland, boy did THAT sound ever change!

          As for Zep, Doors, etc. Classics that will never be duplicated. Though The Tea Party is a REALLY close Doors clone.

          I am also into clasiscal, my ex was a principal cellist.

          Dabble din country when I was a kid, then woke up. I like SOME Jazz fusion, Reggae, and just about anything else that displays musical or artistic talent. Need I say that excludes Rap and Hip Hop?

          Remixing and sampling is not a talent.

        • #3347662

          I just stuck to the heavy stuff there

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Well said

          Punk was my big influence, so I still like with the stranglers, clash, stiff little fingers. It’s music that gets me not the type. My dad got me into the old style balladeers, love Frankie Laine & David Whitfield. Got just about every thing Alison Moyet and Sinead O’Connor have ever done. As for the resamplers etc. If you can’t sing and can’t play p1ss off is my response.
          Used to play the trumpet myself, never got past school band stage though. Having hair half way down my front, meant they stuck me at the back on 2nd cornet where no one would see me. The straights got the good parts.

          There’s a good deal of gimickry round Slayer, but they can play the guitar, Reign in Blood is one of the best albums I’ve ever heard. Metallica, first three albums after that commercial dreck.
          Maybe I should try IM again, but most of it seemed to be AOR to me, like Poison, Europe etc. Names like Joey Tempest and stick on tatoos tells you all you need to know about that. Be talking about Bon Jovi next.

        • #3347625

          Okay, I’ll do it

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Well said

          Bon Jovi, yuppers POSER band of the 80’s, well next to Poison but they were just a circus act.

          Bon Jovi, wierd beginning, myhem actually. I was a security foreman for the Slippery When Wet tour when they were in Vancouver. Backstage was one of the typical backstage rocker parties that have made ‘backstage’ a big issue. Unlike today where nothing goes on backstage anymore and it’s just plain boring.

          You have to give credit where credit is due though. Bon Jovi knows how to write ‘hook’ songs, anything those guys put on paper becomes a hit, they just know how to write, and this is a great skill. As for musicianship, Richie Sambora is an INCREDIBLE musician. He has an impecable harmonic key and is a wizard on the guitar. Although I fouhg tagainst liking them for ao many years, yes it was completely uncool for a guy to accept ‘Jon Bon G-String’, they have stood the test of time and now I don’t mind it at all.

          Punk, well coming from England in the 70’s, that goes without saying. I was into Peter and the Test Tube Babies, Cramps, Clash, Pistols (met Johnny more than once, he’s REALLY not to dork he’s made out to be).

          At the same time though, as my musical taste is EXTREMELY diverse, I would have mixed tapes with Clash, Pistols, Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye, a bit of classical, some Iron Maiden etc. Made for interesting party mixes to say the least! I would also turn up for a real house wrecker party with a bunch of bikers, while wearing a suit with a pastel tie, straight form work, or I would go to work in Daytons and a leather jacket (obviously changing in the store before opening).

          I don’t fit a mold really, I have always striven to stay away from becoming a member of a certain social group, in favour of fitting in several.

          I have never really figured myself out anyway, gave up trying a long time ago, I am just along for the ride, let life take me where it does and enjoy it along the way.

          Quick note on Iron Maiden, I find their newer stuff is WAY heavy on the European progmetal scene, little too melodic and trancy for me now. I liked the multiple tempo changes in Powerslave but it is just turning into an instrumental with some football chants in it now. I still prefer the pre-7th Son years.

          Now Judas Priest, they just keep grinding out more classic JP! Kinda like ACDC, you know exactly what you’re buying and there’s no surprises.

        • #3347610

          Well it’s not just ability

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Well said

          . They play the sort of music I don’t like. Presumably they do it well, Jon’s bank balance proves that. I was never a ‘scene’ person myself. I grew my hair long, to hide the spotty adolescent period, now it’s a number one all over because I can’t be bothered to mess with it.
          I think the sheep types are just insecure people with an identity failure. Heavy metal fans dress like this, or punks like that. It’s music not a lifestyle.

        • #3347465

          RE to “Geez Tony that’s all over the place!” post

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to Well said

          (One day I hope TR gets a new board that branches better)

          Anyway…in regards to your post…lol..and that’s why I like your taste in music.

          Led Zeppelin is truly one of the greats of rock history, bar none. They are one of those bands I never tire of hearing over and over again.

          Rush is my favorite single band over all — I just think they are very talented particularly when it comes to their story-like lyric writing and the spectacular drums (consequently two large reasons why Neil Peart is the spirit of Rush, IMHO).

          Metallica at one time, believe it or not..I liked a lot…I’m talking the Kill ‘Em thru Master of Puppets days especially. Of course I was a teenager then too, had the long hair going, etc. I think they have really sucked as of late — its hard to believe how often I’d listen to their early works and to think of their newer stuff now (who everyone else I know who listens to Metallica agrees with me that it just plain sucks)…St. Anger is sheer Anguish to endure. Utter crap.
          I also remember when they encouraged folks to duplicate their stuff and trade it to friends. Irony huh?

          AC/DC has always been a favorite of mine as well, I mean come on with the energic “edgy” vocals and Angus really getting into the guitar…how can you call yourself a “rocker” and NOT like them. Great tunes for when you need to get pumped (ie. Party, working out, just need to vent some agression/tension, etc.)

          Eric Clapton — DA MAN!!! ‘Nuff said

          Priest — dude, Priest is what I call classic British Metal. 🙂 I will be resuming the collection of all CD’s Priest to finish off (I still need to get a few of their older works in my collection).

          Iron Maiden — I don’t like their newer stuff nearly as much as their older stuff…but what I relate to as “vintage Maiden” — another premium brit band that kicks major arse. Been listening to them for 15 years easy and probably more but my memory can’t recall exactly. Another band, with their “vintage stuff” that I don’t get easily tired of listening too.

          As for Hip/Hop and Rap..

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!! I’d rather listen to cats getting it on!


        • #3348926

          I dunno about that

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Just like a strip club could use…

          I have to disagree. You are working on their propery, with their equipment, on their time, for which they are paying you. They do have the right to create rules and guidelines and create a “uniform” standard if you will for all their employees. So if you they say you can’t smoke, DRINK or DO DRUGS, they can tell you that you should only speak English and I think they have every right to. If you are out to lunch or away from company property, noone is saying you can’t smoke or speak in another language.

        • #3348910

          Read it again Garion, that IS what they are saying.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I dunno about that

          IF this was IN the office, yes th company can dictate exactly how you speak to their clients and communicate within the office. That is NOT the case at hand though.

          “Through the majority of the day they are speaking english but at certain times (lunch, when they look irritated, walking side by side down the hallways, etc.) they talk in spanish to each other.”

          You trying to say that THIS can be stopped? I don’t think so, perhaps you just missed the focus of the main post.

          Tell me what I can or can’t speak in the elevator, and I’ll give you a whole new colorful language to digest in response. 😀

        • #3349607

          From an anglophone

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Read it again Garion, that IS what they are saying.

          who has worked, and continues to work in Quebec.

          There are language laws in Quebec that dictate the language of the workplace – and they are unenforceable. You can dictate that you must be able to receive service/documents/whatever in french. But you can’t realistic dictate that all conversations are exclusively in french.

          I’ve struggled to teach unilingual francophone factory workers how to use Outlook with my clumsy french – no one minds. No one minds when I have to revert to english in a technical conversation in a project meeting. The government of Quebec does enforce the rules about software being available in french for Quebec customers, but even then they are flexible these days.


        • #3349509

          Anglophones and Francophones?

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Read it again Garion, that IS what they are saying.

          So, what is with having Anglophones and Francophones in Canada? Do you need to use different phones to call people, depending on which language you speak? What would happen if you speak English into a Francophone? Will it not work, or does it have a built in routine to insult you in French? In the USA, our phones work no matter what language you speak into them, and we do not have separate phones for different languages. You can speak Hindi or Chinese (any dialect) or even Klingon into an American phone, and it will still work (although you might have to wipe spit off the reciever after speaking Klingon into it). Even our answering machines take any language. I once had a roommate for a semester in college from Egypt who got messages from his Arabic speaking friends, and the answering machine recorded Arabic with no problems. However, automated phone menus over here often have options for different languages. “In English, press One, En Espa?ol, presso dos” (or whatever Spanish is for “In Spanish, Press Two”.), for example.

        • #3349456

          Very Funny Tom

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Read it again Garion, that IS what they are saying.

          Funnier than “Southern” Ontario post.

          An?glo?phone also an?glo?phone ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ngl-fn)
          An English-speaking person, especially one in a country where two or more languages are spoken.

          We also use

          Allophone Canadian. A person whose native language is other than French or English.

          We have been dealing with language issues in Canada and prior to, British North America, since before the US existed. The Quebec Act, which outlined Quebec’s linguistic and religious freedoms was passed in 1774. The principles were recognized when Canada became a country in 1867 in the British North America.

          So we are not just making up new words to make you feel silly. Though we can if you want us to.

          There is by the way a Canadian Oxford dictionary – these definitions are from If anyone wants a Canadian word defined I will be happy to look it up.


        • #3349448

          To James Linn

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Read it again Garion, that IS what they are saying.

          Thanks. I actually knew the definitions, just having fun. We don’t come up with such fancy words down here. Just refer to people as English speaking, Spanish speaking, etc. When the United States took over places speaking other languages (Louisiana, Florida, Texas, California, for example), English became the official language of those territories, although Spanish and French (the Cajun dialect in Louisiana) can still be heard, especially (with Spanish) with the recent influx of immigrants from south of the Border and the Spanish speaking Caribbean islands. Apparently, the people of Quebec did a better job of defending their use of French than the Spanish did in Florida, Texas, California when the USA took them over (until recently with the recent immigration).

          When it comes to Canadian words, I learned some from Bob and Doug McKenzie, and “The Kids in the Hall”.

        • #3349433

          Tom, origin of words

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Read it again Garion, that IS what they are saying.

          You can tell if not from the dictionary definition that those words are french in origin. I have never heard allophone used by a non-french speaker.

          As to Cajun, its actually a subset of Quebecois french, which has evolved separately from Parisian french(more isolated). I have always struggled with the Acadian accent(New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, some in PEI) much more so than the Quebecois accent. It has gratified me to know that francophones from Quebec have had the same struggle to understand it as I did.

          Basically in the history of French colonization of North America, the Acadians were generally from fishing villages in France, where the Quebecois were from farming areas, many from the Normandy area, and the upper class from Paris and regional captials.

          Just my luck the ones with the seafood get sent south.


        • #3349724

          Seriously though, who actually uses those terms?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Read it again Garion, that IS what they are saying.

          I have never heard anyone in BC refer to a French Canadian as a Frankophone. It’s usually ‘frog basttard’, ‘frenchie’, ‘Blocked Quebecor’ etc.

          Yes derogatory, but that’s just tha air they leave here. I worked with a French tech from Montreal who was called out to help on a project. After three hours onsite, we took it outside.

          The reason he was sent is because nobody else wanted to work with their French counterpart, so he was left in the office with nothing to do, thus he was sent out west.

          Sure, he’s probably ONE bad apple, and yes I have met a lot of people in Quebec that I actually REALLY liked. But the general concensus here is that they can separate and float out to sea through Hudson’s Bay if they choose.

          BC and Alberta are SO different form the rest of the country it isn’t funny. We are like two nations in one, but it isn’t political afiliation that separates Canadians, it is geographical. Is this perhas becaus everyone in Canada thinks they live in the most gorgeous province in the country?

          What a terrible debate to have.
          My province is more beautiful than yours!
          No….WE live in he most beautiful province!

          It never has anything to do with varying politics, it is just how the people are kinder and the scenery is better! What a terrible country!

        • #3349709

          Oz, who uses those terms?

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Read it again Garion, that IS what they are saying.

          Politicians, government people, statisticians, pollsters.

          There are substantial francophone populations across the country. New Brunswick is officially bilingual. Ontario has francophone services “where numbers warrant” which is generally in eastern Ontario. They don’t all share the political culture of Quebec. They don’t all want to leave. But they do cherish language rights.

          I work with Quebecers every day. Like anywhere else – some good some bad. I don’t ask them their politics.

          If Quebec separated, I’d be sad. I do consider them as one of the founding nations of Canada, and I recognise their contribution. I’ve been through many parts of Quebec, city and rural. I enjoy their attitude towards life – more relaxed than Toronto. Don’t judge the whole province by the acts of a few.


        • #3348349

          YEa it wash a rash generalization

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Read it again Garion, that IS what they are saying.

          I agree, and as I noted one bad apple ruins the cider and all that.

          I too have some good friends that were ONCE frommontreal or Quebec. And I LOVE the Maritimes, they are ALL great people over there, I lived in Sydney, NS when I was younger before moving out west. I couldn’t say enough to express my appreciation for the people there.

          I understand that French Canadians are FAR more Canadian than I am and definitely more Canadian than MOST other Canadians. I am from England, I am well aware fo the roots of Canada, obviously.

          But it IS a general view pointof many outwest. It doesn’t mean that they would be shunned and not accepted, just the same way people bash Americans but it doesn’t reflect on Americans as a society, just those we run into that we don’t care for, unfortunately they see it as a blanket dislike of the US.

          Most people I know would never turn away a fellow Canadian inneed, no matter how they were, in fact most wouldn’t turn away ANYONE, within reason of course. It’s not Canadian nature to reject people of a certain society, but it IS in our nature to have fun at their expense, any Canadian knows hwo to take such slurs in stride.

          We are just more laid back than some other nations, people bitch and complain but rarely care enough to actually act on it though. It’s just a matter of stating your view, not neceeaarily trying to change others.

          So don’t take it to heart when I joke about the French, unlike most, I don’t dislike French Canadians, god knows I don’t understand them but hey, to each his own.

          Now as for France, despite the horro shows in Europe, Franc eis actually a REALLY cool place to visit, just don’t hire anyone to work for you, they show up when they are ready and go home if you complain about it…hang on, maybe it’s ME that does that! 🙂

        • #3348301


          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I dunno about that

          Your ignorance of the basic principles upon which this country was founded, and which form the foundation of our laws, is frightening, and, unfortunately, all too common.

          By all means, feel free to abrogate your rights; but, I must insist that allow others their’s.

          I would gently suggest that you refrain from voting until you’ve become more informed on matters of both history and constitutional law.

        • #3347895


          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Scary

          Explain my ignorance once again. Where exactly am I showing ignorance of basic principles? and other blather you posted about?

        • #3347805

          Since you asked

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Scary

      • #3347769

        They could hire based

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to If employers can make

        on facility in the company’s chosen language of business, or even more than one. Many jobs in Holland required facility French, Dutch and English. However if they chose to hire based on birth language, they would open themselves to a very expensive lawsuit, unless they could prove that the hiree was poor in the company language.

        My french is patheic and my dutch worse, I got my job in holland because of a facility in english, the american owners could understand me. LOL

        • #3347742

          But you’re from Yorkshire

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to They could hire based

          HOW could the Americans understand you? WE can’t!


        • #3347703


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to But you’re from Yorkshire

          sheer lookshry

        • #3347661

          That was how I find out I had

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to But you’re from Yorkshire

          an accent. Neither the Dutch nor the americans could understand me. The Dutch had a problem with the accent, and my american colleagues with some of my colloquialisms.
          Want a laugh ask the Dutch about Freislanders, they can’t understand them either.

        • #3347620


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to That was how I find out I had

          A guitarist in a band I work with is from Liverpool, he has a Canadian accent form living here fo rso long before moving back to St.Albans but his DAD…WHAT a hoot! He’s originally from Dublin but grew up in Liverpool too. My gawd what a mush mouth to get around, but he’e the greatest guy and once you learn how to understand him he is a VERY clever and VERY funny man.

          But the Dublin/Liverpool cross is just a bugger to get used to ! LOL

        • #3347615

          Got a lot of friends in liverpool

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Liverpool

          They are great guys, I didn’t have a problem with the accent.
          Getting green
          going white
          Language difficulties is what I had.

      • #3332563

        Basic answer: Currently legal in most states

        by y911261 ·

        In reply to If employers can make

        Federal court rulings on English-only cases have sent mixed signals to businesses. Some courts have used logic similar to the EEOC’s, but others have upheld businesses’ right to require English during work time.

        The most notable of those latter cases is Garcia v. Spun Steak. In 1993, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an English-only policy that was created after employees complained that co-workers were making racist comments in Spanish.

        Because the Spanish-speakers also knew how to speak English, the court said, the policy did not create a hostile work environment for them. It also said the Civil Rights Act does not give employees a right to cultural expression.

        Many lawyers still advise businesses to follow EEOC guidelines by keeping policies as narrow as possible. In California, state lawmakers backed that up in 2002 by requiring employers to have an overriding business purpose for any English-language policy, and to give workers advance notice.

        English-only policies generate few official grievances. In 2002, the EEOC received 228 such complaints out of about 9,000 claims of national-origin discrimination. But observers say that many more workers who feel silenced don’t take action for fear of losing their jobs.

        Often what determines fairness is how a policy is implemented and whether there’s an atmosp