NationStates Jolt Archive

Bilingual fire boss rule stirs controversy

SALEM, Ore. - Some English-speaking firefighters are losing their jobs because of an Oregon state law that requires them to be bilingual.

The Department of Forestry enacted a law three years ago that requires them to be bilingual, but this year they're actually enforcing it.

2002 was such a devastating wildfire season, contractors were scrambling to find firefighters.

Hispanics often filled their needs on the fire lines.

Follow-Up Story

Lawmakers take notice

Jim Walker of the Department of Forestry said "what we do know is 85 percent of the crew make-up is of Hispanic decent."

But many of the Hispanic fire fighters do not speak English. Walker says the language barrier is a concern.

Those concerns led the state to draft a new rule that all firefighting bosses speak English, and the languages of crew members who don't speak English.

Jaime Pickering, a squad boss overseeing 20 firefighters, says the rule means "job losses for Americans. The white people."

Because of the state's language requirement, Pickering can no longer work as a crew boss and supervise 20 firefighters, he can only manage a squad of four.

Pickering says that "if you have one Spanish guy on the crew, as an English crew boss, you can no longer be a crew boss, you have to step back to a squad boss, which is a demotion."

While the state made the rule change in 2003, it decided to strictly monitor the law this year as Hispanics continue to fill fire lines.

Jim Walker says "our main concern is that they are safe, and they are in a safe environment, and a lot of that deals with communication."

Manuel Franco is a Hispanic contractor for fire crews. He says he thinks the state's rule is necessary for worker safety.

"I think that's good, because that's for safety purpose," Franco says. "If there's a rock rolling down, everybody should understand that."

However, Manuel did say he felt the situation would improve if everyone spoke English. "We're living here. We should speak the language."

Jim Walker ponders the possibility that all fire crew members should be required to speak English, instead of having bilingual crew leaders.

"If it comes down to a safety issue, and it's determined that's the only way we can have people safely on an incident, then yes," Walker said.

Both Oregon state officials and those in the firefighting business say they do not think there are 'that many' illegal immigrant workers in the fire crews.

They say it is more a case of legal workers who do not speak English.

LINK (http://www.katu.com/news/3634401.html)

I never though I'd see the day... We've gotten to a point where we're so tolerant and foreigner-friendly that we're laying off people who don't speak their language.

It would be much more logical if it was required for them to learn our language, not the other way around. Especially when it comes to an English-speaking country's emergency services....

Especially when it comes to an English-speaking country's emergency services....

And the official language of the US is.... what again?

Or, one COULD have learned another language in the three years since this law was made.

I mean for Christ's sake, there are many languages spoken in the US, and no one has ever made English, by law, the official language.

I also notice it doesn't force someone to learn a PARTICULAR language -- so they're free to learn French, Italian, Chinese, Swahili, or hey, American Sign Language....

.... or were you about to rant about how the damned Mexicans get special privileges?

Manuel Franco agrees with you, as far as I understand the article. But this points out an interesting matter, mind you: the fact that the USA actually is (at the very least) bilingual. That's what you get when your ancestors happily conquer Spanish colonies.

[URL="http://www.katu.com/news/3634401.html"]
It would be much more logical if it was required for them to learn our language, not the other way around. Especially when it comes to an English-speaking country's emergency services....

It is required for them to learn English if they want to be a crew boss.

Requiring people to be less ignorant.

How unfair.

Requiring people to be less ignorant.

How unfair.

Very unfair indeed. But how unlike you Sin to realise it.

People have the right to be ignorant about things that do not affect their ability to perform those tasks that they have undertaken to do. There is no need for a Defensive Tackle in the NFL to know anything at all about crochet.

If a fireman needed a second language to put out fires, then it would be relevant, but as they don't - it is just a load of bull.

I think it makes more than a little sense to require that firefighters working on a crew together have to be capable of understanding each other. I'm not sure that's being accomplished in the most effective way, but the general idea that it's really important that when you say, "Shit, the roof's caving in! Get out of there!" the other firefighters know what that means seems rather obvious.

If a fireman needed a second language to put out fires, then it would be relevant, but as they don't - it is just a load of bull.

Um, in a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society with multiple languages - yeh, it is relevant.

They don't want to learn another language, fine. Someone else will be hired. It's their choice.

Very unfair indeed. But how unlike you Sin to realise it. I'm distracted by homemade porn and uninterested in your mockery.

The important aspect here is not whether speaking more than one lanugage better enables you to put out a fire...you can have no language and do that. Being able to communicate effectively with your colleagues is pretty essential however. Literally life and death.

People have the right to be ignorant about things that do not affect their ability to perform those tasks that they have undertaken to do. There is no need for a Defensive Tackle in the NFL to know anything at all about crochet.

If a fireman needed a second language to put out fires, then it would be relevant, but as they don't - it is just a load of bull.
You clearly do not understand how one must make verbal love to the fire, coax it into submission, subdue it with your tongue in more than one language.

You sir, are a philistine.

If a fireman needed a second language to put out fires, then it would be relevant, but as they don't - it is just a load of bull.

That's why all firefighters aren't required to speak any particular language. The crew bosses are, since they would presumably need to be able to understand everyone in their crew.

Very unfair indeed. But how unlike you Sin to realise it.

People have the right to be ignorant about things that do not affect their ability to perform those tasks that they have undertaken to do. There is no need for a Defensive Tackle in the NFL to know anything at all about crochet.

If a fireman needed a second language to put out fires, then it would be relevant, but as they don't - it is just a load of bull.

Really?
You mean they don't need to give directions to civilians caught in fires?
Don't need to ask questions about how many people are trapped, where it hurts, et cetera?

They don't need to be able to ask if anyone's still missing? Someone on the crew shouldn't be able to understand when someone is telling them their husband's trapped under a fallen beam?

Please use a little logic here.

If a fireman needed a second language to put out fires, then it would be relevant, but as they don't - it is just a load of bull.

Firemen have duties other than putting out fires. They also have to save people from fires.

Um, in a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society with multiple languages - yeh, it is relevant.

They don't want to learn another language, fine. Someone else will be hired. It's their choice.

Crap.

In a multi lingual society it may be necessary to be bilingual to be a doctor or teacher, but is the fireman supposed to communicate with the fire or extinguish it?

Next you will be suggesting that all assassins have to be polyglots.

You clearly do not understand how one must make verbal love to the fire, coax it into submission, subdue it with your tongue in more than one language.

You sir, are a philistine.

Thank you my dear, I am indeed.

I am aware of the power of the tongue, it is just that if the fire doesn't understand what is being said then, as you are well aware, it just sounds sexier.

Thank you my dear, I am indeed.

I am aware of the power of the tongue, it is just that if the fire doesn't understand what is being said then, as you are well aware, it just sounds sexier.

Not if said language is German. Sorry. That's just a bias of mine.

Next you will be suggesting that all assassins have to be polyglots.


Actually, they should. Part of the whole assassination business is blending in.

Not if said language is German. Sorry. That's just a bias of mine.

On the plus side, German is a great language for swearing if the fire doesn't know German.

In my opinion, the entire crew of firefighters should be able to understand eachother, not just the crew boss. If that requires everyone learn another language, so be it. What if the crew boss is hit by a falling beam and now half of the crew has no one to translate for the other half?

In my opinion, the entire crew of firefighters should be able to understand eachother, not just the crew boss. If that requires everyone learn another language, so be it. What if the crew boss is hit by a falling beam and now half of the crew has no one to translate for the other half?

That would be unfair since the fire doesn't speak Human.

What a stupid law. Communicating with each other? Surely an employment criteria should be basic English skills. Communicating with the public? Surely people living in an English speaking country should generally have at least enough understanding of English to comprehend "stay away from the fire" or "come here and we'll rescue you", or at least grasp this information when combined with their own common sense. Men in fireman's uniform, combined with the presence of smoke, flame, and water hoses, would tend to make the situation quite obvious. I fail to see what other messages would need to be communicated in the "heat of the moment". Oh yes. I totally went there :p

Really?
You mean they don't need to give directions to civilians caught in fires?
Don't need to ask questions about how many people are trapped, where it hurts, et cetera?

They don't need to be able to ask if anyone's still missing? Someone on the crew shouldn't be able to understand when someone is telling them their husband's trapped under a fallen beam?

Please use a little logic here.

Use a little logic on the other side as well perhaps.

How many people on the crew do you need to act as interpreters, and why should the interpreter have to be the crew boss? The crew boss should actually be freed up from this to concentrate on allocating resources to where they are needed etc.

Don't get me wrong here, I am bilingual (No Sin bilingual) and I recognise the benefits of this, but I do not see that it should be a requirement for a job that is not explicitly about interpreting or translating.

Jaime Pickering, a squad boss overseeing 20 firefighters, says the rule means "job losses for Americans. The white people."Uh, something is very wrong here...

That would be unfair since the fire doesn't speak Human.
Then it should learn or get out of the country.
I fail to see what other messages would need to be communicated in the "heat of the moment". Oh yes. I totally went there :p

Obligatory link. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlTvWvfEMxE)

Uh, something is very wrong here...

The fact that they don't lose the jobs and are just generally demoted?
The fact that all Americans aren't necessarily white?
The fact that he implies being white lends some sort of significance?

What?

The fact that they don't lose the jobs and are just generally demoted?
The fact that all Americans aren't necessarily white?
The fact that he implies being white lends some sort of significance?

What?All three, but I was thinking mostly your second point.

(No Sin bilingual)

It's okay if you don't swing that way. I'm female, it just means less for my guy friends :D

While I may not agree with the concept of requiring them to learn a second language at their own expense (the article doesn't mention any sort of compensation or other financial assistance in learning new languages, which seems like a relevant fact), the law has been around for three years. These bosses were not blindsided by this ruling. If they do not like the law, they are free to pursue employment elsewhere.

All three, but I was thinking mostly your second point.

Not to mention the implication that crackers are only capable of learning one language.

Honestly, Spanish should be required learning in American schools. Only knowing one language should be looked at in the same was as illiteracy.

Not to mention the implication that crackers are only capable of learning one language.

Honestly, Spanish should be required learning in American schools. Only knowing one language should be looked at in the same was as illiteracy.

The big three when I was a kid were Italian, Spanish and French.
In my high school, they teach those plus Russian, Chinese, and American Sign Language.

That would be unfair since the fire doesn't speak Human.
Maybe the firefighters should learn to speak Fire.
Use a little logic on the other side as well perhaps.

How many people on the crew do you need to act as interpreters, and why should the interpreter have to be the crew boss? The crew boss should actually be freed up from this to concentrate on allocating resources to where they are needed etc.

Don't get me wrong here, I am bilingual (No Sin bilingual) and I recognise the benefits of this, but I do not see that it should be a requirement for a job that is not explicitly about interpreting or translating.
What are the alternatives then? Have speaking English a requirement for being a firefighter? With 85% of firefighters being Hispanic I can see that putting a lot of firefighters out of work till they can speak English. Have every firefighter learn every language that is spoken by every firefighter? Suddenly, no firefighters! Oh shit. This seems like a reasonable compromise.
Uh, something is very wrong here...
You brown folks aren't American.

Really?
You mean they don't need to give directions to civilians caught in fires?
Don't need to ask questions about how many people are trapped, where it hurts, et cetera?

They don't need to be able to ask if anyone's still missing? Someone on the crew shouldn't be able to understand when someone is telling them their husband's trapped under a fallen beam?

Please use a little logic here.

Look... you don't expect police officers, firefighters, government officals, etc. to learn every single language?

What are the alternatives then? Have speaking English a requirement for being a firefighter? With 85% of firefighters being Hispanic I can see that putting a lot of firefighters out of work till they can speak English. Have every firefighter learn every language that is spoken by every firefighter? Suddenly, no firefighters! Oh shit. This seems like a reasonable compromise.



No it doesn't. In a country where the law, the police, the media, the sports, the brothels, the politicians etc all use English as the primary language of communication, it can be reasonably expected that residents of that country should be capable of basic communication in English.

Look, they don't have to be graduate students of English, but they should be able to understand and make themselves understood in the first language of the country where they live. I managed it with Portuguese, which is a damn sight more difficult than English at a basic level.

Look... you don't expect police officers, firefighters, government officals, etc. to learn every single language?

Exactly. In a predominantly English-speaking country the presumption should be that everyone learns the language of the majority rather than the majority being forced to learn all the languages of the minorties in order to work in a whole host of roles. Seems rather more efficient. Minorities won't bother learning the predominant language if everyone else has to learn theirs. And as for all this talk of teaching languages in schools, everyone I know has pretty much forgotten the languages they studied at school after only a few years to an extent that its pretty useless.

LINK (http://www.katu.com/news/3634401.html)

I never though I'd see the day... We've gotten to a point where we're so tolerant and foreigner-friendly that we're laying off people who don't speak their language.

It would be much more logical if it was required for them to learn our language, not the other way around. Especially when it comes to an English-speaking country's emergency services....

TWO languages in one head? Impossible?

You hit the nail on the head, but apparently missed it. "... emergency services". That's the important phrase, right there. Vital, even. It sets up the scope for the whole story.

What is an emergency? How big is it? How many responders does it need? One? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? An emergency is not a specific thing - it can range from two firemen checking a chemical leak, to tens of thousands of crews from all over the country responding to a major incident (like Katrina, for example).

It is stupid to let something as ridiculous as a language barrier prevent effective utilisation of emergency responders. All of which points to the fact that our emergency responders SHOULD all be bilingual, at the very least.


The other point, of course... I'm guessing the point of your post is supposed to be about how English-speaking emergency crews shouldn't have to learn a second language? Yet - by default - that means that non-English speakers WILL have to? That's not a conflict to you?

I'd say ALL firefighters, etc should be bilingual (again, at least) - to a grade passable for their expected job needs. That's English-as-a-primary-language responders AND non-English-as-a-first-language responders.

Hell - I don't see any reason why anyone should be expected to be ignorant of half the dominant languages in their country.

I managed it with Portuguese, which is a damn sight more difficult than English at a basic level.

English is (allegedly) the most difficult language to learn as a second language, actually.

Look... you don't expect police officers, firefighters, government officals, etc. to learn every single language?

It would be nice.

It would be a nice move if - assuming a crew of say, 10 people... working in an emergency office - ALL of them were at least bilingual. It would be even better if those 10 people also had at least a little of ten other languages... based on the locality.

English speakers are a spoiled group.

it Would Be Nice.

It Would Be A Nice Move If - Assuming A Crew Of Say, 10 People... Working In An Emergency Office - All Of Them Were At Least Bilingual. It Would Be Even Better If Those 10 People Also Had At Least A Little Of Ten Other Languages... Based On The Locality.

English Speakers Are A Spoiled Group.qft... ... ...

Hell - I don't see any reason why anyone should be expected to be ignorant of half the dominant languages in their country.

But there's also no reason that you'd expect people to be illiterate in their own language, have poor numeracy, or be ignorant in science, history, politics, geography. If the focus of education shifted towards non-English languages, sacrifices would be made in other areas. Rather than doing that, it'd probably be better to increase freedom for individuals in what they want to study. Then the linguists could learn however many languages they like, while others could learn things that would be a more productive use of their learning time, given their abilities. The learning of a foreign language is not obviously a higher priority than knowledge of a whole range of other subjects.

My point is that you can say its inexcusable to be ignorant in any field. But no-one can be knowledgeble in everything, and to say that being bilingual is objectively the most important thing that can be taught would be rather difficult argument to make. I *can* sort of understand the argument regarding emergency services, though I happen to disagree as I've said earlier, but for everyone to have to be bilingual is a bit of an overstatement of the point.

But there's also no reason that you'd expect people to be illiterate in their own language, have poor numeracy, or be ignorant in science, history, politics, geography. If the focus of education shifted towards non-English languages, sacrifices would be made in other areas. Rather than doing that, it'd probably be better to increase freedom for individuals in what they want to study. Then the linguists could learn however many languages they like, while others could learn things that would be a more productive use of their learning time, given their abilities. The learning a foreign language is not obviously a higher priority than knowledge of a whole range of other subjects.

My point is that you can say its inexcusable to be ignorant in any field. But no-one can be knowledgeble in everything, and to say that being bilingual is objectively the most important thing that can be taught would be rather difficult arguement to make

Utter rubbish.

Since when was there a limit on how much information one head can hold.


And, as I'm sure you know, the "if you learn Spanish, math scores will suffer" argument is babyshit. The education system needs a kick in the ass, not apologists making lame-ass excuses about how hard it is.

Whiners.

English is (allegedly) the most difficult language to learn as a second language, actually.

English is by far the most difficult language to 'Master', but to obtain basic communication skills it is actually one of the easiest to learn.

"Me go there" works as well as "I will move over to that point" in terms of communicating an idea. Languages where the subject is implicit in the conjugation of the verb, where there are moods to verbs that imply reality or hypotheticality etc. are much more difficult to use to make basic statements.

English is by far the most difficult language to 'Master', but to obtain basic communication skills it is actually one of the easiest to learn.

"Me go there" works as well as "I will move over to that point" in terms of communicating an idea. Languages where the subject is implicit in the conjugation of the verb, where there are moods to verbs that imply reality or hypotheticality etc. are much more difficult to use to make basic statements.

I wonder if there's a web-resource out there that will let us compare the relative complexity of "Fuck, I'm on fire!" in 20 languages...

I wonder if there's a web-resource out there that will let us compare the relative complexity of "Fuck, I'm on fire!" in 20 languages...

Aaarrgghhhh..

I think that covers it.

I think this business of any U.S citizen being required to learn Spanish is a symptom of bad border control and big business looking to force the people who live here to adapt to the cheap labor they bring in to do the work they refuse to pay a living wage to to people who won't accept the kind of substandard wages Mexicans do.

Utter rubbish.

Since when was there a limit on how much information one head can hold.


And, as I'm sure you know, the "if you learn Spanish, math scores will suffer" argument is babyshit. The education system needs a kick in the ass, not apologists making lame-ass excuses about how hard it is.

Whiners.

There's a finite amount of time in the school day. If you focus more on one thing, you neccessarily focus less on another. Common sense rather than absolute rubbish. The education system does need improving, but, as I say, this is the case for all areas, and not just languages, and I see no reason why languages should jump right to the head of the queue in priority for improvement. English, math, politics and science are all far more important in my opinion. Once those are sorted out, then you can focus on secondary stuff like a second language. Its far more important to be able to express information to a high standard in one language than to a low standard in several. Deal with the basics before adding the useful extras. Language funding should be focused on educating immigrants in English, there's less of them, so it should cost less than making the majority learn Spanish. Much more efficient way of tackling the problem

---
EDIT- Just saw this

I think this business of any U.S citizen being required to learn Spanish is a symptom of bad border control and big business looking to force the people who live here to adapt to the cheap labor they bring in to do the work they refuse to pay a living wage to to people who won't accept the kind of substandard wages Mexicans do.

This is a very good point. Perhaps business should be made to pay the costs via taxation for educating immigrant Mexicans in English or the entire United States in Spanish as some advocate here.

I think it's time to make English the official language and provide a comprehensive means for people to learn that language as a way of avoiding a major gap between immigrant communities and native-born Americans. The truth is, immigrants stand to gain far, far more from learning English than the other way around and from an economic standpoint that's the main way for them to overcome language and cultural barriers to economic opportunity in immigrant communities.

I think it's time to make English the official language and provide a comprehensive means for people to learn that language as a way of avoiding a major gap between immigrant communities and native-born Americans. The truth is, immigrants stand to gain far, far more from learning English than the other way around and from an economic standpoint that's the main way for them to overcome language and cultural barriers to economic opportunity in immigrant communities.

I think it's time to bow to the inevitable, and make Mandarin the official language.

I think it's time to bow to the inevitable, and make Mandarin the official language.

In which case there is absolutely no point in having to have Spanish speaking emergency services.

Or, one COULD have learned another language in the three years since this law was made.

I mean for Christ's sake, there are many languages spoken in the US, and no one has ever made English, by law, the official language.

I also notice it doesn't force someone to learn a PARTICULAR language -- so they're free to learn French, Italian, Chinese, Swahili, or hey, American Sign Language....

.... or were you about to rant about how the damned Mexicans get special privileges?

I took four years of Spanish in high school (the last year, I was literally in a class by myself), and I still had trouble carrying on a conversation in it. Of course, that was 18 years ago, so now I'm seriously out of practice.

Look... you don't expect police officers, firefighters, government officals, etc. to learn every single language?

Of course not, but many police here in NY are at least bilingual -- in Spanish, or Chinese, or Italian, or whatever.

I don't see why it's such a horrible thing to require a second language -- in every level of schooling here (middle, high school, and university) a second language is necessary.

There's a finite amount of time in the school day. If you focus more on one thing, you neccessarily focus less on another. Common sense rather than absolute rubbish. The education system does need improving, but, as I say, this is the case for all areas, and not just languages, and I see no reason why languages should jump right to the head of the queue in priority for improvement. English, math, politics and science are all far more important in my opinion. Once those are sorted out, then you can focus on secondary stuff like a second language. Its far more important to be able to express information to a high standard in one language than to a low standard in several. Deal with the basics before adding the useful extras. Language funding should be focused on educating immigrants in English, there's less of them, so it should cost less than making the majority learn Spanish. Much more efficient way of tackling the problem


If you need to cut something from the education budget, you could start with history and culture elements - since (white) America basically has none of either. Next up, politics. Next up - pointless pseudo-sciences like geography and religious education.

Sciences, English, a second language - plenty of time.

If you really think the day isn't long enough - extend it. Or make the kids work a bit harder.

I think it's time to bow to the inevitable, and make Mandarin the official language.

I think it already is in China...I'm sure it wouldn't hurt us to learn it.

In which case there is absolutely no point in having to have Spanish speaking emergency services.

Actually - no. Ideally we'd have both Spanish and French speakers, since emergencies don't much care about borders, and a disaster 'here' could easily cross into (or be crossing from) either our northern OR southern neighbour.

I took four years of Spanish in high school (the last year, I was literally in a class by myself), and I still had trouble carrying on a conversation in it. Of course, that was 18 years ago, so now I'm seriously out of practice.

No one is suggesting (as far as I can tell) that a really great degree of fluency is required. But even your basic knowledge of the language might help if Spanish-speaking emergency services were knocking at your door.

If you need to cut something from the education budget, you could start with history and culture elements - since (white) America basically has none of either.


The idea of culling history is stupid and dangerous. Those who forget the past as they say......

How about we cut sport and such? I mean it obviously isn't doing the general population much good. I'd rather be fat and know of what has gone before then fit and oblivious to my history.

If you need to cut something from the education budget, you could start with history and culture elements - since (white) America basically has none of either. Next up, politics. Next up - pointless pseudo-sciences like geography and religious education.

Sciences, English, a second language - plenty of time.

If you really think the day isn't long enough - extend it. Or make the kids work a bit harder.

Seriously? You're saying that learning a foreign language is more important than knowledge of the political system and history of the nation and others? What do you want to produce, uninformed citizens ready to be exploited by government? And Geography? So, citizens will have no understanding of the roots of world tensions, as they won't have been learnt about them in history, and won't even know where the country is that their government happens to be bombing at the moment because geography isn't a priority, and because they haven't been educated in politics, they won't be able to hold government accountable for its actions. And religion? We need to inform the young of others beliefs and encourage them to be respectful of others if we are going to be able to engage with Muslims rather than just fight them in a fight to the death. An insular, ignorant, uninformed public...but hey, they can speak Spanish so its all better :rolleyes: Better to invest in special programmes teaching immigrant Mexicans Spanish, rather than screwing up the entire mainstream educational curriculum.

The idea of culling history is stupid and dangerous. Those who forget the past as they say......


While I'd be initially tempted to agree, the fact is that one could describe pretty much the entire current policy of the US as 'doomed to repeat'. Not just in terms of "No, this is nothing like Vietnam.... OH SHIT, it's just like Vietnam", but also failing to learn the lessons that other nations learned... the US being this century's version of England, a hundred years ago.

American 'history' can basically fit into about a lesson and a half "genocide and slavery, y'all". That's about all that's worth covering. That's about all the depth it deserves.


How about we cut sport and such? I mean it obviously isn't doing the general population much good. I'd rather be fat and know of what has gone before then fit and oblivious to my history.

Cut sport, sure. No objections, here.

I think it's time to make English the official language and provide a comprehensive means for people to learn that language as a way of avoiding a major gap between immigrant communities and native-born Americans. The truth is, immigrants stand to gain far, far more from learning English than the other way around and from an economic standpoint that's the main way for them to overcome language and cultural barriers to economic opportunity in immigrant communities.

Never going to happen. The U.S. will never have an official language, and I don't think we should. But if we did, it should be one of the 892347523 Native languages that's being systematically eradicated.

I mean, who are these foreigners coming to the U.S., demanding everyone speak English?

Can I just ask, how, if 85% of the crew are Hispanic, and many of them don't speak English, this story about having to cater to a minority has somehow been twisted to make out that English speakers are having to cater to Spanish speakers, and if they can't speak Spanish they're losing their jobs? The law says the bosses have to speak English (which shouldn'd be a major problem, surely, unless the 85% has permeated into management roles, and shock horror that Hispanics would ever be permitted into that).

I don't understand how, when the apparently vast majority, of fire fighters are Hispanics, speaking Spanish, a law requring the bosses to speak English could possibly be a problem for the "everyone should speak English" crowd.

Unless I'm missing something, and the Hispanics, who make up the vast majority of the workforce, are woefully under-represented in management.

Seriously? You're saying that learning a foreign language is more important than knowledge of the political system and history of the nation and others? What do you want to produce, uninformed citizens ready to be exploited by government? And Geography? So, citizens will have no understanding of the roots of world tensions, as they won't have been learnt about them, and won't even know where the country is that their government happens to be bombing at the moment, and because they haven't been educated in politics, they won't be able to hold government accountable for its actions. And religion? We need to inform the young of others beliefs and encourage them to be respectful of others if we are going to prevent persecution of minorities. An insular, ignorant, uninformed public...but hey, they can speak Spanish so its all better :rolleyes: Better to invest in programmes teaching immigrant Mexicans Spanish, rather than screwing up the entire educational curriculum.

No danger of "screwing up the entire educational curriculum". It's a piece of crap, already.

Cut the politics? Yeah-golly-you-betcha. Indoctrination looks like education, but it's not - it's just programming. You honestly think Americans wouldn't know HOW to vote? Or WHO to hold accountable? You think that needs it's own course at school?

Cut the history? Sure - the only history worth teaching in the US doesn't get taught anyway, except in passing, or in 'friendly format'... or not at all. 9000 years of demonstrable habitation... a history syllabus that focuses on 400. And even that is so revisionist, it's worthless.

Cut the geography? Sure. I doubt if 10% of the population could even find Afghanistan on a map - and we're at war, there.

Cut the religion? Absolutely. Programming your children should be considered a form of abuse.


Far more important to let the children learn how to communicate ideas with people all round the world, than ensure they get the right programming. Which is why it won't happen. The American government owns it's people like cattle.

No danger of "screwing up the entire educational curriculum". It's a piece of crap, already.

Cut the politics? Yeah-golly-you-betcha. Indoctrination looks like education, but it's not - it's just programming. You honestly think Americans wouldn't know HOW to vote? Or WHO to hold accountable? You think that needs it's own course at school?

Cut the history? Sure - the only history worth teaching in the US doesn't get taught anyway, except in passing, or in 'friendly format'... or not at all. 9000 years of demonstrable habitation... a history syllabus that focuses on 400. And even that is so revisionist, it's worthless.

Cut the geography? Sure. I doubt if 10% of the population could even find Afghanistan on a map - and we're at war, there.

Cut the religion? Absolutely. Programming your children should be considered a form of abuse.


Far more important to let the children learn how to communicate ideas with people all round the world, than ensure they get the right programming. Which is why it won't happen. The American government owns it's people like cattle.

But you advocated focusing only on English, science and foreign languages. They won't know anything about the rest of the world with such a lopsided curriculum. And if you don't know about other countries history and politics (non-American stuff needs to be given far more emphasis, yes, but thats not an argument for cutting out the subject completely) or haven't studied different religions (of huge importance in many areas of the world), you won't be able to communicate ideas with people all around the world, because you'll understand *nothing* about their cultures, even if you can speak with them. So you'd still be speaking effectively in different languages. Plus, to communicate ideas with people all around the world would require people to learn God knows how many languages. You'd struggle even to fit English and science in if you're learning French, German, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese, Russian etc too. Nearly everywhere speaks English, if you want to be able to converse with people around the world, learn about their history, culture and religion, and you'll do miles better understanding them than if you know their language and nothing else about the country.

Are we to believe that the kids who do actually learn another language in high school are somehow 'super kids' with abilities above and beyond mortal children?

If you need to cut something from the education budget, you could start with history and culture elements - since (white) America basically has none of either. Next up, politics. Next up - pointless pseudo-sciences like geography and religious education.

Sciences, English, a second language - plenty of time.

If you really think the day isn't long enough - extend it. Or make the kids work a bit harder.

American 'history' can basically fit into about a lesson and a half "genocide and slavery, y'all". That's about all that's worth covering. That's about all the depth it deserves.



Cut sport, sure. No objections, here.
You are fucking ridiculous....

I hope to God, for your sake, that you are joking and just simply flame-baiting. How backwards you must be to think that teaching children politics, geograph and how is not essential. How ignorant you must be to think White America has no culture nor history.

You must be flame-baiting, because you couldn't possibly have your eyes this shut to reality yet manage to find your keyboard and type those posts.

I recommend making the official language English, thus saving money on printing everything in a bazillion languages and helping to stop the nation from further dividing into a fractured balkan-society by giving everyone a common rally point...a national language.

At the same time, since I know how to speak multiple languages, I know the value that comes with and I strongly recommend teaching multiple languages at an early stage in our education system. Spanish is an obvious skill for any American, and should be taught early on. Then a third language a few years later should be taught. German, French, Mandarin, Arabic...ect. To be chosen.

No danger of "screwing up the entire educational curriculum". It's a piece of crap, already.

Cut the politics? Yeah-golly-you-betcha. Indoctrination looks like education, but it's not - it's just programming. You honestly think Americans wouldn't know HOW to vote? Or WHO to hold accountable? You think that needs it's own course at school?

Cut the history? Sure - the only history worth teaching in the US doesn't get taught anyway, except in passing, or in 'friendly format'... or not at all. 9000 years of demonstrable habitation... a history syllabus that focuses on 400. And even that is so revisionist, it's worthless.

Cut the geography? Sure. I doubt if 10% of the population could even find Afghanistan on a map - and we're at war, there.

Cut the religion? Absolutely. Programming your children should be considered a form of abuse.


Far more important to let the children learn how to communicate ideas with people all round the world, than ensure they get the right programming. Which is why it won't happen. The American government owns it's people like cattle.

I don't know what clowns are running your region, but apparently they are not influencing mine. I learned quite a bit more than from the 15th century A.D and up...maybe it's because I don't live in 'Jesusland' I dunno.

Students need to understand the workings of our government if they're going to be able to effectively have a voice for or against what government is doing. Not teaching politics in high school is just one more way to pump out fresh drones for the government instead of informed citizens.

Even if no one who didn't need to in daily life could understand a world map or point out any given country on one, that is no reason to not work to improve that failing. That applies to anything. Failure is not a reason to let the state of things remain in shambles, it's a reason to work to correct them.


On communicating...when you visit or move to a country where your primary language is not theirs, YOU need to learn THEIR primary language, not the other way around. The ONLY reason we are being forced in the U.S to learn Spanish to retain jobs where it MAY be spoken, is because the corporations don't want to lose their dirt cheap labor, and to accomodate them as much as possible, citizens are being forced to learn Spanish or lose their jobs...not much of a choice there, is it?

Actually - no. Ideally we'd have both Spanish and French speakers, since emergencies don't much care about borders, and a disaster 'here' could easily cross into (or be crossing from) either our northern OR southern neighbour.

Not enough people here care about french for you to ever worry about needing to learn it to help us in the event of a disaster.

I am in agreement that a second language is always a good asset, but, I don't think it should be required unless you are in political office or in a position to have international dealings. If desperation for firefighters required them at the time to hire people who did not know the language, then so be it, but subsequently, they should be required to know English, which is the most accepted language in America, unless I have been fooled by all the English speaking American media that filters up here. In any country, there should be at least one uniform language that everyone is required to know. The alternative is everyone knowing every language spoken in the country which is incredibly unreasonable for the average person pressed for time and money to learn, or, everyone speaks their own damn language and no one understands a thing.

I realize that it was difficult to find extra fire fighters during wildfire season. But isn't it also dangerous to have a fire crew member who doesn't speak english? If he is rescuing someone and the victim needs to tell him something... how's that going to work?

Not enough people here care about french for you to ever worry about needing to learn it to help us in the event of a disaster.

I am in agreement that a second language is always a good asset, but, I don't think it should be required unless you are in political office or in a position to have international dealings. If desperation for firefighters required them at the time to hire people who did not know the language, then so be it, but subsequently, they should be required to know English, which is the most accepted language in America, unless I have been fooled by all the English speaking American media that filters up here. In any country, there should be at least one uniform language that everyone is required to know. The alternative is everyone knowing every language spoken in the country which is incredibly unreasonable for the average person pressed for time and money to learn, or, everyone speaks their own damn language and no one understands a thing.

I'm sure that's how those in power currently, would love to have it. All the common people of the country, middle class and lower, fighting each other rather than refusing to tolerate the bullshit permeating our government and demanding their resignations. That's how they're still in power....present the people with some heinous new enemy or promote some law that favors one group over another, cause divisions and strife, and let them do whatever they want while we're distracted.

This is why we need better education in all the areas that matter...politics, history, geography, along with the sciences, which will allow for high school students to take care of themselves after high school. A second language is all fine and well, I personally intend on learning a few at some point...none of which are French or Spanish, but here in the U.S, the majority is English speaking, all major media presents their work in English, English should be our official language and no excuses given to anyone for not learning it, and Spanish should be completely optional, never required for employment within our borders.

America: land where the citizens who don't vote get all the perks... And people wonder why I'm a neo-secessionist.

I hope to God, for your sake, that you are joking and just simply flame-baiting. How backwards you must be to think that teaching children politics, geograph and how is not essential. How ignorant you must be to think White America has no culture nor history.


Yeah, I don't think I need to do anything else here.

Are we to believe that the kids who do actually learn another language in high school are somehow 'super kids' with abilities above and beyond mortal children?

Sad, isn't it? Some of my kids are tri- or quadlingual.

And the official language of the US is.... what again?


Official or not, you know the main language and spoken of the USA is English.

It really ruffles my feathers when I see US people sit here and try to play like English is not the language here in the US.

If it was up to me, your ass would know the language or wouldn't get in.
I would not re and re print documents to accommodate you. I expect the same. Expect me to know Spanish in an English speaking country? Back at ya .. know English.


But then I guess that brings me to immigration.. who to let in who to keep out. Majority .. OUT. Like most countries... if you don't bring something to the table.. no go. As for the majority of jobs that the illegals take now? Well I guess the owners gotta deal. Pay more or find citizens that are willing to work for what you are willing to pay. Arrest and slap big ass fines and probation on US companies knowingly employing illegals. Worst cases .. shut em down.

Medical.. I'd only let excelled students in, no matter where from. The best get it, period. No affirmative action .. no qouta. The best. These best don't speak English? OK , Fine.. we'll teach em. Obviously intelligent.. will be no problem.

So now.. instead of illegal mexicans preparing your food .. it's (http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c37_a9467/News/National.html) Somalia (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080809/ap_on_re_us/immigration_raid_somalis)

Guess I'm a facist .. sigh. :rolleyes:

America: land where the citizens who don't vote get all the perks... And people wonder why I'm a neo-secessionist.

Of course, you couldn't possibly defend yourself in an actual debate on the subject...you just ejaculate your idiocy into threads and leave, yes?

"I think that's good, because that's for safety purpose," Franco says. "If there's a rock rolling down, everybody should understand that."

Well, Franco said it all right there.

And the official language of the US is.... what again?

There isnt one, and you shouldnt be required to learn any language, and signs, menus, etc. should be written in the majority language of the given area...

Thats just my two cents anyway...

People have the right to be ignorant about things that do not affect their ability to perform those tasks that they have undertaken to do. There is no need for a Defensive Tackle in the NFL to know anything at all about crochet.

If a fireman needed a second language to put out fires, then it would be relevant, but as they don't - it is just a load of bull.

However, the people doing the employing disagree with you there. So what it all boils down to is this:

Employer: we are going to require employees to do X.
*Employer waits three years*
Employer: ok, you have had three years to learn X. Can you do it ? No ? Pity.

While X may be stupid, it is a requirement. That it would be was known for three years. Plenty of time.

America: land where the citizens who don't vote get all the perks... And people wonder why I'm a neo-secessionist.

I don't think anyone actually wonders. The reasons seem to be pretty clearly based in racism, ignorance and self-pity.

It really ruffles my feathers when I see US people sit here and try to play like English is not the language here in the US.

If it was up to me, your ass would know the language or wouldn't get in.
I would not re and re print documents to accommodate you. I expect the same. Expect me to know Spanish in an English speaking country? Back at ya .. know English.

Here where in the US, exactly? The parts where all mother tongues from other countries have been stamped out through shame and indoctrination? Or the parts where large ethnic groups coexist in harmony and mutual appreciation, sharing their cultures, foods, art, philosophy, religion and language?

Guess I'm a facist .. sigh. :rolleyes:

I hope you're not looking for an argument.

It would be nice.

It would be a nice move if - assuming a crew of say, 10 people... working in an emergency office - ALL of them were at least bilingual. It would be even better if those 10 people also had at least a little of ten other languages... based on the locality.

English speakers are a spoiled group.

Agreed, although to help communication, one language should be picked as the defacto language, which all members of the crew must know. This will always help communication and should ideally be the most common used language in the area being serviced. However, crew-members who already speak this language should be expected to learn another (say the second most common language in the area), especially by the time they get the manager level.

You need to have a centrally determined language for communication for all team members to know, you can't rely on certain people (the bosses) being bilingual because translation slows things down and will cause problems if they are absent. However, help should be given to ensure new employees can learn this language to a passable level and similarly language courses should be offered to help other employees learn a second (or more) languages.

Frankly compared to some place, a requirement to be simply bilingual is easy... for most service level jobs in Brussels for example, people are expected to be trilingual to at least a passing degree, with knowledge in French, Flemish and English, the latter of which is NOT one of the official languages of the country. However, on the flip side, official government documentation will not be sent out in any other language except that of the commune you live in, so you need to learn at least some level of the local language to live there.

I am actually disturbed people are even defending this ridiculous blanket law. If there is a problem with communication within a squad, it should be taken by a case by case basis to determine the best solution to the problem, rather than applying some ridiculous and unhelpful over-general law which wont help anything and may disproportionately affect one group of people more unfairly. I couldn't care less if you're all pissy about English people not being bilingual enough, that's not relevant to anything - be pragmatic. It's far more negligent for someone seeking work to move over to the USA without being able to speak proper English than for an employer to not be able to speak Spanish despite the vast majority, if not all of the people he employs being able to speak English at least to a sufficient amount.

All firefighters should learn the languages they need to combat fire and save lives. Like when there is one person in the locality that speaks Xhosa, then all of the firefighters should learn Xhosa too so that they can be able to save that person for whatever danger there is. Also, they need to learn fire-speak. Absolutely necessary for commanding the fire to stop, like learning languages in the locality.

Surely an employment criteria should be basic English skills. If there are sufficient potential employees to fill the vacancies while enforcing that employment criterion. But is that the case?
Would you rather have 50% less firefighters, but they all speak English; or a full complement of firefighters half of which speak another language? What are the actual choices here?

If there are sufficient potential employees to fill the vacancies while enforcing that employment criterion. But is that the case?
Would you rather have 50% less firefighters, but they all speak English; or a full complement of firefighters half of which speak another language? What are the actual choices here?
These are not the actual choices; what I see here is a false dichotomy; think out of the box. How about teaching them firefighters basic necessary English while in training? How about actually improving the education system so the legal immigrants will get to learn English? How about making the job of firefighting more attractive and inspiring (and shall I say lucrative) so more people will pursue a career in it? How about strengthening fire prevention campaigns so that eventually there might be no need to maintain a huge standing army of firefighters?

These are not the actual choicesThat's why I asked.

How about teaching them firefighters basic necessary English while in training? How about actually improving the education system so the legal immigrants will get to learn English? How about making the job of firefighting more attractive and inspiring (and shall I say lucrative) so more people will pursue a career in it? How about strengthening fire prevention campaigns so that eventually there might be no need to maintain a huge standing army of firefighters?If you can get people to pay extra tax to pay for this, then they're great ideas for the future. But what about the current state of affairs where up to 85% of firefighters may not understand english?

That's why I asked.

If you can get people to pay extra tax to pay for this, then they're great ideas for the future. But what about the current state of affairs where up to 85% of firefighters may not understand english?
And seriously, what makes more sense: trying to teach 85% of the volunteers in an area English, or making their boss, you know, the fellow who's in charge and paid for it, Spanish, especially since obviously it's a LARGE minority of people in the area who speak it?

Being in charge means having some responsibilities, don't you know -- and being able to communicate with your own squad seems a rather basic one. If you CAN'T communicate with them, then how can you be in charge?

Someone who can, surely, is a better fit for the job -- and you can go on commanding the 15% of the people you understand.

Or you can have used the three years to have fulfilled the job requirement -- I mean there are tapes to teach you language, books, classes, computer programs.... and quite a few people there to have practiced with.

Firemen have duties other than putting out fires. They also have to save people from fires.

Yeah and kittens from trees!

English is (allegedly) the most difficult language to learn as a second language, actually.

Yeah but I suppose who it is, I know a Moldavian who can speak many languages including Polish, French Russian and Ukrainian and he said English was the easiest he had to learn.

I think it's time to bow to the inevitable, and make Mandarin the official language.

Yes but then we also need to ensure that they know at least one of the many other Chinese languages.

Now after reading the article the reason why they did this was due to the fact that many couldn't speak English, and rightly so they should learn how to speak English and I don't really care if their isn't a law in the US making it the official language of the USA, just like if another country has their language which may not be English but is language most spoken.

What the article also says that it doesn't have to be some other language crew boss' the crew boss has to be able to speak the language as every other member of his team if not than he must be demoted, but of course this means that the crew boss might need to learn three, four or even more languages if he has people who speak a variety of languages, perhaps it would be easier if everyone learnt English or it might even be easier if they segregated people into fire crews according to the language that they speak.

I think I will place this in the "Only in America" file, it is getting pretty thick.

Meanwhile, the Europeans (and the Canadians) are probably rightly laughing at us since most of them have learned at least two or three languages and can't believe some folks are bitching so much over being required to learn ONE, and one that in this area OBVIOUSLY is a large portion of the population.

So, the solution: don't hire the Spanish-speaking firemen, and let any asshole who gets caught in the forest fire or whose house is in the path of one, burn.

Yeah, I don't think I need to do anything else here.
Maybe you should have read the post I was replying to, instead of jumping to, oh so fabolous yet incorrect conclusions....

If you need to cut something from the education budget, you could start with history and culture elements - since (white) America basically has none of either. Next up, politics. Next up - pointless pseudo-sciences like geography and religious education.

Sciences, English, a second language - plenty of time.

If you really think the day isn't long enough - extend it. Or make the kids work a bit harder.

American 'history' can basically fit into about a lesson and a half "genocide and slavery, y'all". That's about all that's worth covering. That's about all the depth it deserves.

You brown folks aren't American.


But of course...and the colour of their skin tells us their specialty is cotton picking, not firefighting... :rolleyes:

But your´s is clearly fire. Of the burning cross type.

Meanwhile, the Europeans (and the Canadians) are probably rightly laughing at us since most of them have learned at least two or three languagesI don't think that's true for the larger European countries, like France, Britain, probably Germany. Eastern Europe was probably forced to learn Russian until two decades ago, and they're eager to fit in with the west so I wouldn't be surprised if they're doing better in that respect.
Hmm, I wonder if there's stats on that somewhere.

Meanwhile, the Europeans (and the Canadians) are probably rightly laughing at us since most of them have learned at least two or three languages and can't believe some folks are bitching so much over being required to learn ONE, and one that in this area OBVIOUSLY is a large portion of the population.

So, the solution: don't hire the Spanish-speaking firemen, and let any asshole who gets caught in the forest fire or whose house is in the path of one, burn.

That second language is more than likely to be English.

Meanwhile, the Europeans (and the Canadians) are probably rightly laughing at us

Not in the UK, nor (from my experience) in any western country where English is the native language have people learned a second language fluently (impart from SOME parts of Canada).


have learned at least two or three languages and can't believe some folks are bitching so much over being required to learn ONE, and one that in this area OBVIOUSLY is a large portion of the population.

That's not at all what people are bitching over. People are bitching because people are losing their jobs over some ridiculous blanket law due to something that's no fault of their own and cannot control (education system).

That second language is more than likely to be English.
Which proves, of course, that Americans are incapable of learning another language, or that they are arrogant enough to expect everyone else to speak theirs?

I don't think that's true for the larger European countries, like France, Britain, probably Germany. Eastern Europe was probably forced to learn Russian until two decades ago, and they're eager to fit in with the west so I wouldn't be surprised if they're doing better in that respect.
Hmm, I wonder if there's stats on that somewhere.

You don't?

Try this. Go to Sweden. Or France. Or Italy. Or Greece. Or Portugal. Or Germany. Or Poland. Or Russia.
Look befuddled. Ask politely, in English, "Good day. Excuse me please, where is the (insert historical monument here.)"

Guaranteed, you WILL be understood, and you WILL be directed. (Not necessarily in the right direction if they've had enough of American tourists expecting everyone in the world to speak English, but you will be understood.)

That's not at all what people are bitching over. People are bitching because people are losing their jobs over some ridiculous blanket law due to something that's no fault of their own and cannot control (education system).

Because learning a second language is not a requirement in high school?
It certainly has been for at least the past forty years in my state.

And people can't pick up one of these?
How to Learn Another Language (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=how+to+speak+spanish&x=14&y=20)

I think you're confusing 'can't' with 'can't be bothered to'.

Because learning a second language is not a requirement in high school?


It's taught awfully in highschool, and you don't have to be fluent to pass a test. And there is hardly any pressure to even pass it.

It's taught awfully in highschool, and you don't have to be fluent to pass a test. And there is hardly any pressure to even pass it.
In other words... can't be bothered.

Not in the UK, nor (from my experience) in any western country where English is the native language have people learned a second language fluently (impart from SOME parts of Canada).

It looks clear that English is the problem then. Everyone else is learning more than one. I wonder which part of the english language rots the brain so that you can't learn another language.


That's not at all what people are bitching over. People are bitching because people are losing their jobs over some ridiculous blanket law due to something that's no fault of their own and cannot control (education system).
They're not losing their job, they are merely demoted to where bilingualism is not a requirement. It's no fault of my own if I'm haven't learned how to be an effective CEO, I wonder why they don't hire me to be the CEO of Disney. They're probably keeping the white man down. What a gyp!

In other words... can't be bothered.

So what? The vast majority of westerners can't be bothered to fluently learn a second language outside of school, for one thing it takes a lot of time which they may not have, another is that (unlike people who don't speak English as their first tongue) you don't really need to learn a second language for the majority of jobs in business since English is the language of international business anyway. Why should someone planning to be a fireman (where it wouldn't say anywhere on any career prospectus or anything that you need to be bilingual) think of learning a second language when there is no indication that he needs to. The workers who are refusing to learn English properly despite seeking work in an English speaking country are being far.. far more negligent.

You don't?

Try this. Go to Sweden. Or France. Or Italy. Or Greece. Or Portugal. Or Germany. Or Poland. Or Russia.
Look befuddled. Ask politely, in English, "Good day. Excuse me please, where is the (insert historical monument here.)"

Guaranteed, you WILL be understood, and you WILL be directed. (Not necessarily in the right direction if they've had enough of American tourists expecting everyone in the world to speak English, but you will be understood.)Just saying the name of the historical monument would most likely work. But that doesn't mean they can carry a conversation in English.
Not to mention I'd expect more people to understand a bit of English in tourist area, because after all, they rely to some extend on tourists and thus need to converse with them.
Also the French are notorious for not understanding English unless you first tell them you're not from Britain or the US ;)

http://www.promotics.net/ticktack/survey/eustats.htm claims 45% of Europeans can speak another language than their mother tongue. So that's likely not two or three different languages on average. Though some countries do better than others.

It looks clear that English is the problem then. Everyone else is learning more than one. I wonder which part of the english language rots the brain so that you can't learn another language.


It's more apathy, since it's much less required for someone who speaks English to learn a second language.


They're not losing their job, they are merely demoted to where bilingualism is not a requirement.

Losing money then. Regardless, I'm not complaining about that if that specific situation requires it and nothing else can be done, what I am complaining about is the stupid blanket legislation.


It's no fault of my own if I'm haven't learned how to be an effective CEO, I wonder why they don't hire me to be the CEO of Disney. They're probably keeping the white man down. What a gyp!

It's entirely your fault, if you WANT to be a CEO you need to learn how to be one. If you WANT to be a fireman you need to learn how to be that to, but since there would never be any requirement or even indication in the persons training that there needs to be a second language to be a fireman, there shouldn't be legislation that penalizes him for not spontaneously learning a second language for seemingly no reason.

Except, as has been said numerous times here, English is NOT the official language of the US.

Repeat: it's NOT the official language of the US.

This is why government forms of all kinds are translated into Chinese, Spanish, Urdu, Russian, Vietnamese, Japanese, Italian, Greek, etc. etc. etc.

If you obviously have a LARGE percentage of the population where you live being primarily speakers of "X", then learn "X" if you want to enjoy a position supervising them.

And you know, not ALL those non-English speakers are illegal. There are a significant number of people born here who've not learned the language.

Which proves, of course, that Americans are incapable of learning another language, or that they are arrogant enough to expect everyone else to speak theirs?

Well English is the universal language.

In saying that, when I have visited other countries where English isn't the primary language I have made an attempt to learn the language and I attempt to converse with people in their language sometimes I have a translation dictionary that could be well thumbed through by the end of the trip. If I would move there I would learn the language and I shouldn't expect them to learn English for my convenience.

Just saying the name of the historical monument would most likely work. But that doesn't mean they can carry a conversation in English.
Not to mention I'd expect more people to understand a bit of English in tourist area, because after all, they rely to some extend on tourists and thus need to converse with them.
Also the French are notorious for not understanding English unless you first tell them you're not from Britain or the US ;)

http://www.promotics.net/ticktack/survey/eustats.htm claims 45% of Europeans can speak another language than their mother tongue. So that's likely not two or three different languages on average. Though some countries do better than others.
That's funny, because my parents, who travel Europe and Eastern Europe pretty widely and have done so for the past decade, have had a completely different experience: with folks who are completely fluent in English and can carry on a conversation. And no, they're not just talking about in hotels -- they're carrying on conversations with people they meet in the street or whom they stop for directions.

But please, continue. I'm sure that many people, Fass included, would find this very amusing.

Also: Hmm, this disagrees with you....

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:UAHMJhCQ2mcJ:ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_147_summ_en.pdf+how+many+languages+is+a+european+likely+to+have+learned%3F&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

More than HALF the European population is multilingual. Go figure.
53% of Europeans say they can speak at least one European language in addition to their mother tongue.
26% say they can speak two foreign languages.

Except, as has been said numerous times here, English is NOT the official language of the US.

Repeat: it's NOT the official language of the US.


Totally and utterly irrelevant.


If you obviously have a LARGE percentage of the population where you live being primarily speakers of "X", then learn "X" if you want to enjoy a position supervising them.


Yes but only a small portion of this population is incapable of speaking English sufficiently as a second language.


And you know, not ALL those non-English speakers are illegal. There are a significant number of people born here who've not learned the language.

What's your point?

Also the French are notorious for not understanding English unless you first tell them you're not from Britain or the US ;)

It doesn't matter where you are from they will ignore you.

But I will have to agree with Kat, when I have traveled through Europe I held conversations in English with many people from different nations it was a good experience, especially since I wasn't good enough to ave long drawn out conversations with them in their language which included people who would have a lot of different primary languages such as Dutch, Danish, German, Italian, Spanish and even a kindly old couple from Greece who was rather pleasant to talk to and even brought me and my father a bottle of wine for us to share amongst the four of us.

It's more apathy, since it's much less required for someone who speaks English to learn a second language.
Apathy then, I don't rightly care. Which part of english makes people more prone to apathy?



Losing money then. Regardless, I'm not complaining about that if that specific situation requires it and nothing else can be done, what I am complaining about is the stupid blanket legislation.
In that instance, the blanket generalisation is to save lives, so I'm not complaining.


It's entirely your fault, if you WANT to be a CEO you need to learn how to be one. If you WANT to be a fireman you need to learn how to be that to, but since there would never be any requirement or even indication in the persons training that there needs to be a second language to be a fireman, there shouldn't be legislation that penalizes him for not spontaneously learning a second language for seemingly no reason.
ah but that guy doesn't waht to be a fireman, he wants to be a boss in charge of firemen. It's entirely his fault if he doesn't meet the requirements of this job. And 3 years to learn a language is far from spontaneous.

That's funny, because my parents, who travel Europe and Eastern Europe pretty widely and have done so for the past decade, have had a completely different experience: with folks who are completely fluent in English and can carry on a conversation. And no, they're not just talking about in hotels -- they're carrying on conversations with people they meet in the street or whom they stop for directions.


From my experience growing up in Belgium, a country which is reknown for it's multilingualism, there is still a significant proportion of the population who can only speak one language or who can only just about get by in english (at the level that most people who learnt french or spanish in school could do). However, this is much, much less than if you went to an English speaking country as for a lot of more high level jobs in business, English is needed and often used, so they practice it more and so tend to be better at it.

The flemish are much, much better than the french though. And I think this is helped that they subtitle everything on TV, whilst the french dub everything, so they have greater exposure.

Well English is the universal language.
Ha! You crack me up. It might be called the dominant language of commerce. Nowhere does it say you need to speak english to be a firefighter.

In saying that, when I have visited other countries where English isn't the primary language I have made an attempt to learn the language and I attempt to converse with people in their language sometimes I have a translation dictionary that could be well thumbed through by the end of the trip. If I would move there I would learn the language and I shouldn't expect them to learn English for my convenience.

Good for you. I do the same thing. It goes a long way to help people be friendly (even the french).

Totally and utterly irrelevant.



Yes but only a small portion of this population is incapable of speaking English sufficiently as a second language.



What's your point?
If you believe 85% of a group is a small portion of the population, and you have to ask what my point is, then it would seem that your understanding of English and maths are lacking.

Y'know, as a Brazilian, I have to wonder what the non-bilingual, non-Portuguese-speaking people here (ou até você, AB Again, que sabe português mas deve ter parentes que não saibam) would say if - for instance - our fire department got a desperate call from a tourist or immigrant in a fire, he failed to provide the address or any info due to the language barrier, and burned to death because of it.

I'm pretty sure some of the less... gifted... posters here would proceed to call US ignorant, maybe criminally so, for not speaking English (mind you, I, a Brazilian, speak English better than about half of the Deep South and a part of the North there, but the same is unlikely to happen with firemen and police officers) and so on. Of course, then come the justifications that English is "the language of the world" and all that crap.

Newsflash: English is not D&D Common. If it were, I, an English <-> Portuguese translator, would be screwed.

Yes, people in emergency jobs should be required to learn a second language in countries with vast populations that do not speak the mother tongue, because if they don't, PEOPLE DIE. That's the same reason why translations HAVE to be done well. If a translator mistakes a medical expression, people DIE due to diseases associated with the mistake. It's that simple. And I'm pretty sure that, just like a translator that went "oh, crap, I mistook words in a medical text, I wonder how many lives this error claimed" (one of the reasons I'd hesitate to ever translate medical terms), a fireman that went "oh crap, I just let a man burn to death because I didn't understand his wife saying "El está bajo la mesa"" would feel awful.

A language isn't a "choice" a person makes. It's not a situation in which people can afford to go "oh, if they wanted to live, they'd speak our language".

That's funny, because my parents, who travel Europe and Eastern Europe pretty widely and have done so for the past decade, have had a completely different experience: with folks who are completely fluent in English and can carry on a conversation. And no, they're not just talking about in hotels -- they're carrying on conversations with people they meet in the street or whom they stop for directions.

But please, continue. I'm sure that many people, Fass included, would find this very amusing.I'm not disputing that there are people that fluently speak English, nor that you can find them by randomly talking to a number of people on the street (although I'd be surprised if you get a hit every single time). I live the EU and know 4 languages, this isn't about anecdotal evidence.
I'm disputing that everyone in Europe on average knows two or three languages besides their mother tongue. The facts simply don't back that up.

http://www.psych.yorku.ca/labconference/documents/SharwoodSmith.pdf
Can you speak 2 languages well enough to have a conversation?
On average, 72% Europeans said ‘non, nein, no, nie,’ etc.
–62% of respondents from the UK admitted they “could not speak any language other than their mother tongue”.
–UK is followed closely by Italy, Spain and Portugal. Only Hungary leads the UK!
This compared with an average of 44% across the EU

From my experience growing up in Belgium, a country which is reknown for it's multilingualism, there is still a significant proportion of the population who can only speak one language or who can only just about get by in english (at the level that most people who learnt french or spanish in school could do). However, this is much, much less than if you went to an English speaking country as for a lot of more high level jobs in business, English is needed and often used, so they practice it more and so tend to be better at it.

The flemish are much, much better than the french though. And I think this is helped that they subtitle everything on TV, whilst the french dub everything, so they have greater exposure.

I would be willing to bet that those who speak only one language are older, while those who are capable of speaking more than one are more recently schooled.

Also: Hmm, this disagrees with you....

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:UAHMJhCQ2mcJ:ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_147_summ_en.pdf+how+many+languages+is+a+european+likely+to+have+learned%3F&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=usWow, 53% instead of 45%, yes; that makes a real qualitative difference. Well, at least we have some more statistics now.

More than HALF the European population is multilingual. Go figure.And still almost half isn't.

Ha! You crack me up. It might be called the dominant language of commerce. Nowhere does it say you need to speak english to be a firefighter.

Never said it was.

Good for you. I do the same thing. It goes a long way to help people be friendly (even the french).

Well I think it is something everybody should do, when visiting/moving to a foreign country including learning about the customs and laws of the country you are visiting.

Wow, 53% instead of 45%, yes; that makes a real qualitative difference. Well, at least we have some more statistics now.

And still almost half isn't.
Why so dismissive of statistics when they don't prove what you say is true from your statistics? And if you don't believe that there is a significant difference between 45% and 53%, well, that's just silly. It's like saying there's no difference between getting an F (failing grade) and a D (passing grade).

But, whatever.

Never said it was.
You, no. Some people in the thread? yes.

Well I think it is something everybody should do, when visiting a foreign country including learning about the customs and laws of the country you are visiting.
:fluffle:

Apathy then, I don't rightly care. Which part of english makes people more prone to apathy?


The fact that English is the international language of business and academia, so it's less required to learn a second one.


In that instance, the blanket generalisation is to save lives, so I'm not complaining.


I don't think legislation is necessary at all, a problem in communication should be solved in a case by case basis.


ah but that guy doesn't waht to be a fireman, he wants to be a boss in charge of firemen. It's entirely his fault if he doesn't meet the requirements of this job. And 3 years to learn a language is far from spontaneous.

But it hasn't been a requirement until now, and it wasn't a requirement when he was training. And it is spontaneous if there is seemingly no reason to do so.

If you believe 85% of a group is a small portion of the population, and you have to ask what my point is, then it would seem that your understanding of English and maths are lacking.

Show me a statistic that states that 85% of that population can't speak English at all, as opposed to not having it as their first language (different thing).

Well I think it is something everybody should do, when visiting/moving to a foreign country including learning about the customs and laws of the country you are visiting.

Of course.

There's always an upside to these kinds of situations. Most jobs in Toronto pay higher wages if you can speak more than one language. It used to be English + French but now there are more languages needed. The place I live in, wages can double if you know how to speak Mandarin, Urdu, Portuguese and so forth. There should be incentives when it comes to learning other languages.

Look at the article. It said 85% of the firefighters speak Spanish, many of whom do not speak English.
He is supervising people who speak Spanish.
Therefore, he should be able to make himself understood -- and understand what is being said to him.

I would be willing to bet that those who speak only one language are older, while those who are capable of speaking more than one are more recently schooled.

Actually I am thinking quite specifically of a number of my friends who I went to school with, about half an hour outside of brussels and just on the french side of the lingusitic divide

However, as I said there is a big difference between the francophones and a flemish, and even more so between bruxellois and non-bruxellois. If you live in Brussels, you will almost certainly be at least bilingual and chances are trilingual. If you are on the flemish side, then yes, there's a pretty good chance they'll speak english, certainly of my generation. But not so much on the french side.

There's always an upside to these kinds of situations. Most jobs in Toronto pay higher wages if you can speak more than one language. It used to be English + French but now there are more languages needed. The place I live in, wages can double if you know how to speak Mandarin, Urdu, Portuguese and so forth. There should be incentives when it comes to learning other languages.

And common sense tells us that if the majority of people you supervise speak one language, you should know it as well?

Look at the article. It said 85% of the firefighters speak Spanish, many of whom do not speak English.
He is supervising people who speak Spanish.
Therefore, he should be able to make himself understood -- and understand what is being said to him.

"85 percent of the crew make-up is of Hispanic decent", not the same as 'does not speak English' at all.

Why so dismissive of statistics when they don't prove what you say is true from your statistics? And if you don't believe that there is a significant difference between 45% and 53%, well, that's just silly. It's like saying there's no difference between getting an F (failing grade) and a D (passing grade).


Whether it's a significant difference or not depends on a lot of things, including sampling techniques and variance within the population...

What I actually find more interesting about the statistics is the variability between countries and I suspect you could trace it down to a number of different factors - how universally understood if the mother tongue, especially in regards to business, how much exposure does the population receive to different languages and how good in the language education at school.

The former two I actually think are the most importnat, because it's easy to forget what you learn at school unless you use it frequently and most english people simply don't have to given that it is the defacto language for commerce and academia. If you move abroad however or it becomes necessary to learn a language for your job, then even most english speakers will probably do quite well :P

"85 percent of the crew make-up is of Hispanic decent", not the same as 'does not speak English' at all.
Are you enjoying skipping over the inconvenient parts? Or putting words in my mouth, since what I typed was, http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13919943#post13919943


Look at the article. It said 85% of the firefighters speak Spanish, many of whom do not speak English.
He is supervising people who speak Spanish.
Therefore, he should be able to make himself understood -- and understand what is being said to him.


Here:
Jim Walker of the Department of Forestry said "what we do know is 85 percent of the crew make-up is of Hispanic decent."

But many of the Hispanic fire fighters do not speak English. Walker says the language barrier is a concern.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13918306&postcount=1

Are you enjoying skipping over the inconvenient parts? Or putting words in my mouth, since what I typed was,


Here:

I'm enjoying making your impressive EIGHTY FIVE % figure you keep using groundless. Many is a relative term, I would say even 5% is many, especially when compared to the average amount of people who can't speak English in other areas of work.

The fact that English is the international language of business and academia, so it's less required to learn a second one.
Academia is highly debatable.



But it hasn't been a requirement until now, and it wasn't a requirement when he was training. And it is spontaneous if there is seemingly no reason to do so.
It has been required for 3 years. Had he wanted to complain, it would have been judicious to do it 3 years ago. Everyone knows that a supervisor job requires more skills than basic firefighting. One of them is being understood by your underlings. 85% of them speak spanish. Learn some spanish.

But what gets me in this is that a guy is too lazy to cope with a changing workspace and he has the gall to complain when he's told to follow his job description. Fuck him. As a cost analysis, it's easier for one supervisor to be taught spanish than to, say 10% of the workers to be taught english. Especially since while those dudes learn English, they aren't fighting the fires that are the very reason they had to be hired because of workforce shortage.

Academia is highly debatable.


Well look at wikipedia for instance, there are 2 494 000+ articles in English there, the closest language to that is French with 693 000, which is around a quarter of English ones.


It has been required for 3 years. Had he wanted to complain, it would have been judicious to do it 3 years ago. Everyone knows that a supervisor job requires more skills than basic firefighting. One of them is being understood by your underlings. 85% of them speak spanish. Learn some spanish.


I'm actually debating even putting that legislation three years ago in the first place.


But what gets me in this is that a guy is too lazy to cope with a changing workspace and he has the gall to complain when he's told to follow his job description. Fuck him. As a cost analysis, it's easier for one supervisor to be taught spanish than to, say 10% of the workers to be taught english. Especially since while those dudes learn English, they aren't fighting the fires that are the very reason they had to be hired because of workforce shortage.

Yes but if these people were hired out of desperation, it's probably more fair and appropriate for them to be learning English (which they really should have done if they were ever going to seek work in the US, again I must stress these people are the more negligent ones).

Well look at wikipedia for instance, there are 2 494 000+ articles in English there, the closest language to that is French with 693 000, which is around a quarter of English ones.
Wikipedia is not really a good example. When it comes to academia (especially the most advanced stuff) it's a good idea to learn more than one language. French, Spanish and even Arabic has a lot of academic knowledge.
But that's not really the point so I'll drop it.



I'm actually debating even putting that legislation three years ago in the first place.
It makes sense that supervisor be able to communicate with their employees. If the requirement was to be spanish only, you might have a point but the law states the supervisor must be able to communicate with all his employees. Some blanket laws are stupid, yeah. This one looks reasonable.


Yes but if these people were hired out of desperation, it's probably more fair and appropriate for them to be learning English (which they really should have done if they were ever going to seek work in the US, again I must stress these people are the more negligent ones).
If these people are hired out of desperation, it's better to send them on the line of fire as quickly as possible instead of having them learn english while the roof is on fire. In desperate times, you go with what is quicker and more cost effective and those point out to the supervisor learning spanish and not the other way around.

If the employees are wise, they'll learn english to help their chances of holding a job. Wasn't you who complained that the supervisor got shafted because of his lack of education. Now you want the basic worker to suffer the same fate? That's weird.

In both cases, the employers should pay a portion of the training because it will help them in the long run and because it's a requirement.

Well then I hope you like looking silly, because clearly it's not groundless -- it's the basis of the entire thread, the law that was put into effect, and the reason that this person, after not fulfilling the requirements of his job description for three years has been demoted.

I am actually disturbed people are even defending this ridiculous blanket law.

Why ?
While one can indeed argue it is a silly requirement - it IS a requirement. One that the employees had 3 years to fullfill. That they did not bother to do so or at least took legal action to prevent the requirement from being implemented shows a lack of commitment to the job.

Many is a relative term, I would say even 5% is many, especially when compared to the average amount of people who can't speak English in other areas of work.
Then you have no idea of what the word many means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/many