Re: What does it mean

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:04:12 GMT, Ashikaga <citizenashi@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Maintenance (I think).

Yes.

I also would like ignore the skin color factor, but
that's not how this place is.... Because of language and culture (religion
has effect, but to a lesser extend, since people here in this particular
region aren't very relgious), a lot of people have deep misconception about
each other, but they usually don't say it (because of legal and PC issue).
Such subliminal feeling has been suppressed for a long time and people just
don't trust each other and sometimes unwilling to listen to the other side
or yield a little bit. When that happens, it doesn't matter whether what's
the real cause of the problem, skin color seems to be the easiest label
people use to blame the problem. Do you remember a theory which says "When
people couldn't find an answer to an abstract problem, they tend to explain
it with the easiest answer?" And unfortunately, that's how people use skin
color to be the answer to every conflict....

You'll see a lot of people accusing others of racial/gender/sexual
orientation discrimination all the time though the problem comes from other
stuff. I think people are used to using such accusation frivolously to
shut people up, it makes me sick. How can people get along with each other
when all they think about is how their right is being violated? Sometimes
we just have to give in a little bit.

Hmm... have to drop my pride long enough to say I totally agree with
all this. I think *not* being allowed to talk about it is what is
causing the problems to begin with. And again, it's not as bad where
I'm at, though it certainly does exist. Race is definitely as easy
excuse to use.


Here's the top 11 (all other nationalities were noticably smaller):
Finland 183000
Yugoslavia 74000 (pre-split, and possibly some during the war)
Iraq 72000
Iran 54500
Bosnia 54000
Poland 46000
Norway 44500
Denmark 42000
Germany 41500
Turkey 36000
Chile 27500

Small figures for the US, perhaps, but for a nation of 9 million - it
makes an impact.

You are saying things again as if I am belittling you....

Huh? He was merely stating a fact, or his perception of a fact. How
on earth does that imply he thought you were belittling him? How do
you interpret junk this way?


What the case was about is some workers voluntarily worked on Saturdays so
they can finish their projects on top of that 12 hour days. High tech
companies here don't care about your working habit/lifestyle, as long as
you finish the project, you can work on Sunday evening to next morning if
you like, as long as the company's door is open.

The case at EA was not about voluntary work. You forgot to add the
rest of the sentence "finish their projects on time...."

-8<-
It's not too different from what Hitler did. It's all rhetorics.

I wouldn't make such comparisons lightly. What if those people actually
have strong feelings on the issue for a reason?

Yes, I apologize, it's a bad form. What I meant is stated in my response
to Claus. It's not about what Hitler did finally, but what method he used
to get to his point is the part I was drawing a parallel to.

It's called propoganda. Just use the right word and no one will be
offended by Hitler references.


- Both Japan and Taiwan (used to be a Japanese colony),
the companies used to provide housing for their valued employees (if they
can't afford one). And every employee, upon retirement, would get pension
until they die, since usually people work for the company for life (and
that's how IBM used to be).

And in exchange, you give them your life.


We have a lot of immigrants (mostly Latinos or Vietnamese) around here who
can't speak English but since the company cannot refuse to hire someone
because of their language skill,

Is that so? Is that some kind of law, company policy, or what? Sure
sounds strange to me. For almost any job, I would think language skill
is a qualification.

We have Equal Opportunity Employment stuff here. People cannot be
discriminated because of their gender, age (this one is unenforceable in
reality), country of origin, ethnicity, etc.

Country of origin/ethnicity do not equal ability to speak English. I
don't believe a reference to language abilities is in that law. It
mentions race, creed (what *is* creed anyway?), gender, age,
nationality, religion... I don't recall ever having seen anything
about language in it.

OK, I decided to look this up. There is this statement, though I
don't know where it came from, as I've worked in business a long time
and have never seen any such thing before:

"A rule requiring that employees speak ONLY English on the job may
violate Title VII unless an employer shows that the requirement is
necessary for conducting business."

Stress on "only" is mine, because I caught that. The way this rule is
stated, it doesn't actually say you can't require someone to speak
English *in addition* to another language. If no one else in the work
place (like especially your boss and people you have to work directly
with) don't speak another language, then I would say there's a
requirement to speak English in order to conduct business, is there
not? And if it were my company, I don't really care what language
they go off and mutter to themselves in, as long as they speak to me
in English and I can understand them.

As far as I'm aware (unless this country has gone more totally bonkers
than it has already), there's no law that says I must learn another
language in order to be able to communicate with someone I hire. And
if I can't communicate with them, how can I interview them? If I
can't interview them, I couldn't possibly know whether they're an
appropriate person to be hired. Furthermore, in order to conduct
business, employees must be able to get along with others in the
company, and I think companies have personalities. I wouldn't hire
anyone I didn't think I could get along with. Words on a resume
aren't everything. And I *will* state that in court too if anyone
ever wants to sue me. Let them. The day this country starts
requiring me to learn someone else's language so that I can
communicate and get along with them is the day I join the militia.

I really wish certain folks in this country would remember that
companies do not have to exist. They do not exist for employees.
They do not have to hire anyone. They do not have to have any jobs
available. If they create a job, then someONE gets a job and everyone
else who applied doesn't get the job. And the company does not have
to supply those other people with a job, because they didn't have to
supply the first job to begin with. They can also unsupply the job.
If the job didn't exist to begin with, no one would have that job.
Someone gets a job because it was created, something that people ought
to realize is a good thing because otherwise that job wouldn't exist
and NO ONE would have it. And folks have lost site of this concept
and they think companies somehow owe them something. If the company
didn't have an obligation to exist or supply jobs to begin with, how
can they possibly owe anyone anything? People concentrate more on who
DIDN'T get the job than they do on the fact that the company just made
a job available to someone. If 10 people apply, 1 gets a job, 9
don't. If a different person gets it, 1 gets a job, 9 don't. Same
senario, regardless of who gets the job. I'm not gonna be happy to be
the victim of not getting a job I'm qualified for because the company
was busy hiring someone who doesn't speak English very well (or is
black, or handicapped, or old, or whatever) just to fulfill some fool
PC requirement.

Another conservative rant by yours truly.

Since there is no quota of how many percent of all employees must be
minority (it was outlawed), but most companies do hire some minority people
or the would risk themselves getting sued. Abercrombie & Fitch was sued
because their sales are mostly white, physically appealing young adults.
Denny's closed down a lot of their restaurants because of a boycott based
on a rumor that said the management was racist.

So sometimes you don't need law enforcement, and employers will at least
try to accomodate some stuff so they won't get sued and go out of business.

They shouldn't have to. Besides, how can they win a court case
without law? That's rather a contradiction.
--

Erimess Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-

d++e+NT++Om UK!1!2!3!A!L!
U+uCuFuG+++uLB+uA+ nC+nH+nP+nS++nT-xa4

Never compare yourself to the best others can do,
but rather to the best you can do.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hey Pedro, Speak English!
    ... you would not tell someone to speak English. ... You seem to know when tomind your own business and speak up when you ... People can be a freaking genius in another language, ... to others private conversations that were none of his business anyhow. ...
    (alt.vacation.las-vegas)
  • Re: Walk-out?!?!?!?
    ... If you refuse to accomodate people who don't speak english they will simply take their business elsewhere. ... If you refuse to take a little time to learn another language then you shouldn't get a job that requires it. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Did Koizuni lie when he said that historically when China is strong, Japan is weak and vice vers
    ... Not only are many companies with overseas operations raising the level of English communication proficiency required for promotion, some of them are going further and requiring employees to study a second foreign language, such as Chinese. ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • Re: Walk-out?!?!?!?
    ... If you refuse to accomodate people who don't speak english they will simply take their business elsewhere. ... If you refuse to take a little time to learn another language then you shouldn't get a job that requires it. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Speaking English
    ... current business trends continue will be the dominant world language in 25 years. ... I believe English is the second language in almost ... So, if I am correct, and I am pretty sure I am, then they can either learn to speak English, or if you are correct, they can speak Chinese. ...
    (soc.retirement)