Jophiel wrote:
Singdall wrote:
so they do have to communicate with someone. still would be much better for the union to of not highered them in the first place. cuts down on the cost of the foreman as the foreman then no longer has to be bilingual thus reducing the amount of pay he costs the company.
It's a work crew. Of course they communicate with a supervisor. They'd have a foreman regardless and you're assuming that being bilingual is adding a large premium. It's not -- the scale is the same regardless of what you speak and a pure English speaker would be making the same rate. The ones making over scale are the ones busting their *** and doing a good job, not because they're any more bilingual than the foremen making scale.
Also, not to state the obvious, but the
union isn't hiring anyone. The company is hiring people who are (or become) union members.
Look, I know you're upset that your "You'll never make over minimum without English" canard was disproven but you can stop making wild guesses about a union and business you know jack-sh
it about.
Edited, Jul 17th 2007 12:25pm by Jophiel hmm lets cover some basics of business here.
1. in union restricted areas in order to get some jobs you MUST be a union member.
2. having multi-languages makes you more desirable to employees who have to work in parts of the US were a higher percentage of the labor force does not speak english clearly.
3. union members can not be fired easily.
so lets recap shall we.
1. the union allowed those who can not speak clear english to join.
2. this means a company that is required to higher union members will/can blindly higher them, but then can not fire them easily.
3. union members basically can not be fired unless they do not show up for work, or do the work so horrid that they are written up for it multiple times, or a few other extreeme reasons to fire someone. they can not be fired for not doing their job at a fast pace, in fact they can leave the job unfinished as long as they were "working" during their union hours.
4. bilingual employees in some areas will have an easier time getting a job, thus making it more difficult for someone who ONLY speaks english as their native language to get a job, thus taking MONEY out of their pocket. even though that english only speaking person is just as qualified if not MORE so it does not matter.
so with those things stated clearly. a company that highers union workers who can not, do not speak english is taking money out of the community by being forced to higher other employees who speak more then 1 language. also as a result of being a union labor force the company does not have to pay the bilingual employee any more even though he/she/it has more "training" in communication. this means unless all of the rest of the employable people in the area learn a 2nd or 3rd or more languages they will not be desirable for higher paying positions in the company that highers union workers who can not communicate properly.
this is one of the many reasons i HATE unions. they served their purpose decades ago, but in the US they are now more of a burden on the economy then they are a boon to the employee. your statements are a perfect example of my feelings.
i will state again. if you can not communicate 100% you can not do your job 100%. to have a translator is not the same as communicating your self.
and yes i know a lot about unions and i do not have to know the exact business you are in to know about them.