The Dutch Way or the Highway
Apr 22nd, 2007 | 18 responses
Reuters has an interesting article up about a Belgian auto parts supplier who has forbidden his employees to speak another language than Dutch while at work. If they ignore the rule, they can be fired.
“We have people from Italy, India, Poland, Algeria here. It’s to avoid cliques forming here and there,” said Geert Vermote, human resources manager of HP Pelzer in the town of Genk in Belgium’s Dutch-speaking Flanders region.
Two staff at HP Pelzer have so far received written warnings, out of a workforce of 125 employees, some 70 percent of whom are of foreign origin. Three warnings would lead to a worker being fired.
The employees who are most upset with this rule are from Turkish origin: they believe that the new rule is aimed against them and they have asked a union to intervene.
Geert Vermote added: “”It’s really nothing other than other rules we have, such as a ban on smoking.”
Now, I am quite sure that Vermote will be criticized by quite some people, but – as I see it – it is his right to demand of his employees to speak Dutch while at their work. His argument, that cliques are formed based on nation of origin and, thus, language is bad for the company and thus bad for business is believable.
I do not know much about Belgian law, but, if it is not legal, it should be legal for an employer to do this. If employees do not like it, they can always quit and find another job.
It is called capitalism.
On the other hand, having 35% of one’s employees being angry, is not exactly good for business either. So, although it should be legal, one can wonder whether enforcing this rule is wise.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
18 Responses to “The Dutch Way or the Highway”
It’s a business, as long as it doesn’t go against workers fundamental rights, he can ask what he will. I don’t see it as being unfair either. If it’s a factory, there’s even a safety issue involved. In an emergency, you need everyone to be able to understand instructions. This isn’t terribly PC but frankly, if their workforce is 70% immigrant, it’s probably not a great job and probably doesn’t give good pay, otherwise qualified Dutch workers would seek the jobs.
Anyone whose been to a mall has seen hapless teenagers dressed like corndogs while selling them. If that’s not cruel and unusual, I don’t think asking workers to speak the language is LOL.
“otherwise qualified Dutch workers would seek the jobs.”
They are Belgian
The headline is because this Belgian person speaks Dutch and something of a hidden joke. Until in the 19th century, “Belgium” did not exist: it was part of the Netherlands.
This band extends to French and German which are two other official languages in Belgium. The company should absolutely be able to designate a language for business purposes and requiring fluency in that language as a qualification for the job, but I should be able to tell a joke in Greek to a co-worker who also speaks the language over a cup of coffee.
I wonder if this heightens tensions between the Netherlands and Belgium. Michael, you guys aren’t looking for an excuse to annex Flanders, are you?
lol, do we need an excuse? “They rebelled against us, without good cause” is ‘excuse’ enough for me.
See…..what did I tell you all earlier about conservatives using the word “freedom” in rhetorical speech but in reality restricting freedom or Liberty far more than liberals? Here, (as usual), they use “capitalism” as the tool of oppression! Its business above all! Why is it that the business bastard has more freedom than the rest of us! Capitalism is immoral and oppressive when not firmly controlled by a people’s government that protects your rights.
With Michael’s way of thinking, the United States would have the right to force the world to speak English or be bombed into ashes, just in case like minded people might want to start a non-english “clique” god forbid.
Capitalism does not have “Rights” or “Votes”….people do. Telling people what language they can speak or not speak for the bigoted purpose Michael describes here, is very much against man’s inalienable rights if not directly against the will of God. (Genesis).
Not at all. It’s not legal to murder, besides, we’re talking about businesses here, not about governments, those non-English speaking peoples are not ‘employees’ of America (for one thing because America is a nation, not a business enterprise)…
And business owners should be protected against the overwhelming power of the government and the minority should be protected for the dictatorship of the majority.
In short: your reasoning makes no sense whatsoever.
Next.
With Michael’s way of thinking, the United States would have the right to force the world to speak English
Guess what language is spoken in every airport ATC in the world?
LOL, that is hilarious. Yes, because there’s no real difference between imposing rules on employees, citizens of your own nation or citizens of somebody else’s nation. Riiiiiight.
Freedom and oppression are words used by everyone but for different things. For one person allowing Gay marriage is freedom but not allowing a certain style of abortion is oppression. For another person, allowing free regulation of your own business is freedom but restricting your access to guns is oppression. It’s all about your value judgment so it’s almost impossible to judge who is more into “freedom” since your judgement is going to be invariably influenced by your own viewpoint.
The only commenter so far making good sense is OutOfContext.
Requiring employees to speak and understand a certain language is totally different than forbidding the use of any other language among employees, especially when not job related.
While the former case can easily be justified on practical grounds, the latter is just overreach by power and an unnecessarily confrontational
position to take.
The ‘they can always quit’ line is one of my favortie jokes. Sure, anyone can always choose to be unemplyed and hungry’ it’s a basic freedom.
Yes, because we all know that once a person quits his job, he’ll be poor and hungry. It’s not like there are more jobs out there…
Come on Doma.
As I said, that part might not be wise, but that does not mean that it should not be legal. Since when should the government decide for people to act wisely? Citizens, including business owners, have the right to act stupid.
MVDG said:
1)”.. but that does not mean that it should not be legal.
————
Read my comment, please. Nowhere did I say it should be legal or illegal.
Some comments are just observations, not prescriptions for governemtns (especially other my own) or world order.
I was actually agreeing with you, so why complin?
***
and 2) “It’s not like there are more jobs out there…”
—————-
Sometimes there are; sometimes there aren’t.
I don’t know the situation in this partivular region, but in many areas (the US, for example) factory, or low skill, jobs are not plentiful. In those areas, the ‘you can always quit’ line is a joke. Where it doesn’t apply. I don’t laugh.
—-
MVDG-
Since it was you who posted the piece, I classified you as the poster, not a commenter.
You seem to be determined to find something to criticize, no matter what. If it makes you happy…..
Sorry Michael, but doma is right. If you think that there are always jobs to be found and that they will always pay enough to keep the bills paid you’ve been reading way too much Republican propaganda.
Friends,
Since when is it the government’s responsibility to find you a job or keep you employer? That is so typical of the victim mentality, the nany-state enablerism that is being forced down our children’s throats. the government exists to do only those things that the individual cannot, such as regulate commerce, raise and administer an army and navy, ensure access to the airwaves, etc. It’s NOT a jobs program, although every Democrat administration seems to think it is.
It’s YOUR responsibility to feed and clothe yourself and your family, not mine, not the heighbors, not the city, county or stte. Yours! If you can’t find a decent job, then you might have to work two to make ends meet. I’ve done it before. You might have to “gasp” DO WITHOUT a car, or a television, or trips to the mall. Food, clothing and shelter come first. Everything esle is luxury. that’s the cold hard fatcs of life, friends.
respects,
Gwedd-
Nobody has said anything about the government’s responsibility so far.
You are having a debate with yourself, so I hope you enjoy it.
MVDG,
Interesting development as the number of languages in countries all over the world becomes a problem in many of them. Europe used to be known as a place where most spoke at least two languages.
As a health care worker, I have seen this become a problem here. Different groups tend to socialize because of the common primary language which can lead to problems in the work force dynamic. The employer has the right to promote constructive working relationships amongst employees.
An issue that is very important in health care is when two people are with a patient speaking a language the patient does not understand. When the patient is someone who does not speak English, we have many ways of communicating with them. When the speakers are foreigners, they tend to make the patient uncomfortable and it really comes down to good patient care and customer service.
When coworkers communicate about some aspect of the job, it is essential that they talk in a language everyone understands. It often happens that someone who is casually listening in will know something that pertains to what is being discussed.
There is no reason the employees cannot tell the jokes, or speak their own language on breaks. Is that in the ban?
As far as finding another job. If the workers cause the company to lose business, despite the employers efforts to stop the problem, they may find themselves without jobs for a reason directly related to the problems they have created in the work place dynamic.
Most of it comes down to good communications between management and employees.
Yes it’s in the ban and I agree with that, my only point is – well, even managers have the right to make stupid decisions. It is, and should be, his right to demand of the employees to speak Dutch while in the building he pays for.
For the rest, I agree with your comment, especially with this: