There is no reason the employees cannot tell the jokes, or speak their own language on breaks. Is that in the ban?

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:

Most of it comes down to good communications between management and employees.

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.

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,

You seem to be determined to find something to criticize, no matter what. If it makes you happy…..

I was actually agreeing with you, so why complain?

—-

The only commenter so far making good sense is OutOfContext.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Guess what language is spoken in every airport ATC in the world?

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.

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)…

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.

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 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).

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.

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?

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.

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.