No Polish, no job

[TheNorm]

"I saw the job advertised in the paper, and as I was unemployed and on benefits I was keen to get back into work. I'd done similar jobs in the past so when I was called in for an interview I was reasonably confident.
It all went well at first, but towards the end of the interview I was asked whether I could speak Polish.
I said no, I couldn't, and that was pretty much the end of that.
Although they didn't put it in writing, they told me that the language barrier was a problem and that I wouldn't be getting the job."

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news...b72e29410d.lpf

Tail wagging the dog?

Personally I have nothing against honest hard-working people coming to this country to make better lives for themselves and their families. But surely they have to understand at least the basics of English. For emergencies, of course, and to communicate with the boss.

Or am I missing something?

[Xaccers]

At first I just accepted it, but when I got home and thought about it I realised it wasn't right. If they had a specific requirement for someone who spoke another language, they should have said so in the advert.

Yes they should have, I agree with him there.
Not got a problem with employers requiring bilingual members of staff, but if you need it, then you should advertise accordingly.

It's like me applying for a Wintel support role, and in the interview finding out it's mostly Unix.
Waste of my time, waste of their time.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

...if you need it, then you should advertise accordingly....

Unless of course the employer is trying to "get around" a law on discrimination. A bit like the guy who has no intention of hiring fertile young women, but doesn't say as much in the job ad.

[smiffing]

I have a friend that married a Polish woman, they have gone to live in Poland and a requirement is that he speaks Polish.
He is now taking lessons so that he can become a Polish citizen.

Maybe they only really want to pay minimum wage or below to the Polish and then any none Polish person is most unlikely to be able to speak the language.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Unless of course the employer is trying to "get around" a law on discrimination. A bit like the guy who has no intention of hiring fertile young women, but doesn't say as much in the job ad.

Stating you require bilingual staff is not against the law.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Stating you require bilingual staff is not against the law.

Unfair employment discrimination is against the law. One could argue that the employers were unfairly discriminating against non-Polish speaking applicants.

Have the employers considered offering English language lessons to their staff?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Unfair employment discrimination is against the law. One could argue that the employers were unfairly discriminating against non-Polish speaking applicants.

Have the employers considered offering English language lessons to their staff?

Doesn't matter, if the role requires the employee to be able to speak Polish, then they're within their rights to only employ people who are qualified.
How else does the diplomatic service employ translators?
Or international support centres gain employees?

The only issue here is that they did not state the requirements properly in the advert, and as such, wasted time.

It's no different to a company asking for drivers, then finding out in the interview they need someone who can drive not just cars and vans, but HGV's too.

[MovedGoalPosts]

When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought it would be a complaint about dirty shoes . I'll get my coat now

[DocDutch]

Originally Posted by smiffing

I have a friend that married a Polish woman, they have gone to live in Poland and a requirement is that he speaks Polish.
He is now taking lessons so that he can become a Polish citizen.

same thing is happening in Holland now if you arent a EU citizen and want to apply to live in Holland... you need to be able to speak passable dutch within I thought I heard 9 months.

In some ways (and okay I'm going to get bbq'ed for this now) I do agree with this and that perhaps the UK should implement this as well.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by DocDutch

In some ways (and okay I'm going to get bbq'ed for this now) I do agree with this and that perhaps the UK should implement this as well.

It makes sense.
It'd still make sense for EU members, why should I be able to get a job and live in another EU state without bothering to learn the local language within a reasonable time.
Means people who move around a lot aren't affected as they're not likely to stay for long enough, but those who are staying for a year or more should learn the language of their host country.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

How else does the diplomatic service employ translators?
Or international support centres gain employees?

The only issue here is that they did not state the requirements properly in the advert, and as such, wasted time.

How many translators speak one language?

Personally I don't really think it's appropriate that a lot of people that can't communicate in English are walking round a military instilation but then who am I to complain, I am sure the MOD must think it's ok

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Doesn't matter, ....

I don't think it is as straightforward as you are suggesting. Employers must have good reasons for criteria added to the job description. You couldn't specify "must be willing to work barechested" in a sweaty building site, as this might discriminate against women.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

I don't think it is as straightforward as you are suggesting. Employers must have good reasons for criteria added to the job description. You couldn't specify "must be willing to work barechested" in a sweaty building site, as this might discriminate against women.

That's comepletely different. You don't have to work bare chested to be effective on a building site.

When working with people who speak another language, it is reasonable for the employer to only employ people who can speak languages which would enable them to work effectivly.
If he had said "you're not polish, I'm not employing you" then that is discriminatory and illegal, but he didn't.
Instead, being able to speak Polish was integral to the position, he'd negrected to ensure that was made clear on the advert, and as such, wasted time.
If he'd asked for a secretary, and interviewed someone who couldn't do short hand but he needed someone who could do short hand, would he be acting illegally by employing one of the other candidates who can do short hand?

Look on IT job sites, you'll see loads of positions for German speaker or Dutch speaker or French speakers based in the UK, are they acting illegally by only employing people who can speak German/Dutch/French?

[TheNorm]

Anisetti v Tokyo-Mitsubishi International plc Case No. 6002429/98
The Indian-born head of credit derivatives at an international Japanese bank in London resigned, claiming he had been made to feel like a 'second-class citizen' by his Japanese employers. He said he had been humiliated, excluded by workers speaking Japanese and underpaid, simply because he was not Japanese. The bank argued that it was 'natural' for Japanese staff to use their own language among themselves. An employment tribunal upheld the complainant's claim that he had been discriminated against unlawfully, not because of his Indian national origins, but because he was not Japanese. The tribunal noted that the bank had maintained a practice which had effectively excluded the complainant from various activities, and treated him less favourably than others. The complainant was awarded around 1 million in compensation.

http://www.cre.gov.uk/gdpract/employ...e/parttwo.html

In the OP case, employers are effectively making the situation for themselves by selectively employing non-English speakers. It isn't as if the job requires frequent telephone conversations with staff in Warsaw.