Safety on building sites compromised
Country:
Source:
Language barrier
By JOE HILDEBRAND
The Daily Telegraph
dailytelegraph.news.com.au
Copyright 2004 News Limited.
Some migrant workers in the building industry are compromising safety because they do not take compulsory training which are organised done in English. Moreover, their inability to communicate in English makes them venerable to exploitation.
Political groups want tougher English tests, but the relevant authorities say this is not necessary.
Facts:
- A Univ. of NSW study found that 30% migrant workers avoid compulsory safety training in English.
- In NSW alone, some 50 people die on construction sites.
- The article refers to some actual cases relating to safety issues.
Language Issues:
------Safety
- Does safety at work imply some kind of duty to learn a language?
- Is it a matter of introducing harder tests or an interest to learn the language in the first place? How do tests guarantee that someone understands complex language instructions? From experience working with learners of English, language tests give a false sense of ability; tests are not meant to guarantee understanding of real life language situations. I believe in language audits, the way one audits money, engineering standards and stock controls.
- Does a lack of interest in learning language skills reflect some kind of general attitude towards work in general and safety standards in particular?
- Is it the duty of the authorities to ensure that workers have the necessary language skills in order to understand safety instructions?
------Exploitation
- I suggest that this story is evidence that globalisation must be balanced by a global language. Globalisation is generating global knowledge and information which require a common code (i.e. language).
- Do these workers have at least a moral duty to learn English in order to find out about their work situation? In other words, are they being exploited or are they indifferent to their work conditions?
Comments:
- Is it the duty of the authorities, or employers, to ensure that workers have the necessary skills to meet safety duties?
- Does it mean that these workers also comprise quality and standards? Presumably, they would have difficulties communicating with English speaking site managers.
- If these workers could prove that they were exploited would they have a legal right for compensation in the future? At least in principle; I’m thinking of the artists in the music industry who were able to challenge their contracts which they signed when they were young and inexperienced.
Bottom-Line:
What would be the consequences if the quality and standards of buildings are also being compromised?
Safety on building sites compromised
Language had safety implications for a supermarket
Language had safety implications for a supermarket
Country:
USA
Source:
New cultures, challenges: It's a polyglot world
By Bill Brubaker
The Washington Post
Sunday, February 19, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company
Story:
A new manager at a food super market discovered that many of his employees did not attend mandatory safety and sanitation classes. The classes were held in English and many of the staff did not speak English.
This lack of training raised safety and regulatory issues for the supermarket.
Facts:
- More than 200 (front line employees) of 650 employees did not speak English.
- There was miscommunication between management and staff.
- Immigrant workers fill low paid jobs while English speakers cost more to train and tend to leave after training.
- The supermarket is used a lot by non English speakers.
Solution:
- Company introduced a multi language training web site.
- Offered English language courses to staff and Spanish to management.
Language Issues:
- Shouldn’t companies have language training if part of their client base do not speak English.
- Is language an issue for low end market businesses or across the whole business spectrum?
- Is lack of English skills a source for discrimination, in the same way that not being able to operate a PC a source of discrimination?
- Should companies look at profit returns when organising language skills programmes?
Comments:
- Shouldn’t the company have had a reporting system in place to show which of the employees did not go to safety classes? Maybe a financial incentive might be appropriate.
- Are there any hidden costs to the solutions adopted by the company?
- Is there a formal system in place to make sure that new employees undergo the necessary training?
- How long can the company depend on the loyalty of immigrant labour?
- Should companies make a harder effort to offer loyalty career programmes to profit centre employees? I assume that a profit centre employee is anyone who comes in direct contact with the client when delivering the company’s products.
Bottom-Line:
- The company boosted sales and attracted more non-English speaking customers.
- Are language skills a value added feature?