Hi everyone,
I know it's an issue very related to "Business English", but I was really stunned when I read it.
List of English-only jobs in Europe
"International and European organisations such as the European Brands Association, the European Association of Chemical Distributors, the European Business Aviation Association, and the European Banking Federation do indeed discriminate in favour of English native speakers."
http://lingvo.org/nl/2/15
Is this democratic in the European Union? Is then it neccesary in the future that non-native European citizens learnt proficiency English if English native speakers would occupy the most important jobs related to European business environment?
For me it's sad, for example, that the Dutch make an big effort to acquire a perfect English and after that they realise that they cannot aspire to many European jobs because of they have been born in Asterdam and not in London or Dublin. It's not fair!!
Take care
Is this democratic in the European Union?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Hi Wolf,
I fail to see the link between your point and democracy.
Regarding your comments and implied thesis, does Spain not favour native Spanish speakers for certain posts ? In any event , most of the ads from your link suggest that the English native speaker is not going to get the job as a "right" ,it is simply treated as an asset, as any other on your CV.
Regards, Plato.
I fail to see the link between your point and democracy.
Regarding your comments and implied thesis, does Spain not favour native Spanish speakers for certain posts ? In any event , most of the ads from your link suggest that the English native speaker is not going to get the job as a "right" ,it is simply treated as an asset, as any other on your CV.
Regards, Plato.
-
serendipity
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:49 pm
- Location: Wiener Neustadt, Austria
It certainly doesn't appear *fair*, that much is true.
But then, discrimination against older applicants is hardly fair either, yet a common practise in many European countries. Discrimination against women is not *fair*, discrimination against Black people isn't fair, discrimination against Muslims isn't fair, discrimination against people with an accent indicating a low social standing isn't fair, discrimination against uneducated people isn't fair.... the list goes on.
These are tough times in Europe. Unemployment is high, jobs are scarce, and job-security virtually non-existent. Everybody's got to struggle and to make allowances... if your English isn't good enough for a top-job with an official body of the EU, improve it, or look for something else.
Take solace in the fact that you're not that hard-up that *any* job would do, no matter what. Count yourself lucky.
But then, discrimination against older applicants is hardly fair either, yet a common practise in many European countries. Discrimination against women is not *fair*, discrimination against Black people isn't fair, discrimination against Muslims isn't fair, discrimination against people with an accent indicating a low social standing isn't fair, discrimination against uneducated people isn't fair.... the list goes on.
These are tough times in Europe. Unemployment is high, jobs are scarce, and job-security virtually non-existent. Everybody's got to struggle and to make allowances... if your English isn't good enough for a top-job with an official body of the EU, improve it, or look for something else.
Take solace in the fact that you're not that hard-up that *any* job would do, no matter what. Count yourself lucky.
Wolfstone,
This just means you may have to work a little harder with your English so you can sound like a native speaker...or close to it.
Is it fair, nope. But as serendipity said, there are more issues that are not "fair" than others. English can be learned, and even though some companies say they want a native English speaker there are quite a few that will take people who are bi or tri lingual.
This just means you may have to work a little harder with your English so you can sound like a native speaker...or close to it.
Is it fair, nope. But as serendipity said, there are more issues that are not "fair" than others. English can be learned, and even though some companies say they want a native English speaker there are quite a few that will take people who are bi or tri lingual.
Hold up a second. I just checked the website. If you're using this site as a basis for your argument, then you may be a little off base. This site lists jobs that need to be filled by native English speakers. Of course, it's going to seem that these companies are only looking for native English speakers. It's just like going to a site specifically dedicated to listing jobs for ballet dancers and you are a tap dancer. Then you say, "Wait, these companies are only looking for ballet dancers!"
Also, one listing even says:
" English mother tongue or equivalent. Good knowledge of French and other languages is an asset."
So, to say that these companies are only looking for English mother tongue speakers isn't true.
Also, one listing even says:
" English mother tongue or equivalent. Good knowledge of French and other languages is an asset."
So, to say that these companies are only looking for English mother tongue speakers isn't true.
English
In a lot of companies in Europe and Eastern Europe, English is becoming a key requisite for top jobs. That's why we teachers are so pouplar 
Naturally, where a high level of any language is required, preference will be given to native speakers of that language. It's not about fairness here, it's practicality.
They're equally unlikely to give a ground-level job to someone who doesn't speak a word of the local language- does that mean this is unfair to foreigners with poor language skills?
The reason for giving preference to native speakers is their wider communication ability. The difference in accents in spoken English is huge, therefore a Russian who doesn't understand the word 'big' unless you say beeg will be totally lost when it comes to a Bangladeshi accent or a strong Welsh accent for instance.
The company where I work deals mainly with the USA, and even their best English speakers are lost when it comes to speaking to Londoners on the phone.
Consider that in Russia, teachers are often dealing with a mentality that saysOUR pronounciation is wrong when we say 'fish' instead of feesh!
Naturally, where a high level of any language is required, preference will be given to native speakers of that language. It's not about fairness here, it's practicality. They're equally unlikely to give a ground-level job to someone who doesn't speak a word of the local language- does that mean this is unfair to foreigners with poor language skills?
The reason for giving preference to native speakers is their wider communication ability. The difference in accents in spoken English is huge, therefore a Russian who doesn't understand the word 'big' unless you say beeg will be totally lost when it comes to a Bangladeshi accent or a strong Welsh accent for instance.
The company where I work deals mainly with the USA, and even their best English speakers are lost when it comes to speaking to Londoners on the phone.
Consider that in Russia, teachers are often dealing with a mentality that saysOUR pronounciation is wrong when we say 'fish' instead of feesh!
Communicating in English Requires English Speaking Skills
Yes, all these jobs are for organizations that do business in English. In the international aid community and foreign diplomacy and legal communities in Brussels and in metals trading the international language is English. How outrageous to require people who will be dealing with materials written in English, answering phone calls from people who speak English and translating materials from and to English to speak English! Spanish would do just as well! And, while we're at it, what's with the Chinese-only officials running China? How come school books in Brazil are printed in Portuguese? How outrageous.
But, wait, if we allow folks to get hired for English-speaking jobs, and they don't speak English, and can't do their work because of this, if we then want to teach them English so they can do their jobs will it be discrimination to require their English tutor to speak English?
But, wait, if we allow folks to get hired for English-speaking jobs, and they don't speak English, and can't do their work because of this, if we then want to teach them English so they can do their jobs will it be discrimination to require their English tutor to speak English?
-
serendipity
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:49 pm
- Location: Wiener Neustadt, Austria
I don't think there's any need for sarcasm around here....
It may well be that a particular hurdle seems unsurmountable to an individual, and then frustration finds its outlet.
There are job interviews where the requirements are overdrawn on purpose, and there are jobs where a modest command of English actually yields better results. I'll give you two examples:
a) I once worked in a factory which exported machinery to manufacture strong extruded plastic bags to Africa. There is a great need for such bags, as it allows people to transport quantities of vegetables from one place to the other, and it makes more sense to produce them locally than to import them, in particular when the technology is available. It was my duty to compile intruction manuals to go with the extruders, and when I came up with my text, the sales executive got a good laugh out of it. He gave me the advice to leave out every phrase and construction that I'd learned later than my first year of studies, and to keep everything as simple as possible - instead of being out to "impress" folks, as he put it.
b) The company I was working with had a joint-venture with a Scottish company going, and it was my task to translate complicated descriptions of machinery and to e-mail it across. The person who'd had my job before me had been an engineer whose knowledge of English was very restricted. When he had come across a term whose English equivalent he didn't know, he would make one up and use it consistently. Me, with my "better-than-thou" attitude, I used state-of-the-art dictionaries, online and offline, just to get the terminology "right". The partners in Scotland promptly asked my bosses to have me shifted, and to have the old guy back, because they knew *exactly* what he was talking about as they'd compiled a list of his idiosyncratic expressions and adopted them as intra-company jargon, with clearly defined referents and clearly defined boundaries.
Yes, and there's the issue that professional people with a native tongue other than English assure me over and over again that they very much prefer to interact with another non-native speaker speaking English that with a native speaker, because fellow-non-native speakers tend to be more sympathetic and more forgiving when they're less than perfect.
They also tend to avoid slang and idiomatic expressions and are less likely to speed up and speed up when they've got a hunch that their opposite number has somewhat of a clue what they are talking about.
It may well be that a particular hurdle seems unsurmountable to an individual, and then frustration finds its outlet.
There are job interviews where the requirements are overdrawn on purpose, and there are jobs where a modest command of English actually yields better results. I'll give you two examples:
a) I once worked in a factory which exported machinery to manufacture strong extruded plastic bags to Africa. There is a great need for such bags, as it allows people to transport quantities of vegetables from one place to the other, and it makes more sense to produce them locally than to import them, in particular when the technology is available. It was my duty to compile intruction manuals to go with the extruders, and when I came up with my text, the sales executive got a good laugh out of it. He gave me the advice to leave out every phrase and construction that I'd learned later than my first year of studies, and to keep everything as simple as possible - instead of being out to "impress" folks, as he put it.
b) The company I was working with had a joint-venture with a Scottish company going, and it was my task to translate complicated descriptions of machinery and to e-mail it across. The person who'd had my job before me had been an engineer whose knowledge of English was very restricted. When he had come across a term whose English equivalent he didn't know, he would make one up and use it consistently. Me, with my "better-than-thou" attitude, I used state-of-the-art dictionaries, online and offline, just to get the terminology "right". The partners in Scotland promptly asked my bosses to have me shifted, and to have the old guy back, because they knew *exactly* what he was talking about as they'd compiled a list of his idiosyncratic expressions and adopted them as intra-company jargon, with clearly defined referents and clearly defined boundaries.
Yes, and there's the issue that professional people with a native tongue other than English assure me over and over again that they very much prefer to interact with another non-native speaker speaking English that with a native speaker, because fellow-non-native speakers tend to be more sympathetic and more forgiving when they're less than perfect.
They also tend to avoid slang and idiomatic expressions and are less likely to speed up and speed up when they've got a hunch that their opposite number has somewhat of a clue what they are talking about.
Crying Wolf
Your examples are not germane to the sarcastic dimissal. Both of your examples were simply your failure to understand what was expected of you. This is a fairly common occurence in employment for people new to their field. Hopefully it didn't happen a third time. However, the incidents you describe have nothing to do with whether or not you were required to speak English at some particular level on the jobs, or whether or not the jobs on the other board required English. You demonstrated nothing.
Sometimes the command of a particular language is relevant to the job, and at other times it is not. I should encourage someone to misrepresent something? Many people suffer from discrimination all over the world in the job market, housing market and other areas. To make something discrimination that is not minimizes true discrimination.
That native English fluency is listed in the job description does not make it discrimination. And if the only examples one can come up with of discrimination are false, maybe there is no discrimination.
Sometimes the command of a particular language is relevant to the job, and at other times it is not. I should encourage someone to misrepresent something? Many people suffer from discrimination all over the world in the job market, housing market and other areas. To make something discrimination that is not minimizes true discrimination.
That native English fluency is listed in the job description does not make it discrimination. And if the only examples one can come up with of discrimination are false, maybe there is no discrimination.
-
serendipity
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:49 pm
- Location: Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Are you talking to me?
Maybe your English will pick up a little bit once you've gotten past your emotional involvement in this matter.
I mean
for example, is this meant to be a question or a statement?
Ah well.
Have a good weekend and get some rest.
Cheerio.
Maybe your English will pick up a little bit once you've gotten past your emotional involvement in this matter.
I mean
I should encourage someone to misrepresent something?
for example, is this meant to be a question or a statement?
Ah well.
Have a good weekend and get some rest.
Cheerio.
Question or Statement!? -- Vulcans of the World Arise
How should I know? English, after all, is such a static, finite and boring language that only limits its speakers. Down William, down!
Emotional involvement! Such a shame! Humans should interbreed with Vulcans soon or their passions will be the death of them. (And, yes, F. Scott, I am sinning by laughing at myself! Take that! and that!)
Thanks for the laugh. That I should fear loving life, using language with passion, caring about dicrimination, having dreams of a better world! Down, Martin Luther, down from the church door and the podium!
PS I don't know if my post was in response to yours or not. That would require rereading.
Emotional involvement! Such a shame! Humans should interbreed with Vulcans soon or their passions will be the death of them. (And, yes, F. Scott, I am sinning by laughing at myself! Take that! and that!)
Thanks for the laugh. That I should fear loving life, using language with passion, caring about dicrimination, having dreams of a better world! Down, Martin Luther, down from the church door and the podium!
PS I don't know if my post was in response to yours or not. That would require rereading.
Re: Question or Statement!? -- Vulcans of the World Arise
Get A Life!!!KateSmith wrote:How should I know? English, after all, is such a static, finite and boring language that only limits its speakers. Down William, down!
Emotional involvement! Such a shame! Humans should interbreed with Vulcans soon or their passions will be the death of them. (And, yes, F. Scott, I am sinning by laughing at myself! Take that! and that!)
Thanks for the laugh. That I should fear loving life, using language with passion, caring about dicrimination, having dreams of a better world! Down, Martin Luther, down from the church door and the podium!
PS I don't know if my post was in response to yours or not. That would require rereading.