Texsox

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 25, 2008 -> 02:15 PM) The class in in Spanish, theres no English speaking people lined up for the job. There are firefighters that speak English that had the job though. You actually proved my point even more. The guidelines book is in English and the test is in English so why should it be illegal to require people to speak English? Also, I hope you realized you compared speaking English in the U.S. to being in a wheelchair. Then you missed my comparison. I noted that what would be discrimination in one setting, would not be discrimination in another. Not hiring someone in a wheelchair as a NFL ref, is not discrimination. Not hiring someone in a wheelchair as an accountant, is discrimination. The demonstrated requirements for the job determined what is, and is not, discrimination. Using your argument, if someone applied to the Bible Institute who only spoke English, and they were not hired, it would be discrimination. Likewise if the school lost their contracts and switched their focus and decided on an English only curriculum, firing those who only spoke Spanish would not be permissible. That's crazy. People are laid off all the time. Changing business conditions is one of them. When the business conditions changed , people lost their jobs. Guess what, happens all the time. If Oregon switched vendors, there is a good chance people would have lost their jobs.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 25, 2008 -> 01:59 PM) It doesnt matter. You keep saying the same thing but it simply doesnt apply. Since neither language is "safer" than the other there is no legal way to use that as a reason why its ok. The law is cut and dry. YOU CANNOT FIRE SOMEONE BECAUSE OF WHAT LANGUAGE THEY SPEAK. As NSS said in the beginning of the thread you could have put the English speakers in one group and Spanish in the other. Since Spanish isnt a necessity in firefighting you cannot fire someone for not speaking it, its against the law. There is no way anyone can say that Spanish is more important to firefighting than English so firing either one is discrimination. Its amazing how liberals will defend laws like this till theyre blue in the face when it is convenient for them but all of a sudden it backfires and we get "what would you have done?" Person in a wheelchair as an NFL ref? Is that a joke? Unless you can somehow prove that Spanish is safer than English your argument is a joke. Speaking English isnt a disability like being in a wheelchair. So again, it is language discrimination to fire people for not speaking Spanish. Since English speaking firefighters can do the same job as Spanish speaking ones it is impossible to say one is better or more qualified than the other. Speaking English doesnt make working conditions more dangerous. They could just of easily fired the Spanish speakers and not skipped a beat. So firing them because of their language is in fact discrimination and in fact illegal. Yes, you can fire someone for not speaking a language. If you can legally not hire them for a reason, you can fire them for the same reason. I have posted several jobs that require speaking a foreign language, I could also post some jobs where speaking English would be a requirement. For most of the country, it would be a natural requirement for a police dispatcher to speak English. If that person suddenly decided they would only speak French, they could, and should, be fired. The ability to coimmunicate over the phone with the residents of that town as a police dispatcher would outweigh their legal right to work. Why does that not make sense to you? Two decisions were made. 1. Oregon required that Firefighting Crews must speak a common language. Legal. Do you disagree? 2. Companies were required to meet that law. *They* decided how to do that. Again, Legal. Do you disagree? The companies could have offered language training, they could have fired specific workers who did not meet the requirements. They could have insisted everyone learn French. Disagree all you want how those private companies met that requirement, but the requirement to me seems necessary. Unless you can demonstrate that speaking different language is as safe as speaking the same, you argument doesn't hold water. All it will take is a company to sue that crews speaking the same language is not necessary to safely perform that job and the law would be changed. So far, that has not happened.

I'm laying here with a nasty chest cold and desperate for anything on TV. I'm watching Deadliest Catch and realized I have spent hours in my life watching crab pots come up over the rail. Look, there's another one! Look there's a tired crew member! It's the same show over and over again. And I'm watching. I know Sig on the Northwestern is so hot, but would it hurt to have some female crew members?

Alpha, which is better for America's economy? An offshore customer service line where everyone speaks English, or a US based company where everyone speaks Italian?

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 25, 2008 -> 01:44 PM) I wasnt talking about you. You were just the most consistent mod in here so I was asking why no mods had said anything and it appears its because you disagree with me. you quoted my post which is why I thought you meant me. I asked for a review of the thread and if I, or anyone else, violated the 'buster rules, I'm certain one of the Mods will take care of it. Because I am involved, I am stepping out of that review.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 25, 2008 -> 01:29 PM) So making people, who are not citizens, learn English, who are working in America, where English is the predominant (and SHOULD be the official) language is more of a hardship than demoting or firing Americans? Making these immigrants learn English would serve a greater good as that would ease the burden to the state to have to translate for them, increase thier job oopportunities, and better help them to cope with American society. Demoting the Americans merely pisses off a lot of people, and creates hardships for American families. Tex, I am very pro-business, as you know, but I don't care how hard it is to get firefighters, if they are going to work in this country on anything other than an emergency basis, they should know English. Maybe they should pay more? Increase recruiting? But an even bigger picture is missing here. how long until ALl the fire fighters have to know spanish? because rarely is just one crew working on a forest fire. It is usually crews from several states, if the fire is big enough. So do they start demanding that all fire fighers be bilingual? I mean, safety is the issue, right? Make them learn English. And the private company that employs them would certainly be in their right to only employee English speaking firefighters. I would have no quarrel with that. What is in question, is how the government should write the conditions of the bid. I believe they should write the least restrictive option possible. You think they should write the one that places the greatest burden on the private companies. But as I mentioned before, I am very pro-business and if you think you can hire the deaf and run a successful company, who am I to disagree? If you have jobs that the deaf can do, why couldn't someone who voluntarily doesn't speak at all handle the job? Again, I feel it is *your choice* not the governments.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 25, 2008 -> 12:38 PM) Also, is there any particular reason we had to agree to follow all of those rules in the Buster? Was it for show, or does it only apply if the mods or admins dont agree with the person that is breaking them. I realize its hard to talk politics on a message but just because people dont agree with me doesnt mean that it should be ok. After about three days of BS from 2-3 posters I finally had enough and still nothing is said. Notrhing is said? I spent thirty minutes this morning patiently explaining why I felt the path that increased the safety for everyone to an acceptable level, while placing the least amount of restriuctions on companies was the correct course of action. Show me which part of the agreement I am violating and I will suspend myself right now.

Oregon discover a safety problem with crews that have mixed languages. They could have ignored it because these guys were already employed, but instead chose to correct the problem before someone was injured or killed. You believe that no one should have lost their jobs over this, care to explain what you would have done? To require everyone speak English would have placed the greatest burden on the private companies, instead they chose the path that results in the least burden. What would you have done? The law allows companies to hire for the requirements for the job. Do you ever wonder why there are no NFL referees in wheelchairs? It is not discrimination when a handicapped person in a wheelchair applies as a NFL ref and is denied employment. Just like it is not discrimination to require that all members of a firefighting crew speak a common language. Your argument that an unsafe, dangerous condition be maintained after discovery because they were already employed is just wrong. When we discover dangers in the workplace we do, and should, correct them. They were fired because there was an unsafe working condition that had to be corrected.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 25, 2008 -> 12:05 PM) So who was the person who didn't vote for Thomas? Might have been me. I'd have to check. I do not think I voted for anyone currently playing. If I did, Thomas would be the one.

QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ May 24, 2008 -> 11:15 PM) Now if you lived in Utah, you could go to Beto's, a 24 hr. Mexican rest. When I first moved here I always saw Mexicans coming out of Beto's. Naturally I thought they must have pretty good food. Well, they do. It's not expensive and you get large portions. Plus, the Horchata is muy bueno. Believe it or don't but after spending a lot of time working in Mexico and visiting restaurants, atleast in Reynosa, Tamps. there are great restaurants there, but no great Mexican cuisine restaurants. The best were run down dives with amazing food.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 25, 2008 -> 10:24 AM) I went to DC to visit a friend, and he still had a few hours of work to do, so I went and saw that by myself. That was all I saw the rest of the day as i didn't go anywhere else. However at that time, there were a lot of other people there. I think it went from a low of maybe 10 other people to a high approaching 75 when a class field trip came by. For all the controversy over the selection, it was the most moving of the war memorials and tied with the Lincoln as my favorite monuments. I also visited the holocaust museum and spent about an hour crying.

And just because I thought this would be funny . . . Society to Preserve English in the Workplace visits a manufacturing plant. Inspector: "I've been walking through your plant and I noticed no one is speaking and they are flashing gang signs. We're concerned. Plant Manager: "Well most of our plant employees cannot speak, and those are not gang signs, that is sign language" IN: "Hmm, you said most of your employees cannot speak, what about the rest?" PM: "Well the rest choose not to speak, they appreciate the silence." IN:"A ha! And when they do choose to speak, what language do they speak?" PM:"A bunch of different ones, but it isn't important. It's just on breaks and after work" IN:"NOT IMPORTANT! They should speak English to work in America." PM:"But they choose not to speak while working, and in fact it makes everyone more efficient." IN:"We will get to the bottom of this. We have ways to make them talk! They do not have the right to remain silent, and we must be certain when they do talk, they talk English."

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 23, 2008 -> 03:10 PM) I have not seen the traveling wall yet. I did see the one in DC a few years back. It was very moving (no pun intended). It almost seems like a cliche but I first visited the wall on a drizzly night in DC. Almost alone, except for one other person. One of the most moving times of my life. Much better then the almost carnival like atmosphere the next day.

QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ May 25, 2008 -> 02:01 AM) Good night. QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ May 25, 2008 -> 09:56 AM) Good morning. Nice, did you plan that?

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ May 23, 2008 -> 11:24 AM) Really? Who suggest this about Monreau in 2006? Anyone? Anyone? I guess if that is the test, I retract my statement. I was thinking beyond one player. I am also trying to think of a single player we suspected while he was playing for the Sox. Anyone? Anyone?

Happy Birthday!! :begood Always a Fav . . .

I've also switched back and forth with a friend of mine, I'll cooka couple days and she'll cook a couple days dependig on our schedules. It is easier to cook for two most of the time and having someone to share a meal with is nice.

I like the Lipton and Rice a Roni sides for a starch. I'll also pop a potato in the microwave. Fresh veggies are not that hard, and easy to steam or microwave. For the protein I do use my outdoor grill all the time. The spice blends are relatively cheap to spice up some chicken. The bags of flash frozen chicken breasts have a permanent home in my freezer. And even those packaged items can be made better by tossing on some fresh ingredients. Last night I made salmon on my Foreman grill, seasoned with salt and pepper, some fresh cilantro, and topped with a lemon dill sauce, that was only sour cream with a couple extra ingredients tossed in. Simple. I added a Packaged cold pasta side but added some fresh tomato, cucumber, and green pepper right before serving. Diced up some fruit with Newman's Cranberry-Walnut dressing and spooned it over some packaged, washed, salad greens. It sounds like a lot of work, but it really isn't. Almost everything was prepackaged.

One more example. Down the road from me is the Rio Grande Bible Institute. From their Mission Statement It is an immersion program, all instruction is in Spanish. Most of the graduates upon graduating, are sent as missionaries to Spanish speaking countries. Explain to me, from a conservative vewpoint, why any of their employees should be required to speak English to get a job there? It seems completely unnessesary, but I'm willing to learn. And explain why it would be illegal for them to require Spanish speakers as instructors?

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 24, 2008 -> 10:08 PM) It doesnt matter, its language discrimination. There isnt even a gray area, its black and white. You cant fire people because of their language. I posted the requirements for Colorado fireman. I posted California language discrimination definitions. I posted the law that says it is illegal to fire someone for this reason. I dont care if the job is testing airbag fatality rates with live people. The type of work is 100% irrelevant. Also, this wasnt some circumstance where a contract was awarded and then these private companies had to go out and hire new fireman and only hired Spanish speaking employees. There were already employees in place and they were wrongly and illegally fired. There are all these BS laws and rules that are made to "keep things on a level playing field" and not to get into a whole new debate but I know just as well as you know that those are liberal ideas. Theres no way this country is ran on a survival of the fittest mentality. There are laws, programs, loopholes, special interest groups etc that are always out there trying to keep things balanced but when something like this happens all of a sudden its survival of the fittest? Id be interested to hear your thoughts on survival of the fittest in terms of affirmative action. Is it a liberal or conservative ideal to mandate who a private company could and could not hire? Adding requirements beyond what is deemed necessary seems pretty damn liberal to me. In this case, the least restrictive requirement is a common language and allow the private company to decide how to meet the requirement. The most restrictive would be English only and tell the private company how to meet the requirement. Are you suggesting that Conservatives would favor the most restrictive law that places the highest burden on the private company? Or are you suggesting the language requirement be dropped, even if that proves to be unsafe? Are you suggesting the law cannot be written that avoids placing someone in a dangerous, perhaps lethal situation? You do realize there are some people who do not speak at all? What are there options? Should they be employed as Air Traffic Controllers? Police? There are levels of communication necessary for every job. A television anchor person on a Spanish TV network does not need to speak English to perform his job. Likewise, a truck driver could go all day without speaking to anyone. A farm worker may have only onions to speak to. They type of work is irrelevant? It's a global economy, companies have offices around the world. Why shouldn't a company be allowed to hire someone who speaks only French to work with their French subsidiary? As long as it works for them? Again, I was in Mexico and only spoke English, but there was always someone to interpret. Our discrimination laws are written with the basis of what is necessary for that job. You can't require the secretary at the firefighting company to carry 100 lbs of firefighting gear if they would not be doing that as part of their job, you could require a test of the firefighters to do that. That ability is directly related to safely performing the job duties. Likewise, Oregon has determined that a common language is required to safely perform that job. So the requirements for the jobs effected were changed. You favor placing the heaviest burden on those private companies, I favor the least restrictive. You favor a restriction that would increase the cost and ultimately increase taxes. I favor the cheaper choice. I'm pretty darn conservative when it comes to private business. Find another avenue for your social engineering, a private workforce is not the place to start. Finally, are you suggesting that if it is shown that an unsafe condition exists, possibly fatal, that conservatives would prefer those people remain on the jobs?

QUOTE (knightni @ May 24, 2008 -> 07:12 PM) Too bad Vegas is kaput. It will always live on in reruns.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 24, 2008 -> 07:38 PM) I agree to a point, Im about fairness, if someone can do the job speaking a different language than other people than more power to them. The problem I have is when they fire someone for not speaking said language and because of certain circumstances its not illegal. The state made, as a condition of being awarded the contract, a provision that everyone in a crew have at least one common language. In America we compete in as open and competitive a marketplace as we can put together. Survival of the fittest. Improvement through competition. Some companies that bid on these contracts decided that they could best compete for those contracts with Spanish speaking firemen. If companies believe they can compete with a Spanish speaking workforce, the market will decide if they win or not. But there are so many jobs out there where you do not need to speak any language I do not see the problem. There are people who do not speak at all, they use sign language, and there is room in the workforce for them. Finally what a surprise, seasonal, dirty, dangerous work. Long hours under adverse conditions. And immigrants are becoming the largest part of the forest firefighter workforce. Duh.

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ May 24, 2008 -> 09:06 AM) Without a Trace with Roselyn Sanchez and Poppy Montgomery.... Another excellent choice. But the guys are fugly whiuch is why I opted for Vegas. Tom Sellick has never looked better.

I worked a job in Mexico and spoke no Spanish. All our customers spoke English and almost every office employee was bilingual. Match the tool for the job. If you have an eager employee who can work a job without speaking at all, what does it matter?

QUOTE (Soxy @ May 24, 2008 -> 02:28 PM) Northwestern. Blah. Go to University of Chicago. And a quick note: With schools like Northwestern and Chicago you are paying for name recognition--not necessarily a better education. I honestly would say that the education I got at a smaller school (with less name recognition) was just as good as the bigger names that I had on my list (if not better because of crazy small classes and no grad TAs). We have a joke in my graduate program (or some of us do)--there are some students here that did their undergrad at Yale, Cornell, Northwestern and UCLA and they talk about it CONSTANTLY. Those of us who paid half of what they did for college and got into the same program can't help but snicker a little. . . There are a ton of other reasons as well why I have serious reservations about Northwestern. But once she sets a goal, it is very tough to change her path. So I try and help.