87% Say English...

[GarMan]

Huh...  Would you look at that?  It's just full of useful tidbits.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2010/87_say_english_should_be_u_s_official_language

87% Say English Should Be U.S. Official Language
Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Americans continue to overwhelmingly believe that English should be the official language of the United States and reject by sizable margins the idea that such a move is racist or a violation of free speech.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 87% of Adults favor making English the nation's official language. This is the highest level of support yet but in line with what voters have been saying for several years. Just nine percent (9%) disagree.

Eighty-three percent (83%) say a company doing business in this country should be allowed to require its employees to speak English. Eleven percent (11%) say companies should not be permitted to require their employees to speak English on the job. These views are unchanged from a year ago.

Only 10% of Americans say requiring people to speak English is a form of racism or bigotry. Eighty-four percent (84%) disagree and say that's not true.

Twelve percent (12%) believe that declaring English the official language would limit free speech in this country, but 78% feel otherwise and see no limits being placed on free speech.

The survey of 1,000 American Adults was conducted on May 7-8, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

The findings come at a time when President Obama and major Hispanic groups, among others, are protesting Arizona's new law empowering local police to stop those they suspect of being illegal immigrants. Despite national protests and threats of boycotting Arizona, 59% of U.S. voters continue to support the state law, which Arizona officials say is necessary because the federal government is not doing its job to halt illegal immigration. Fifty percent (50%), in fact, have an unfavorable opinion of those who protested the law in marches and rallies two weekends ago.

Support for English as the official language is high across all demographic groups.

However, Republicans consistently support it more strongly than Democrats and adults not affiliated with either party.

Ninety-five percent (95%) of those who work in the private sector think companies should be allowed to require their employees to speak English on the job, a view shared by just 69% of government employees.

Over 80% of whites, blacks and those of other racial and ethnic backgrounds agree that requiring people to speak English is not a form of racism or bigotry. These groups also agree by similar percentages that such a requirement is not a limit on free speech in this country.

Eighty percent (80%) of voters believe that those who move to America should adopt American culture. Again, this level of support has remained largely unchanged for years.

The president in remarks last July said that “instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English,” Americans “need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.” But Americans strongly disagree: Eighty-three percent (83%) place a higher priority on encouraging immigrants to speak English as their primary language. Just 13% take the opposite view and say it is more important for Americans to learn other languages.

Yet it's important to note that most Americans favor a welcoming immigration policy that excludes only “national security threats, criminals and those who would come here to live off our welfare system.” 

[Saniflush]

Eighty-three percent (83%) say a company doing business in this country should be allowed to require its employees to speak English.

Actually this is not illegal.  We require our employees to speak and read English. 

[GarMan]

Actually this is not illegal.  We require our employees to speak and read English.  

¿Qué?

[Saniflush]

¿Qué?

Exactly.

[Tiger Wench]

Actually this is not illegal.  We require our employees to speak and read English. 

We do too, for safety reasons.  Posted warnings are in English, and in the event of an incident, most likely the verbal commands would be given in English.

[GarMan]

We do too, for safety reasons.  Posted warnings are in English, and in the event of an incident, most likely the verbal commands would be given in English.

Yeah...  Most industrial and hazardous environments require basic English.  I don't think it's "against the law" as might be interpreted from the story, but there have been fairly vocal objections by the other side of this debate. 

[CCTAU]

no comprende. no libro ingles.

[JR4AU]

Huh...  Would you look at that?  It's just full of useful tidbits.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2010/87_say_english_should_be_u_s_official_language

If you were Gov. of AL when Mercedes, Hyundai, and Honda were looking to locate plants here, would you have told them that all their damn employees better damn well speak our language, or we don't want your plants in AL?

[GarMan]

If you were Gov. of AL when Mercedes, Hyundai, and Honda were looking to locate plants here, would you have told them that all their damn employees better damn well speak our language, or we don't want your plants in AL?

As much as I would tend to agree with you, your argument is fairly weak from an international business perspective.  Do you really think that a company like this doesn't already employee English-speaking resources for these types of assignments?  And, does Alabama even offer the written driver's exam in German, Japanese and Korean?  (I mean, that would really be absurd in the first place.)

From another perspective, whether we want to accept it or not, American English is the international business language.  Let's take Europe for instance...  I had to travel to Spain, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, The Netherlands and others to work for about six months.  I had no problems getting around.  The prefessionals in those countries have to learn English if they want to stay competitive, and they even make it known that it's "American" English that they can speak.  Just recently, I helped negotiate a project with the APAC region for an international financial organization.  Everyone from the client spoke perfect American English, and their office is located in Tokyo. 

I don't see the candidate's message as an issue even worth the costs of this advertising, and the arguments that I've heard against it are just as weak and simpleton.  To think that an international organization would be influenced by this short-sided reasoning is just as absurd as the original ad. 

[Token]

For the record, when Honda decided to set up shop in Alabama, they also had a lot of smaller companies follow along.  KLP, TSTech, and YMA to name a few.  Those companies, along with Honda brought in a LOT of non-English speaking personnel to help set up machinery in those plants. 

JR's argument holds water.

[GarMan]

For the record, when Honda decided to set up shop in Alabama, they also had a lot of smaller companies follow along.  KLP, TSTech, and YMA to name a few.  Those companies, along with Honda brought in a LOT of non-English speaking personnel to help set up machinery in those plants. 

JR's argument holds water.

For whoever's record, it's still an absurd position.  Why would any company assign "non-English speaking personnel" to work in a predominantly English-speaking country without any type of support?  And, if that did occur to one of these parasite organizations, would that influence the larger host organization?  I just don't see it. 

[JR4AU]

As much as I would tend to agree with you, your argument is fairly weak from an international business perspective.  Do you really think that a company like this doesn't already employee English-speaking resources for these types of assignments?  And, does Alabama even offer the written driver's exam in German, Japanese and Korean?  (I mean, that would really be absurd in the first place.)

From another perspective, whether we want to accept it or not, American English is the international business language.  Let's take Europe for instance...  I had to travel to Spain, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, The Netherlands and others to work for about six months.  I had no problems getting around.  The prefessionals in those countries have to learn English if they want to stay competitive, and they even make it known that it's "American" English that they can speak.  Just recently, I helped negotiate a project with the APAC region for an international financial organization.  Everyone from the client spoke perfect American English, and their office is located in Tokyo.  

I don't see the candidate's message as an issue even worth the costs of this advertising, and the arguments that I've heard against it are just as weak and simpleton.  To think that an international organization would be influenced by this short-sided reasoning is just as absurd as the original ad.  

I didn't make an argument, I asked a very simple question. 

[Token]

For whoever's record, it's still an absurd position.  Why would any company assign "non-English speaking personnel" to work in a predominantly English-speaking country without any type of support?  And, if that did occur to one of these parasite organizations, would that influence the larger host organization?  I just don't see it.  

The workers they brought in weren't here to stay.  They were here for months to set up machinery and to keep equipment functioning until American help was hired and trained to operate the equipment.  

I worked for KLP from 2004 until 2007.  Once they had the facility operating, KLP generally only had around 10-15 permanent employees from Japan.  Mostly in the upper management, and all spoke English fluently.  

Was the driving exam a deciding factor for the Honda company?  I don't know.  I'm just stating that for a fact, they did have workers over here for up to a year who could not speak English.  They also provided all of those associates with company vehicles, so they most certainly were able to obtain a license during their stay in Alabama.

[CCTAU]

I don't think they give shit about driving exams. They all use mexican taxis anyway.......

[JR4AU]

For the record, when Honda decided to set up shop in Alabama, they also had a lot of smaller companies follow along.  KLP, TSTech, and YMA to name a few.  Those companies, along with Honda brought in a LOT of non-English speaking personnel to help set up machinery in those plants. 

JR's argument holds water.

And it still holds water even if all these companies are "smart enough" to have english speaking personnel to send over.   I wouldn't do business with a bunch of snootie ass Frenchmen even if I could speak their damn language, for the sole reason that they're shitheads about Americans.  I feel certain that an atmosphere of tolerance towards foriegners (who are here legally, but might not be fluent in the language) would certainly play a part in deciding where to locate my company.  While I might employ mostly Americans, and as many English speaking people as I could...to know that if I needed to employ some who didn't speak the language life would be made that much tougher on them would factor in.

[CCTAU]

.to know that if I needed to employ some who didn't speak the language life would be made that much tougher on them would factor in.

Why? Because they couldn't take a drivers exam in their own language? Or because they don't know how to call a mexican taxi?

Please. Weak argument. I've worked in several non English speaking countries. Their government did not offer me anything in English....and I still worked there and got paid. Imagine that.

[JR4AU]

Why? Because they couldn't take a drivers exam in their own language? Or because they don't know how to call a mexican taxi?

Please. Weak argument. I've worked in several non English speaking countries. Their government did not offer me anything in English....and I still worked there and got paid. Imagine that.

Please!  Weak argument. 

[CCTAU]

Please!  Weak argument. 

You're right. I should have refused to work there because they made me "feel" like a foreigner.

[GarMan]

I didn't make an argument, I asked a very simple question. 

Your simple question presents an alternative perspective to the ad that is not necessarily represented in the ad, intent or otherwise.  You see this as a derogatory attack against non-English speakers.  That's the argument.  

[JR4AU]

You're right. I should have refused to work there because they made me "feel" like a foreigner.

I don't care what you did or should have done...usuing your own personal experience as the only basis for your arguement is weak.