SURREY â€” The Editor, I read your recent Roses and Rotten Tomatoes this week, as I usually do. It is a great column that gives us a perspective of the little things that occur to everyday people throughout our city.â€¯
However, I was confused about one of the items on July 3.
â€œRoses to the person who was brave enough to say they found it impolite for two employees to speak another language other than English while working. All I can say is, you only said what a lot of us are feeling and thinking. Bravo!â€
Perhaps you missed giving us the context of the situation. I donâ€™t see how a person could be considered â€œbraveâ€ and not â€œrudeâ€ by asking people to speak English at work.
I know in Quebec that they have laws around using French in the workplace, but nowhere else I am aware of has any restriction on language in the workplace.
I was just at the bank and they have the various languages that you can be served in posted on their window.
I am sure that they see it as aâ€¯competitiveâ€¯advantage toâ€¯hire a linguistically diverse staff to serve an equally diverse community.
I find the phrase: â€œtheyâ€¯found it impolite for two employees to speak another language other than English while workingâ€ ironic.
Would it not be impolite to interrupt a conversation between two people at their workplace to ask them to speak English? And for what purpose? So you could eavesdrop on them?
I do not understand the context of this story. I usually find the writer to hold relatively progressive views, but this appears to support intolerance.
Could you please explain?
Al Payne, Surrey