"Native English speakers only"?

Vaarikas

I have come across a few adverts for jobs in Ireland which state that only native English speakers are welcome to apply. I would think that such a proviso would classify as discriminatory and is therefore illegal. However I am not an expert in employment law, so I very much welcome anyone's expertise on this.

srsly78

Yeah it's worded very dangerously, they should have just said fluent.

Mr. Loverman

Under the equality legislation discrimination based on any one of 9 distinct grounds is unlawful. These grounds are:

Gender
Civil status
Family status
Sexual orientation
Religion
Age (does not apply to a person under 16)
Disability
Race
Membership of the Traveller community.

Based on the above, it seems you can discriminate based on language skills, although it's possible you could argue this comes under "Race".

Regardless of the above, even if you somehow manage to get the employer to remove the "native English speaker" requirement from their job advert, they still won't hire you because you're not a native English speaker...

Giblet

You can discriminate on language skill, but they didn't word it that way unfortunately. Native doesn't imply skill level, but country of origin.

Mr. Loverman

Does it mean "Race" though? (I don't know.)

fenris

Native to me implies english as a first language, there is a big difference between that and what people call fluent. Race soesn't come into it.

andrew

According to this wiki article, it seems legit to use 'native speaker' and 'first language' interchangeably.

NewsMeQuick

I think the first guy got it right - the correct term to use would be fluency. Other than that it is completely legal as I understand.

If someone wants to bypass that, I'd apply and highlight that you are fluent in English, that might help. However, I note that in countries like the United Kingdom and the United States, it is perfectly normal practice for employers to request a university certificate proving fluency in English.

silja

There's a big difference between a fluent speaker and a native speaker though. A fluent speaker can still have a strong accent, make some grammar mistakes, can still not understand some concepts and idioms. A native speaker can be of any race (after all, plenty of black people and Asians born in Ireland would qualify).

strandroad

silja wrote: »

There's a big difference between a fluent speaker and a native speaker though. A fluent speaker can still have a strong accent, make some grammar mistakes, can still not understand some concepts and idioms. A native speaker can be of any race (after all, plenty of black people and Asians born in Ireland would qualify).

I've seen ads stating "native level English" and perhaps they should stick with that. It communicates clearly what level is required for the job but does not discriminate on the basis of nationality, place of birth etc. You can be French for example, but bilingual in English thanks to some circumstances in your life/family, and so you would not meet "native English speaker" requirement, but "native level English" you would.

fenris

If that is what you want then fluent is sufficient, if you want someone to speak English like a native then "native english speaker" pretty much sums it up!

xDramaxQueenx

Nothing worse than being served or trying to communicate with someone who has a poor level of english. Can't see why requiring possible staff to have english as their first language should be a problem?

strandroad

xDramaxQueenx wrote: »

Nothing worse than being served or trying to communicate with someone who has a poor level of english. Can't see why requiring possible staff to have english as their first language should be a problem?

Because it means restricting your recruitment to particular nationalities; while stating your language preferences in terms of skill levels leaves you in the clear.
It may also be more practical; you can easily find native speakers who have atrocious communication or spelling skills, but according to your own ad they should be good enough for you as you have not specified their level of competence at all, only their origin.

adamski8

xDramaxQueenx wrote: »

Nothing worse than being served or trying to communicate with someone who has a poor level of english. Can't see why requiring possible staff to have english as their first language should be a problem?

why would it have to be their first, what if a german came here and had perfect english and made less grammatic mistake than an irish person, german would be thire first language!

xDramaxQueenx

mhge wrote: »

Because it means restricting your recruitment to particular nationalities; while stating your language preferences in terms of skill levels leaves you in the clear.
It may also be more practical; you can easily find native speakers who have atrocious communication or spelling skills, but according to your own ad they should be good enough for you as you have not specified their level of competence at all, only their origin.

Origin doesn't come into it though. I know of plenty of chinese, indian, eastern european who speak very clear english and should you hear them and not see them, you would have no idea where you come from.

I know personally, I wouldn't hire someone with poor or broken english, whether or not it was their native language or not.

strandroad

xDramaxQueenx wrote: »

Origin doesn't come into it though. I know of plenty of chinese, indian, eastern european who speak very clear english and should you hear them and not see them, you would have no idea where you come from.

Of course, but they would not meet the "native speaker" requirement, because they are not. That's the whole point! "Native English speaker" does imply origin - the applicant must be from an English speaking country; "native level English" implies certain level of skill required, regardless of applicant's origin.

xDramaxQueenx

Im sure plenty of people are native speakers that aren't native from an english speaking country. Take my friend as an example, she is polish. Moved to ireland when she was 11. She speaks fluent, perfect, unbroken english with a dublin accent. Who cares where she was born?

Mrs OBumble

mhge wrote: »

Of course, but they would not meet the "native speaker" requirement, because they are not. That's the whole point! "Native English speaker" does imply origin - the applicant must be from an English speaking country; "native level English" implies certain level of skill required, regardless of applicant's origin.

But there are countries where they speak English alongside other languages.

There are also African people (for example) who were born here in Ireland, will have lived there lives here once they enter the workforce, and are native speakers for all intents and purposes.

(Actually, 'cos their parents will probably have used three different languages at home, and then they learned Irish in school too, they will be far more linguistically competent than most here.)

strandroad

xDramaxQueenx wrote: »

Im sure plenty of people are native speakers that aren't native from an english speaking country. Take my friend as an example, she is polish. Moved to ireland when she was 11. She speaks fluent, perfect, unbroken english with a dublin accent. Who cares where she was born?

This recruiter would and she'd be rejected... she may be speaking to a native speaker standard but technically she's not one (I presume that her first language is Polish and she's bilingual in English). Which of course would be silly but that's how the ad formulates their requirements, and that's why they make no sense!

fenris

The simple reality as I see it is that if a person does not have command of the language sufficient to understand the term "native English speaker" and applies for the job regardless, then they have disqualified themselves anyway.

MidlandsM

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

although it's possible you could argue this comes under "Race".
.

Race and language in todays modern world? It'd be hard to prove.

Mr. Loverman

Many people consider their English to be fluent when in fact it is not so good. This may be why companies no longer want "fluent" but want "native".

spurious

Nine times out of ten, it's not the 'natives' who know how to use all the elements of English, such as 'whom'.

I seen them when they done it.

mikemac1

They do need to learn to speak as the Irish locals do be speaking

Sorry OP, that just does be the way

spurious

spurious wrote: »

Nine times out of ten, it's not the 'natives' who know how to use all the elements of English, such as 'whom'.

I seen them when they done it.

It's not about level of English, it's about the customers being able to understand. I know plenty of Eastern Europeans with excellent English, but customers have trouble understanding their accent (sometimes to be honest it seems like they don't try to understand, but that's another matter). I also know plenty of Irish/British people with terrible English, and have never seen them have a problem being understood by locals.

It's not fair at all, but unfortunately I can see where the employers are coming from. They're not looking for someone incredibly eloquent, they're looking for someone that the customers will find it easy to understand. So the level of English is not really the point, but rather the ease with which locals can understand that English.

Pauvre Con

true-or-false wrote: »

They're not looking for someone incredibly eloquent, they're looking for someone that the customers will find it easy to understand.

That's Cork discounted....

sweeney1971

'When in Rome'

Pauvre Con

sweeney1971 wrote: »

'When in Rome'

I'm English. I can't understand some of the thick accents that I come across in Ireland. Let's hope this company isn't a multi-national....

Mervin J Minky

xDramaxQueenx wrote: »

I know personally, I wouldn't hire someone with poor or broken english, whether or not it was their native language or not.

So you won't hire a native English speaker that happened to have a speech impediment for example? Surely that would be grounds for discrimination based on a disability would it not?

fenris

Now you are really reaching, that is a completely different situation, you don't just speak a language you have to understand the language as it is spoke also. A speech impediment doesn't stop you understanding.

A native speaker brings more than just the language element, the normally bring a better grasp of slang and local culture that smooths their dealings with customers.

srsly78

fenris wrote: »

you have to understand the language as it is spoke also.

:P

fenris

Bloody phone always thinks it knows best!

srsly78

Here is a good example of appropriate interview technique for a native Dublin speaker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCaucifBqFE&feature=related

JustAThought

You see it in jobs advertised all over the world. There can be a big difference between someones idea of how" fluent" they are, versus a native speaker.

Only in Ireland will the PC brigade try to screw something out of it.

The usual.

For me, I prefer customer facing service who understand directly what I say in the way I choose to say it, not a dumbed down simplistic way; or re-phrased again to make them get-it. However, many non-native speakers speak excellent English . There are nuances in culture and aspect that Employers , or customers, may want or expect. And most Language classes don't teach that.

It's the addded extras...

Procrastastudy

This seems pretty clear cut. While its fair to say that a native English speaker may be of various races the corollary of that isn't that a native speaker can be of any race therefore its discrimination on the basis of race.

The issue is with the word 'native' which needs to be given its ordinary meaning unless there is a good reason not to do so. If the company was constantly refusing people based on their language skills - that wouldn't be an issue - assuming, of course, that they were discounting all the 'native' speakers with poor language skills as well (which were not down to a disability).

confuseddotcom

I have a feeling the word Native has done a complete 360 in years gone by. The traditionalist in me looks at it in black and white that Native is a Native person, but the realist reckons there'd be quite a few "grey" areas on the context of the word in recent times and at the first chance given there'd be a few people willing to back its' case.

greendom

xDramaxQueenx wrote: »

Im sure plenty of people are native speakers that aren't native from an english speaking country. Take my friend as an example, she is polish. Moved to ireland when she was 11. She speaks fluent, perfect, unbroken english with a dublin accent. Who cares where she was born?

But the expression native means born with - your Polish friend may be the best speaker of english in the World but it's still not her native language.

Vaarikas

I agree with many of you that selecting people according to their mother tongue is pretty restrictive and in my opinion causes segregation and unnecessary tension. Are cases like these rare in your opinion, or does this sort of preference occur often even among employers who would not publicly state that they want a native speaker, but in reality would automatically choose an Irish name over a foreign name?

Also, if I was to report advertisements like these, which would be the best place?

Procrastastudy

Vaarikas wrote: »

I agree with many of you that selecting people according to their mother tongue is pretty restrictive and in my opinion causes segregation and unnecessary tension. Are cases like these rare in your opinion, or does this sort of preference occur often even among employers who would not publicly state that they want a native speaker, but in reality would automatically choose an Irish name over a foreign name?

Also, if I was to report advertisements like these, which would be the best place?

Its more subtle usually. I'll give you some personal examples. As some of this is going to be a bit controversial let me put my cards on the table. In my experience many young Irish people are terrible employees. The sense of entitlement born out of the Celtic Tiger - in certain parts of Dublin especially - is shocking. I say this so you can see I'm a picky moody bugger regardless of nationality. I'm not Irish for the record.

CVs - The way foreign CVs are structured is sometimes an immediate put off. I am also much more likely to attribute spelling and grammar mistakes to poor language skills than a simple error. Although all CVs with mistakes ended up in the bin as the down turn happened.

Interviews - for certain jobs (I was a retailer) communication skills are key as is how someone comes across - more often than not an Irish person will have a massive advantage here. There is also a real undercurrent (I especially notice it in south Dublin and Wicklow) of people being very intolerant to non-nationals working in retail. This will also influence a decision. (even though it shouldn't! )

Just some rambling thoughts.

MidlandsM

Vaarikas wrote: »

Also, if I was to report advertisements like these, which would be the best place?

......report all you like, there is now law being broken.

Procrastastudy

You could try http://www.equality.ie/en/Home/

donkey balls

I don't see how people can/could report companies for not hiring a person who does not speak English to a good level,There are loads of occupations that state a person applying for a job must have a good English language proficiency level..
These jobs rely on people having a good level of English in order for them to do their jobs, you only have to look at the doctor's the HSE took on some time ago there English was very poor.
I really don't see the problem in companies advertising jobs which state native/good verbal English required.

greendom

donkey balls wrote: »

I really don't see the problem in companies advertising jobs which state native/good verbal English required.

Huge difference between asking for good verbal English and native English. Asking for native English discounts anyone who has English as a 2nd language, regardless of how well they speak it.

I not sure if its breaking any discrimination law but if it isn't it's about as close to the line that you can get.

Procrastastudy

donkey balls wrote: »

I don't see how people can/could report companies for not hiring a person who does not speak English to a good level,There are loads of occupations that state a person applying for a job must have a good English language proficiency level..
These jobs rely on people having a good level of English in order for them to do their jobs, you only have to look at the doctor's the HSE took on some time ago there English was very poor.
I really don't see the problem in companies advertising jobs which state native/good verbal English required.

An example - A Professor of English at the University of Moscow and a I apply for the same job. They refuse him on the solely basis he's a non-native speaker. Fair?

You have to give native it's ordinary meaning. If they said excellent, impeccable, native level - it would be fine. What these companies seem to be doing is to exempt non-nationals by requiring English as a first language.

greendom wrote: »

Huge difference between asking for good verbal English and native English. Asking for native English discounts anyone who has English as a 2nd language, regardless of how well they speak it.

I not sure if its breaking any discrimination law but if it isn't it's about as close to the line that you can get.

I'm also not saying refusing a candidate because their English wasn't as good as another is wrong either. We do it all the time when differentiating between native speakers!

greendom

Procrastastudy wrote: »

An example - A Professor of English at the University of Moscow and a I apply for the same job. They refuse him on the solely basis he's a non-native speaker. Fair?

You have to give native it's ordinary meaning. If they said excellent, impeccable, native level - it would be fine. What these companies seem to be doing is to exempt non-nationals by requiring English as a first language.



I'm also not saying refusing a candidate because their English wasn't as good as another is wrong either. We do it all the time when differentiating between native speakers!

Absolutely, there's nothing wrong with using how well someone speaks English as a criterium, the problem is when you preclude anyone who doesn't have English as their mother tongue.

fenris

Why do you think that is a problem?

greendom

fenris wrote: »

Why do you think that is a problem?

Because its discrimination

fenris

Discrimination based on which of the 9 categories?

greendom

fenris wrote: »

Discrimination based on which of the 9 categories?

I'd say this one covers it....

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/nationalorigin.cfm

fenris

No it doesn't.

Speaking native english is the recruitment criteria not country of origin.

Procrastastudy

fenris wrote: »

No it doesn't.

Speaking native english is the recruitment criteria not country of origin.

Being white isn't a country of origin either.