Apply Only If You Have Skills We Cannot Require
Imagine you’re hiring translators, interpreters, language teachers or tour guides—or are one. However, despite what common sense suggests, these days the question is not academic or hypothetical.
In fact, it was recently addressed by the Canadian government after an uproar about precisely that requirement stipulated by a Chinese-owned mining company operating in British Columbia that made Mandarin an employment prerequisite for “temporary foreign workers” (so categorized and authorized under a Canadian government employment program).
In an April 29, 2013 Reuters news story, it was reported that:
“A majority Chinese-owned company had listed Mandarin as a language requirement for 201 jobs at the Murray River coal mine in the interior of British Columbia. The company involved is HD Mining International Ltd, in which China’s Huiyong Holdings Ltd holds a 55 percent stake, Canada’s Dehua Lvliang International Mines Group Inc 40 percent and an unnamed party 5 percent. HD Mining said last year it had tried to hire locally but had been unable to find people with the skills to operate the specialized mining equipment, currently used in China, that will be used at the Canadian mine.
The government addressed that HD Mining controversy with a new rule thatEnglish and French will now be the only languages that can be used as a job requirement.” (Boldface and italics mine.)
“Used as a Job Requirement”—Huh?
So, if the reporting is correct as it stands, does this mean that Chinese (or any other language save the two official languages) cannot be required to get any job—not just mining jobs, not just “temporary foreign worker” jobs, but also any job whatsoever? Surely that can’t be what it means.
If this seems counter-intuitive to you, it’s probably for a good reason. On its face, the new policy, as reported, would seem to prohibit advertising for Chinese-speaking workers —indeed, for any language speakers (or writers and readers), except for English or French.
Since that is nonsense, I just had to check the reporting. It turns out that many major Canadian news organizations covering the story said the same thing verbatim : “English and French will now be the only languages that can be used as a job requirement.” The list includes the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Sun, Global News and the National Post.
Now, what in the world does this mean? How does one “use a language” as a job requirement. “Use of a language” as a job requirement—this I can understand, but not “use a language as a job requirement”.
After about six phone calls, I got to speak with a B.C. Employment Standards media spokesperson, who told me that, indeed, that quote was taken verbatim from a federal government press release—while admitting that some effort is required to grasp what it is supposed to mean (given that it is not simply ambiguous, instead being borderline incomprehensible).
Because the news was very fresh, he too resolved to investigate to find out what it really means.
I eventually found one clearer exception to the confusion—Yahoo Finance Canada: As part of its background information on this development, the Yahoo report, “Harper Government announces reforms to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program ”, was more comprehensible and specific:
“Employers seeking temporary foreign workers, or advertising for jobs, in a language other than English or French will not be allowed to hire temporary foreign workers. Exemptions will only be given in specialized cases where a foreign language is an essential job requirement, such as tour guides, translators or performers. In these cases, the onus will be on the employer to explain why a foreign language is a requirement of the job.”
This may seem to be the end of the matter. But not so fast. Reread it. What it says is that employers will not be allowed to advertise for or otherwise solicit workersin any language other than French and English. If they do, they will not be permitted to hire them. It says nothing about making the language that is prohibited in advertising also a prohibited job requirement. Nothing at all.
But, in fact, what does the widely replicated quote, “…the only languages that can be used as a job requirement” itself really mean? The Yahoo Finance rendering of the details suggests that the widely disseminated version should be rephrased as “the only languages that can be used to advertise or otherwise present a language requirement”.
So, is the 3rd-language (one that is neither English nor French) job requirement prohibited, or not? If it is, not only is it forbidden to advertise in a 3rd language, but it is also forbidden to require one for the job.
In fact, it seems that the job language-requirement is also about to be forbidden.
In a summary of the 2013 federal budget at budget.gc.ca, it is stated that, “With details to be announced in the coming months, the Government will… Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations to restrict the identification of non-official languages as job requirements when hiring through the Temporary Foreign Worker process.”
So it appears there is additional (pending) legislation that prohibits not only advertising and soliciting in a third language, but also disallows hiring that requires such a 3rd language. The wording suggests that the prohibition will stand, even if the job applicant also has English and/or French-language skills.
It also appears that these restrictions apply only to temporary foreign workers—for now or for sure?
Where does this leave the Chinese mining company and other companies that claim they need to recruit and to hire 3rd-language (temporary foreign, or also other?) speakers, writers or readers?
The Chinese Options
Here are their options:
1. Comply with English/French-only advertising and other recruitment restrictions. This probably means trying to recruit bilingual or trilingual workers, who will be able to read the ads or to comprehend the English/French job-fair spiels (unless someone translates for the worker).
Good luck with finding Chinese miners that way! Even if that succeeds, there is still the job’s imminent language-requirement ban to overcome.
2. Try to argue the case that the 3rd language is indeed essential for the job—and hope that the government will at least allow hiring of 3rd-language workers who also speak English and/or French—a restriction that leads back to option #1, i.e., recruiting in English and/or French only.
The Chinese mining company may have a good case for requiring Mandarin, if only on safety grounds, given that the machinery is Chinese (almost certainly with Mandarin-only operating and maintenance manuals, switch and indicator labels, etc.)
3. Hope that what is prohibited is only 3rd-language recruitment, and that the job language-requirement can stand. If the latter is also disallowed, hire a lobbyist to push for it.
To get around the advertising restrictions, the Chinese company might consider picture-only advertising, e.g., illustrations of happy Chinese miners, smiling at the Canadian sun, shovels hoisted high—like workers depicted in what you’d expect to see printed on a People’s Republic of China commemorative postage stamp.
4. Eliminate the need for the 3rd language on the job. At Murray River, this would mean, as a minimum, translating everything associated with boots-on-and under-the-ground mining into English and/or French—the maintenance manuals, operating manuals, machine dials and switches, and parts identifiers, or simply replacing all equipment with Canadian/American counterparts.
Sure, no problem.
Why Limit the Ruling to Recruiting Temporary Workers?
If both 3rd-language advertising and job requirements are going to be prohibited, why limit it to temporary foreign workers—or only to hiring? In Richmond, B.C., which has a 65% Chinese-speaking population, there are now Chinese-only business signs. Surely, these are as problematic and less justified as Chinese-only job ads—or so those in Richmond who recently petitioned against them unsuccessfully would argue.
I imagine they would wonder why signs that needlessly require Mandarin reading ability are fine with local government in Richmond, but problematic at a mine in Murray River stuck with Chinese equipment.
If effective use of an official language, e.g., English or French, were an additional requirement for jobs demanding 3rd languages, would it impose any “unfair” hardships? Hardships—yes, for Chinese-Japanese, or Armenian-Swahili translators, teachers, etc., who are merely bilingual. Unfair?
Well, at least unnecessary, if there are comparably qualified translators who also have a command of at least one official language. The employment market would get them hired on rational, rather than on needless legal grounds.
On the other hand, if there is a shortage—including a shortage of the merely bilingual 3rd and 4th-language translators (e.g., the Swahili-capable Armenians), forbidding their hiring would, again, not be unfair. It would just be dumb.
What about Other Foreign Skills?
This line of reasoning can be generalized to other professions. For jobs that really require “foreign” skills aside from or in addition to language, such as cultural sensitivity and awareness, a command of imported “untranslated” technologies or methods (e.g., a unique traditional form of Bavarian beer-making), should there be requirements comparable to an official-language job requirement?
If so, to get a temporary job teaching how to make that unique Bavarian beer, shouldn’t the Bavarian worker also have a command of at least one method of making Molson’s, Labatt’s or some other Canadian beer?
If that would be unfair, why isn’t a corresponding official-language requirement also unfair?
Perhaps because Bavarian beer is better than Canadian.