Such a rule is presumed to violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. § 1606.7(a) provides that a rule requiring employees to speak only English at all times in the workplace is a burdensome term and condition of employment. Employees' right to speak in languages other than English may only be curtailed in certain narrowly-defined situations.ĮEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. In most circumstances, employees' communications in languages other than English should not be limited to only those official functions for which they were hired. In order to meet the needs of these individuals, over 60 percent of WHD's investigators are multilingual, providing support for nearly 50 different languages.Īs an employer that promotes the benefits of a diverse workforce, DOL recognizes that employees who speak languages other than English may wish to communicate in another language outside of performing their job duties, such as in casual conversations with coworkers or while engaged in personal matters. WHD strategic initiatives focus on industries that employ vulnerable workers, including those with limited English proficiency. The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) enforces federal labor laws, including laws concerning the minimum wage, overtime pay, child labor, and migrant workers. Fluent in a variety of languages, OSHA's multilingual staff ensures that programs and services are effectively communicated to all workers and employers. This way, we learn about the structure of language, not select patterns only.The Department of Labor benefits from the substantial contributions of employees who are fluent in languages other than English.įor example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safeguards the rights of workers to safe and healthy working conditions by setting and enforcing standards, and by providing training, outreach, education and assistance. I consider the Present and the Past, some 20 years ago.) (The shop assistant suggested it.)įor the bit of logic, we can think about a time frame. I have HAD fresh strawberries pre-ordered with my weekly shopping. I have HAD fresh strawberries every week, for half a year. I HAVE fresh strawberries at least once a week. If we memorize phrases, we may fail to comprehend what meaning there is for grammar to bring. So, the sentence sounds wrong, because the verb and the time are contradicting each other. But, as we know, the present perfect tense means that there is a connection to the present. But using "have had", the sentence is ungrammatical, because "last year" is always a completed event that is not connected to the present. In the first sentence here, using had, the sentence is fine.
*I have had a lot of homework last year.If I say "have had", I connect the event to the present, so it is possible that I might have more homework, and I could say something like this on, e.g., a Wednesday (in the middle of the week).Īnother example will illustrate the importance of the connection to now: If I only say had, this means that "having a lot of homework this week" is a completed event, either because there is no expectation of more homework, or because the week is over. I have had a lot of homework this week.On the other hand, we use the present perfect tense to describe an event from the past that has some connection to the present. This means that I have a lot of homework now. "Have had" is using the verb have in the present perfect tense.
0 kommentar(er)
