[lg policy] Montreal: STM (Soci=?iso-8859-1?Q?=E9t=E9_de_transport_de_Montr=E9a=29_?=language review stalled

[Harold Schiffman]

STM language review stalled


By Andy Riga, GAZETTE TRANSPORTATION REPORTER January 10, 2014



MONTREAL — Like a bus stuck in traffic, Montreal’s transit agency is moving
slowly as it reviews its language policy, which has been a source of
friction between some transit workers and English-speaking riders.

The Société de transport de Montréal, which requires only a small number of
employees to speak English, set up an internal working group on the issue
in late 2012. Recommendations on possible policy changes were to be ready
by the spring of 2013.

This week, the authority admitted it’s still looking into the issue and
can’t say when the review will be completed.

A series of Gazette articles in 2012 and 2013 showed the STM may be
misinterpreting Bill 101, that it was not tracking language complaints and
that it could not say how many of its employees are required to be
bilingual.

Jean-François Lisée, the Parti Québécois minister responsible for
anglophone issues, has suggested the STM could use an exemption clause in
Bill 101 to require “basic English” among métro ticket-booth workers “in
downtown Montreal, where hundreds of thousands of anglophone tourists go,
where there are tens of thousands of McGill and Concordia students.”

The STM has not reviewed its language policy since 1999.

The working group includes experts from the STM’s legal, customer-service
and labour-relations departments. They looked at employee language
requirements and the types of complaints received regarding language of
service.

The group studied the issue “for much of 2013,” STM spokesperson Odile
Paradis told The Gazette this week. But she said the group did not submit
conclusions because a new STM board was to be named.

That new board met for the first time last month, but it will only consider
the language issue at some point in 2014, Paradis said.

In 2012, the STM was rocked by several confrontations between its employees
and English-speaking customers.

In one case, a commuter said a métro ticket-taker attacked her. A former
Montreal Impact player said another STM employee refused to sell him a
ticket because he spoke English. Another rider said an STM employee told
him: “We don’t serve English people.”

An STM employee made headlines when he posted a sign in a métro station
that read: “Au Québec c’est en français que ça se passe.” (Roughly
translated: “In Quebec, we do things in French.”)

The STM has 9,400 employees. It has said bilingualism is a prerequisite for
some workers, including at its information booths and call centres.

But when The Gazette asked for specifics in an access-to-information
request, the STM could not say which job categories and how many employees
were involved. It said it would provide answers by spring 2013, but never
followed up with details.

In response to the same access request, the STM said it could not say how
many complaints lodged with the authority were language-related.

Under Bill 101, an employer can require workers to have a knowledge of a
language other than French if “the nature of the duties requires such
knowledge.”

Another transit agency, the Agence métropolitaine de transport, requires
all employees who deal with the public to be bilingual. The AMT has said
the workers fall under the Bill 101 exemption.

Lisée has said he is puzzled by the differences between how the STM and AMT
interpret Bill 101. He said the STM never sought the advice of the Office
québécois de la langue française, which oversees application of Bill 101.

But STM vice-chair Marvin Rotrand has said that the STM has had “extensive
contact” with the OQLF over the years, including over union grievances
involving language hiring requirements.

Montreal civil-rights lawyer Julius Grey has suggested the STM is
“completely misinterpreting” Bill 101. He said the STM has an obligation to
“have a sufficient number of people who can (serve customers) in English.”

http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/language+review+stalled/9373669/story.html



**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its
members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or
sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal, and to write
directly to the original sender of any offensive message.  A copy of this
may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman, Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20140112/5067a963/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list