knowall:
Another thing I heard on the radio this week - we spend £22 million a year supplying interpreters to
immigrants who attend our hospitals - with our cancer patients dying for the want of suitable drugs.
This is my field of experience as a former public service interpreter.
I think interpreters for medical emergencies, courts, police etc. should be provided to foreingers: this is just a civilised country standart.
But I had one client and I really wanted to kick his arse. It was a Polish genetelman and I’ve been frequently visiting dentist with him. He’s in Scotland from 2004 and he can’t speak a single word in English. “What’s the point for learning it” - says he - “if I can always call the council and they have duty to provide me an interpreter for free… You should be happy as you have work thanks to me”.
Yes, I had work, but I had enough work without such a waste people like him. And my taxes I was paying from that work were going to provide services for such a muppet.
I see it that way:
There should be a law saying that if you want to work in some country, you should speak official language there in at least communicative level. We had such a law in Poland but after we joined EU, we had to scrap it due to discrimination, human laws and all other ■■■■■■■■.
But still if you are in Poland and you want to see a dentist, either you’ll find one who speaks English, pay for interpreter yourself or just buy a piles in local DIY store and do it yourself. And that’s how it should to be (but still in medical emergencies, police and courts you off course have right to have interpreter provided at the state’s expense).
If expecting people to speak local language is discriminative according to EU, I got another solution:
after you become resident, the state pays for your English/Polish/German etc. course and you have one year to learn it communicative way. After that if you were too lazy to sit on your arse and learn it, it becomes your problem. The state fullfilled its duty providing yuo opportunity to learn local language, but it can’t force it to do it if you are too lazy. But if you are too lazy to do something, I can’t see a reason why the state should pay for you. It’s too common in this country - my client example is only the one, you all know about people who live of benefits for generations as well. In Poland (sorry for giving this example all the time, but for obvious reason is just most familiar to me) if you are on unemployment benefit and you refuse a job offered to you by local job office, your benefit is taken away from you. This is how it should be here as well.
And last but not least. You thought that driving agencies is a rip off and easy money? Forget it.
Just think: what’s the difference for agency if it’s providing interpreters, drivers, plumbers or nurses? It has to check the workers skills and qualifications, organize some training here and there, monitor their availibility and provide them to customers according to the skills they need. Isn’t it?
So tell me how is that: if I drive a lorry for Scottish agency, I am paid 7 per hour and agency is paid, say, 11 for my work.
At the same time Police pays (unofficial data) 85 quids for an hour of my work and I get only 17 of it and I still have to pay all my taxes and expenses of it. Guess who takes the rest?
I suppose that if someone would take a closer look to it, it would be enough savings to provide migrants with interpreters when in emergency situation in hospital and also save several lives from cancer.
