• CONTEST ALERT - Experience the power of DDR5 memory with Kingston Click for details

Caught speaking Malayalam, Apollo nurses asked to resign

Status
Not open for further replies.

paroh

Padawan
Tue, May 26 04:10 AM


Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals on Monday asked two nurses to submit their resignations for speaking in their "native tongue" inside the hospital premises.
The nurses, Jincy Joseph and Lijy Menon (names changed to protect identity) were posted in ICU of the Cardio Thoracic Vascular Surgery (CTVS) department. The two said they will take their case to the National Human Rights Commission on Tuesday, challenging the hospital's decision.
Menon said they arrived for the afternoon shift at 1.45 pm. "We greeted each other in the lift lobby in Malayalam and did not realise that the nursing superintendent was standing behind us," Joseph said."
Menon added, "We spent the entire day apologising but we were not allowed to enter the ward after that."
The hospital's nursing superintendent, Usha Banerjee, said employees were encouraged to speak only in English within the premises. "We cater to an international clientele," Banerjee said. "In any case, speaking in native languages might jeopardise patient safety; we avoid talking in any language other than English while inside the hospital premises."
Asked whether the employees were dismissed, she said the nurses had not been dismissed yet. But both Menon and Joseph were told to tender their resignations to the evening superintendent.
"We have put in our papers," Joseph said. "More than the insult, we are outraged at the fact that we do not have the right to speak in our language. Since we were not in front of patients, or even inside the ward, this was not violation of rules per se."
Menon said they agree with the hospital rule prohibiting speaking in languages other than English in presence of the patients. "Any other language might make a patient uncomfortable," she said, "but we were in the lift lobby and had not even started our shift yet."
"Ninety per cent of nurses in the hospital are Malayalis. The hospital has no right to tell them which language to speak in. Nurses are mentally harassed and we will take this up with higher authorities," said Usha Krishna Kumar, president of the Malayali Nurses Welfare Association and wife of former Union Minister S Krishna Kumar.

Source
Code:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/caught-speaking-malayalam-apollo-nurses-asked-to-resign/465842/0
 
Last edited:
If they signed a bond/contract for service where they agreed to speak in English only as a condition for employment, I see nothing wrong with this action.

That's like a student enrolling himself in Satyabhama University (Chennai) and later telling that he was harassed by the university staff. By joining it he acknowledged that he will agree to be kicked around by their dumb rules.
 

j1n M@tt

Cyborg Agent
I agree with the English speaking rule part, but firing employees for greeting each other is not gr8 act done by the authorities....I'm damn sure if they had done it in hindi, they won't be facing anything like this.
 

hailgautam

Youngling
They were speaking in private and it is intrusion into private lives by Apollo if the Nursing Superintendent overhears them greet each other. Contracts or agreements can not over-ride fundamental rights. Being Indian it is our fundamental right to speak any language we wish and can speak. As long as it is not hampering the work and in this case lives of other people can not be a case for dismissal – I can’t see how greeting each other jeopardises other’s lives.
 

afonofa

Journeyman
If they signed a bond/contract for service where they agreed to speak in English only as a condition for employment, I see nothing wrong with this action.
Why should there be a contract in the first place that allows only english to be spoken in an Indian hospital in India? When even MP's can speak in their native languages in the parliament, then how can a hospital make its employees sign a contract that forbids any Indian language?

I wonder what the hospital will do if there is a patient who can only speak in a native language or should I say non-english and if they have a nurse who can communicate with that patient in his/her language, will they still insist on the nurse speaking in english? The danger to the patient would be more in that situation. As long as the nurses are able to communicate in the required language with a particular person in the required situation, then speaking in a native language cannot be a danger to anyone.

If it's in the contract, IT'S IN THE CONTRACT
It's not the devil's contract.

I agree with the English speaking rule part, but firing employees for greeting each other is not gr8 act done by the authorities....I'm damn sure if they had done it in hindi, they won't be facing anything like this.
Because if the nurses talked in hindi, the superintendent would have been able to understand what they are saying. This whole issue is probably more about control on a personal level between the nurses and the superintendent. It's 3 women who are involved and you know how controlling women can be, especially against each other.

Your private life is OUTSIDE your office
What happens in a person's private life affects his/her professional life and vice versa. When an organization employs an individual, they don't employ the person's certificate/qualities, they employ the person with the certificate/qualities. It's the private life of a person that makes them the individual whom the organization employed. You can't cut off the private life of a person from their office life because then that person wouldn't be the individual whom the organization employed in the first place.These are human beings here not machines that you can turn on/off features which you dont want at a particular time/place.

Poor nurses got pwned!
^+1
 

NucleusKore

TheSaint
What happens in a person's private life affects his/her professional life and vice versa. When an organization employs an individual, they don't employ the person's certificate/qualities,they employ the person with the certificate/qualities.

Let the employer be the judge of that. He pays the salary on his terms. No one is tying anyone with a rope and forcing them into servitude/bonded labour.

It's the private life of a person that makes them the individual whom the organization employed. You can't cut off the private life of a person from their office life because then that person wouldn't be the individual whom the organization employed in the first place.These are human beings here not machines that you can turn on/off features which you dont want at a particular time/place.

Maybe so, all the more reason you should see what you're signing up for. In private organisations, your private life is NOT PREMITTED to affect your working life. They'll just ask you to pack off. If you don't like this then you'll have to join the CPM.
 
Look, its THEY who signed up to work in that hospital in the first place.
If instead, they boycott the hospital with a lot of people joining the boycott, maybe the hospital will be forced to reconsider.

This has nothing to do with human rights. I have a right to wear what I want and yet I was forced to wear a friggin uniform during my school days. Did I complain ? No because I couldn't. Rules are rules when you sign a paper to obey them as a condition for acceptance into the institution.
 

din

Tribal Boy
Well, they are back in the job :)

The nurses welfare association etc intervened and discussed the matter with the hospital head, the head apologized and took them back in the job.

Source : Newspapers.
 

afonofa

Journeyman
Let the employer be the judge of that. He pays the salary on his terms. No one is tying anyone with a rope and forcing them into servitude/bonded labour.

Maybe so, all the more reason you should see what you're signing up for. In private organisations, your private life is NOT PREMITTED to affect your working life. They'll just ask you to pack off. If you don't like this then you'll have to join the CPM.
The employer cannot be the judge of that because he is not employing just a person's qualities, he is employing the entire person. The qualities/certificate which make the person suitable for the job are just one aspect of the person. The employer cannot say that he just wants the best rose petals but not the entire rose because the entire rose includes the stem which also includes the thorns. They say first impression is the last impression for a reason and this is especially important for job interviews. But the employer has to realise that the employer's personal life has shaped his likes/dislikes(first impression) about other people, including his choice of employees. So when the employer is not able to keep his personal life from affecting his decisions in his professional life, then how reasonable is it for the employer to expect his employee to be 100% impersonal?

For eg. if a person "A" is selected for a job and then for next 6 months "A" performs exceptionally well, obviously the organisation is very pleased that they have selected the person with the right qualities for the job. But then suddenly there are some personal problems which start affecting A's work. Would it be right for the organisation to fire "A", simply because A's qualities are now being eclipsed because of personal problems? The qualities which made "A" so perfect for the job are still present in the employee but are just being overshadowed by something greater(personal life/problem).

If the organisation was to say "keep your private life out of your professional life" and fire people on this logic then they would run out of people to employ. A better organisation, instead of firing the employee, would try to facilitate conditions that help the employee to overcome the personal problems so that the qualities can once again shine through. There used to be a time when having love(or other) affairs with co-workers was explicitly prohibited but they(companies/organisations) soon realised that people are still doing it and so now they encourage it (because it helps keep the employees happy) just as long as the employees sign a contract to agree that the company does not get dragged into any kind of harassment lawsuits. So organisations do understand that its not possible to separate private life from professional life.

It would have been good if everyone was like Data(from star trek) so they can just turn on/off the emotion chip. But it's not so and the organisations that recognise this, follow the principle that "a happy employee is a more productive employee". Otherwise there is no need for organisations like Google, Infosys etc. to have gyms and other facilities for their employees. Because those are for the personal aspects of a person. But they recognise that private and professional life cannot be completely separated and so they don't come up with ridiculous rules which go against the very nature of human beings.
Look, its THEY who signed up to work in that hospital in the first place.
If instead, they boycott the hospital with a lot of people joining the boycott, maybe the hospital will be forced to reconsider.

This has nothing to do with human rights. I have a right to wear what I want and yet I was forced to wear a friggin uniform during my school days. Did I complain ? No because I couldn't. Rules are rules when you sign a paper to obey them as a condition for acceptance into the institution.
You are thinking that the sequence of events was this:
1. the nurses read the contract and knew the language is to be english only
2. they still signed the contract
3. they spoke in a non-english language
4. the nurses were wrong to do so.

But you miss the full sequence of events:
0. the hospital made a wrong rule of english only
1. the nurses read the contract and knew the language is to be english only
2. they still signed the contract
3. they spoke in a non-english language
4. the nurses were wrong to do so.
Hence the nurses are absolved of any wrong because they broke a rule that was wrong to begin with. You cannot hold people responsible for breaking a wrong rule.

BTW I think that the reason for making uniforms compulsory is to promote a sense of equality among children, when they are at their most impressionable age. I completely support making uniforms compulsory, maybe even upto the 12th std.
^^ Send that patient to spoken english classes!!:|
What if there is a baby crying? Will the hospital require that the nurses comfort the baby only in english or will any other language or even non-language do? (goo-goo's and ga-ga's that women make when talking to babies)

It's good that they got their jobs back. The nurses were in the right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom