Waste Watch: Dual-language signs

 

With the city of Cincinnati facing a $51 million budget deficit, why is it that the city politicians are so concerned with adding dual-language signage at Fountain Square and throughout the city?

 

Vice Mayor Roxanne Qualls has proposed adding signage at Fountain Square to be in English and Spanish, with a notation that other languages could be added after "the administration deems it necessary." In addition, emergency signage throughout the city would be modified to include the Spanish language.

 

But only 2% of the population in the city is of Hispanic or Latino origin.

 

During a time of a budget crisis, where the city is facing a major deficit that it seemingly cannot rein in, why is it that certain politicians -- Qualls, and Democrats Laketa Cole, Cecil Thomas and Laure Quinlivan, find it with some immediate resolution, that Spanish signage must be added at some great cost to the city? And what public support does it have?

 

You can find broader support if you would help reduce and eliminate the deficit, instead of piling it on with needless expenditures.

I agree.. Cincinnati has one of the lowest Hispanic populations of any major city in the country, and an even smaller amount who speak only Spanish.  It's not unlike Qualls to do something solely in the name of being progressive in the larger sense, rather than actually serving the people.  Signs in Spanish aren't going to attract new residents, and my guess is that they would serve less than half of a percent of the population. 

 

Even at Cincinnati's day labor offices (which are usually geared towards immigrant workers) the signs are in only English. 

If the signs had to be replaced anyways (for poor conditions, outdated information), then I think it would be fine to include a second language on them.  Otherwise, it does seem wasteful to replace perfectly fine signs. 

Waste Watch: Dual-language signs

 

With the city of Cincinnati facing a $51 million budget deficit, why is it that the city politicians are so concerned with adding dual-language signage at Fountain Square and throughout the city?

 

Vice Mayor Roxanne Qualls has proposed adding signage at Fountain Square to be in English and Spanish, with a notation that other languages could be added after "the administration deems it necessary." In addition, emergency signage throughout the city would be modified to include the Spanish language.

 

But only 2% of the population in the city is of Hispanic or Latino origin.

 

During a time of a budget crisis, where the city is facing a major deficit that it seemingly cannot rein in, why is it that certain politicians -- Qualls, and Democrats Laketa Cole, Cecil Thomas and Laure Quinlivan, find it with some immediate resolution, that Spanish signage must be added at some great cost to the city? And what public support does it have?

 

You can find broader support if you would help reduce and eliminate the deficit, instead of piling it on with needless expenditures.

 

The resolution actually does explain why they want multi-lingual signs-- LULAC convention an event with an estimated economic impact of at least $1.3 million

here's the resolution: http://city-egov.cincinnati-oh.gov/Webtop/ws/council/public/child/Blob/29560.pdf?rpp=-10&m=1&w=doc_no%3D%27201000331%27

Thanks for that. I think that in better economic times, it makes sense, but to do so just to appeal to a convention... not so much.

Visitors...

 

The rest of the countRy, outside Cincinnati, has very different percentages.  There may be good fiscal reasons not to put up Spanish signs right now... but "there's not many of them here" seems a little short sighted, a little isolationist.

I'm all for cutting out waste, but really how much does it cost to replace some signs especially if it is a part of bringing in additional dollars to Cincinnati from conventions?

Visitors...

 

The rest of the county, outside Cincinnati, has very different percentages. There may be good fiscal reasons not to put up Spanish signs right now... but "there's not many of them here" seems a little short sighted, a little isolationist.

Yeah, I was thinking west-siders, but primarily for suburbanites. As well as tourists.

 

Maybe it is not the best time to do this, but honestly it is a distraction from the real villains of fiscal restraint. Especially since this has some potential for ROI. Admittedly not a lot of potential, but it is a nice gesture of good will, to boot. Not that good will is the best goal in the middle of a budget crisis.

 

I like the idea of it, but I am receptive to the idea that this is poorly timed.

 

For what it's worth, I've lived as a foreigner in a non-English speaking country. This kind of stuff really makes a difference. It helps you keep your sanity, as your world feels as though it's turned upside-down at times. It must be even worse in a place where most people can't even speak or understand your language. (We English speakers have it easiest, wherever we go.)

That was totally a typo... I meant the "country" as in USA has different percentages, not Hamilton County.  Mea culpa.

Maybe it is not the best time to do this, but honestly it is a distraction from the real villains of fiscal restraint.

 

Exactly. Nitpicking incredibly minor expenditures around the margins, even in the aggregate will have virtually no effect on reducing future deficits.

Sherman, private companies do exactly this kind of thing when hosting potential clients.  In Cincinnati's case the client happens to be thousands of Spanish-speaking visitors, a growing albeit small Latino population, and the desire to grow that demographic base which is supplying much of America's population growth.

 

The resolution also discusses the World Choir Games which will bring more than 20,000 people from all over the world to Cincinnati.  This is another opportunity to showcase our city and region to an international population that will certainly appreciate the bilingual signage even if they don't use it.

That was totally a typo... I meant the "country" as in USA has different percentages, not Hamilton County.  Mea culpa.

:lol: I was wondering why a Clevelander would be the one to bring up the suburban Latino population of Cincy. It's true, though...at least anecdotally, from my personal experience...that Latinos have largely skipped city life in the Cincy area and gone straight for the suburbs. The numbers still might not be that high, though, I haven't seen them. Through your typo, I was thinking you knew more than me about the demographics! ;-)

Honestly, Fountain Square should be multi-lingual in signage rather than bi-lingual. It is the symbolic core of the city. If it is going to be done, they should include at minimum Spanish, French, German, a couple of the East Asian languages, and Arabic. On the other hand, this probably isn't the best way to spend money unless it is necessary because there is something wrong with the current signage.

In most European countries their signs are in English, French, Spanish or whatever the native language might be.  Rarely do you see Asian or Middle Eastern languages.

That was totally a typo... I meant the "country" as in USA has different percentages, not Hamilton County. Mea culpa.

:lol: I was wondering why a Clevelander would be the one to bring up the suburban Latino population of Cincy. It's true, though...at least anecdotally, from my personal experience...that Latinos have largely skipped city life in the Cincy area and gone straight for the suburbs. The numbers still might not be that high, though, I haven't seen them. Through your typo, I was thinking you knew more than me about the demographics! ;-)

 

I'm shocked Cincinnati's only at 2%.  Had no idea.  I don't know what Cleveland's percentage is, but there's an entire section of town that's mainly Puerto Rican.  Admittedly, Cleveland has very few signs in Spanish outside that one area.  None downtown that I can think of. 

 

I just can't see the smallness of the local Spanish-speaking population being reason enough to scrap the signs idea, in light of the fact that this small percentage is so uncommon in 2010.  Not being able to afford new signs is a pefectly good reason though.

^The majority of Cincinnati's Spanish-speaking population lives in Hamilton in the neighborhoods immediately south and east of downtown.

 

And overall, Cincinnati does not label ethnic enclave districts as many other cities do...this does not mean they don't exist.  It's much like Cincinnati's LGBT population in this regard.

Couldn't the "only 2% of the population is going to use it" argument be used against any individual recreation center and the majority of our parks to argue for its closure? 

    "I'm curious if you have any examples of companies that actually did this."

 

    I do not wish to tell the name of the company here, but I can tell you that in 2008 and 2009 a local company of about 104 employees cut bonuses and perk benefits, then laid off 18 people, then cut health benefits, and then cut salaries / wages to finally get expenses back in line with revenues. Two of the people laid off were friends of mine.

 

   

 

^ You can focus on new income, but you also need to cut spending.

 

Many private companies, when in the red, cut employee pay across the board.  It's a shame unions stand in the way of this practice in so many places.

 

I'm curious if you have any examples of companies that actually did this.  It's generally pretty hard for companies to cut wages as well, since an experienced employee is much more likely to leave for another company if he finds his pay slashed.

 

I won't name names either, but I worked for one that did, and know of a few others.  They were all architecture firms or something closely related.  These weren't just frozen pay or furloughs, they were actual salary/wage cuts of a few percent.

 

I was surprised when it happened, and was telling a really good friend from South Korea about it.  She told me that was commonplace there, and that people would rather lose a bit of their own pay than lose a coworker.  I guess that's a cultural thing!

Well, if you won't cite your sources, then in fairness you should at least cite an example or two of private sector unions that are doing what you've accused unions in general of doing.  The only place I can think of that has done this is St. Ursula Academy to their teachers.

 

Anyway, your example seems like it doesn't hold general validity.  Anecdotally speaking, I would say it is far more common for employers to simply cut personnel rather than try and force down a general pay decrease.

It is much more common to just go through layoffs, which is why I'm suggesting another strategy.

 

Here's an example of it happening in South Korea: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123603944366614685.html

 

I'm suggesting it because a) the city probably needs the amount of workers it has and b) we don't need more unemployed in Cincinnati.

 

It's simple my opinion, whether you think it's valid or not, that most unions in the US wouldn't agree to something like across the board pay cuts.  It isn't suggested enough to find an instance of it happening, though.  The companies I mentioned before aren't big enough for their actions to be reported anywhere, either, so again you can believe me or think I'm lying, I don't really care...  Really all I want to get across here is that I'm suggesting across the board pay cuts as a means to curtail spending rather than layoffs.  The evidence I have is anecdotal because it's not commonplace enough to have any sources to cite.

>Fountain Square should be multi-lingual in signage rather than bi-lingual

 

The only places in Cincinnati where you will see any writing whatsoever in various foreign languages is at the hospitals.  They typically have a poster announcing that translators are available in over a dozen languages. 

 

I don't think there's much of an argument against posting 10 or more wayfinding signs around downtown with at least a dozen languages represented.  The European languages are the least important, since you can basically figure out what's going on anywhere in Europe until you get over to the cyrillic alphabet countries. 

 

 

It is much more common to just go through layoffs, which is why I'm suggesting another strategy.

 

Here's an example of it happening in South Korea: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123603944366614685.html

 

I'm suggesting it because a) the city probably needs the amount of workers it has and b) we don't need more unemployed in Cincinnati.

 

It's simple my opinion, whether you think it's valid or not, that most unions in the US wouldn't agree to something like across the board pay cuts. It isn't suggested enough to find an instance of it happening, though. The companies I mentioned before aren't big enough for their actions to be reported anywhere, either, so again you can believe me or think I'm lying, I don't really care... Really all I want to get across here is that I'm suggesting across the board pay cuts as a means to curtail spending rather than layoffs. The evidence I have is anecdotal because it's not commonplace enough to have any sources to cite.

 

Well, okay.  But as you yourself have said, it doesn't often happen here, and the primary example you've suggested is in South Korea, and you admit that their willingness to go through that most likely represents a cultural difference.

 

I still don't understand the unsubstantiated dig at unions, which I suspect are in fact more likely to take an across the board pay cut (because they have a responsibility to all their members and a centralized, decision making authority that the company has to negotiate with) than a company whose workers are non-unionized.  For example, all the public sector unions that deal with the City took pay cuts last year to avoid layoffs, with the exception of AFSCME.

 

Well, if you won't cite your sources, then in fairness you should at least cite an example or two of private sector unions that are doing what you've accused unions in general of doing. The only place I can think of that has done this is St. Ursula Academy to their teachers.

 

Anyway, your example seems like it doesn't hold general validity. Anecdotally speaking, I would say it is far more common for employers to simply cut personnel rather than try and force down a general pay decrease.

 

As an auditor I have seen numerous companies in the past year where top level employees took across the board pay cuts, then at lower levels not only were wages frozen (which amounts to a decrease with inflation) but people were cut to 4 day or 36 hour work weeks which is equivalent to a pay cut.

 

As a specific example, the Cincinnati Enquirer is one quarterly furloughs, where each employee needs to take an unpaid week off each quarter.

 

Also it is important to remember that there is not a lot of hiring going on, so companies are able to cut wages and/or hours and not lose employees because there is no where for them to go. The key is to make it up to them when things turn around.

As an auditor I have seen numerous companies in the past year where top level employees took across the board pay cuts, then at lower levels not only were wages frozen (which amounts to a decrease with inflation) but people were cut to 4 day or 36 hour work weeks which is equivalent to a pay cut.

 

Right, but I guess the point of what I've been saying is that pay cuts are particularly hard for people to stomach so they do things that are "equivalent to a pay cut" like furloughs.  That difference is inherent to my point that you simply don't see actual pay decreases happen very often, particularly for non-management employees.

I've seen companies do across the board paycuts.  I was part of one.

^Which company?

And realize that the debate, in so much as I am proposing an argument, is that large companies with large number of employees act much in the same way that governments do with regard to pay during economic downturns- they cut hours or employees rather than cut pay.  Basically if you work somewhere that you can, as the lowest ranking employee, at any given moment, walk in and talk to the owner or the person who determines your pay, than that doesn't count for the purposes of our discussion, because the point is that because large organizations don't have the personal connections between employer and employee that small businesses do, and therefore are less likely to be able to cut salary for that reason.

Keep in mind if someone mentions here that they personally received a paycut, they may not want to post where they work.  Many people are hesitant (and probably for good reasons) to post where they work on a message board.

a very large, fortune 500, global company.

The reason furloughs are more popular than actual pay cuts has to with how it shapes the pay structure over the long term. A furlough is temporary and doesn't necessarily affect one's nominal pay for the purposes of raises and bonuses and the like. Pay cuts have much longer term effects (when a company does this it is far more drastic).