A preliminary study of Japanese co-workers’ attitudes towards migrant workers’ Japanese language skills in blue-collar workplaces

4.1. The BWI report

Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI) is a global federation of trade unions in the building, building materials, wood, forestry, and related industries. It is a non-profit organisation based in Geneva, and has regional offices and project offices scattered around the world. Its goals are to organise workers into trade unions, and more importantly, to improve standards in the construction industry in the long run. BWI appears to have significant experience in large-scale sports events, having been involved in the 2012 Euro Cup in Poland and Ukraine, the 2018 World Cup in Russia, and the 2018 Winter Olympics in PyeongChang.

BWI seems to have no political agenda apart from seeking to improve workers’ rights. It claims to focus on supporting its affiliates to achieve better working conditions and ensure safety and health for workers in all projects related to large-scale sports events (BWI, 2019). It also aspires to leave behind a legacy of improved standards in the construction industry after the events.

The BWI report was penned after an international delegation visited the 2020 Tokyo Olympics construction sites in September 2018 (BWI, 2019). The gist of the report is that there was an acute labour shortage and the workers were overworked. More relevant to the present paper is the short section on migrant workers. At one site there were migrant workers, or strictly speaking, TITP interns, but the Japanese workers noted that these interns were given only menial tasks to perform, such as shifting raw materials. BWI pointed out that shifting raw materials is a task that should be carried out with forklifts or other equipment, and that the interns could more effectively contribute on the construction site if they were assigned work that would develop their skills (BWI, 2019). Some of the remarks made by the site management revealed their attitudes towards the interns’ Japanese language skills.

4.2. The Nikkei Asia story on a TITP intern doing decontamination work

Nikkei Asia is a weekly publication owned by Nikkei Inc. Nikkei Inc’s flagship publication, The Nikkei, claims to be the world’s largest financial newspaper. Nikkei Asia targets business readers, and is slightly to the right on the political spectrum. Unlike left-leaning newspapers such as The Mainichi, which sympathises with migrant workers and frequently runs stories on the injustices they suffer (such as a recent series on the plight of Vietnamese TITP interns), Nikkei Asia features fewer stories on the misfortunes of individual migrant workers.

It is difficult to ascertain but it seems likely that the TITP intern approached Nikkei Asia with his story. After Nikkei Asia ran the article, it was taken up by other newspapers, which based their reporting on the original article in Nikkei Asia. The story appeared in March 2018, providing details on a TITP intern’s experience of being sent to Fukushima Prefecture to do decontamination work, even though it was not within the scope of his duties as he understood it (Lang, 2018). The 24-year-old Vietnamese male, who was hired by a construction company, said he had been sent to residential areas in Fukushima on numerous occasions to demolish contaminated structures. His Japanese employer was interviewed for the story, and his responses revealed his attitudes towards the intern’s Japanese language skills.

4.3. The Japan Times story on small firms taking on foreign employees

The Japan Times claims to be the most widely read English language newspaper in the country. It also boasts of being the largest and oldest English language daily newspaper. It appears to be in a neutral position politically, with no particular leanings. However, the article analysed in this paper is part of a series which claims to examine Japan’s immigration policy as the country opens its doors to an increasing number of migrant workers (Nagata, 2019). The article is dated 21^st April 2019, the same month in which the Specified Skilled Worker visas were introduced. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that the newspaper was trying to be supportive of the new visas, thereby adopting an optimistic tone, as well as providing a ‘happy ending’ to the story in which the featured companies’ efforts result in success.

The article mainly focuses on the experiences of Sakae Casting Co, a small aluminium manufacturer located in Tokyo. Two other firms with similar experiences are also mentioned towards the end of the article. Sakae’s CEO, Takahashi Suzuki, believes that foreign employees are necessary for overseas expansion of his business. After a difficult process of adaptation, the foreign employees are integrated and Suzuki successfully expands his business.

5.1. Ownership of the means of communication

Japanese co-workers or employers assume ownership of the means of communication in all three documents analysed. Analyses of the documents are presented below, beginning with the BWI report.

In the report, the site management of one construction site reported that the TITP interns working there spoke no Japanese and communication was a challenge, especially on health and safety matters:

When the above extract is read in conjunction with the Japanese workers’ observation that the interns were given only menial tasks, such as shifting raw materials, it seems likely that it was because they did not speak Japanese that they were assigned such work. Although the management did not explicitly state that it was due to that, given the context that there was an acute labour shortage and the Japanese workers were overworked, it is the most likely explanation. It appears that the Japanese supervisors felt they lacked the means to communicate to the interns the complexity of more challenging tasks, as well as the health and safety issues involved. Although under Japanese law, employers must ensure that foreign employees can understand the health and safety procedures, the interns noted that there was no special provision to translate safety materials or procedures into other languages (BWI, 2019).

Reading between the lines, it seems that the management implicitly assumed that Japanese is the only means of communication, which suggests ownership of the means of communication. Their reasoning appears to be that since the interns did not speak Japanese, there was no way of communicating with them. This reasoning is made to appear to be common sense in that ‘it was reported that they (the migrant workers) spoke no Japanese and communication was a challenge’ (BWI 2019: 11); since the interns did not speak Japanese, and Japanese was the only means of communication, therefore communication was difficult. It is untrue that Japanese was the only means of communication. The management and Japanese workers could have been taught Vietnamese, Chinese or any other language.

Proficiency in the hegemonic⁶ language of the state is often used to classify people, and those who are not proficient are frequently said to be unable to function in society (Shohamy, 2006; Shohamy, 2009). In this case, the interns seem to have been classified or labelled as ‘non-speakers of Japanese’ and are seen as being capable of menial tasks such as moving raw materials only. This deprives the construction site of the contribution they are potentially capable of making as well as the interns of the opportunity to develop their skills. It echoes Kraft’s (2019b) finding, that Norwegians think that Polish workers on Norwegian construction sites need to be restricted to simple tasks because they do not speak Norwegian.

In the second document analysed (the Nikkei Asia story about a TITP intern who was sent to do decontamination work in Fukushima), the intern’s employer also assumes ownership of the means of communication. In order to provide adequate context, the analysis below includes what the employer said prior to the sentences indicating ownership of the means of communication.

When Nikkei Asia interviewed the employer, who was also the president of the construction company, he defended his decision to send the intern to Fukushima:

Based on the beginning of the extract, we can see that the employer perceives TITP interns as opportunistic individuals. He thinks that as long as the intern is assigned the same duties as his Japanese employees and therefore treated equally, the risks involved in decontamination work do not matter. He used the word ‘foreign’ before ‘intern’, even though it was obvious which intern the interview was about. He then referred to ‘the Japanese workers’ rather than ‘other workers’, so the contrast between the categories ‘foreign’ and ‘Japanese’ is accentuated. He then attempts to downplay the risks by pointing out that the work site was a residential area, as opposed to, presumably, the nuclear power plant.

The employer’s response continues below:

The employer’s reasoning appears to be that it was because the intern did not understand Japanese that he was not provided with an explanation on the decontamination work. However, if the intern were to be treated equally to the Japanese employees, the employer should have made sure he understood, with perhaps a mixture of Japanese, English, gestures and drawings. It is clear here that equality is a principle used at the employer’s convenience. It was convenient earlier when he cited equality with the Japanese employees as justification for assigning the intern decontamination work. When it is inconvenient, meaning the employer has to be willing to make an effort to be understood, he explains his lack of willingness and effort away by saying the intern did not understand Japanese. As in the BWI report, Japanese is assumed to be the only language of the workplace in as if this is common sense.

In the third document analysed (The Japan Times story on small firms taking on foreign employees), ownership of the means of communication was also found. The extract below is taken from the middle of the article, where Suzuki, the CEO of Sakae Casting Co, describes what happened after he hired foreign employees:

Although Suzuki did not explicitly state at the beginning of the extract what language was used when his employees experienced ‘language limitations’ which frustrated the Japanese employees, paragraph (7) implies that it was not English. English was only used later, after he asserted his position on keeping the foreign employees. The most logical interpretation is that the Japanese employees used Japanese with the foreign employees at the beginning, and failed to communicate. The use of Japanese again indicates ownership of the means of communication.

Paragraph (1) suggests that communication difficulties were the only cause of the Japanese employees’ frustration, and this frustration led them to threaten to leave. They appear to have been insistent about using Japanese. One of them, the plant chief, sacrificed his job of many years because of this attitude.

The turnaround in the Japanese employees’ attitudes, from insistence on the use of Japanese to willingness to use English, is significant. Suzuki’s firm position on foreign employees being necessary for overseas expansion seems to have led to the change. He practically coerced the Japanese employees into using English. This shows that firm leadership may be one way to persuade Japanese employees to relinquish ownership of the means of communication. This news story also suggests that the Japanese are capable of using English at work, in spite of the common belief that their English is only adequate for passing examinations.

As long as Japanese co-workers claim ownership of the means of communication, expecting Japanese to be used, they discount the possibility of using a mixture of Japanese, English, and gestures as a means of communication. Recent research (Blackledge and Creese, 2017; Creese and Blackledge, 2019; Creese, Blackledge and Hu, 2018) has in fact shown that effective communication can be achieved with fragments of various languages, signs, and gestures, also known as translanguaging. As this field of research grows, it challenges the more traditional understanding of language and communication, especially mastery of a language, as indispensable to successful communication. What we have observed in Japanese co-workers and employers in this section is adherence to the socially and politically defined boundary of a national language, namely, Japanese (Otheguy, Garcia and Reid, 2015). As more migrant workers arrive and blue-collar workplaces become more diverse, adherence to Japanese will stand in contrast to the reality that translanguaging is the norm when people from different backgrounds are brought together (Blackledge and Creese, 2017; Creese and Blackledge, 2019; Creese, Blackledge and Hu, 2018). Studies conducted in blue-collar workplaces (Dijkstra et al., 2020; Goncalves, 2020; Theodoropoulou, 2019) also attest to the effectiveness and prevalence of translanguaging.

In addition to the successful use of translanguaging, a hotel kitchen in Austria also shows how an inclusive work environment can be achieved when higher-level employees are willing to accommodate to the communication needs of lower-level employees. In this workplace, higher-level Austrian employees accommodate for lower-level Romanian employees by using online translation services, fragments of various languages, gestures, body language, and signs (Goncalves, 2020). This unusual bottom-up approach results in an inclusive and successful workplace, and serves as an example for Japanese co-workers and employers.

5.2. Underrating migrant workers’ Japanese language skills

Japanese co-workers and employers underrate migrant workers’ Japanese language skills in the first two documents analysed.

In the first document, the construction site management commented that the TITP interns spoke no Japanese. The extract below is the same as that cited in section 5.1:

TITP interns are usually taught Japanese for about six months before coming to Japan, and another month after arrival, usually in a language school (Obe and Funatsu, 2018). To say that ‘they spoke no Japanese’ underrates their Japanese.

It is unclear what qualifies as speaking Japanese to the management. In her study of communication on Norwegian construction sites, Kraft (2019a) noted that the level of competence required to pass as a speaker is opaque. One Polish worker in particular was competent in understanding Norwegian and his job, but was regarded by Norwegian and Swedish foremen as well as team leaders as ‘speaking no Norwegian at all’ (Kraft, 2019a; Lonsmann and Kraft, 2018). Kraft observes that Polish workers are often better at understanding other languages than their Norwegian and Swedish co-workers think. Having received seven months’ instruction in the Japanese language, the interns are likely to understand more Japanese than the management give them credit for. Polish lorry drivers are likewise thought of as being unable to communicate in the Netherlands, in spite of the fact that they successfully complete their assignments (Dijkstra et al., 2020).

‘Svorsk’, which is a mixed language that results from inter-accommodation between Swedish and Norwegian speakers, is commonly used on Norwegian construction sites (Kraft, 2019a). Also prevalent is ‘construction site English’, which refers to grammatically imperfect and gesture-dependent English. Instead of grammatically correct sentences, central words carrying specific work-related meanings, combined with objects such as tools, technical drawings and models of the buildings, often serve as the means of communication (Lonsmann and Kraft, 2018). Having a shared professional knowledge eases communication. Although languages such as Vietnamese or Chinese are not commonly taught in Japan, English is. English is practically compulsory for all students in school. There is no reason why a mixture of Japanese, English, gestures, objects and drawings should not be used on construction sites, although it would require some measure of accommodation from both parties, or as Kubota (2013) and Canagarajah (2017a, 2017b) point out, the willingness to communicate.

A good example of willingness to communicate or accommodate has been given in section 5.1, in the hotel kitchen in Austria where higher-level Austrian employees adapt to the language abilities of lower-level Romanian employees (Goncalves, 2020). This is partly motivated by the desire to have an inclusive workplace and partly due to the fact that there is a labour shortage. Japan is also in the grip of a labour shortage because of its rapidly aging and declining population (Green, 2017), which is the very reason why the Specified Skilled Worker visas were introduced. Unlike the Austrian kitchen, in which online translation services, fragments of various languages, gestures, body language, and signs are used by the Austrian staff (Goncalves, 2020), Japan’s labour shortage has not yet pushed Japanese co-workers and employers to look beyond the Japanese language.

Similarly, in the second document analysed, the employer underrates the intern’s Japanese language skills. The extract below is the same as that cited in section 5.1:

To say that ‘he didn’t understand Japanese’ underrates the intern’s Japanese proficiency. This statement is contradicted by the following:

The intern clearly understands Japanese, or he would not have understood what the Japanese employees were saying about dangerous spots. In addition, he spoke sufficient Japanese to complain to the employer about his work. The employer was also aware that the intern understood Japanese, or he would not have suggested going home to Vietnam. In spite of all the above, the intern was thought of as ‘not understanding Japanese’ (Lang, 2018). The criteria for ‘understanding Japanese’ is again unclear here.

Underrating migrant workers’ Japanese can result in inequalities at the workplace and their exclusion. O’Rourke et al. (2015) argue that, to be more inclusive of immigrants, we should value their various linguistic resources, shifting from expectations of native-speaker mastery of a language to include partial and imperfect use. Recent research has also found that immigrants use and claim ownership of language as part of their repertoire in various ways and for different purposes (Garcia and Li, 2014).

Stereotypical images of foreign workers’ poor linguistic abilities can undermine the effectiveness and efficacy of their work (Dijkstra et al., 2020). We have seen in this section that underrating migrant workers’ language skills can also lead to exclusion from meaningful work and work briefings, as well as from permanent employment contracts (Kraft, 2019a; Lonsmann and Kraft, 2018).