Clear voice meaning

[id330uk]

In some job adverts for telephone work it is required candidates with a clear voice but what a clear voice mean?

And, which categories of people can be considered as not having a clear voice?[

 

[emsr2d2]

In some job adverts for telephone work, [STRIKE]it is required[/STRIKE] candidates are required to speak "with a clear voice" but what does "a clear voice" mean?

[STRIKE]And,[/STRIKE] Which categories of people [STRIKE]can be[/STRIKE] are considered [STRIKE]as[/STRIKE] not [STRIKE]having[/STRIKE] to have a clear voice?

Please note my corrections above.

A clear voice is one that the majority of people find easy to understand. It means the speaker enunciates well, pronounces words correctly, and speaks at an appropriate volume and speed. They don't want people who mumble, enunciate badly, speak too quietly (or too loudly) or speak too fast.

There is no such "category of people". I don't even know what you mean by "categories of people".

 

[id330uk]

I am thinking to people with a lisp, a stutter or a regional accent but am I right?

 

[emsr2d2]

I am thinking [strike]to[/strike] about people with a lisp, a stutter or a regional accent but am I right?

I don't know about Spain but the UK has equality and anti-discrimination laws that mean certain things can't be used as a reason not to employ someone. There is certainly no reason to think that someone with a regional accent can't speak clearly! With a job that involves talking on the phone, a lisp or a stutter might not be ideal but, again, an employer wouldn't be allowed to cite those as reasons not to employ someone. A lisp and a stutter are medical conditions (of a sort) and, while they might not fall under the heading of disability, the same anti-discrimination regulations that apply to disabled people probably apply to those conditions.

 

[id330uk]

The issue is how an employer can assess fairly all candidates about whether they have a clear voice and whether candidates with a lisp or stutter could be at a disadvantage during this assessment?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I am thinking of people with a lisp, a stutter or a regional accent. But am I right?

You're making it too complicated. Some people mumble. Some people slur words or run them together. Some talk too fast to follow.

Others enunciate carefully. That's who they're looking for.

I used to work at a radio station. One of the on-air programmers stuttered. Another lisped. But both spoke clearly. They were two of our most popular programmers.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

The issue is how an employer can assess whether a candidate has a clear voice and whether candidates with lisps or stutters could be at a disadvantage during this assessment.

Only use a question mark if the sentence is a question.

 

[id330uk]

According to the meaning of a clear voice could an ordinary reasonable person thinks that the requirement for candidates with a clear voice excludes people with a lisp or a stutter and be deterred from applying for the position not end up in an embarrassing situation if himself has a lisp or a stutter?

 

[probus]

Where I live (Ontario, Canada), our human rights law has been interpreted very broadly and almost certainly prohibits discrimination in employment against people who lisp or stutter, because those so-called speech impediments can be regarded as a handicap. Furthermore, lisps and stutters can be treated and often cured. That's what speech language therapists do.

 

[id330uk]

Can employers get away with discrimination by requiring candidates with a clear voice because they know that people with a lisp or a stutter will be deterred from applying for the position because of this requirement?

 

[emsr2d2]

You might find the information HERE interesting/useful.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

According to the meaning of a clear voice, could an ordinary, reasonable person think that the requirement for candidates to have clear voices excludes people with [STRIKE]a[/STRIKE] lisps or [STRIKE]a[/STRIKE] stutters and deters them from applying for the position[STRIKE]not end up in an embarrassing situation if himself has a lisp or a stutter[/STRIKE]?

I'm not an ordinary, reasonable person, but yes, I think people with speech impediments might not apply.

I don't understand what that last part ("not end up in . . . .") is supposed to mean. Who is "himself"?

I do.

Punctuate the end of every sentence.

If you start with a plural, like candidates, make the related nouns and verbs plural (have, lisps, stutters).

In a series, make your conjugations agree, as in excludes and deters.

 

[id330uk]

I have not received a response to my last question even though it is an interesting one

 

[Tarheel]

I have not received a response to my last question even though it is an interesting one.

Two things. One, you did get a response. Two, what is interesting is highly subjective.

 

[id330uk]

Yes I got a reply but I did not notice that there were two pages and that the reply was in the page number two

 

[emsr2d2]

Yes, I got a reply but I did not notice that there were two pages and that the reply was [STRIKE]in[/STRIKE] on the second page. [STRIKE]number two[/STRIKE]

emsr2d2