The "Protecting English in the Workplace Act of 2007"

I agree. And, as said before, businesses do have the right to expect their employees to speak English when it is necessary for the job.

What if the employer just wants to be able to understand what is being said in the workplace at all times whether or not it is necessary for the job? Is that unreasonable?

Foxfyre wrote:

What if the employer just wants to be able to understand what is being said in the workplace at all times whether or not it is necessary for the job? Is that unreasonable?

Yes. That's unreasonable.

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

What if the employer just wants to be able to understand what is being said in the workplace at all times whether or not it is necessary for the job? Is that unreasonable?

Yes. That's unreasonable.

Why is it unreasonable?

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

What if the employer just wants to be able to understand what is being said in the workplace at all times whether or not it is necessary for the job? Is that unreasonable?

Yes. That's unreasonable.

Why is it unreasonable?

Think of the consequences of allowing employers to fire employees merely because they were unable to understand what was being said in the workplace at all times - whether or not it was necessary for the job. Think of the consequences in a workplace with people who only speak English anyways.

Could an employer fire somebody because he was unable to listen to employee's phone conversation with employee's spouse? Could an employer install microphones in all rooms of the workplace to make sure he can understand what is being said in the workplace at all times, even if he is not in the room? Could an employer fire an employee for sharing a private joke with an other employee?

To me, that seems to be the very definition of 'unreasonable'.

I don't think it is unreasonable at all to require employees to converse with each other all in the same language.

Well, I worked in a nursing home where there were people of several nationalities working there. I heard Filipino, Punjabi, Czech, some kind of Fijian dialect, Chinese, and of course, English.

It didn't offend me that they would eat their lunches and speak in Filipino. When they wanted to include us, they spoke in English. And y'know, maybe someone was having a personal problem and they wanted their privacy to chat about it.

I never thought they were talking about the rest of us (we're not that important!) and maybe they just found it easier/faster to communicate in their native tongue.

I never really found it a problem, anyway, since most of us got along.

I think I would highly resent working in a foreign country and being told I couldn't talk to someone on my cell phone in my own language.

Lunch hours, coffee breaks, etc. were clearly exempt from the "English only" rules. The principle is that employers should not be fined or sued or otherwise punished for requiring their employees to speak English on the job nor should they have to go through a lengthy and costly legal process to prove that English was necessary in the work place.

This is not a difficult concept and should be easily considered without unrelated anecdotal evidence or fuzzy notions of who might be or might not be offended or discussions that some work places get along fine in multi-language settings.

The issue is none of that. The issue is whether the employer should be able to require his employees to speak English if that is what the employer wants.

Foxfyre wrote:

Lunch hours, coffee breaks, etc. were clearly exempt from the "English only" rules. The principle is that employers should not be fined or sued or otherwise punished for requiring their employees to speak English on the job nor should they have to go through a lengthy and costly legal process to prove that English was necessary in the work place.

This is not a difficult concept and should be easily considered without unrelated anecdotal evidence or fuzzy notions of who might be or might not be offended or discussions that some work places get along fine in multi-language settings.

The issue is none of that. The issue is whether the employer should be able to require his employees to speak English if that is what the employer wants.

Employers can already define job requirements. It doesn't seem as if they have to "go through a lengthy and costly legal process to prove that English was necessary in the work place". It doesn't seem as if there are hundreds or thousands of cases were the EEOC sues small businesses.

Therefore, regarding the case that has been brought up as a kind of situation that needs rectifying, the issue seems to be whether or not an employer should be allowed to fire an employee for speaking a language other than English, even when the employee is not dealing with customers, English is not required for the job the employee is working on and there are no safety or other concerns that might require him to speak English.

Lunch hours, coffee breaks, etc. were clearly exempt from the "English only" rules. The principle is that employers should not be fined or sued or otherwise punished for requiring their employees to speak English on the job nor should they have to go through a lengthy and costly legal process to prove that English was necessary in the work place.

This is not a difficult concept and should be easily considered without unrelated anecdotal evidence or fuzzy notions of who might be or might not be offended or discussions that some work places get along fine in multi-language settings.

The issue is none of that. The issue is whether the employer should be able to require his employees to speak English if that is what the employer wants.

Did you read all 200 cases that have been brought up?

Or are you basing your opinion on one that may or may not be accurately represented?

But whatever the case, and no matter how many 'cases' or red herrings or diversions or anecdotal or hypthetical incidents one wishes to throw into the mix, the question still remains whether an employer should have the right to tell an employee that he or she must speak English on the job if he or she wants to work at that company.

Foxfyre wrote:

Lunch hours, coffee breaks, etc. were clearly exempt from the "English only" rules. The principle is that employers should not be fined or sued or otherwise punished for requiring their employees to speak English on the job nor should they have to go through a lengthy and costly legal process to prove that English was necessary in the work place.

This is not a difficult concept and should be easily considered without unrelated anecdotal evidence or fuzzy notions of who might be or might not be offended or discussions that some work places get along fine in multi-language settings.

The issue is none of that. The issue is whether the employer should be able to require his employees to speak English if that is what the employer wants.

Well I already answered your "issue" on PAGE 1 of this thread. I think you're getting a consensus here, so why not just accept it and move on to another issue?

In summary, we don't think it needs to be legislated, and we don't think it's an unreasonable company policy if it's required in order to conduct the business of the company. Anything else is an invasion of privacy.

Foxfyre wrote:

Lunch hours, coffee breaks, etc. were clearly exempt from the "English only" rules. The principle is that employers should not be fined or sued or otherwise punished for requiring their employees to speak English on the job nor should they have to go through a lengthy and costly legal process to prove that English was necessary in the work place.

This is not a difficult concept and should be easily considered without unrelated anecdotal evidence or fuzzy notions of who might be or might not be offended or discussions that some work places get along fine in multi-language settings.

The issue is none of that. The issue is whether the employer should be able to require his employees to speak English if that is what the employer wants.

Well I already answered your "issue" on PAGE 1 of this thread. I think you're getting a consensus here, so why not just accept it and move on to another issue?

In summary, we don't think it needs to be legislated, and we don't think it's an unreasonable company policy if it's required in order to conduct the business of the company. Anything else is an invasion of privacy.