The "Protecting English in the Workplace Act of 2007"

double posted....sorry

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

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

No. Can you point me to a list of those 200 cases?

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

I'm talking this specific case, because, according to Lamar Alexander's own website, "Alexander was prompted to act after a lawsuit was filed in March by the EEOC against the Salvation Army."

This case seemed to be so threatening to introduce legislation, so I'm mainly talking about that.

Foxfyre wrote:
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.

I'm not sure whether that question still remains. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act seems to allow an employer to enact an English-only rule when it is adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons and constitutes a "business necessity".

No I haven't read ANY of the cases. I am going purely on the common sense and practical view that an employer in the United States should be able to require employees to speak English on the job if the employer wants the employees to speak English. The employee should be able to require that with nothing more than announcing it as company policy. It should be no different than dress code or deportment or any other job requirements that are part of the personnel policy as I previously posted.

If the EEOC has in fact gone after 200 small businesses this year, as Lamar Alexander says, and I have no reason to disbelieve him, then it is something that deserves a look. For us Americans it could warrant a phone call or e-mail or fax to our elected representatives to let them know how we feel about it and support Lamar's bill.

Apparently most posting on this thread think employees should be able to speak any language they want on the job unless there is a compelling reason to speak English and, unless there is a compelling reason to speak English, the employer should have no say in it.

I simply disagree with that.

At least I don't seem to be alone in this:

Quote:

When asked whether or not employers should be allowed to enforce an "English-only" rule while their employees are on the job, 77% of Americans believe that they should while 14% disagree and 9% are not sure. These statistics are the result of a telephone poll by Rasmussen Reports. When you look at the percentages based on political affiliation, support for enforcing the English-only rule is held by 84% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats and 77% of those not affiliated with a major party.

The poll also examined people's opinion in terms of race. Eighty-two percent of white voters agree that employers can require English only during working hours, while 72% of African Americans agree. Within the Hispanic population, Rasmussen Reports found that opinions on the topic were evenly distributed. Forty-Five percent of Hispanics believe that employers should require English while 47% disagree. Among those in disagreement include the federal government's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) who states that requiring English while on the job would be a form of discrimination. According to the EEOC a person's language is directly related to their national origin and national origin cannot be used to discriminate.

When asked whether requiring employees to speak English was a form of discrimination only 14% of Americans agreed and 79% disagreed. Rasmussen Reports cites a separate survey in which it was found that 77% of Americans feel that when a person chooses to immigrate to America that they should therefore adopt the language, culture, and heritage.

The issue of requiring employees to speak English is a hot topic and is one that a federal court has previously ruled on. In 2003, a federal court ruled in favor of the Salvation Army and the head of the EEOC has testified before Congress stating that an employer who enforces an English-only rule must present evidence for the necessity of that rule. Even earlier this year, the EEOC filed a suit when a Salvation Army located in Massachusetts began enforcing an English-only rule.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/460010/poll_most_americans_support_englishonly.html

0 Replies

If not speaking english makes an employee unfit to do their specific job, thye shouldn't have been hired in the first place. It seems odd to give someone a job knowing well that they can't speak english.

I'm all for immigrants learning english, but for their own success. I see no bennefit to society by making this kind of thing into law.

Why do politics revolve around retroactive solutions?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

If not speaking english makes an employee unfit to do their specific job, thye shouldn't have been hired in the first place. It seems odd to give someone a job knowing well that they can't speak english.

Exactly that's what made me wondering most.

0 Replies

Recent Bills Proposed in U.S. Congress:
*Pledge Protection Act
*Freedom to Display the American Flag Act
*The Public Expression of Religion Act
*Marriage Amendment
*Constitution Restoration Act
*Protecting English in the Workplace Act

There is a specific "voter base" that such bills appeal to. The congressmen proposing such bills get noticed by their targeted voter base. They are thus political "gimmicks".

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

If not speaking english makes an employee unfit to do their specific job, thye shouldn't have been hired in the first place. It seems odd to give someone a job knowing well that they can't speak english.

I'm all for immigrants learning english, but for their own success. I see no bennefit to society by making this kind of thing into law.

Why do politics revolve around retroactive solutions?

T
K
O

The law as presented does not require English only or require employers to institute English only policies. The law allows employers who choose to do so to make an English only policy for their businesses without fear of reprisal. In the particular Salvation Army case that has been discussed here, the employer allowed the employees a generous block of time to learn sufficient English to be able to converse with their employer and coworkers in English.

I would think some employers might choose to hire somebody with the condition that they learn English which makes the employer a good guy. Also, if the policy is instituted after employees are already on the job, a reasonable time to come into compliance would also be the thing to do.

To require employers to accommodate non-English speaking employees as a matter of law, as the EEOC seems to be requiring, forces the employer to hire only bilingual supervisors and/or learn whatever languages the employees speak himself/herself, which, in my opinion is far more a violation of civil rights than requiring employees to speak English in a predominantly English-speaking country.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Recent Bills Proposed in U.S. Congress:
*Pledge Protection Act
*Freedom to Display the American Flag Act
*The Public Expression of Religion Act
*Marriage Amendment
*Constitution Restoration Act
*Protecting English in the Workplace Act

There is a specific "voter base" that such bills appeal to. The congressmen proposing such bills get noticed by their targeted voter base. They are thus political "gimmicks".

It's all a matter of perspective, I guess. One side wants the right to do something. The other side wants the right to prohibit that something or do something else. People raised on traditional values that they believe have served the country well will strongly resist having those taken away. Others get the notion that allowing personal freedoms to some people take freedoms away from others.

Our elected representatives are damned if they do and damned if they don't on some of these things. If they don't do anything, they are out of step with the needs/desires of their constituents. If they do something, they are accused of grandstanding or using 'gimmicks' to get votes.

That's why I suggest we don't bring red herrings such as 'political gimmicks' into the debate on the issue itself. but look at the pros and cons of employers' rights so far as personnel policy.

Should an employer have the right to require employees to speak English on the job without going some legal process to implement the process or shouldn't he? That is the question.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

To require employers to accommodate non-English speaking employees as a matter of law, as the EEOC seems to be requiring, forces the employer to hire only bilingual supervisors and/or learn whatever languages the employees speak himself/herself, which, in my opinion is far more a violation of civil rights than requiring employees to speak English in a predominantly English-speaking country.

I don't think this is accurate. Nobody is requiring employers to accommodate non-English speaking employees. The case in question deals with employees that were hired as non-English speakers (did not hide that fact) and did their jobs for several years as non-English speakers. They weren't hired conditionally or with the understanding that they would immediately learn English. The Salvation Army had an unenforced policy and then arbitrarily decided to begin enforcing it. They could have, should have, just not hired them in the first place if it was important that everyone speak English.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
To require employers to accommodate non-English speaking employees as a matter of law, as the EEOC seems to be requiring, forces the employer to hire only bilingual supervisors and/or learn whatever languages the employees speak himself/herself, which, in my opinion is far more a violation of civil rights than requiring employees to speak English in a predominantly English-speaking country.

I don't think this is accurate. Nobody is requiring employers to accommodate non-English speaking employees. The case in question deals with employees that were hired as non-English speakers (did not hide that fact) and did their jobs for several years as non-English speakers. They weren't hired conditionally or with the understanding that they would immediately learn English. The Salvation Army had an unenforced policy and then arbitrarily decided to begin enforcing it. They could have, should have, just not hired them in the first place if it was important that everyone speak English.

To take this view, however, says that employers do not have the right to change personnel policies or decide to enforce a personnel policy after an employee is hired. It says that employers should anticipate in perpetuity whatever might come up and not hire employees who can't fulfill the responsibilities of that future time. It essentially ties the hands of an employer to adapt to changing circumstances.

To take this view also means that an employer has no choice to enforce a provision because if he decides to let it slide until it becomes a problem, then he isn't allowed to enforce it.

As example only--not for purposes of debating what the Salvation Army did--perhaps they had a Spanish-speaking supervisor for all that time and when the supervisor left, they were no longer able to communicate effectively with those employees. I don't know that and I doubt you know that. But if that was the case, you would have the situation of the employer having to learn the language himself or hire a bilingual supervisor which might not be available or requiring the employees to learn English or putting up with two employees nobody could communicate with.

I do not speak sufficient Spanish myself to communicate efficiently with employees who speak only Spanish and I don't know any other languages well enough to converse at all. We have a highly multi-cultural community here so I could have employees applying who speak Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, various Native American or Hindu dialects. These people might bring skills I would very much like to have in my organization. What is best to do? Not hire them because they might not want to learn English? Or hire them with the condition they learn sufficient English to be able to communicate in English whether or not that is necessary for them to do their job?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

That's why I suggest we don't bring red herrings such as 'political gimmicks' into the debate on the issue itself. but look at the pros and cons of employers' rights so far as personnel policy.

My position is that the proposed bill itself is a "red herring" (my explanation for voting "other" on your poll, Foxfyre).

0 Replies

I don't think that's quite right either FreeDuck.

The issue is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 institutes a simple principle:

An employer can not set up arbitrary rules that target a specific race, religion or national origin, unless there is a legitimate business reasons that these rules are required for the job in question.

The Republicans are upset because this law is being enforced. If there is no legitimate business reason to ban Spanish, then businesses can not do so.

Foxfyre is advocating that a specific exception to the Civil Rights Act be made so that companies can fire Spanish speakers.

0 Replies

The cruelty of this new law is not being discussed.

We are talking about people being fired based on where they were born. We are talking about making it even more difficult for otherwise qualified workers to get a job (after they are fired).

This is exactly the reason that the Civil Rights Act was enacted in the first place.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
That's why I suggest we don't bring red herrings such as 'political gimmicks' into the debate on the issue itself. but look at the pros and cons of employers' rights so far as personnel policy.

My position is that the proposed bill itself is a "red herring" (my explanation for voting "other" on your poll, Foxfyre).

It is not a red herring if you are an employer and want the right to require your employees to speak English on the job. The EEOC is taking the position that this is discriminatory. I take the position that it is not. I think an employer should be allowed to set personnel policies that he wants for his business, and if that includes a provision that employees are expected to speak English only on the job or learn sufficient English to be able to speak English only on the job, that should be the employers' right.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

To take this view, however, says that employers do not have the right to change personnel policies or decide to enforce a personnel policy after an employee is hired. It says that employers should anticipate in perpetuity whatever might come up and not hire employees who can't fulfill the responsibilities of that future time. It essentially ties the hands of an employer to adapt to changing circumstances.

I don't think so. If things change and the employee can no longer fulfill their responsibilities then the employer is not bound to keep them. The issue in this case seems to be that English wasn't required for these women to do their jobs when they were hired, and it wasn't required for them to do their jobs when they were fired. They weren't fired because they couldn't fulfill their responsibilities, they were fired for not speaking English.

Quote:

As example only--not for purposes of debating what the Salvation Army did--perhaps they had a Spanish-speaking supervisor for all that time and when the supervisor left, they were no longer able to communicate effectively with those employees. I don't know that and I doubt you know that. But if that was the case, you would have the situation of the employer having to learn the language himself or hire a bilingual supervisor which might not be available or requiring the employees to learn English or putting up with two employees nobody could communicate with.

I don't know about the law in such a scenario but it seems to me that in such a case an employer would be justified in removing them. I'm trying to imagine, though, just how much supervision is required for sorting clothes.

Quote:

I do not speak sufficient Spanish myself to communicate efficiently with employees who speak only Spanish and I don't know any other languages well enough to converse at all. We have a highly multi-cultural community here so I could have employees applying who speak Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, various Native American or Hindu dialects. These people might bring skills I would very much like to have in my organization. What is best to do? Not hire them because they might not want to learn English? Or hire them with the condition they learn sufficient English to be able to communicate in English whether or not that is necessary for them to do their job?

As with any other job skill, if you want to hire someone who does not yet possess the skills you require you have several options. You can hire them on a probationary basis and provide training, you can hire them on a probationary basis and insist they get their own training, or you can not hire them at all. None of these things happened in the case being discussed, apparently because the women had the skills necessary to sort clothes.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

To take this view, however, says that employers do not have the right to change personnel policies or decide to enforce a personnel policy after an employee is hired. It says that employers should anticipate in perpetuity whatever might come up and not hire employees who can't fulfill the responsibilities of that future time. It essentially ties the hands of an employer to adapt to changing circumstances.

I don't think so. If things change and the employee can no longer fulfill their responsibilities then the employer is not bound to keep them. The issue in this case seems to be that English wasn't required for these women to do their jobs when they were hired, and it wasn't required for them to do their jobs when they were fired. They weren't fired because they couldn't fulfill their responsibilities, they were fired for not speaking English.

But if English is required in order for the employer to communicate with his/her employees, that should be sufficient reason to require English. If English is required in order for employees to be able to communicate with all other employees, that should be sufficient reason to require English. If the employer wants English spoken in the workplace, that should be sufficient reason to require English. The employer should not have to be required to go through a costly or time consuming legal process to show that English is necessary to do the job.

Quote:

Quote:
As example only--not for purposes of debating what the Salvation Army did--perhaps they had a Spanish-speaking supervisor for all that time and when the supervisor left, they were no longer able to communicate effectively with those employees. I don't know that and I doubt you know that. But if that was the case, you would have the situation of the employer having to learn the language himself or hire a bilingual supervisor which might not be available or requiring the employees to learn English or putting up with two employees nobody could communicate with.

I don't know about the law in such a scenario but it seems to me that in such a case an employer would be justified in removing them. I'm trying to imagine, though, just how much supervision is required for sorting clothes.

The employer still has to communicate with the employees for purpose of scheduling and instruction. If the employer needs the clothes sorted a different way or boxed differently or whatever, the employer needs to be able to communicate with the employees.

Quote:

Quote:
I do not speak sufficient Spanish myself to communicate efficiently with employees who speak only Spanish and I don't know any other languages well enough to converse at all. We have a highly multi-cultural community here so I could have employees applying who speak Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, various Native American or Hindu dialects. These people might bring skills I would very much like to have in my organization. What is best to do? Not hire them because they might not want to learn English? Or hire them with the condition they learn sufficient English to be able to communicate in English whether or not that is necessary for them to do their job?

As with any other job skill, if you want to hire someone who does not yet possess the skills you require you have several options. You can hire them on a probationary basis and provide training, you can hire them on a probationary basis and insist they get their own training, or you can not hire them at all. None of these things happened in the case being discussed, apparently because the women had the skills necessary to sort clothes.

[/QUOTE]

I had worked as a counselor in chemical dependencies for several years when my employer changed the personnel policy to require all counselors to be certified. I was given the option of being let go or obtaining the newly required certification. I opted to do the necessary reading and bone up on the more obscure fine points so I could pass the test and receive my certification. I then continued to do my job in exactly the same way as I did it before as I already had the necessary skills to do it.

I also worked as an unlicensed insurance adjuster for some time by having other adjusters sign off on my work. Then my employer decided all adjusters would have to be licensed and I opted to go through the process to get that done. The license added absolutely zero skills to the job I was already doing, but I did not challenge my employer's right to change the rules and require it.

The issue was not the way the women were doing their job. The issue was that the personnel policy was changed to require English in the workplace. They were given a very generous amount of time to come into compliance. They apparently opted not to take advantage of that.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

If there is no legitimate business reason to ban Spanish, then businesses can not do so.

Fair enough, but I think just about any business could legitimately claim that communication is vital to their business and they have the right to insist that their employees communicate using a standard language. This being the US, it's easy to make the case that the standard language should be English.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But if English is required in order for the employer to communicate with his/her employees, that should be sufficient reason to require English. If English is required in order for employees to be able to communicate with all other employees, that should be sufficient reason to require English.

I agree. And in such cases an employer should not hire workers who do not have the skills required.

Quote:

If the employer wants English spoken in the workplace, that should be sufficient reason to require English.

Err, I can't go that far.

Quote:

The employer should not have to be required to go through a costly or time consuming legal process to show that English is necessary to do the job.

This law has been in place for 40 years, is that correct? And we're just now hearing about how costly and time consuming it is to comply with it?

Quote:

The employer still has to communicate with the employees for purpose of scheduling and instruction. If the employer needs the clothes sorted a different way or boxed differently or whatever, the employer needs to be able to communicate with the employees.

Of course. Which is why I would think that an employer might discover such inability to communicate during the interview process.

Quote:

I had worked as a counselor in chemical dependencies for several years when my employer changed the personnel policy to require all counselors to be certified. I was given the option of being let go or obtaining the newly required certification. I opted to do the necessary reading and bone up on the more obscure fine points so I could pass the test and receive my certification. I then continued to do my job in exactly the same way as I did it before as I already had the necessary skills to do it.

I also worked as an unlicensed insurance adjuster for some time by having other adjusters sign off on my work. Then my employer decided all adjusters would have to be licensed and I opted to go through the process to get that done. The license added absolutely zero skills to the job I was already doing, but I did not challenge my employer's right to change the rules and require it.

The issue was not the way the women were doing their job. The issue was that the personnel policy was changed to require English in the workplace. They were given a very generous amount of time to come into compliance. They apparently opted not to take advantage of that.

I don't know that I could become fluent in a language in one year, but I see the issue of professional certification as distinctly different from the issue of requiring English. A business has an interest in requiring professional certification for their workers in that it enhances their product or service in some way. I'm not convinced that this is the same scenario, but I suppose I could be.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

But if English is required in order for the employer to communicate with his/her employees, that should be sufficient reason to require English. If English is required in order for employees to be able to communicate with all other employees, that should be sufficient reason to require English.

I agree. And in such cases an employer should not hire workers who do not have the skills required.

Quote:
If the employer wants English spoken in the workplace, that should be sufficient reason to require English.

Err, I can't go that far.

Why not? If the employer can require that the phones be answered a certain way, require specific dress code and deportment of employees, require a standard of personal hygiene, fragrances, etc., can initiate a smoking or non smoking policy, set hours for work, and standards for acceptable work, how is the language spoken in the workplace any different?

All the proposed law states is that the employer will not receive any retaliation or action by the government if he implements an English-only standard for his employees in the workplace. It does not require him to set that standard if he chooses not to.

Quote:

Quote:
The employer should not have to be required to go through a costly or time consuming legal process to show that English is necessary to do the job.

This law has been in place for 40 years, is that correct? And we're just now hearing about how costly and time consuming it is to comply with it?

The debate is partly about whether requiring English-only even applies to the Civil Rights act. Those supporting English-only at the employer's discretion believe the EEOC is perverting the intent of the law by equating language with race/sex/gender etc. The proposed law would correct that by clearly stating an employer can require English to be spoken in the work place without having to go through any kind of legal process to get that done.

Quote:

Quote:

The employer still has to communicate with the employees for purpose of scheduling and instruction. If the employer needs the clothes sorted a different way or boxed differently or whatever, the employer needs to be able to communicate with the employees.

Of course. Which is why I would think that an employer might discover such inability to communicate during the interview process.

There might not have been a problem or it was not perceive to be a problem at the time the employees were hired. It is often to correct problems that come up that trigger changes in personnel policy. Perhaps a Spanish-speaking supervisor hired the two women way back when and that supervisor is no longer there.

Employers should not have to anticipate the need to change personnel policy in advance of every new hire.

One other thing to consider is that if it is illegal to fire an employee who refuses or fails to learn English, it isn't much of a stretch to think that it could be made illegal to refuse to hire an employee who couldn't speak English if English was not essential to do the job.

Quote:

Quote:

I had worked as a counselor in chemical dependencies for several years when my employer changed the personnel policy to require all counselors to be certified. I was given the option of being let go or obtaining the newly required certification. I opted to do the necessary reading and bone up on the more obscure fine points so I could pass the test and receive my certification. I then continued to do my job in exactly the same way as I did it before as I already had the necessary skills to do it.

I also worked as an unlicensed insurance adjuster for some time by having other adjusters sign off on my work. Then my employer decided all adjusters would have to be licensed and I opted to go through the process to get that done. The license added absolutely zero skills to the job I was already doing, but I did not challenge my employer's right to change the rules and require it.

The issue was not the way the women were doing their job. The issue was that the personnel policy was changed to require English in the workplace. They were given a very generous amount of time to come into compliance. They apparently opted not to take advantage of that.

I don't know that I could become fluent in a language in one year, but I see the issue of professional certification as distinctly different from the issue of requiring English. A business has an interest in requiring professional certification for their workers in that it enhances their product or service in some way. I'm not convinced that this is the same scenario, but I suppose I could be.

In the two anecdotal cases provided, I don't know what prompted the change in personnel policy, but I rather suspect that it was to eliminate substandard work by some employees who were not qualified to do the jobs they were doing. I do know that the policy was change at the arbitrary decision of the management and that it was not required by the state or otherwise.

Nobody asked the two women to become fluent or even to be able to read and write English. They were required to learn sufficient English so as to be able to communicate with their employer and/or coworkers in English. A year is quite sufficient time to accomplish that.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The proposed law would correct that by clearly stating an employer can require English to be spoken in the work place without having to go through any kind of legal process to get that done.

There is a "legal process" that employers have to go through to institute English-only policies? Are you sure about that?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The proposed law would correct that by clearly stating an employer can require English to be spoken in the work place without having to go through any kind of legal process to get that done.

There is a "legal process" that employers have to go through to institute English-only policies? Are you sure about that?

According to the EEOC yes. An employer must legally prove, presumably in a court of law, that it is necessary for the employee to speak English in the workplace before the employer can require that. And that is presumably the basis on which the EEOC has gone after all those businesses.

The Law that is proposed would eliminate that provision and would allow the employer to arbitrarily establish an English-only in the work place provision if that is what the employer wants and he will not have to go through a legal process to get it done.

0 Replies

The "Protecting English in the Workplace Act of 2007"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know