The "Protecting English in the Workplace Act of 2007"

Foxfyre wrote:

According to the EEOC yes.

Do you have a link for that?

0 Replies

This here is from the EEOC website:

Quote:

An English-only rule is justified by "business necessity" if it is needed for an employer to operate safely or efficiently. The following are some situations in which business necessity would justify an English-only rule:

For communications with customers, coworkers, or supervisors who only speak English

In emergencies or other situations in which workers must speak a common language to promote safety

For cooperative work assignments in which the English-only rule is needed to promote efficiency

To enable a supervisor who only speaks English to monitor the performance of an employee whose job duties require communication with coworkers or customers

It seems that would cover all the cases that you have so far brought up. It seems that there is no "legal process" an employer would have to go through to institute an English-only policy. It also seems as if Alexander's new legislation is trying to remedy a problem that does, in fact, not exist.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

This here is from the EEOC website:

Quote:
An English-only rule is justified by "business necessity" if it is needed for an employer to operate safely or efficiently. The following are some situations in which business necessity would justify an English-only rule:

For communications with customers, coworkers, or supervisors who only speak English

In emergencies or other situations in which workers must speak a common language to promote safety

For cooperative work assignments in which the English-only rule is needed to promote efficiency

To enable a supervisor who only speaks English to monitor the performance of an employee whose job duties require communication with coworkers or customers

It seems that would cover all the cases that you have so far brought up. It seems that there is no "legal process" an employer would have to go through to institute an English-only policy. It also seems as if Alexander's new legislation is trying to remedy a problem that does, in fact, not exist.

But the problem DOES exist when companies are being sued and taken to court or settlements are being effected out of court because the employer has not satisfied such components to the satisfaction of the EEOC. The rule should be that the employer make the call whether he wants English-only in the work place or doesn't care.

The EEOC should be involved only if it can be shown that the employer targeted the policy toward a particular ethnic or racial group. Considering the broad ethnic, racial, and multicultural character of the Salvation Army, to think that was their motive would be ludicrous, especially in the Southwest where a larger percentage of the chapters are headed by Native Americans and Hispanics.

0 Replies

I think the only real question here is whether language is a sufficient factor of national origin. I'm satisfied to let the court decide this. The case, after all, has not yet been decided, and I'm loathe to support a law that prevent it being brought in the first place.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But the problem DOES exist when companies are being sued and taken to court or settlements are being effected out of court because the employer has not satisfied such components to the satisfaction of the EEOC.

You mean they have to go through a legal process when they violate the law. Yes, that's probably true.

Foxfyre wrote:

The rule should be that the employer make the call whether he wants English-only in the work place or doesn't care.

That is the rule at the moment. The employer merely cannot discriminate based on language. Why do you want to change that?

Foxfyre wrote:

The EEOC should be involved only if it can be shown that the employer targeted the policy toward a particular ethnic or racial group.

That's quite right. And even then it would have to be shown that the policy was introduced in a discriminatory fashion. Quite some hurdles for the EEOC to become involved, not to mention sue a business.

So far, I've seen no evidence of a widespread EEOC campaign to sue small businesses.

Foxfyre wrote:

Considering the broad ethnic, racial, and multicultural character of the Salvation Army, to think that was their motive would be ludicrous.

I don't think the general character of a specific employer should influence whether or not this employer has to follow the law, or can be sued for violating the law.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I think the only real question here is whether language is a sufficient factor of national origin. I'm satisfied to let the court decide this. The case, after all, has not yet been decided, and I'm loathe to support a law that prevent it being brought in the first place.

The courts have been ruling different ways. The first time the EEOC took the Salvation Army to court, the Army won the case. Other businesses have won some and lost some cases in different courts. The current Salvation Army case has not yet been decided. The only reason it has been mentioned was because it was the straw on the camel that prompted Alexander to introduce the legislation.

But my point is not how or when the court decides. My point is what the law should be and then hopefully the courts will follow it. The EEOC is a creation of Congress and Congress certainly has the jurisdiction to dictate the laws that will govern it.

As far as language and national origin go, that should be moot. In the past every new citizen was expected to learn English, at their own expense even, and nobody thought that was discriminatory. I think it would definitely be discriminatory to try to figure out whether this group would be culturally offended if required to speak English and maybe that group wouldn't. Make the same rule for everybody, apply it equitably for everybody, and there is no problem for anybody and nobody is discriminated against. In recent years America has had wide open arms for new immigrants who come here to be Americans. If they don't want to be Americans, they shouldn't immigrate.

Employers should be able to require English to be spoken in the workplace by everybody for whatever reason the employer deems that to be desirable. They shouldn't have to worry about going to court over this issue.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Employers should be able to require English to be spoken in the workplace by everybody for whatever reason the employer deems that to be desirable. They shouldn't have to worry about going to court over this issue.

Which amounts to saying that employees should have no right to sue an employer when they are being discriminated against based on language.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

My point is what the law should be and then hopefully the courts will follow it. The EEOC is a creation of Congress and Congress certainly has the jurisdiction to dictate the laws that will govern it.

But what you say the law should be is what the law actually already is. I'm interested in what other cases have been brought that would lead you and the lawmaker to determine that this is a major problem that needs to be solved with additional legislation.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
My point is what the law should be and then hopefully the courts will follow it. The EEOC is a creation of Congress and Congress certainly has the jurisdiction to dictate the laws that will govern it.

But what you say the law should be is what the law actually already is. I'm interested in what other cases have been brought that would lead you and the lawmaker to determine that this is a major problem that needs to be solved with additional legislation.

Here's a lengthy but interesting case study that hasn't yet been decided. Some of our more devout anti-English-only members here will probably zero in on the areas where they think the Kidmans were/are out of line, (and I'm not going to respond to that so the thread won't be sidetracked), but I would encourage those who actually are trying to decide what they think about this to look at it from a big picture angle.

For me, the whole thing would have been avoided by a simple law stating that the employer can require English to be spoken on the job.

http://www.allbusiness.com/management/160082-1.html

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

For me, the whole thing would have been avoided by a simple law stating that the employer can require English to be spoken on the job.

The article states that the Kidmans have now adopted a new English-only rule that complies with Title VII. That seems to indicate that employers can already require English to be spoken on the job.

However, employers cannot

adopt an English-only policy with the intent to discriminate on the basis of national origin
adopt a policy that prohibits some but not all of the foreign languages spoken in a workplace

I fail to see why you would want to change that.

0 Replies

If I as a patron of a store that employes people who speak only spanish than I should learn to speak and understand spanish, or go to a store where I can communicate in a language that I speak and understand.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
For me, the whole thing would have been avoided by a simple law stating that the employer can require English to be spoken on the job.

The article states that the Kidmans have now adopted a new English-only rule that complies with Title VII. That seems to indicate that employers can already require English to be spoken on the job.

However, employers cannot

adopt an English-only policy with the intent to discriminate on the basis of national origin

adopt a policy that prohibits some but not all of the foreign languages spoken in a workplace

I fail to see why you would want to change that.

I haven't said I want to change that. All I have said is that I want an employer to be able to establish an English-only policy in the workplace without fear of retaliation by any government agency and without having to go through a costly and/or time consuing process to prove that the policy is "necessary".

That is a whole different thing than what you said here.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

All I have said is that I want an employer to be able to establish an English-only policy in the workplace without fear of retaliation by any government agency and without having to go through a costly and/or time consuing process to prove that the policy is "necessary".

I have not seen government agencies retaliating against employers. EEOC only takes action in response to an employee complaining about an employer.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
All I have said is that I want an employer to be able to establish an English-only policy in the workplace without fear of retaliation by any government agency and without having to go through a costly and/or time consuing process to prove that the policy is "necessary".

I have not seen government agencies retaliating against employers. EEOC only takes action in response to an employee complaining about an employer.

No doubt. But most of those employees couldn't complain about having to speak English if it was made the law that the employer can require English on the job.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
For me, the whole thing would have been avoided by a simple law stating that the employer can require English to be spoken on the job.

The article states that the Kidmans have now adopted a new English-only rule that complies with Title VII. That seems to indicate that employers can already require English to be spoken on the job.

However, employers cannot

adopt an English-only policy with the intent to discriminate on the basis of national origin

adopt a policy that prohibits some but not all of the foreign languages spoken in a workplace

I fail to see why you would want to change that.

I haven't said I want to change that. All I have said is that I want an employer to be able to establish an English-only policy in the workplace without fear of retaliation by any government agency and without having to go through a costly and/or time consuing process to prove that the policy is "necessary".

That is a whole different thing than what you said here.

Well, I'm at a loss.

You want employees to have the right to sue an employer for discriminating against them based on language.

You've brought up numerous reasons why it might make sense to introduce an English-only policy, and virtually all of them are covered by the current law.

You've said you don't want employers 'having to go through a costly and/or time consuing process to prove that the policy is "necessary"', but there is no process an employer has to go through - unless he gets sued for discrimination based on language. And you've just said that you're not opposed to that.

Could you maybe give an example why an employer might want to introduce an English-only policy that is not covered by the current law?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
For me, the whole thing would have been avoided by a simple law stating that the employer can require English to be spoken on the job.

The article states that the Kidmans have now adopted a new English-only rule that complies with Title VII. That seems to indicate that employers can already require English to be spoken on the job.

However, employers cannot

adopt an English-only policy with the intent to discriminate on the basis of national origin

adopt a policy that prohibits some but not all of the foreign languages spoken in a workplace

I fail to see why you would want to change that.

I haven't said I want to change that. All I have said is that I want an employer to be able to establish an English-only policy in the workplace without fear of retaliation by any government agency and without having to go through a costly and/or time consuing process to prove that the policy is "necessary".

That is a whole different thing than what you said here.

Well, I'm at a loss.

You want employees to have the right to sue an employer for discriminating against them based on language.

You've brought up numerous reasons why it might make sense to introduce an English-only policy, and virtually all of them are covered by the current law.

You've said you don't want employers 'having to go through a costly and/or time consuing process to prove that the policy is "necessary"', but there is no process an employer has to go through - unless he gets sued for discrimination based on language. And you've just said that you're not opposed to that.

Could you maybe give an example why an employer might want to introduce an English-only policy that is not covered by the current law?

No, I do not want the employees to have reason or right to sue over language just because the insured institutes an English-only policy. Allowing the employer to institute an English-only policy if s/he wants one with no fear of government action removes the incentive to sue over language.

The employer should not be allowed to apply the policy to any specific group and exclude other groups--that IS discriminatory--but the fact that the employer wants English only spoken in the work place should be sufficient reason for the policy to exist. No other test should be required.

I have no problem with employees sueing over valid grievances. But the language their employer wants all employees to speak, provided that language is the common language of the country, should not be any kind of grievance.

To me this is not rocket science and is a quite simple principle. It should not be difficult for anybody to understand.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

the fact that the employer wants English only spoken in the work place should be sufficient reason for the policy to exist. No other test should be required.

So all the reasons that you gave earlier have nothing to do with this new proposed law. You want employers to be able to introduce an English-only policy just for the heck of it, and employees who are fired for using a language other than English, even if completely unrelated to work, should have no means of addressing this issue in court.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
the fact that the employer wants English only spoken in the work place should be sufficient reason for the policy to exist. No other test should be required.

So all the reasons that you gave earlier have nothing to do with this new proposed law. You want employers to be able to introduce an English-only policy just for the heck of it, and employees who are fired for using a language other than English, even if completely unrelated to work, should have no means of addressing this issue in court.

Try harder OE. That isn't what I said at the beginning or in the middle or now.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
the fact that the employer wants English only spoken in the work place should be sufficient reason for the policy to exist. No other test should be required.

So all the reasons that you gave earlier have nothing to do with this new proposed law. You want employers to be able to introduce an English-only policy just for the heck of it, and employees who are fired for using a language other than English, even if completely unrelated to work, should have no means of addressing this issue in court.

Try harder OE. That isn't what I said at the beginning or in the middle or now.

I know that's not what you said. It is, however, what the effect of such a law would be.

You gave lots of reasons why this new law would make sense. However, an English-only policy can already be instituted for all those reasons. Therefore, all those reasons you gave in earlier posts have nothing to do with the new proposed law.

That leaves one reason: an employer wants to introduce an English-only policy just because he feels like it. (Or, in your words, "the fact that the employer wants English only spoken in the work place should be sufficient reason for the policy to exist. No other test should be required.")

And, finally, you don't want employees to be able to sue about a randomly instituted English-only policy, or, consequentially, about being fired over speaking any language other than English and thus violating a randomly instituted English-only policy.

I'm not sure where we disagree. Do you think there wouldn't be any employers firing employees over an English-only policy if they didn't have to fear any consequences?

0 Replies

I once briefly worked for an irrational, conservative, racist woman, who would become angry when customers in the store spoke to one another in Spanish. When i asked her why she should get upset, as they were only speaking to one another the language with which they were most comfortable, she said that they were in 'Merica, and should speak the language. I asked her if she and her husband had spoken only Spanish to one another during their recent vacation in Mexico--at that point, she threatened me with my job. That was easy to deal with, though, i just called the NAACP that evening and enlightened them as to her typical comments about people of color who visited the store, and was very soon thereafter transferred to another store.

Don't know what made me think of that--apart from this idiot thread and its author.

0 Replies

The "Protecting English in the Workplace Act of 2007"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know