The "Protecting English in the Workplace Act of 2007"

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:

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?

The Subway® Group, franchisor of the #1 restaurant chain in the U.S. and Canada, has more than 28,500+ restaurants worldwide and still counting! We're looking for a 'Franchise Sales Manager' to join our Latin American Regional Office team in Miami, FL.

The Franchise Sales Manager position is responsible for managing franchise sales activity in our growing Latin American region. Position responsibilities include; handling inquiries from prospective franchisees and instruct on processes and opportunities, prepare and make sales calls, sell franchises, process purchases, and develop marketing plans and development strategies for the region. BA/BS degree in a business related field and 3+ years international business development experience required. Travel will be required. Must possess excellent communication skills, strong negotiation skills, and be detail oriented.Must be bilingual Spanish and English. Trilingual Spanish, English, and Portuguese preferred.

If becoming a part of our very successful and expanding team sounds interesting, and you meet the requirements above, please let us hear from you!
AA/EOE/M/F/D/V

As an employer

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.

As an employer, I want to know what is going on in the work place at all times, and that means I would want all employees to speak English at all times.

I don't know whether we disagree or not since you seem to keep coming at it from different angles and keep changing and inserting components that, in my mind, don't belong in the discussion.

If no one else has so noted, doesn't the adjective "protecting" tell us much about what this bill is about?

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't know whether we disagree or not since you seem to keep coming at it from different angles and keep changing and inserting components that, in my mind, don't belong in the discussion.

Sure, I'm very likely coming from a different angle.

As someone whose first language is not English, I'm in favour of allowing employers to institute English-only policies regarding everything that has to do with work. The law, as it currently is, allows for all that. (Apparently, it even allows you to institute a non-discriminating English-only policy for no other reason than that you want to understand your employees - if the article you posted about the Kidmans and their current English-only policy is correct.)

However, I'm not in favour of a law that would allow an employer to fire me for using a different language while at work, even if it's in a context that has nothing to do with work, that isn't detrimental to work safety, isn't detrimental to communication with supervisors or coworkers, or is in any other way of disadvantage to the company. Also, I'm not in favour of a law that would not only allow an employer to fire me over using a different language, but also leave me with no rights whatsoever of addressing such a matter in court.



In other words: I can see the intention people might see behind the law, and I agree with quite a bit of that. However, when propagating a new law, you also have to be aware of the consequences.

You seem to focus on the intent, and brush aside any concern about negative consequences.

blatham wrote:

If no one else has so noted, doesn't the adjective "protecting" tell us much about what this bill is about?

About xenoglossophobia?

I can appreciate that you would not want to have to speak English if you were an employee in the United States.

I have not brushed aside any concerns of negative consequences that relate specifically to the question of the law itself however. As I understand the law, the only negative consequence is that the preference of those preferring to speak languages other than English would not be accommodated if the employer wanted English only spoken in the work place and the employer would have the right to establish such a policy if the employer chose to do that.

Foxfyre wrote:

I can appreciate that you would not want to have to speak English if you were an employee in the United States.

Not what I said. I have been working in the United States, I had to speak English dealing with customers and with coworkers, and I don't have a problem with that at all.

I have stated what bothers me about the proposed law.

Foxfyre wrote:

I have not brushed aside any concerns of negative consequences that relate specifically to the question of the law itself however. As I understand the law, the only negative consequence is that the preference of those preferring to speak languages other than English would not be accommodated if the employer wanted English only spoken in the work place and the employer would have the right to establish such a policy if the employer chose to do that.

Those preferring to speak other languages than English in a context completely unrelated to their actual job would not be accomodated. I'm sure you'll acknowledge that.

Which, in turn, means that speaking other languages than English in a context completely unrelated to their actual job would violate company policy. I'm sure you agree with that, too.

Which, in turn, means that somebody speaking a language other than English in a context completely unrelated to their actual job could be fired for violating company policy. I don't think there's any doubt about that.

And, as employers would be protected, people who have been fired for speaking a language other than English in a context completely unrelated to their actual job would have no means of addressing that in court.

In my opinion, there is no legal right for employees to be speaking in any context unrelated to their jobs while they are accepting wages from their employer to do the job.

I and others have previously listed a number of reasons this would be very good policy, all of which you have chosen to ignore or not address.

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
  

Foxfyre wrote:

In my opinion, there is no legal right for employees to be speaking in any context unrelated to their jobs while they are accepting wages from their employer to do the job.

If that's your opinion, I agree that a lot of what you've said before simply follows.


I'd venture that neither you nor very many other people in the United States would want to work for an employer whose policy was that not a single word unrelated to their job can be spoken while at work, and that they would be subject to being fired and left without legal recourse, if they were found violating such a policy.

Merely my opinion, though.

Foxfyre wrote:

I and others have previously listed a number of reasons this would be very good policy, all of which you have chosen to ignore or not address.

I also think that those reasons were addressed. I've addressed them here, pointing out that the EEOC accepts virtually all of them as reasons for an English-only policy:

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
  

I don't think that constitutes ignoring your points.

Foxfyre wrote:

In my opinion, there is no legal right for employees to be speaking in any context unrelated to their jobs while they are accepting wages from their employer to do the job.

If that's your opinion, I agree that a lot of what you've said before simply follows.


I'd venture that neither you nor very many other people in the United States would want to work for an employer whose policy was that not a single word unrelated to their job can be spoken while at work, and that they would be subject to being fired and left without legal recourse, if they were found violating such a policy.

Merely my opinion, though.