The "Protecting English in the Workplace Act of 2007"

As I have ALWAYS had an English only rule in every place I have ever worked or in any business that I have owned or managed, to date there has never been a problem. I have hired people with extremely limited English skills on condition that they improve those skills and they did, which qualified them for better jobs than I had to offer. I fail to see how that was in any way harmful to those people.

Foxfyre wrote:

As I have ALWAYS had an English only rule in every place I have ever worked or in any business that I have owned or managed, to date there has never been a problem. I have hired people with extremely limited English skills on condition that they improve those skills and they did, which qualified them for better jobs than I had to offer. I fail to see how that was in any way harmful to those people.

So you're saying that it was no problem to institute English-only policies without discriminating against anybody all these years since 1964?

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

As I have ALWAYS had an English only rule in every place I have ever worked or in any business that I have owned or managed, to date there has never been a problem. I have hired people with extremely limited English skills on condition that they improve those skills and they did, which qualified them for better jobs than I had to offer. I fail to see how that was in any way harmful to those people.

So you're saying that it was no problem to institute English-only policies without discriminating against anybody all these years since 1964?

How can you discriminate against anybody if you treat everybody exactly the same? So long as a policy is applied consistently and uniformly, it is impossible to discriminate. Seems to me that it is discrimination if you treat some people differently because of their race or ethnicity or whatever.

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

As I have ALWAYS had an English only rule in every place I have ever worked or in any business that I have owned or managed, to date there has never been a problem. I have hired people with extremely limited English skills on condition that they improve those skills and they did, which qualified them for better jobs than I had to offer. I fail to see how that was in any way harmful to those people.

So you're saying that it was no problem to institute English-only policies without discriminating against anybody all these years since 1964?

How can you discriminate against anybody if you treat everybody exactly the same? So long as a policy is applied consistently and uniformly, it is impossible to discriminate. Seems to me that it is discrimination if you treat some people differently because of their race or ethnicity or whatever.

Right. So you're saying that it was no problem to institute English-only policies all these years since 1964?

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

As I have ALWAYS had an English only rule in every place I have ever worked or in any business that I have owned or managed, to date there has never been a problem. I have hired people with extremely limited English skills on condition that they improve those skills and they did, which qualified them for better jobs than I had to offer. I fail to see how that was in any way harmful to those people.

So you're saying that it was no problem to institute English-only policies without discriminating against anybody all these years since 1964?

How can you discriminate against anybody if you treat everybody exactly the same? So long as a policy is applied consistently and uniformly, it is impossible to discriminate. Seems to me that it is discrimination if you treat some people differently because of their race or ethnicity or whatever.

Right. So you're saying that it was no problem to institute English-only policies all these years since 1964?

I'm not saying that at all since I wasn't paying any attention to that in 1964--it didn't occur to me that it would ever be a problem in 1964--nor do I know if there were English-only policies then. I wasn't in the position to hire and fire people in 1964.

Are you saying that there have been English-only policies since 1964? I know the first cases the EEOC starting bringing against people on this issue was I think 1994. The phrasing of your question makes no sense within the context of what I said.

As I have ALWAYS had an English only rule in every place I have ever worked or in any business that I have owned or managed, to date there has never been a problem.

Old europe quoted from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 twice.

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

As I have ALWAYS had an English only rule in every place I have ever worked or in any business that I have owned or managed, to date there has never been a problem. I have hired people with extremely limited English skills on condition that they improve those skills and they did, which qualified them for better jobs than I had to offer. I fail to see how that was in any way harmful to those people.

So you're saying that it was no problem to institute English-only policies without discriminating against anybody all these years since 1964?

How can you discriminate against anybody if you treat everybody exactly the same? So long as a policy is applied consistently and uniformly, it is impossible to discriminate. Seems to me that it is discrimination if you treat some people differently because of their race or ethnicity or whatever.

Right. So you're saying that it was no problem to institute English-only policies all these years since 1964?

I'm not saying that at all since I wasn't paying any attention to that in 1964--it didn't occur to me that it would ever be a problem in 1964--nor do I know if there were English-only policies then. I wasn't in the position to hire and fire people in 1964.

Are you saying that there have been English-only policies since 1964? I know the first cases the EEOC starting bringing against people on this issue was I think 1994. The phrasing of your question makes no sense within the context of what I said.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 seems to date back to 1964. I don't know when the first ever English-only policy in an American company was introduced.

Anyways, back to the context of what you said:

Foxfyre wrote:

As I have ALWAYS had an English only rule in every place I have ever worked or in any business that I have owned or managed, to date there has never been a problem.

So you're saying that it was no problem to institute English-only policies all these years since, well, since you started working in a business?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Old europe quoted from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 twice.

Yes and neither time did he use it correctly to address the issue that is actually being debated here.

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.

I support a law that prevents the EEOC filing suit purely because there is an English only requirement in a workplace and that prevents employees from having grounds to complain if their employer requires them to speak English for ANY reason.

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.

Foxfyre wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Old europe quoted from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 twice.

Yes and neither time did he use it correctly to address the issue that is actually being debated here.

I thought I did. I pointed out that an English-only policy can be instituted for virtually any reason pertaining to the conduct of business under the current law.

You seem to believe that the current law is not sufficient. That leaves us with only one option: instituting an English-only policy even though it has nothing to do with business-related matters.

You're in favour of that. In fact, you said:

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.

and I answered

old europe wrote:

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.

If the EEOC filed suit, I would have to prove that his/her speaking English was necessary for his/her job or I would lose the case.

But there are very good reasons for why English is the appropriate language in which to do that in an English-speaking country, and I would have no problem with the boss requiring me to speak English or whatever other language at all times on the job. Nobody should have a problem with that.

Foxfyre wrote:

If the EEOC filed suit, I would have to prove that his/her speaking English was necessary for his/her job or I would lose the case.

Don't employers have to prove that ANY job requirement they pose is necessary for the job? or is it only English that is a requirement that employers have to prove.

Or is English the only requirement you are concerned about in regard to the EEOC?

as the old foxfyre used to say, the majority rules. The problem seems to be that foxfyre only agrees with majority rule when she is not in the minority.

The complaint was that it discriminates against people <snip> to deny them the privilege of speaking their native language, <snip> to each other while working or in cases in which the language they speak would not specifically affect how they did their job.

<snip>

The law would simply make the language spoken in the work place also at the employer's discretion.

Foxfyre wrote:

The complaint was that it discriminates against people <snip> to deny them the privilege of speaking their native language, <snip> to each other while working or in cases in which the language they speak would not specifically affect how they did their job.

<snip>

The law would simply make the language spoken in the work place also at the employer's discretion.

Doesn't seem simple to me, but I understand what you're after. Don't agree, but understand.






(most of the other posters probably already understood, but I need clear language)

"One way to make sure that we have a ... a little more unity that is our country's greatest accomplishment is to make certain that we value our common language," Alexander said Thursday. "And that we not devalue it by allowing a federal agency to say that it is a violation of federal law for an employer in America to require an employee to speak English on the job."

"One way to make sure that we have a ... a little more unity that is our country's greatest accomplishment is to make certain that we value our common language," Alexander said Thursday. "And that we not devalue it by allowing a federal agency to say that it is a violation of federal law for an employer in America to require an employee to speak English on the job."

Bill aims to protect English on the job
(By Audrey Hudson, Washington Times, December 29, 2007)

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would be blocked from filing lawsuits against businesses that require workers to speak English on the job as part of legislation introduced recently in the Senate.

"In America, requiring English in the workplace is not discrimination, it's common sense," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee Republican and sponsor of the Protecting English in the Workplace Act of 2007.

The former secretary of education tried to amend an appropriation bill for the Justice and Commerce departments earlier this year to stop such lawsuits by the EEOC, but it was blocked by Democrats. He introduced the stand-alone bill before Congress adjourned this month.

Such lawsuits by the federal government are on the rise. Last year, the EEOC filed more than 200 lawsuits against employers that use English-only rules.

Although the bill states that it is not against the law for employers to require their workers to speak English on the job, it would not apply to designated work breaks.

"This bill is not about affecting people's lunch hour or coffee break, it's about protecting the rights of employers to ensure their employees can communicate with each other and their customers during the working hours," Mr. Alexander said.

He said he was prompted to draft the bill after a discrimination lawsuit was filed in March by the EEOC against a Salvation Army thrift store in Framingham, Mass., where two employees were given a year to learn English. They were fired after they refused.

"Our greatest accomplishment as a country has been uniting our magnificent diversity, and one way we have done that is by all speaking a common language, English," Mr. Alexander said. "I believe this is a gross distortion of the Civil Rights Act and a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be an American."

The American Conservative Union (ACU) is encouraging its members to write letters to members of Congress and President Bush to show their support for the bill.

"This campaign of federal government harassment must stop," said J. William Lauderback, executive vice president of the ACU. "Small businesses in America will be wrecked if the EEOC is allowed to enforce this further dismantling of America."

New immigrants are hindered by not learning English or assimilating into the culture, which allows them to be exploited by some businesses seeking cheap labor and creates a permanent underclass, Mr. Lauderback said.

"This madness is one more consequence of allowing 12 [million] to 20 million illegal aliens to pour across our borders unchecked," he said.