0
   

The "Protecting English in the Workplace Act of 2007"

 
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 05:27 pm
The article I posted from today's Washington Times does not really provide any new information. The reporter basically copied what was in Senator Alexander's press release.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 05:29 pm
The EEOC took on the Salvation Army case because sorting clothes doesn't require speaking English.

"These women had worked at the location for five years sorting donations without any complaints about their conversing in Spanish," EEOC Commissioner Stuart Ishimaru said at a commission meeting earlier this year.

In other cases, the agency has defended workers who complained they weren't allowed to speak their native languages while on their lunch break or in telephone conversations with their spouses.

English-only lawsuits are in fact brought only rarely, the EEOC says. The agency averages just five lawsuits a year for all language-related discrimination issues. The Salvation Army case filed in April is the most recent English-only suit filed. English-only complaints accounted for less than 0.2 percent of all those filed with the agency last year.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 05:35 pm
In the case explained by dyslexia, speaking Spanish while sorting clothes actually made the workers more effective since they were working together.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 05:56 pm
The ridiculous part of the conservative rhetoric is the word "Unity".

This is a very divisive piece of legislation that is deeply offensive to many Americans.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 06:03 pm
well, it's pretty obvious to me that foxfyre thinks that what this country needs is more laws to solve our social problem issues. pretty unusual for a libertarian even one with a small "L".
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 06:28 pm
I was just catching up on this thread, and the ignorance of the entire concept of civil rights displayed by Foxy's posts is astounding.

Foxfyre wrote:

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.


This kind of statement would be funny if it weren't a justification to continue discriminatory practices.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 06:31 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
I was just catching up on this thread, and the ignorance of the entire concept of civil rights displayed by Foxy's posts is astounding.

Foxfyre wrote:

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.


This kind of statement would be funny if it weren't a justification to continue discriminatory practices.



Imagine an employer introducing an "everybody working here has to be married" policy. It would be applied consistently and uniformly.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 06:34 pm
It could be called "Protecting Marriage in the Workplace Act of 2007."
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 06:43 pm
An important impact of the Civil Rights Acts is a guarantee that people who are Jewish can have a guarantee of being able to take the high holidays off.

This was a real way that minorities were discriminated against in the past.

Foxfyre would have it that as long as Christians couldn't take time off for Yom Kippur (or any other holiday that is not celebrated by the majority as Christmas and Easter are) then it should be fair that Jewish people couldn't take it off either.

((I wonder if Foxfyre would support a "Protecting Christians in the Workplace act" that would address this issue))
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 07:28 pm
Well, I'm not entirely sure if Foxfyre was making the point in defense of workplace policies in general.

Let's note that the EEOC position seems to be that an English-only policy is legal as long as it prohibits not just a few selected languages, but all of the foreign languages spoken in a workplace (assuming "business necessity" of such a policy).

In that context, it would make sense to say that a policy that would treat everybody exactly the same would not be discriminatory.


Now, the bit about "So long as a policy is applied consistently and uniformly, it is impossible to discriminate" is a bit more dubious...
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2008 06:50 pm
http://imgs.sfgate.com/n/pictures/2008/05/02/english5.jpg

Then what? Kick out the people who don't speak it well?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2008 06:53 pm
That was an interesting thread...

<tags it>
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 07/24/2021 at 02:40:03