http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312402,00.html



Questions for debate:
(this is a short one...)
1. Should it be legal to have an "English Only" policy in a work place?

This is AMERICA. Here, you're supposed to speak AMERICAN.

Well, english, actually. But not if you ask someone who lives in the midwest.

These workers are in an environment operated by english-speakers. Its probably safe to assume all their orders are given in english. SHould a problem manifest, their superiors and co-workers, the majority of whom are linked by only one common tongue...ours, will want their warning, in english.

Workplace saftety first, right? That, and the managers probably feel a bit p***ed off that they can't tell whether or not their workers are calling them jerks behind their backs.

Okay- what about places like, oh rural Alaskan villages where the native majority speaks english as a second language- are we going back to the old days where we start penalizing first poeples for thier languages?

There was a law just struck down in Alaska, to some degree, because the local goverment meetings were conducted using Inupiat- the main language of the villagers.

Well, was the factory inhabited mostly by spaniards? Was the surrounding community a spanish one. Was it even a community, so much as a diparate group of workers of different backgrounds and ethnicities.

In Inupupu--you know what i mean, you had an almost totally Inuit population whose effictiency as a group was being cut, because of their adherence to a language that inconvenienced the majority of the population. How many spanish speakers are there in a Deep River machine shop? My guess is, not as many as athere are english speakers.

Your anecdote is unrelated.

1. Should it be legal to have an "English Only" policy in a work place?

Should it even be a question? How crazy is it that the federal government has so much time on its hands that it can afford to blow resources on promoting cultural balkanization? That thing needs a big-time enema, pronto.

And for those who want to play the big-bad-corporation versus poor-oppressed-worker card, having a common language is actually to the advantage of the workers. They can organize better amongst themselves when they all speak the same language.

Actually- it is related because they law said they had to cease and desist the practice of having meeting in Inupiat or Yupik.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007...honly_law/7062/

First, what business does the government have telling a private business how to conduct it's business? If the business wants to put certain policies in place that they feel enhances safety, who is to stop them? If the workers don't like it, work elsewhere or comply. This is a free country, isn't it?

I agree 100% with that statement- what if your business is say, primarily importing Russian goods- and you need every employee to speak Russian- is it okay for the goverment to tell you to do business in English?

What you speak of is an english only policy in an insular community of inuits. THE WORKPLACE IS NOT AN INSULAR COMMUNITY.

What it comes down to is efficiency. Are the inuits inconvenienced by having to speak english? yes. So long as their transcripts are properly translated before they are submitted, is the federal government inconvenienced? no.

Are five spaniards inconvenienced by not being able to grip about their bosses in public? Sure. I'd love the opportunity to badmouth my boss, wouldn't we all? But more importantly, the factory as a whole is inconvenienced by their stubborn refusal to adopt the status quo.

We speak of the workplace. In america. The native language of which, is english. Coherency, teamwork, and understanding, all require the workers in question to speak the same language.

Would you prefer them to use body signs, hand motions, and grunts?

I don't believe that the GOVERMENT should have an "english only" law for corporations or companies- that should be up to the business to decide. Yes, working in Alaska, you work with international crews all the time. As I transition into a new field of work and study- I am in mid-career change right now- it becomes more and more "international" in flavor.

For example, as part of my college studies, I went to inspect a new high rise going up here- some of the building equipment, or much of it- comes from places in northern europe- the netherlands is the most common place- and the experts on this equipment are from the Netherlands- some speak bad English, some speak good- the company provides a full time interpreter to one of the guys that maintenance some of the equipment.

How does an "English only" law help this company?

If the majority of employees at the job site speak spanish- is the company prohibited from doing all business in spanish, for, as you pointed out, efficiency sake- or are they allowed to decide which language to use?

If the company in the original post makes it company policy to prohibit non-English languages on the job site- as long as they are not accepting federal funds or grants- they should be allowed to do so,

Here's a rarity, you and I seem to agree for the most part, but my question to you regarding your last statement, what if the company recieves government contracts? If the government contracts this company to produce products to be used in government projects, does the company still get to set English Only policies?

Then they should have to do whatever the goverement says they should do- that is usually the condition of the contract- key word is contract here- by signing that contract, they are usually agreeing to whatever terms the contract says to do.

IF the contract says "by signing this contract, you are obligated to follow all goverment regulations regarding working for the goverment"- well, then, that is what you have to do.

The private sector can be just as wierd in thier contracts as the goverment- with just as insane rules- but, hey, no one forced that biz into doing biz!

Did I ever say that the government deserves control over a business' language policies?

I am saying, that five men in an predominantly english factory, have no right to tell their bosses what language should be spoken in their own facility.

I totally agree- as long as the pendulum isn't in the goverment's favor also in regards to "english only" laws- Alaska had passed such a law- that rule handicapps the employer the other direction-

I do believe that businesses should be able to do what they choose to do as far as language is concerned- and the goverment can't make rules on this, except in regards to goverment contracts.

1. Should it be legal to have an "English Only" policy in a work place?

Nobody wants to find out what the Spanish phrases for "Look out for the flying crowbar!" or "Don't put your hand in the mincer while it's running" are by correspondence course from the recovery room. So, everyone should certainly be able to speak at least one common language, if only for health and safety.

For most practical purposes - certainly in Connecticut - that language would be English. This might not be the case in other parts of the USA, and if a company owned and mostly staffed by legally-resident and legally working Hispanics wanted to have a Spanish-only policy, that would be okay too.

After all, as we're constantly told by free market conservatives when they want to defend other minorities (usually owners and managers), if you work there and don't like it, or or you don't want to work somewhere where they don't or won't speak English, you can always get another job, right?

If their concern is safety, then they need to go further and specify what "English" they mean. There are many English speakers that would be just as incomprehensible to Connecticut locals as Spanish, what if some inner-city black youths moved up from New York speaking whatever the latest Hip-Hop slang is?. They'd probably have a hard time with my British-isms also.

I feel many of these "English only" rules are designed to harass Hispanics rather than promoting any great ideal.

This is a difficult question for me. IN one aspect I can support such a large variety of laws in an environmental aspect coming to bear on the populous, this does not mean though I accept big government. IS this issue so large or is it isolate, what are the conditions of this occurring? I have had to endure the reality of people trying to communicate with different languages Is the situation one in which having a worker not being able to effectively communicate a danger to other people?

I think when a case like this reaches a government tone, it opens itself up as a tool for the future. What I mean by this is a ruling on this case on a federal level, even the investigation if you want to call it such sets a bar really, or a mark at least for anyone or group for instance to use. So environmentally I would hope the best fit decision is being produced, but what is that fitness value really?

I mean part of government work is to maintain a certain equity amongst involved entities while trying to obtain a goal, or least on a domestic scale such comes to bear. So I think this is part of the product that leads to government inflation and bureaucracy but without such government involvement would almost certainly never obtain any lasting peace with an act or decision it makes.

Personally cant a business just not choose to hire someone? So more or less this is again simply I would think a question on language. If this was more or less something wide scale the only economical and fair decision I could see is a variety of English language courses for people. At least a few year run could test for any effectives. Though would such be viewed as bias even if it were far more economical then trying to teach Americans at large in total Spanish or related dialect. So again its a sensitive issue and I don’t know how you would make a fit decision.

1/3 of 'americans' speak spanish. You seem to talking about the white populace of United States, whom generally only speak and know one language. Are you afraid of bi-lingual people? Whom generally have better knowledge of languages as a whole, as their vocabulary and understanding of other languages get extended as well?

Why are people in "america" (United States in this case) only suppose to speak English? It does not make any sense, and i can only imagine a person whom is 1. Illiterate in other languages, and 2. Fear other cultures and are somewhat racist in his views.

Thats just what it seems to me, sorry if this is not the case.



Regarding the main topic, if they spoke to eachother, and the language was not a problem regarding work, there should be no issue here, the company should not have "demanded" they should speak english, just because they are poorly educated and only speak one language.

If this was in a restaurant, and they were waiters speaking spanish to an american chef, not speaking spanish, then the answer is obvious, but clearly, this was not the case. This is about jealousy and racism, as its clear that the company CEOs could not handle the fact that the workers spoke a language they could not understand, and lack the ability to learn.


But thats just my 50 Kiwi Cent.

Yes but on that same idea should all people in America have to speak Spanish? What does everyone have to do? I mean these notions of such seem to all be entirely racist. People migrate to the U.S from say South America and Mexico in particular for the possibility of a better life, I don’t know why anyone would blame them for that giving the current state of the world. On that note though it does have an impact. For instance I do not remember of the top of my head but a type of disease not currently combated in America exists in Mexico, it has no cure. Should that also be allowed to freely cross any borders? I do not look at it as a question of race but of practical sense. If people are going to migrate from nation to nation at least a nation can try to reduce any negative impacts such could have.

It costs tax money to give to millions of people, so they move here in the sake of a better life, and then have millions if not more in tax money attributed to human realities of such. I don’t see how any can say such is not humanitarian, but on that same I know that it has tons of problems. Also how does the government reach everyone? that alone would cost a small fortune in time giving the density of the topic. If you cant make any realistic plans then you really don’t have any plans you just have a giant waste of money in a profound social issue that needs more flawless type of actions in all reality. Seeing what and how the civil rights movement has gone it would be very negative for relations in this situation to follow suit and gain also negative aspects which retard progress.

Also nothing is overnight and the noise aspect to immigration in the U.S rather high I don’t suspect an instant change. I see these symptoms honestly as more ecological realities of life but for the most part policy is not focused on anything close to such. I do however think inert acts overall of subjugation will not aid anything in fact its basically like asking to have your foot stepped on.

Of course. If one wishes to own a business in which English is the only language spoken, that individual should have every right to do so. He/She does run the risk of alienating individuals of other cultures who would be interested in working for him/her provided he/she had a less restrictive language policy; but that is the business owner's risk, and his alone. If an individual OWNS a business it is HIS or HERS, not "ours" and not the government's, let the owner do with it what he pleases and if he screws up, he'll change course or fail.

CP

It does appear that the employer has the right to adopt a common language policy if it is due to workplace safety and other serious concerns. That is cogently outlined in this piece by a lawyer. I would agree that they have the right to speak on break or at lunch in their own native language. However, I disagree with the notion that they must speak english while performing a given task. There needs to be a bit of a tweaking on thsi rule and here's why-If two Croatians or two Hispanics are working together on a difficult/dangerous piece of machinery, why couldn't they communicate in a language that both people are fluent in? Why isn't there an exception for that? Without that exemption, I fail to see how it isn't an example of blatant racism. Besides, many people who are secondary english speakers work in meat packing plants and handle sharp equipment. I fail to see how that isn't getting the job done, yet, this guy wants an english rule at his workplace. The common language policy should allow for other languages as long as the employees can communicate with one another to complete a task. And what is this bit about speaking another language to mouth off about the boss? Getting a little straw man invented there aren't we?

Does that mean a company should not be allowed to have an English requirement on premises, and as condition of hire in the first place, as a policy? I mean, an employer can have a blue hat only rule as well, and use the word "duh" every third word as part of it's company policy- is and should the goverment be allowed to interfere? I would hope good ol' capitalism would work here well- simply boycott the company that has these kinds of policies, and perhaps aim an anti-marketing campaign on them- so they go out of business. I don't think the goverment needs to interfere, and I don't think freedom is served by allowing the goverment to interfere

And this was my point. We have EXCEPTIONS were a same language is 'needed', but NOT in this example.

Its clear that the MANAGEMENT, as Nebraska hinted, is trying some strawman because of their own insecurity.

1. Should it be legal to have an "English Only" policy in a work place?

Yes, but it should then also be legal then to have an Arabic/Chinese/Russian only policy if the company feels that way inclined. The door has to swing both ways. I think the only way the government could be justified in interfering here is if the company in question has dealings with members of the public in any way which might place the public at risk or serious inconvenience. Then I believe the government would have the authority to intervene and say all employee's should be able to communicate with the public in the most common language, which currently happens to be English.

So, if all my customers speak english and I would prefer my employees to deal with these customers directly, I shouldn't be able to require them to speak the language?

Nebraska, have you even run a business before? Do you think all companies are big companies with a sales force and a corporate structure?

For example, the company I work for is very tiny - 7 employees tops (which means a helluva bonus at Christmas). Much like tons of companies, we don't have upper/middle/lower managers, supervisors, etc. We all are experts at our particular task (and the reason we can remain so small). When customers call, they don't ask for a sales person, supervisor, or whatever - they ask for whoever happens to be responsible for that customer's project. For your argument to be consistent, you are telling the owner of my privately owned company that if he chooses to hire an english speaking engineer over a non-english speaking engineer, he is discriminating. Or is your example unique and we measure discrimination on a purely subjective basis?

Why stop there? Why not force my boss to hire people someone who had to work in a coal mine to support his family instead of going to school and never got a chance to learn to read to be our documentation specialists?

It's not up to the government to enforce company policy on a private enterprise. The ability to speak english is a reasonable expectation of job performance.

The ability to speak english, read, and show up for work on time even if your religious beliefs call for you to sleep until 11:00 everyday are not arbitrary requirements.

By Cruisingram:


My hyperlink document highlights historical cases where this issue has been addressed by the courts. There is a long and consistent history where workplace language laws have been discussed. I think it's a misnomer to blame this as an act of government, the lawsuits are being brought by private individuals against companies, not the government. Yes, the EEOC regulates that kind of thing, but it should also be remembered that there is a precedent for allowing english only laws at the workplace. In this instance and others, the government acts as a referee as the common man seeks to have a redress of grievance through the court room. Where else could they get equal standing and serious consideration of a perceived wrong? Are the courts not designed to have the little guy have his say and hold those in power accountable if need be? I would like to see a more fluid interpretation as it is only important if the people who carry out the dangerous job can communiate effectively. Once again, why shouldn't two Croats or two Hispanics use their own language if they are fluent in it to work alongside one another?

JamesEarl:


I have a feeling that this is what it's REALLY about. A few members have mentioned something about workers talking about management, but the FOX article and others that I have found do not mention that at all. The management cites "safety." I'm not certain how you prove that. I would like to hear an explanation as to why that policy is needed in light of the fact that more than a few languages are spoken at meat packing platns, where giant de-boning knives, automatic cutters, over-sized grapple hooks, and slick floors abound.

Actually, the point isn't whether or not there should be bilingual employees, rather if those bilingual employees should speak english while on the job. I can see the basis for the employer wanting everyone speaking the same language on the job floor. If at lunch imigrants want to speak their native language when not on the clock, so be it. In order to create a more efficient and safe environment, especially in the type of job in question here, everyone should speak the same language.

So what is the law here then? Can the company require english to be spoken at all times while employees are on the premises? even on thier lunch breaks- unless they take them off- site?

My link has it that they can only be forced to speak english on the job if it's a matter of safety. Once that bar is cleared, then yes, they have to speak English. There is a present exemption during break time as you couldn't seriously argue that it would risk the health and well-being of the other workers.

Why would such a restriction be put on a business? Why again is the business hindered in any way from requiring a certain language to be spoken on premises- at all times, including breaktimes?

If you go that route, then you restrict the right of the people to sue for a redress of a grievance. Is society going to elevate certain entitites above the legal system entirely?

Could you clarify that comment a little? Are you saying that a business policy requiring English-only on the premises somehow prevents people from bringing suit against that business for any tortious acts that it might commit?

You have the right to require whatever language you want on your own property. As far as I'm aware, that doesn't "elevate" you above the legal system.

This topic does upset me somewhat, it is pure discrimination on my eyes, and i am very surprised that more people do not see this.



DaytonRocker, english english english, it is interesting how they are suppose to speak english according to you, why?
May change one of your lines a bit, you know, so it follows none-biased racist style of writing? Such as this one:


Original: The ability to speak english, read, and show up for work on time even if your religious beliefs call for you to sleep until 11:00 everyday are not arbitrary requirements.

New: The ability to speak Bahasa, read, and show up for work on time even if your religious beliefs call for you to sleep until 11:00 everyday are not arbitrary requirements.


Now DaytonRocker, even you should be able to show up on work on time and be able to speak and read Bahasa (Indonesian), else you would be a hypocrite, would you not? You know, demanding that other people speak Your language, but cant speak others, right? United States is a bi-lingual society, Spanish and English being the main, why would you discriminate against people?



If you look at my response, and not to mention what DaytonRocker stated, I continue to claim clear racism. I do not think DaytonRocker is a racist, or even think he seriously believe he is "better" then others, but rather it is poor upbringing, and a familj that did not teach him the value of other people, and respect for other cultures. And because of this, anything that is 'different' is "bad". If people do not speak English, its bad, because in his home, English was the AMERICAN LANGUAGE. I have no doubt that if we would go deeper, he has opinions about who is a "real" american as well, you know, White Christian purebred.

Its disgusting, but totally off-topic (as long as post like that are not written).



scubatim, and that is the point, THEY spoke the same language, did they not? The management was upset about them not speaking ENGLISH. So safety was not an issue, its about dscrimination and separation here. Clearly, these individuals understand eachother, either by a different language, or switching if there would be different languages, which means, that there is no safety issue, but management issue.

I suppose it is - it's discrimination against Spanish in favor of English. In a normal era, people would wonder what the problem is with that. In this PC-besotted time, it's somehow considered uncouth.

The people spending time on this lawsuit would do so much better for themselves by spending their time learning English instead (well, except for the huge pile of cash they stand to receive as a consequence of our dysfunctional legal environment).


If that's what his employer required, I'd expect that he should indeed be able to do it, or find another employer who allows English (of which there are quite a few in this country, I'm guessing).

Should it be legal to have an "English Only" policy in a work place?
Yes. I think people responding against this thread are assuming too much.

English only policies do not not precede racism (i.e. discrimination). If you work for the New York Times or other big media and you are assigned to work at an overseas bureau you will learn the local language and the Times will pay for classes, if necessary. If security conditions permit accessing people and places it doesn't make sense for the Times to pay for a reporter and a translator. If you can't learn Spanish/Chinese/etc. you will be reassigned or fired. Fini.

There's scant info on the Fox article. Are they required to speak English during breaks and while speaking to spouses on the phone? If yes the policy is unjustified.

The guys bringing the lawsuit may not have standing by the time it reaches federal court in any case. It's unclear from this article whether Republicans successfully blocked the EEOC from enforcing language policies. If Republicans were blocking enforcement out of respect for employers to set whatever policy they like it would be one thing, but they're riding the illegal immigration wave.

When Republicans start doing something about the economic policies that precipitate millions of Mexican farmhands to immigrate illegally into the U.S. and tick off the xenophobes they're courting I'll start buying their assimilation concerns. Until then it's more of the same "globalization for countries that can afford subsidies" policy.

Not everyone in the plant speaks spanish from what can be discerned. Tell me exactly how an American company requiring the employees of said company speak the prodominate language of America is discrimination? How do you suggest to run any business efficiently when you have multiple languages spoken? Do you suggest to require each business to drop any language requirements and hire translators so everyone can communicate? Does this make any sense at all? How hard is it to understand that in America, we have PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESSES that aren't owned and run by government. Government can't tell private business owners how to run their business as long as they don't put the safety of employees and consumers in jeapordy. If you don't like the policies of a business, you don't have to do business with them.


First, I would suggest you try to stay away from assuming you know anything about peoples upbringing and background. You are quickly going down a very slippery slope that can land you in very hot water around here.

Second, I would suggest that you avoid putting thoughts into someone else's head, again a very slippery slope. Just because you (for whatever reason) think that having a requirement that everyone be able to communicate efficiently is blatently racist (and I will point out that you seem to be in the minority here) doesn't mean that those that disagree with you think people that don't speak English as bad and that "he has opinions about who is a "real" american as well, you know, White Christian purebred."

These statements can be viewed as personal attacks and besides the fact that personal attacks are a violation of the rules here at , these statements seriously discredit you with the members. Just a word of advice.

Yes, I think the personal attack was very unneccesary, DR has shown himself a reasonable and consistant conservative here, that calls things as he sees them, and is consistant on his issues that he debates here- he gives no particular party a "pass" just because he/she has a 'certain" letter behind his name. I have disagreed with his view many times- but I think the personal attack is uncalled for and should be retracted.

Back to the debate at hand- Nebraska- I am not talking about not allowing the employees to sue the company over bad or harmful practices- I am upset that the business can be forced into policies that may be counter to thier business model, or even worse, they are being micro-managed by goverment.

What harm comes to liberty or to society for a business to decide on whatever language they desire to be spoken on thier own private property?

Indeed, I do apologize DaytonRocker.

It was nothing personal, it is only that I consider your opinion (my own view) to be purely racist and based on false premises.

It was unnecessary and not suited in this debate. I hope you take my apology seriously, im sorry, nothing bad was meant.


-JE

What intrigues me, JE, is why you think English only policies are based on racism. What false premises do you refer to?

Yes, you do have a right to run your property as you see fit. However, when you employ other people, they don't automatically cede rights to sue or to have grievances addressed. They aren't serfs, they are fellow individuals with rights and the courts are the proper venue by which disputes can/should be settled.

And I completely agree with that statement Nebraska- as I have said in the past "you don't cash your constitutional rights with your paycheck"

however- I do not see how requiring ANY language the employer sees fit on the work premises effects constitutional rights of the employee more than the rights of the employer to do business as he/she sees fit.

I agreed that the employer should not have a right to fire an employee for a bumper sticker on the car- but once in the work place, even on break, I think the employer should have the right to create policy as they see fit, as long as no physical harm comes to them, or as long as it does not violate thier rights when the employee gets home "I am sorry- you can't speak swahili at home, against company policy"- but while on the job, or on break on the premises, I don't agree that the law protects employees against language policies.

To do so would be very bad.

No apology needed, but apology accepted. On a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of the things I've been called on this board, yours is a 5-6 out of 10 tops. You have a long way to go to get into unchartered territory.

So, let me get this straight - I am a small employer - less than 10 people. We all are required to deal with a customer base that is very narrow in terms of territory. None of our customers speaks anything but English. And everyone is responsible for manning the phones, giving our customers personal service, and order parts from english speaking vendors. Out here in flyover country, if somebody isn't speaking english, they can't get by. You may beleive you live in a bilingual society, but you have no idea how people live in my part of the country. It is NOT bilingual no matter how much you say it is.

So, for me to remain in business, make a profit, and keep people employed, I need to have people that can read, write, and speak english on a high level. Not ebonics, not french, not spanish, not on a 3rd grade level - but on a very professional/college level.

Yet, you call me racist? Suddenly, I think I'm superior to mexicans because I can speak english?

Do you have idea how foolish you are making yourself out to be here? Obviously, I'm on the opposite side of the fence from many people on social policies, but it is never arbitrary. Not allowing non-english speaking people to work for me is not arbitrary - it's common compelling business sense. It takes a special type of narrow-mindedness to think every business is a Walmart located in southern California and should play by the same rules. Your self-righteousness is sorely misplaced on this issue.

So, I take no offense to your racist accusation because clearly, you don't understand what racism is.

DR- let's also explore the other side of your argument- the results being the same- for instance- I do run a small import/export business, wherein i deal pretty exclusively with Russian customers/clients.

Would it be illegal for me to require Russian only to be spoken on the work premises? I need to "think" in russian, in order to understand some of the concepts- and since this is in manufacturing- it means there are industry specific portions of russian that must be understood- "Clutch basket" doesn't translate well from English to Russian, at all!

Would an english only LAW affect me?

It seems like a "law' either way is NOT good for business and does nothing for "public safety"

Really, my argument has nothing to do with english other than that is the language spoken here. So, your example is a good one. If mine or your business required any other language in order to operate a business at it's highest potential, then it is up to the business to get the type of employee it needs. So, if all your business is in russian, what good is an employee to you in he/she can't speak russian when that ability is required?

So, if I opened a plant in Mexico with strictly Mexican business, it would be stupid to require english speaking employees there. The whole "you're a white-sheet-wearing-mexican-hating-bigot" argument may have merit (although nobody can read someone else's mind) because it would seem arbitrary. It makes no business sense to hire someone that cannot perform to your customer's expectations.

Good point, CR.

Thanks DR -

I agree many businesses' in the US may really be pretty abusive to workers, and, even criminal in thier behavior, but, as well, we must recognize that freedom is most prevelant when we have a nation of small business owners- and, IIRC, the US economy is still something like 70% driven by small business.

Small business has the advantage over big business by it's much faster ability to change for the marketplace- and, taking away that advantage has a net decrease in personal freedoms.

A law requiring english to be the language in a business is as bad as a law requiring business NOT to discriminate based on language alone.

I have a problem with poeple saying "you are brown, can't work here"- but I have no problem with "you don't speak ___X___ language- and need good skills in this language- you are not qualified for this position.

To me, it is not anti- libertarian to have regulations on business for a variety of reasons- but knee-jerk or too restrictive regulations on small business harm the nation as a whole.

I do not want government involved in a private business unless there is a truly compelling reason. I do not consider this sufficiently compelling to warrant government intrusion.

That said, I think the company is wrong, wrong, wrong. I hope their employees and customers protest.

More from the article.

-Steven Jacobs, a New Haven lawyer representing the immigrants, questions GC Enterprises' explanation. He estimates that Spanish is the first language for up to 80 percent of the company's workers. "I can't accept the excuse they did this for safety reasons," he said.

One plaintiff, Andres Moran, who lives in Clinton, claims he was transferred from "packer" to the more strenuous job of "hanger" after he complained to his supervisor about the policy. Two weeks later he was laid off. Two other plaintiffs have since quit.-

If the majority of the employees speak Spanish, the English only rule is a safety hazard. I have worked as an interpreter. Many of our clients at the mission are Hispanics working in nearby meat-packing plants. I am personally familiar with similar work environments. I also know that when someone is under stress, you revert to your native language.

The threat of being fired for speaking your native language to other co-workers who speak the same language could make the work environment more dangerous.

When I was in labor with my 2nd child and living on the Texas/Mexico border, I had a midwife that only spoke Spanish. By the time I reached transition in what proved to be my longest, most difficult labor, I had completely forgotten my Spanish. I could speak Spanish when not under stress, but in a very stressful situation I had to revert to English, my native language.

If there really were a safety emergency in this plant and the majority of the workers have Spanish as there primary language, this gag order could impair the workers.

I think the policy is horrible. However, I still do not want the government to interfere with a private business. This is where employees need to protest and customers need to boycott, but keep Uncle Sam out of it.

Did some digging and found the EEOC complicance manual online!. A number of concerns brought up ar addressed in the link. In regards to governmental authority to regulate business, the manual cites authority as coming from the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Section "C" deals with language in the workplace and there are some great examples listed as to what is enforceable and what would not be. I'm not certain if protesting or boycotting a discriminatory workplace would be all that effective. For some reason, I think an employer would take a federal lawyer and threats of fines more seriously.

Very nicely done Nebraska!

Okay- seems that the EEOC has instituted some very common sense language here, that protects the rights of both the employee AND the employer- I am going to cut and paste the exerpts here, for both DR and my own benefit- because, I have a small business, and these things make a big difference in your ability to continue to have that business!


EXAMPLE 16
EMPLOYMENT DECISION WHERE ACCENT IS NOT A MATERIAL FACTOR

Anna, a Pakistani librarian in an elementary school, is responsible for cataloguing, researching, and reading aloud to young children. Her performance evaluations reflect that she is an excellent cataloguer and researcher and that she can communicate effectively with teachers and older children, but that some of the youngest children have had difficulty understanding her due to her accent. When her position is eliminated, Anna asks the local school board to transfer her to a position at a high school that involves cataloguing and researching but requires minimal student contact. The school board appropriately grants Anna's transfer request because Anna is qualified and her accent would not materially interfere with her ability to perform the librarian position at the high school.
EXAMPLE 17
EMPLOYMENT DECISION WHERE ACCENT IS A MATERIAL FACTOR

A major aspect of Bill's position as a concierge for XYZ Hotel is assisting guests with directions and travel arrangements. Numerous people have complained that they cannot understand Bill because of his heavy Ghanaian accent. Therefore, XYZ notifies Bill that he is being transferred to a clerical position that does not involve extensive spoken communication. The transfer does not violate Title VII because Bill's accent materially interferes with his ability to perform the functions of the concierge position.
EXAMPLE 18
LAWFUL ENGLISH FLUENCY REQUIREMENTS

Jorge, a Dominican national, applies for a sales position with XYZ Appliances, a small retailer of home appliances in a non-bilingual, English-speaking community. Jorge has very limited skill with spoken English. XYZ notifies him that he is not qualified for a sales position because his ability to effectively assist customers is limited. However, XYZ offers to consider him for a position in the stock room. Under these circumstances, XYZ's decision to exclude Jorge from the sales position does not violate Title VII.

EXAMPLE 19
ENGLISH-ONLY RULE: INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION

XYZ Textile Corp. adopts a policy requiring employees to speak only English while in the workplace, including when speaking to coworkers during breaks or when making personal telephone calls. XYZ places Hispanic workers under close scrutiny to ensure compliance and replaces workers who violate the rule with non-Hispanics. Jose, a native Spanish speaker, files a charge with the EEOC alleging that the policy discriminates against him based on his national origin. XYZ states that the rule was adopted to promote better employee relations and to help improve English skills. However, the investigation reveals no evidence of poor employee relations due to communication in languages other than English. Nor are proficient English skills required for any of the positions held by non-native English speakers. Because XYZ's explanation is contradicted by the evidence, the English-only rule is unlawful

EXAMPLE 20
PERMISSIBLE ENGLISH-ONLY RULE: PROMOTING SAFETY

XYZ Petroleum Corp. operates an oil refinery and has a rule requiring all employees to speak only English during an emergency. The rule also requires that employees speak in English while performing job duties in laboratories and processing areas where there is the danger of fire or explosion. The rule does not apply to casual conversations between employees in the laboratory or processing areas when they are not performing a job duty. The English-only rule does not violate Title VII because it is narrowly tailored to safety requirements
The way I see it- I can still make language requirements as part of the job, as long as I can prove some consistancy in the policy (I make EVERYONE beholden to the same language skill profieciency) - I can have a language requirement one way or the other.

So, if, in the original thread starter posting- it can be proven that the employer falls under example 20- they are off the hook.

It looks like in this case- Aevens original post about GC industries- the company clearly posted that they were allowed to speak in spanish during breaks or while NOT on duty- AND if they enforce this evenly, no matter what language is spoken- then the company is in the right, and the immigrints have no leg to stand on here.

Firing after repeated warnings, following the companies usual disciplining proceedures, would mean the company is well within it's rights, and, even more importantly- has a very, very good reason to have the policy in the first place.

Nebraska, thanks to your research and link, it is legal to have an English-only policy for purposes of safety and efficiency.

I worked for a credit card company along side the bi-lingual group. Obviously, there couldn't be an English-only policy, except when communicating with the manager that didn't speak english. Their immediate supervisor spoke spanish, however his boss didn't. My coworkers that worked were in the bilingual group spoke to each other mainly in spanish, but most would speak english along with the rest of us that only spoke english. I can see how having fellow employees speaking spanish causes trust issues. When half of the group is speaking a language that the other half does not understand, not knowing what is said can cause a lack of cohesion among both sides.

In regards to breaks and personal phone calls, I believe the law is right in that someone can't control what an individual speaks. I believe while on the clock, conducting business, everyone should speak the same language. If I moved to Mexico, I would expect that I would need to learn Spanish to work at most businesses, or I would find a business that I didn't need to speak Spanish to work for. I don't view English only policies as discrimination, as it requires everyone to be able to perform the same task-speak English. If the policy was that no one could speak Spanish, then it would be discriminatory.

You can legally require that an employee speak fluent Russian. Forcing them to only speak Russian at work might be a bit much. In DR's case, his argument makes sense only in that he can require that his employees have the ability to speak English at a particular skill level. There is nothing discriminatory about that. However, I don't believe DR's example would rise to the need to have an English-only rule. Neither would yours, CR. Requiring an employee to speak English while performing their jobs is not discriminatory. I believe that requiring an employee to speak English in casual conversation is a trickier situation.

Has anyone seen the actual text of GC Industries' notice? I would like to see that before I could form any informed opinion as to the legality of that notice.



There is a difference between the GC Industries notice and the above example - if FOX News is accurate in their report. The phrases, "not performing a job duty" and "not on duty" are not mutually exclusive. You can be "on duty" and not necessarily "performing a job duty" at that moment. I could be heading to my spot on an assembly line, see a friend and say hello. Am I on duty? Yes. Am I performing a job duty? No. Should I be required to speak in English in that instance? It could be that GC Industries' notice is to broad and not narrowly tailored enough to serve their purpose.