Thread: Spanish as official language in some Texas counties ????

Darlene...good choice...they can keep their information.

Bootsie, good idea, maybe the Minute Men can find out.

Maybe SIXX can check it out now that we know it is a fact.

SIXX: Do you see this one? Ask around and see if you can find out what counties passed these ordinances for Spanish.

Thanks!!

Is this the article you are trying to find?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03091/170518.stm

On the Job: English-only workplaces can be lawful but may not be desirable

Tuesday, April 01, 2003

By Judy Olian

Between 1990 and 2000, census data show that the proportion of Americans with a primary language other than English rose from 14 percent to 20 percent. In California, 40 percent of families speak a language other than English at home. Foreign languages are not confined to the home. They naturally spill over into workplaces, and that's where things get a little dicey.

Sensitivities about use of foreign languages in the workplace are sometimes a proxy for discomfort with people of diverse national origins. Of course, strains in the workplace over national origin are exacerbated today because of Americans' fear of foreign terrorist threats and tenser international relations.

Employers are barred from discrimination on the basis of national origin. But "English-only" workplaces are not strictly illegal, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The EEOC elaborated on language rules this year, stating that employers must tailor language requirements to specific job needs if an English only rule is instituted. In the eyes of the commission, such rules are rarely justified based on workplace requirements, and there is a concern that they have a chilling effect on work force diversity. Non-English speakers might feel inferior, isolated and intimidated if forced to speak only English where it isn't based on job need.

The EEOC is suspicious if an employer establishes across-the-board requirements for English only, especially during work breaks. Increasingly, these rules are challenged in the courts -- a fivefold increase in cases have been filed since 1998.

The University of The Incarnate Word, a 120-year-old, Roman Catholic-affiliated university, was sued by 18 Hispanic housekeepers alleging verbal and physical abuse for speaking Spanish on the job. They were required to speak English at all times, even during breaks. The university settled with the plaintiffs out of court for $2.4 million, $1 million in cash and $1.4 million in tuition waivers.

The EEOC sued on behalf of six hairstylists working Regis Corp. hair salons in Illinois, winning $360,000 from Regis because the stylists were forbidden to speak Spanish, even with Spanish-speaking customers. In a case against Premier Operator Services, a long-distance operator, the EEOC won $700,000 on behalf of 13 Mexican-American employees who had been fired. Originally hired as bilingual employees, they refused to sign the company's new English-only rule, enforced even during breaks. The court could not identify any business justification for the policy.

And in a pending case in Arizona, R.D.'s Drive-In Restaurant has been sued by Navajo Indian employees. Because of increasing frictions among co-workers due to alleged ridicule and exclusion, the suit claims that the owners required employees to sign the following: "The owner of this business can speak and understand only English. While the owner is paying you as an employee, you are required to use English at all times. The only exception is when the customer cannot understand English. If you feel unable to comply with this requirement, you may find another job." Those refusing to sign were fired and brought suit against the restaurant owners.

We've become more aware of, and vigilant about, differences. We're reminded each day that these differences may signal danger. Language differences are looming larger in the workplace because of greater alertness to every kind of distinction -- racial, ethnic, cultural and national origin. National origin discrimination charges have doubled over the past decade, according to the EEOC.

America's roots and sources of strength are in its diversity, and our openness to members of other societies eager to join our country and contribute to the economy has been a reason for our continued ascent in the global community.

But how far should employers go to accommodate diversity? Shared language is often essential to worker collaboration, team building, smooth operations and customer service. In some cases, language difficulties or differences impair performance or safety.

The $64 million question is whether an English-only rule reflects merely a comfort factor, let's call it a bias, that shows we prefer people like ourselves who look like us, think like us, and choose to speak our language when they converse with each other at work. This is called cloning. Over time it's bad for business and constitutes discriminatory behavior.

But there are gray zones. Employees chatting in a foreign language can be disruptive, exclusionary and downright rude. It might not affect performance directly but it can have debilitating effects on morale, teamwork and employee retention. Does this situation justify an English-only rule? Doubtful, since the rule isn't tailored narrowly to performance requirements. But it's uncomfortable and contributes to divisiveness in the workplace.

Rather than issuing a rule, this can be solved on an individual basis by a manager, sensitizing the foreign language speakers to their impact on others and requesting professionalism and respect for those limited to English. It could even turn into an opportunity for team members to learn about national and language differences.

Perhaps the problem is us -- that we need to stretch our tolerances for differences, including language differences, in society and in the workplace. Rather than English-only rules, is it cross-cultural training that we need?

If that wasn't written by some bleeding heart, I kiss my FOOT. This IS AMERICA. When are people going to stand up and fight for the right to speak our own language. Do people just not REALIZE what is being jerked out from under us??? This is a true travesty. That business owner should have EVERY RIGHT to require that English be spoken on the job. I would have fought that one in every court in the land.

America's roots and sources of strength are in its diversity, and our openness to members of other societies eager to join our country and contribute to the economy has been a reason for our continued ascent in the global community.

No Maam. America's roots and sources of strength are NOT in its diversity, you stupid woman. America's roots and sources of strength are American Culture and American Ideology and American Beliefs and American Views of Freedom. The "strength" of America IS NOT what employees are babbling in whatever language during a Work Break. The court was wrong to fine these companies for requiring English spoken on the premises. There are many reasons why employers want to be able to hear, observe and participate in "work break" discussions. One is theft; one is attitude; one is "what employees are dealing with" that employers can address. Employers should be able in the United State to REQUIRE language they can understand on the work site including "work breaks".

HEY!! Solution...hire AMERICAN WORKERS, Dumbos!!

But how far should employers go to accommodate diversity? Shared language is often essential to worker collaboration, team building, smooth operations and customer service. In some cases, language difficulties or differences impair performance or safety.

EXACTLY!! Which is why ONLY ENGLISH-SPEAKING AMERICAN CITIZENS should be hired.

Perhaps the problem is us -- that we need to stretch our tolerances for differences, including language differences, in society and in the workplace. Rather than English-only rules, is it cross-cultural training that we need?

NO. "cross-cultural training" is most definitely what we DO NOT NEED. Those workers that are not American Citizens need to pack up their "cultural difference" and their "language difference" and get out of the United States. PERIOD.

W'e re taking our country back. If you hear Spanish where you're spending money....WALK OUT!!

Don't think for ONE MINUTE that I wouldn't walk right out of ANY place where someone is speaking ANY language other that ENGLISH. And, you are absolutely right, Judy--these people should ONLY hire Americans then they wouldn't have a problem. BUT, the EEOC would get them for that too, I guess.

As enlightening as that article is Brian503a, I am afraid that is not it.
It was a much shorter article and it was about this town in Texas that all official business must be conducted in Spanish. It would be illegal to conduct it in English. I believe they voted for that.

I got the distinct impression that the Town probably had a Mexican majority. Too bad if you only spoke English.

We have two daily papers in this area, The Post Gazette and Pittsburgh Tribune Review.
I know my Mother always got The Post Gazette, but we were getting both, that is why I thought it was in the Post Gazette.

Actually, EEOC has many regulations that are being ignored by these companies hiring 100% hispanic work forces and obviously being ignored by EEOC. That is illegal in the United States in almost very state when the mix of the population would not warrant this without discriminatory practices. Most of the spanish work force is illegal to begin with and not protected by EEOC to begin with. EEOC protects American Citizens under American "jurisdiction".

Ironies and Opposites.

To end our nation.

Arrrrrgh!!

I should HOPE that EEOC is NOT protecting illegals but I wonder???

I wonder too now Bootsie. I don't understand them engaging employers on language issues since most of the workers with language issues will be illegals who have just arrived.

This is just very puzzling. WHY in the world would that come under the purview of EEOC???? If they are ILLEGAL, some government agency shouldn't be fighting for their right to speak ANOTHER LANGUAGE in AMERICA. I want more information on this.