So you can't even require english at your own business. Democrats are nuts.

[dude1394]

So now the democrat party is also going to keep a company from requiring english. Is this the party you are really interested in promoting?

It's been less than a week since New York's Sen. Hillary Clinton and Gov. Eliot Spitzer had to climb down from their support of driver's licenses for illegal aliens. Now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has moved to kill an amendment that would protect employers from federal lawsuits for requiring their workers to speak English. Among the employers targeted by such lawsuits: the Salvation Army.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, a moderate Republican from Tennessee, is dumbstruck that legislation he views as simple common sense would be blocked. He noted that the full Senate passed his amendment to shield the Salvation Army by 75-19 last month, and the House followed suit with a 218-186 vote just this month. "I cannot imagine that the framers of the 1964 Civil Rights Act intended to say that it's discrimination for a shoe shop owner to say to his or her employee, 'I want you to be able to speak America's common language on the job,' " he told the Senate last Thursday.

But that's exactly what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is trying to do. In March the EEOC sued the Salvation Army because its thrift store in Framingham, Mass., required its employees to speak English on the job. The requirement was clearly posted and employees were given a year to learn the language. The EEOC claimed the store had fired two Hispanic employees for continuing to speak Spanish on the job. It said that the firings violated the law because the English-only policy was not "relevant" to job performance or safety.

[Flacolaco]

So you can't even fire people for violating a company policy anymore?

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[Usually Lurkin]

I'm glad the EEOC can tell us what skills are relevant for job performance, because some of the yahoos I've had as managers and bosses had no idea.

[dude1394]

This is one of the reasons I could never be a democrat. This policy will actually hurt the people it is focused on in the long run. NOT learning english is a handicap in this country as well as the rest of the world. But the hispanic caucus doesn't care, nor do the democrats care about the long-term good for their people. Extremely malicious calculus.

[Mavdog]

the civil rights act of 1964 banned discrimination on the basis of national origin, and unless speaking english is a requirement to the performance of the job a person cannot be fired just becasue they don't speak english.

while the salvation army is a worthwhile organization, it should adhere to the same laws as any other org. just because it does charitable work doesn't mean it can discriminate against non-english speaking workers.

[dude1394]

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2786

Bill to Make Debate in Congress English-Only Defeated
by Scott Ott for ScrappleFace · 14 Comments

(2007-11-19) — A Republican move to make English the official, and exclusive, language for Congressional debate failed in a party-line vote today following an apparent filibuster threat by the House Hispanic Caucus, whose members made impassioned pleas from the House floor in Spanish.

While the specifics of the Hispanic legislators’ objections won’t be clear until government translators finish work on the debate transcripts, members of the House Anglo Caucus said they could “feel the pain” of their Latino colleagues, and expressed “solidarity with whatever it is that they said.”

The vote comes during a week which saw House Speaker Nancy Pelosi move to kill an amendment that would protect employers, including the Salvation Army, from federal lawsuits for requiring their workers to speak English.

Rep. Pelosi said that in addition to allowing Hispanic Salvation Army store workers to chat with each other in Spanish while serving monolingual American customers, she intends to push for legislation requiring Salvation Army bell-ringers to demonstrate “a greater diversity of cultural rhythmic patterns in their ringing.”

“The monotonous back-and-forth motion employed by most Salvation Army bell-ringers,” said Rep. Pelosi, “reminds many of our minority friends of their historic oppression by Anglo Saxon persecutors whose idea of music is listening to a metronome ticking in 4/4 time.”

[Flacolaco]

So then a privately owned company cannot define their own job requirements for their own employees?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

So then a privately owned company cannot define their own job requirements for their own employees?

yes the business can define the job requirements, unless those "job requirements" are defacto discrimination against people based on their race, sex, religion or country of origin.

questions and answers on equal employment oportunity laws

[Usually Lurkin]

since when is language the same as nation of origin?

[dalmations202]

No good deed goes unpunished.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

No good deed goes unpunished.

great play. very creative storyline.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

since when is language the same as nation of origin?

Not sure. Language is an acquired skill, like kicking a football, cooking Italian food, or flying a plane.

[kg_veteran]

What are the requirements for citizenship, again?

[kg_veteran]

I'll answer my own question. With respect to language:

Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who on the date of filing:

• have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 15 years and are over 55 years of age;
• have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 20 years and are over 50 years of age; or
• have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant’s ability to learn English.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I'll answer my own question. With respect to language:

Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who on the date of filing:

• have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 15 years and are over 55 years of age;
• have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 20 years and are over 50 years of age; or
• have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant’s ability to learn English.

those may be the requirements for attaining citizenship, they're not the requirements for citizenship.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

since when is language the same as nation of origin?

not all households speak english. even some of those born american.

[FishForLunch]

We don't speak English at home, but I don't want my kids classes to be taught in any other language other than English. Only people who don't care for their kids education will want their kids to be taught is a language other than English.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by dude1394

This is one of the reasons I could never be a democrat. This policy will actually hurt the people it is focused on in the long run. NOT learning english is a handicap in this country as well as the rest of the world. But the hispanic caucus doesn't care, nor do the democrats care about the long-term good for their people. Extremely malicious calculus.

To be a democrat isn't a philosophy! There might be millions of democrats who don't agree with this move. There are even Republicans out there who want the troops to come home... But like most of the time you Axt like there's a civil war going in between dems and reps...

[alexamenos]

the company i work at don't require people to speak english. well....at least they don't require that you speak english good.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

the company i work at don't require people to speak english. well....at least they don't require that you speak english good.

How about spanish?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

those may be the requirements for attaining citizenship, they're not the requirements for citizenship.

Huh?

[mary]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

the company i work at don't require people to speak english. well....at least they don't require that you speak english good.

It's "well"..."..speak english well."

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

not all households speak english. even some of those born american.

so this

the civil rights act of 1964 banned discrimination on the basis of national origin,

really doesn't have much to do with it, does it?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

How about spanish?

we also do some work down in south texas......it's important down there that they speak spanish good....or habla espanol bueno as the case may be.

[Flacolaco]

Requiring english at work, is like requiring: "must be able to lift fifty pounds" or "must be able to type 60 words per minute." Some people can, and some people can't. It's a skill like anything else.

If people are claiming that they don't speak english because they're from _______, then they're the ones putting the nationality label on it, not the employer.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

so this really doesn't have much to do with it, does it?

sure it does.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

sure it does.

If 2 people are from the same nation of origin, and one is fired for not speaking english, how is the firing related to nation of origin?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

If 2 people are from the same nation of origin, and one is fired for not speaking english, how is the firing related to nation of origin?

from the eeoc website: National origin discrimination means treating someone less favorably because he or she comes from a particular place, because of his or her ethnicity or accent, or because it is believed that he or she has a particular ethnic background.

[Flacolaco]

What does any of that have to do with which languages they are able, or unable to speak?

[mary]

I have a question. Employers can require eglish-speaking skills, if its a necessary job requirement. For example, if I'm staffing a telemarketing room, the current law allows me require english as a job qualification?

To use another skill listed above, its makes sense to require typing skills if "typing" is a part of the job duties, but it wouldn't be something required of a ditch digger.

Am I interpreting things correctly?

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by mary

I have a question. Employers can require eglish-speaking skills, if its a necessary job requirement. For example, if I'm staffing a telemarketing room, the current law allows me require english as a job qualification?

To use the other skills listed above, its makes sense to require typing skills if "typing" is a part of the job duties, but it wouldn't be something required of a ditch digger.

Am I interpreting things correctly?

Shouldn't it be up to the employer to determine what skills are necessary though?

[mary]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Shouldn't it be up to the employer to determine what skills are necessary though?

Sure, but unless you think ditch diggers should be able to type, I would assume there needs to be some reasonalbe link between the "qualification" and the "job".

But its something I've always wondered about.

I'm guessing Hooters doesn't consider the applications of fat women, old women, or saggy women. Are they able to do this because there are certain characteristics that are required to fulfill their job?

Would an owner of an accounting firm be able to "determine" that those characteristics are also important in hiring accountants?


Edited, because my last sentence made no sense.

[Usually Lurkin]

here, mavdog:

Title VII permits employers to adopt English-only rules under certain circumstances. As with any other workplace policy, an English-only rule must be adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons. An English-only rule would be unlawful if it were adopted with the intent to discriminate on the basis of national origin. Likewise, a policy that prohibits some but not all of the foreign languages spoken in a workplace, such as a no-Navajo rule, would be unlawful....Even where an English-only rule has been adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons, the employer's use of the rule should relate to specific circumstances in its workplace.(48) 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

These are under "nation of origin." http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/national-origin.html#VC
But frankly, that's stupid. Language is not different than manner of dress for nation of origin.

So it does come down to the EEOC telling a business what will and what won't help it run efficiently. The EEOC list of court cases is divided whether their guidlines should be considered when judging English-Only laws.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by mary

I have a question. Employers can require eglish-speaking skills, if its a necessary job requirement. For example, if I'm staffing a telemarketing room, the current law allows me require english as a job qualification?

To use another skill listed above, its makes sense to require typing skills if "typing" is a part of the job duties, but it wouldn't be something required of a ditch digger.

Am I interpreting things correctly?

yes, you are. the employer CAN mandate that the employee be capable of speaking and understanding english if the job depends on that ability.

in the case mentioned above, the employer fired the employees for not speaking english and the eeoc, following a review of the jobs these employees did, determined that speaking english was not necessary to perform the job. if the eeoc determined that speaking english was necessary, the salvation army would be allowed to require the employee(s) speak english.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by mary

I'm guessing Hooters doesn't consider the applications of fat women, old women, or saggy women. Are they able to do this because there are certain characteristics that are required to fulfill their job?

No, but they didn't hire saggy women and give them a year to be perky either.....

They came up with "other" reasons not to hire them in the first place just like every other employer in the US.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

here, mavdog:
These are under "nation of origin." http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/national-origin.html#VC
But frankly, that's stupid. Language is not different than manner of dress for nation of origin.

So it does come down to the EEOC telling a business what will and what won't help it run efficiently. The EEOC list of court cases is divided whether their guidlines should be considered when judging English-Only laws.

not sure if it is "run efficiently" that the eeoc is focused on, it is more to protect a worker who does not have english skills from being denied employment simply because they do not speak english, based on the job they are asked to perform.

for example, should a salvation army employee who doesn't interact with customers need to speak english? does the employee who unpacks boxes need to speak english to perform their job? what about the custodian at the warehouse, they certainly don't use english in the performance of their duties.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by mary

Sure, but unless you think ditch diggers should be able to type, I would assume there needs to be some reasonalbe link between the "qualification" and the "job".

But its something I've always wondered about.

I'm guessing Hooters doesn't consider the applications of fat women, old women, or saggy women. Are they able to do this because there are certain characteristics that are required to fulfill their job?

Would an owner of an accounting firm be able to "determine" that those characteristics are also important in hiring accountants?

there is a concept called "Bona Fide Occupational Qualification" that allows for employers to hire a specific typoe of employee- in this case, the hooter's waitress, or for instance a playboy bunny- that can be supported by the unique characteristics of the job.

btw, the eeoc did take on hooters in the mid 90's when several male empoyees of hooters filed a discrimination claim against hooters based on hooters not allowing them to be waiters, and I believe that hooters prevailed under bfoq above.

[Rhylan]

Here's the bottom line...

You can't prove or claim that speaking English is required for a job if you're willing to hire people who don't speak English.

They shouldn't have hired them in the first place, if what they wanted & needed were people who spoke English.

While I don't agree with the notion taken by some that a governmental agency or force can objectively look at a job description and decide FOR an employer what the required skills are, the real bottom line is that the employer's own hiring practices are a reflection of the true skill requirements.

On the other hand, the employer has a right to change their minds. If in 2005, they did not believe English was a requirement, but through experience, decided it should be, they have every right to do a skills upgrade.. but they better be well prepared to sleep in the bed they made by having poorly thought out hiring practicies to begin with. Which means heavily documenting why you need to get rid of the non-English speakers, or finding a different job for them, or what have you.

In principle, I believe in hiring & firing at-will for whatever reason. Business pay a price for poor hiring practices. The definition of poor hiring practice being one that negatively affects the bottom line - never forget that businesses are in business to make money, not to provide employment.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

not sure if it is "run efficiently" that the eeoc is focused on, it is more to protect a worker who does not have english skills from being denied employment simply because they do not speak english, based on the job they are asked to perform.

for example, should a salvation army employee who doesn't interact with customers need to speak english? does the employee who unpacks boxes need to speak english to perform their job? what about the custodian at the warehouse, they certainly don't use english in the performance of their duties.

The eeoc should be focusing on efficiency, since that is part of their own guidlines. These are justification for English-only laws:
*For communications with customers, coworkers, or supervisors who only speak English
* For cooperative work assignments in which the English-only rule is needed to promote efficiency

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Here's the bottom line...

You can't prove or claim that speaking English is required for a job if you're willing to hire people who don't speak English.
.

Here, the requirement was clearly posted and employees were given a year to learn the language. According to the original post, anyway.