This is a reply to the comment from THATBOYAINTRIGHT who offers a contrarian point of view. Thank you for posting your comment including the link to the article in the BOSTON GLOBE. Here’s the link:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/28/firing_of_spanish_speakers_leaves_many_unfazed/
In my reply, I’ll offer a few key points. Here’s the first part of the comment post:
“The email posted equates speakers of a foreign language (i.e. Spanish) with illegal people. They are two separate issues and since companies can fire illegal people anyway one is not even relevant to the other.”
I didn’t get this out of the article. I can see where people would since when one speaks of Hispanic immigrants there are many that assume that the reference is to illegal immigrants. I agree they are two separate issues since it cannot be assumed that all Hispanics or Spanish-speaking people are here illegally.
“In truth, this bill is a political gimmick... part of the desperate attempt by some to play on the emotions of folks in order to discriminate.
But I will play along and take the issue at face value....
This bill wants to give employers the ability to fire people... but it is unclear =who= they want to be able to fire.
I think the bill is quite simple and very clear. I disagree with the idea that it’s a political gimmick. This is a response to an out of control Federal agency. After the Salvation Army had given these employees an employment opportunity in the first place even though they could not speak English was a gracious act. After having been employed for MORE THAN AN ENTIRE YEAR, and they couldn’t speak even conversational English, it was appropriate to release them. According to the Boston Globe article, they were only required to learn basic English. How can you serve customers in an English-speaking country when you can’t talk with them?
“Are these employees people with the ability to speak =both= English and Spanish who choose to speak Spanish to each other, or are these employees who are unable to speak English?”
The bill, S. 2453, does not refer to bi-lingual people. If the people who were fired from the Salvation Army were bi-lingual, there would not have been a problem. S. 2453, Section 2, only requires an employee to speak English while engaged in work [subsection (o) (1)]. Section 2, subsections (2)(A)(B) specifically exclude meal breaks, rest periods, other types of breaks from the use of English. The definition of these breaks in Section 2,subsection (2)(B) uses the Federal government’s definition already in existence.
“And what of those people who are here legally & are still learning the language? I know some people here from SE Asia who have been here 10 years & are still learning the language. After working all day, they take English classes 2 nights a week.”
Legal or illegal doesn’t matter as stated in the first paragraph of the comment. It does not take more than a year to learn at least SOME English. The SE Asian people referred are making the effort. After ten years, I guarantee they can speak basic English, although maybe not perfect. They are obviously interested in having a very good command of the English language as shown by their perserverance. That’s OK. I have conducted business with many Asians who speak broken English, but they can communicate and do business. S. 2453 simply makes states that an employer can require an employee to speak or agree to speak English while performing work activities.
I’ve copied the actual bill below as taken from the Library of Congress’s website: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.2453:.
I wanted everyone to see it for themselves instead of just taking my word for it.
Protecting English in the Workplace Act (Introduced in Senate)
S 2453 IS
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 2453
To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to clarify requirements relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of national origin.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
December 12, 2007Mr. ALEXANDER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
A BILL
To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to clarify requirements relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of national origin.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.This Act may be cited as the `Protecting English in the Workplace Act'.
SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS REGARDING SPEAKING ENGLISH WHILE ENGAGED IN WORK.Section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(o)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to require an employee to speak, or an applicant for employment to agree to speak, English while engaged in work.
`(2)(A) An individual shall not be considered to be engaged in work under paragraph (1) during a bona fide meal period, a rest period, or any other break, during which the individual is not required to perform any duties.
`(B) In this paragraph, the term `bona fide meal period' means such a period, and the term `rest period' means such a period, within the meaning of section 785.19 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (or any corresponding similar regulation or ruling).'.
“In summary: the bill can easily be used to fire people because of their nationality, race, or any other pre-text. And since it doesn't distinguish between legals & illegals, it can be used to discrimiante against =legals= here too.”
There is nothing in S. 2453 that would allow people to be fired because of their nationality, race, anything else. The Civil Rights Act and an abundance of caselaw would prohibit that. S. 2453 does not authorize any employer to use such criteria to fire someone. It doesn’t distinguish between legals and illegals, because for this issue, it is not relevant. You have many immigrants that came here legally but have no interest in becoming Americans and assimilating which includes learning the language.
THATBOYAINTRIGHT stated he just wanted to keep the discussion going. You have, and I thoroughly enjoy point and counterpoint, to borrow a phrase. Thanks again for your post.
