Texas: English only?

[Harold Schiffman]

Editorial: 'English-only'?



Sunday, December 16, 2007

Should employers be empowered to require that the people they hire be
able to speak English? Absolutely. But that's not what the case is
about in a current federal lawsuit getting much attention — and
becoming a rallying cry for those who want an "official language" law
in this country. The suit is over requiring that employees speak only
one language on the job, even if speaking another has no bearing on
how the business deals with customers. The Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission sued the Salvation Army because its thrift
store in Framingham, Mass., required employees to speak only English
on the job. Two men were fired for speaking Spanish on the job. No,
they weren't being impolite to English-speaking customers. The
employees were sorting clothes and speaking to each other.

Once again, this isn't about having a requirement that workers be able
to speak English. It's a ban on other languages. Courts have upheld
employees' right to speak in a foreign language as long as it doesn't
interfere with the way they are doing their jobs. Subsequently, for
more than 30 years, federal rules have barred employers from
establishing English-only requirements on a work site unless they can
demonstrate a compelling reason for it, such as safety. The suit
enforcing long-standing federal policy has set off a battle in
Congress over whether or not to overturn protections for
non-English-speakers.

Americans need to learn English to thrive. Employers rightfully  can
expect English fluency in hiring. But it is alarming and rightfully
illegal to lose one's job for innocently exchanging words in a foreign
tongue. Put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine if a Vietnamese
florist hired an English-speaking person and required him to speak
only Vietnamese. He did that because it was required, then he dropped
a vase and said, "Aw, shucks," violating "Vietnamese-only" policy.

Congress shouldn't alter regulations that protect people from an
insidious form of discrimination.It is only a matter of degrees
between enforcing what language a person can use on the job and what
thoughts he or she can harbor. After all, for many people who are
immigrants or who speak a foreign tongue at home, using that language
may simply be a reflex This dispute is analogous to the effort to
impose an "official language" law. Everyone can and should agree that
it is important for all Americans to master English. But to make
English the law ignores the fact that a large segment of this nation
is multilingual. That includes citizens either by birth or by choice
whose dominant language isn't English. They have every right possessed
by those whose mother tongue is that of the majority.

http://www.wacotrib.com/opin/content/news/opinion/stories/2007/12/16/12162007wacedit.html

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of
the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a
message are encouraged to post a rebuttal. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
*******************************************