Obama Targets Co. For Asking Employees To Speak English

[DamianTV]

http://whitehousewhispers.com/obama-goes-after-company-for-asking-employees-to-speak-english/


(Christopher Agee) In a bizarre twist on civil rights legislation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under Barack Obama is filing a federal lawsuit against a Wisconsin company for its requirement that employees use English at work.

The legal action came after a number of Hispanic and Asian workers were fired because they could not – or would not – speak English, a decision the EEOC said amounted to discrimination.

Using the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the commission found that the “linguistic characteristics of a national origin group” are included in the protections contained therein.

In an interview with CNS News, the Spanish media liaison at Judicial Watch offered her take on the “ludicrous” suit.

“If you are a private company in the United States,” Irene Garcia said, “you should be able to require your employees to speak English.”

...

Continues on Link.

I'll leave my opinions on the results out until a few more replies to this thread are posted. Im sure there will be very mixed responses to this. One side: Private, okay to expect employees speak English at work. Other side: No no no, demanding English at work is racist against mexicans. Another Other Side: Current ruling is racist against only English speaking people. Another Other Other Side: Too Much Govt. Plenty of sides to take in this debate. What perspective would support a Free Country the most?

[Intoxiklown]

I have been on the "bad guy" side of these arguments with Human Resources before. It is A SAFETY ISSUE. I would not hire people to run $6 million dollars machine cells that would chop them into small pieces if they coud not speak and READ English.

[DamianTV]

I have been on the "bad guy" side of these arguments with Human Resources before. It is A SAFETY ISSUE. I would not hire people to run $6 million dollars machine cells that would chop them into small pieces if they coud not speak and READ English.

(Playing Devil's Advocate, I dont actually support or oppose the following statement...)

Regardless of Safety, should any private company have a Right to demand Employees speak any particular language?

[Paulbot99]

I couldn't apply for some jobs because I couldn't speak Spanish. I didn't know I could sue...

[mad cow]

(Playing Devil's Advocate, I dont actually support or oppose the following statement...)

Regardless of Safety, should any private company have a Right to demand Employees speak any particular language?

Yep,and hire and fire them for any reason under the sun,or no reason at all.

[aGameOfThrones]

I couldn't apply for some jobs because I couldn't speak Spanish. I didn't know I could sue...

You can't if you have a WG.

[euphemia]

So a person has the right to work if they have no idea how to communicate with coworkers or clients? Or emergency personnel?

[DamianTV]

You can't if you have a WG.

WG?

[Intoxiklown]

(Playing Devil's Advocate, I dont actually support or oppose the following statement...)

Regardless of Safety, should any private company have a Right to demand Employees speak any particular language?

Yes, based on many levels.

Firstly, safety. You can win any argument in a professional setting if your argument is based on employee safety. For the obvious reason, as well as how it translates to....

Secondly, cost. This is based on first and foremost company insurance cost. My main push in my case was these machines had two languages programmed into them, English and German. To hire a tech to add a language to one machine cost anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000 USD. Bear in mind, most techs charge you $5,000 just to step in your building. When you factor in employee turn around rates, high cost while training (lost labor, increased production cost, scrap, ect) this added cost means it'd take roughly 14 months for the employee to be "working in the black".

Third, supervision. How do you train, oversee, and mentor someone who doesn't understand the first damn word you say?

Aye, I've been down this road several times before.

[RonPaulMall]

Yes, based on many levels.

Firstly, safety. You can win any argument in a professional setting if your argument is based on employee safety. For the obvious reason, as well as how it translates to....

Secondly, cost. This is based on first and foremost company insurance cost. My main push in my case was these machines had two languages programmed into them, English and German. To hire a tech to add a language to one machine cost anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000 USD. Bear in mind, most techs charge you $5,000 just to step in your building. When you factor in employee turn around rates, high cost while training (lost labor, increased production cost, scrap, ect) this added cost means it'd take roughly 14 months for the employee to be "working in the black".

Third, supervision. How do you train, oversee, and mentor someone who doesn't understand the first damn word you say?

Aye, I've been down this road several times before.

And a fourth good reason would be simply because they are the owner. What right does anyone else, especially the brigand of thieves, murderers and rapists that we call "government", have to tell a business owner who he can or can not hire, or what qualifications he demands in his workforce?

[Carlybee]

(Playing Devil's Advocate, I dont actually support or oppose the following statement...)

Regardless of Safety, should any private company have a Right to demand Employees speak any particular language?

There are a lot of companies here that require employees to be bilingual.

[Intoxiklown]

And a fourth good reason would be simply because they are the owner. What right does anyone else, especially the brigand of thieves, murderers and rapists that we call "government", have to tell a business owner who he can or can not hire, or what qualifications he demands in his workforce?

Oh, completely, agree. I am just listing legitimate reasons to give that accomplish the same while avoiding any hint of lawsuit.

[DamianTV]

So how about Illegal Immigrants? IE, people that dont even have Work Visas? Should Employers be allowed to hire Illegals Immigrants? Is that a Valid Authority of our completely corrupt Govt?

(again, Devil's Advocate argument, I dont support or oppose that statement...)

/end_Devils_Advocate
---

For the record, I've been denied jobs because I also dont speak a lick of Spanish, nor do I believe that I should be excluded for most "normal" jobs because I only speak the "native" language of this country.

Interview for McDonalds: "Do you speak Spanish?"
Me: "No, just English"
Them: " *click* "
Me: "Hello?"
Me: (explicitive deleted)

[MelissaWV]

Well, the native language of some parts of the country. I don't think it should be automatically exclusionary, but when there are more applicants than positions, it helps to have as many tools at your disposal as possible.

Our building has the same name as a new physician complex down the street (think along the lines of "White Hill" or some generic name like that), and the two are owned by the same hospital so the hospital's name is in huge letters on each building. A man came upstairs today and no one at the front desk at my office knew what he was saying. He was very polite, but obviously frustrated, because the scope of his questions went beyond his limited English. They came and got me. It turns out he was here for blood work (we can't do that), and I explained to him that he was at the wrong building. I gave him directions to the new building, told him about how to park there, and he was happy and on his way. From a customer service standpoint, that's way better than him getting frustrated and leaving. We have had hearing impaired folks who show up, and others in the building have provided assistance to them. There have been visually impaired people that caused our Executive Director to have someone guide them out to their car, since we're on the second floor and the parking lot can be challenging, as any of us who've accidentally stepped in one of the fire ant mounds out there can attest. Do we require that people be able to sign, lead blind people around, speak Spanish, etc.? No, but it's a bonus.

As to the OP, it all depends on the presentation as to whether it's "right" or not. Yelling "SPEAK ENGLISH!" at someone who's conversing with a co-worker in another language is a bit more rude than demanding your employees speak English to English-speaking customers/clients. My mom also taught me pretty early on that it's rude to have a hushed conversation in Spanish when out in public, because people get paranoid you are talking about them. That goes double for waiters or other customer service positions, imo.

There's nothing racist about it. It's a method of doing business, a way to ensure your customers are satisfied and your workplace is safe. It doesn't need to be legislated, and there are plenty of places you can make a living without speaking English particularly well as it is; there's no need to become a protected group twice over.

[Feeding the Abscess]

So how about Illegal Immigrants? IE, people that dont even have Work Visas? Should Employers be allowed to hire Illegals Immigrants?

Yes. To argue otherwise is to assert that the employer doesn't own their own business.

[helmuth_hubener]

Yes, employees have the right to choose to work for a company that requires them to speak English. They should be free to work for whomever they want.

The alternative is that they be unfree.

I do not approve of that alternative. I believe in an employee's right to be free.

[Paulbot99]

WG?

White Guilt. Keep up, Comrade.:cool:

[LibForestPaul]

(Playing Devil's Advocate, I dont actually support or oppose the following statement...)

Regardless of Safety, should any private company have a Right to demand Employees speak any particular language?

Can i speak fuckin new jersian on the job, bitch. Yeah dats right bitch, fuck you and your fucking ho family. Don't be givin me no eye or I'll gut ya lik a fish.

[euphemia]

What languages does the President speak? Eric Holder? That should be the standard. It's funny how the president can write about his father's dreams but does not speak the language of his father's nation.

Here's the thing: I live in a very diverse neighborhood. My work community is large and diverse. If I learn another language, I can speak to the people who speak that language, but not to those who speak different languages. If they all learn English, they can speak to me and to each other.

Every day I talk to people from all over the world who are in the US for a visit. Most of them have better command of the English language than people on my street who have lived here for 30 years. That is just a shame.

[bunklocoempire]

(Playing Devil's Advocate, I dont actually support or oppose the following statement...)

Regardless of Safety, should any private company have a Right to demand Employees speak any particular language?

Should government that can't even follow it's own mission statement or job description be deciding these things?;)

EDIT: Out in my neck of the woods there is quite a market for Japanese/English translators... but if you can't demand a certain language... :toady:

[Henry Rogue]

A voluntary transaction means all parties involved trade voluntarily. If it isn't voluntary by all parties, it is somethimg other than Liberty.

[helmuth_hubener]

A voluntary transaction means all parties involved trade voluntarily. If it isn't voluntary by all parties, it is somethimg other than Liberty. Right!

Free, or unfree; that is the question.

As for me, I choose freedom.

Others clearly will prefer that others be unfree, in order to further one or more of their pet preferences or as an attempt to prevent one or more paranoid fears they possess.