Republicans back bill allowing employers to require English only

[no name 1]

By Lisa Desjardins

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican leaders in the House are supporting a bill that would let employers set an English only policy on the job.

The EEOC has sued the Salvation Army after organization required that their workers learn English.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia, is the lead sponsor of the Common Sense English Act. The bill, introduced in the House on Wednesday, would allow offices and workplaces around the country to require English under any circumstance they prefer.

The measure comes after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the Salvation Army over the issue. The charity organization required that their workers learn English within a year and speak English only after that point. The EEOC sued for discrimination.

"What kind of nonsense is that?" said Rep. Price.

"I believe strongly that employers ought to be able to require employees to speak English while engaged in work activities," he said. "And that's all it does. It's very simple."

Price's bill pulled in 31 co-sponsors within hours of being drafted. Among those co-sponsors are other top Republicans in the House, including House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

The Senate has already passed a similar bill, but it has stalled in the Democratic-run House where it was frozen before making it to the floor.

The EEOC insists it is enforcing the current law as written and that regulations are specific. Employers can require English only, but such a policy cannot be in response to any one group, such as Spanish speakers, and it must be for a specific, business-related reason.

"An English only rule must be justified by business necessity," said EEOC regional attorney Elizabeth Grossman. "Safety would be an example."

Price and Republicans behind the bill see more at stake.

"Americans believe that we are a nation united by one language and that our central language protects both our safety and our culture," Price said.

source

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

By Lisa Desjardins

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican leaders in the House are supporting a bill that would let employers set an English only policy on the job.

The EEOC has sued the Salvation Army after organization required that their workers learn English.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia, is the lead sponsor of the Common Sense English Act. The bill, introduced in the House on Wednesday, would allow offices and workplaces around the country to require English under any circumstance they prefer.

The measure comes after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the Salvation Army over the issue. The charity organization required that their workers learn English within a year and speak English only after that point. The EEOC sued for discrimination.

"What kind of nonsense is that?" said Rep. Price.

"I believe strongly that employers ought to be able to require employees to speak English while engaged in work activities," he said. "And that's all it does. It's very simple."

Price's bill pulled in 31 co-sponsors within hours of being drafted. Among those co-sponsors are other top Republicans in the House, including House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

The Senate has already passed a similar bill, but it has stalled in the Democratic-run House where it was frozen before making it to the floor.

The EEOC insists it is enforcing the current law as written and that regulations are specific. Employers can require English only, but such a policy cannot be in response to any one group, such as Spanish speakers, and it must be for a specific, business-related reason.

"An English only rule must be justified by business necessity," said EEOC regional attorney Elizabeth Grossman. "Safety would be an example."

Price and Republicans behind the bill see more at stake.

"Americans believe that we are a nation united by one language and that our central language protects both our safety and our culture," Price said.

source

I think it's a good bill. While English is not the official language of the US, it's the accepted language. I would be pissed if I walked into the DMV and the person sitting at the desk only spoke spanish. The Salvation Army gives them a year ON THE JOB to learn english. I don't see the problem.

[GaryC 7]

Sounds good to me. English may not be our official language but it should be our common language. The first step to working towards a common goal is effective communication.

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

If I wanted to work in Russia I needed to speak Russian. I see nothing wrong with requiring English for work in this country. Frankly, I'm sick of all the bilingual signs everywhere. When I lived in Russia I had to read all the signs in Russian and I accepted that.

[Caladan 19]

What does this law do that the current law doesn't?

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

What does this law do that the current law doesn't?

Makes it legal for employers to require english. Before, if you fired a McDonald's employee because he refused to learn english, McDonald's could be sued for discrimination. It will just end frivolous lawsuits like that.

[Peikko 1,575]

Makes people feel good?

It's one of those "do something while doing absolutely nothing" things probably. Rah, rah, rah and all that. Mind you, suing for some things is completely pathetic.

[Caladan 19]

What does this law do that the current law doesn't?

Makes it legal for employers to require english. Before, if you fired a McDonald's employee because he refused to learn english, McDonald's could be sued for discrimination. It will just end frivolous lawsuits like that.

The previous law allowed employers to require English, if it was required for business reasons and wasn't used to discriminate (i.e., can't say that Chinese is fine but Spanish isn't.)

[Brian & Kathy 0]

As stated in the article, an employer can already require employees to speak english if it is business-related. This means the DMV CAN and DOES require all employees sitting at the desk to speak english. Based on the article above, this bill allows employeers to choose not to hire non-english speakers for as simple a reasons as 'they feel like it'. It should be kept as a matter of being able to do perform the job or not.

I think this bill is garbage. If it is business related, the employeer can already choose to not hire non-english speakers. It isn't difficult to justify the need for an employee to speak english either. In a factory, it is a matter of saftey, so each employee can understand warnings and cautions. If you are taking customer orders at McDonalds, it is required to do business.

I think it's a good bill. While English is not the official language of the US, it's the accepted language. I would be pissed if I walked into the DMV and the person sitting at the desk only spoke spanish. The Salvation Army gives them a year ON THE JOB to learn english. I don't see the problem.

The EEOC insists it is enforcing the current law as written and that regulations are specific. Employers can require English only, but such a policy cannot be in response to any one group, such as Spanish speakers, and it must be for a specific, business-related reason.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Brian & Kathy

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

As stated in the article, an employer can already require employees to speak english if it is business-related. This means the DMV CAN and DOES require all employees sitting at the desk to speak english. Based on the article above, this bill allows employeers to choose not to hire non-english speakers for as simple a reasons as 'they feel like it'. It should be kept as a matter of being able to do perform the job or not.

I think this bill is garbage. If it is business related, the employeer can already choose to not hire non-english speakers. It isn't difficult to justify the need for an employee to speak english either. In a factory, it is a matter of saftey, so each employee can understand warnings and cautions.

I think it's a good bill. While English is not the official language of the US, it's the accepted language. I would be pissed if I walked into the DMV and the person sitting at the desk only spoke spanish. The Salvation Army gives them a year ON THE JOB to learn english. I don't see the problem.

The EEOC insists it is enforcing the current law as written and that regulations are specific. Employers can require English only, but such a policy cannot be in response to any one group, such as Spanish speakers, and it must be for a specific, business-related reason.

For business reasons, the non-english speaking janitor is incapable of listening to simple instructions in English.

[Caladan 19]

That's what I was thinking. All the bill seems to do is make it legal to discriminate on non-safety, non-business-related grounds.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So as I read this – a person could be fired or receive disciplinary action for speaking a foreign language in the office, regardless of context (for example, talking to a family member over the phone), and regardless of whether it affects their work? Hmmm…

[*JG* 2]

From personal experience, I'd say it is good that it's required in the US to at least speak and understand English. My husband has a Latino employee that speaks little English. When he is left overnight to work the entire store, just the two of them, he has lots of issues with communication. Service suffers because of this.

I've seen janitorial staff at a local mall talk to each other via walkie talkies communicating in Spanish only. Whatever works, works. But, to communicate with all people you come in contact with in the US, I'd say a working knowledge of English should be a requirement.

Like the guy said above, if we were to go work in another country, we would be required to learn the basics to survive.

[Brian & Kathy 0]

I'd say so. If the employeer is cabable of giving instructions in another language, they can have a broader base to hire from, and possibly get the better employee.

Why should employeers be able to descriminate based on language, so long as the job can be performed? This bill would allow descrimination for reasons other than how they can perform the job.

For business reasons, the non-english speaking janitor is incapable of listening to simple instructions in English.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Brian & Kathy

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

If I wanted to work in Russia I needed to speak Russian. I see nothing wrong with requiring English for work in this country. Frankly, I'm sick of all the bilingual signs everywhere. When I lived in Russia I had to read all the signs in Russian and I accepted that.

have you ever been to italy, germany, france and the numerous other countries that have EVERYTHING written in english? every single airport that i have been to has had signs in english

pshh, what a double standard we have

i dont understand why people here are so bothered by having things written in english as well as another language...how does that truly affect your life? is it harming you in some terrible way? i think that people just need to get over it