Poll: 77% think employers should be able to require English-only on the job
posted at 12:12 pm on November 24, 2007 by Allahpundit
We may just win this election yet. Keep up the good work, Nancy!
The view that employers should be allowed to require English-only speaking while on the job is held by 84% of Republicans, 70% of Democrats and 77% of voters not affiliated with either major party.
Eighty-two percent (82%) of White voters believe employers should be allowed to require English on the job. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of African-Americans agree. However, other Americans, primarily Hispanic, are evenly divided. Just 45% believe English-only requirements should be allowed while 47% disagree…
A separate survey found that 77% of Americans believe that immigrants moving to the United States should “adopt America’s culture, language, and heritage.” Just 13% say immigrants should “try to maintain the culture, language, and heritage of their own country.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Hello Nancy??? The American People have spoken, remember them?
ctmom on November 24, 2007 at 12:15 PM
“Que? Yo no hablo ingles?”
hadsil on November 24, 2007 at 12:24 PM
She’s the perfect loser.
Zorro on November 24, 2007 at 12:29 PM
This is just one issue though but also on rassmussen the Republicans have closed the gap on some other issues
We are winning on National Security, Taxes and Immigration.
The dems are winning the other 7.
William Amos on November 24, 2007 at 12:29 PM
I once worked at a place where the boss was trilingual, his third language being English. Of the six other workers, one was trilingual (same languages), two were bilingual with two languages in common, one was bilingual with two different languages in common, one was bilingual with only English in common, and I was monolingual. When people got together, they naturally spoke the language that was most comfortable with the group, meaning that, if people were speaking another language and I joined the conversation, the language would switch to English. Everyone was considerate about it, and it was likely more productive and relaxing than demanding that everyone speak English.
That’s not to say that government should mandate businesses not have an English-only policy. I’m just saying that many businesses would probably be best to let people speak as they will if there aren’t any problems with it. When Chinese people get together, they’ll want to speak Chinese. When Latin American folks get together, they’ll prefer Spanish. I think employers would do well to deal with such situations on a case-by-case basis.
But, yeah, leave the government out of it.
calbear on November 24, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Let Nancy’s policy be. Next time you dial 911 and get a person speaking only in Russian or Chinese or Loatian, good luck with the break in to your home.
BowHuntingTexas on November 24, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Will Wolf ask Hillary about this at the next debate?
JiangxiDad on November 24, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Every time Ms. Pelosi speaks she shows the real Demoncratic agenda.
Keep up the great work, because all we have to plant an illogical idea and wait for Mr. Pelosi to oppose it and embrace what we need her to for us.
P.S. Has anyone noticed the Botox does not seem to be doing the trick for her these days?
MSGTAS on November 24, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Providing multi-lingual versions of everything is tremendously expensive, and that alone ought to be a huge reason to expect people to speak English. No matter which country you live in you should be expected to speak the language if you expect to be successful. This should be a no-brainer, and I don’t get why it isn’t.
I don’t mind that people who speak other languages do so in the workplace or other places, but first and foremost they must speak English–when answering the phones, when dealing with customers/clients/patrons/students, when filling out forms, etc. Speaking English well is the most essential first step to being fully integrated into 21st century life in this country. Without it you will always be marginalized, sorry. Get over it and learn English!
Bob's Kid on November 24, 2007 at 12:46 PM
This is not a true wedge issue. With 77% in favor of allowing an employer to require English be spoken on the job, there is really no reason for every donkey to not adopt the majority position.
A wedge issue is one where the choice is a tough one, and the side you come down on, whichever one it is, will cost you some support, maybe some of your base. That’s not true here.
Those who are opposed to giving employers this freedom are probably going to vote donkey 15 or 20 to 1 anyway. There is simply no downside for the donkeys.
Labamigo on November 24, 2007 at 12:46 PM
I’ll bet Pelosi is in favor of allowing employers to fire people for smoking cigarettes on their own time, in their own house.
Cognitive dissonance, thy name is “liberalism”.
I am a smoker, but I support the employer’s right to hire and fire who they want, for whatever reason they want.
progressoverpeace on November 24, 2007 at 12:49 PM
I believe any business should be conducted in English, meeting minutes kept in English, etc. However if two guys working on a car’s break system can communicate as well or better in Spanish, Swedish, Serbian or any other language, than why not? Certainly the employer should be free to state how work will be conducted, but does it really matter if Werner and Willie speak German in the lunch room? Some employers have gone overboard, I guess, mandating English only no matter the circumstance. That’s just silly.
Lady Nancy does seem to have a problem managing the Democratic agenda… It must be like herding snotty, nasty cats who all have their own ideas….
darkpixel on November 24, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Many employers have an English-only policy for the job.
I know of one major US corporation that applies this rule to their OVERSEAS offices.
They do significant business, including manufacturing, in Germany, France, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Russia in Europe. And China, Korea, Japan, and Australia in Asia, and in Israel.
English is the lingua franca for the corporation. So all business communication inside the corporation is strictly in English.
You must be an English speaker to be hired.
What you say on break and lunch, or in dealing with local customers, in whatever language is native, in one thing. What you say on the job inside the office and between business units elsewhere in the world WILL be in English.
Whether the illegal hispanics like it or not, the WORLD’s language of Business, air transportation, an the Internet, is English. And it ought to be the official and EXCLUSIVE language of business and government in the United States as well.
georgej on November 24, 2007 at 12:53 PM
You echo my belief here. I don’t understand why it has to be an official policy. Don’t want to hire spanish-only speakers? Uh, don’t hire them. It’s not difficult. If you can’t speak spanish during the interview and they are speaking spanish, that’d pretty much disqualify them right?
lorien1973 on November 24, 2007 at 12:57 PM
I suspect they’re dealing here with employees who are bilingual but then choose to speak Spanish to each other on the job, despite management’s insistence that they do otherwise.
Allahpundit on November 24, 2007 at 12:58 PM
The military is the same way. People can speak whatever language they wish while on their own time, at lunch, etc. but when it comes down to official business everyone speaks English.
There have been a few people that have been offended at times by people speaking a different language onboard a U S Navy ship, but those people tended to be very few and far between and usually didn’t like other ethnic groups either, and the command basically told them to get over it.
ic1redeye on November 24, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Some employers might not like employees speaking in a different language in the workplace because they want to make sure that rumor-mongering doesn’t run rampant. The employer has a right to know what the employees are saying, in the workplace. If the employer cannot understand the employee conversations (in the workplace) then that is a loss of control by the employer that can lead to all sorts of problems.
Just wait for the court case of a bunch of employees slandering another in Spanish (which the employer allowed to go on because s/he didn’t understand the conversations) and the employer being held liable (as we all would be the case).
progressoverpeace on November 24, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Allah,
I don’t quite understand the “we” in “we may just win this election.”
Using “we” as you did suggests that “you” are part of the “we,” yet you marginalize candidates like Tancredo that would actually sign laws to make English the official language, instead of just giving the issue lip service like the other Republican candidates.
I hope you realize that Tancredo may seem extreme to you, but he’s truly for us – ie “we” – and that includes you.
Buck
bucktowndusty on November 24, 2007 at 1:19 PM
E PLURIBUS UNUM, baby!
Always Right on November 24, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Again, not that the feds should be involved, but why do you think they insist on this? They want productivity, right? Isn’t it more productive to have your employees speaking their native languages? Are they xenophobic? Worried that employees might be talking about them behind their backs? (Because you know there’s no such thing as whispering.) Or does it just look bad to clients? It would be interesting to see a poll of the reason employers do this; if the politicians knew why, they’d be more effective at arguing one way or another (or figuring out that maybe they shouldn’t be pushing for such laws at all).
calbear on November 24, 2007 at 1:32 PM
…and could Mr. Right be fired for saying this on the job?
calbear on November 24, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Listen folks throw the polls out the window. Hillary will not win the general. No force on earth will get her the male vote, or the South; and with immigration such a hot button issue in Florida and Ohio those states are in the GOP column. If GOP strategists were as competent as Rahm Emmanuel they would be hammering Michigan,(they might be I do not live in MI, so any MI commenters please chime in) Democrats are killing the states economy. You want prosperity MI? Then stop voting Democrat!
Hillary has raised millions in Indian special interest money. Indian outsouricing companies are bringing Indians into New York state at a furious pace, sucking up all the tech positions. Americans are being supplanted in upstate New York. With alot of the towns dying and top heavy in babyboomers about to retire and drain municipal coffers, they want to see their sons and daughters with the jobs that are now going to foriegners. Hillary is filthy with the lucre of “free trade” if the GOP lets her off the populist hook instead of skewering her with it they deserve to lose Michigan in the general.
Theworldisnotenough on November 24, 2007 at 1:43 PM
San Francisco is not emblematic of America.
SouthernGent on November 24, 2007 at 1:59 PM
I agree it should be required. Two years ago we had a death at my workplace and language barrier was a significant contributing factor. We had a translater but at the moment he was unable to communicate with the employee and he couldn’t understand that everyone else was yelling get out of there. Now he’s dead. We won’t hire anyone who can’t speak decent english anymore.
boomer on November 24, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Did you know that English is the official language of Nigeria but not of America? How freaking sad is that?
Buzzy on November 24, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Seeing how I NEVER get contacted for these polls, and 99% of polls are run by liberal agencies/orgs/papers (and in some cases the poll workers admitted to frauding the polls in order to meet deadlines), I have to assume that the 77% figure should be much higher.
El Guapo on November 24, 2007 at 2:33 PM
So what happens if I have to go to an emergency room in Miama, or LA, etc, (I HAVE INSURANCE) but my spanish is not good enough to say what is wrong with me and the desk clerk only speaks spanish?
What is so immoral/illegal/unethical/human rights violation sounding about requiring people to speak the lenguage of the country they are in if they want a job?
El Guapo on November 24, 2007 at 2:37 PM
English should be the required language of the United States. No support for other languages PERIOD. Nancy and her lib friends are about to get spanked again. America has found its voice and congress hears it.
And man, do they HATE it!!!
dogsoldier on November 24, 2007 at 2:49 PM
dogsoldier
Doesnt matter, just like Jersey and NY, they will just claim that their constituents were confused on the question or do not realize the importance of the issue and Pelosy LLC will try to do their own thing anyways.
El Guapo on November 24, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Even assuming this story is true, the issue is not people who don’t speak English at the workplace, it’s people who speak English and another language. Again, I think the government should butt out, but let’s not confuse the issue here.
calbear on November 24, 2007 at 2:56 PM
I worked for a Dutch based company. Numerous times I was the only non Dutch speaking person in a teleconference and not once did I hear a word of Dutch. Everything was in English. The company even has a rule that if there are people who do not speak the local language, but speak English, the meetings and emails are in English.
Mooseman on November 24, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Let Nancy’s policy be. Next time you dial 911 and get a person speaking only in Russian or Chinese or Loatian, good luck with the break in to your home.
This past summer, my friends were walking their dog in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, when a police officer stopped and questioned them. He spoke broken English with a heavy Russian accent. They had to work to understand him. Turns out that the officer was a seasonal summer hire and was returning to Russia after the season.
And in Bethany Beach, Delaware, a Russian national was hired as a full time police officer, making the local news.
And finally, from an applicant to the California Highway Patrol, a mandatory prerequisite now is that you must speak Spanish and English.
AmericanDad on November 24, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Very good point. If the employer is liable for the conduct of his employees – including things they may say – then his employees should speak his language.
While this point doesn’t always translate into justifying “English only” on the job (i.e., if the employer speaks only Spanish, presumably that would be justification to have a “Spanish only” workplace), but at least it means that the employer and his employees understand each other.
Besides, I was taught that speaking your own language where others don’t understand it (because it is not the native language) is just plain rude.
Wanderlust on November 24, 2007 at 4:37 PM
this whole bru-ha-ha is over the Salvation Army wanting to fire two people who spoke ONLY Spanish. They gave them AN ENTIRE YEAR to learn english… they refused, got fired, and sued. This has nothing to do with bi/tri/tetra-lingual employees… This has to do with does the employer have the right to use language as a requirement for employment w/o the equal opportunity brownshirts of the government sueing them. This is the same crap as the mulim hairdresser in England. I’m thinking business owners should have the right to hire or fire whomever they damn well please.
BadBrad on November 24, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Thanks, Wanderlust. I’m not in favor of holding the employer liable for such actions by the employees, but that’s how the courts have seen it.
I’m for the employer deciding the rules of the workplace, with very wide latitude. If someone doesn’t like it, they can go work for someone else or open their own business and institute their own rules.
Legal documents, of course, must be in English … American legalese, at least.
Yeah … common decency is long gone and now very much uncommon. That was back in the day when a boss fired an employee for not learning English and it didn’t turn into a federal case. Back then, someone who was fired for not being able to speak English would have been ashamed and embarassed, not empowered and aggressive.
progressoverpeace on November 24, 2007 at 5:28 PM
I learned Vietnamese (I’m not fluent yet) just because everytime I went to my nail place, I was infuriated that they only spoke to themselves in their native language. It was very rude. I learned all kinds of things and believe me, they were rude! They giggled over one obese woman who wanted a pedicure, saying they should charge more because she is so fat and because her legs were so heavy they should get more. They constantly said bad things about customers, so I took it upon myself to quietly let these customers know what they were saying. Needless to say, it is not so boring getting my nails done any more.
Another thing, as a paralegal I was looking for work recently and most of the jobs required that you speak English and Spanish (I’m from Texas). Now if that is not discriminatory, I don’t know what is. So, I guess I’ll learn Spanish next.
Neocon Peg on November 24, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Yeppers, those were the days. I wonder if speaking English is even a requirement for citizenship anymore. Not that it is really necessary to be a citizen of this Country anymore. Non-citizens seem to have more rights than citizens and citizens get to pay for everything non-citizens get. Where can I apply to be a non-citizen?
Neocon Peg on November 24, 2007 at 6:00 PM
only if you did not live in, say, Mexico…
BadBrad on November 24, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Heh! No, I live in Texas. If I lived in Mexico, I would learn the native language. What irritates me is that the Latinos expect us to speak to them in Spanish instead of learning our native language, English. The US has catered to them more than any other nationality. Why? Why are they so special and someone who speaks Russian, German, Chinese or any other language must learn English? I’ve never understood this.
Neocon Peg on November 24, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Next, I’m learning Canadian! Aye? And maybe Austrilian! Fair Dinckum!
Neocon Peg on November 24, 2007 at 6:22 PM
So when two employees launch into a non-English conversation, and you get sued because it turns out that they were making sexist/racist comments and you are charged with creating a hostile work environment, what do you do then? Hire interpreters to monitor all employee conversations? Oops, privacy violation lawsuits.
We are doomed!
OBQuiet on November 24, 2007 at 9:42 PM
You can’t get a job in Texas that deals with the public (especially in a service role) without having to learn Spanish.
Disgusting I say. And yet, if a workplace demans english (Salvation Army) they are sued.
Where are the rights of the people who grew up in Texas went to school in Texas, graduated from University in Texas and can’t even get a job in Public Health because every damn job requires a spanish language component?
I was thinking about having my fiancee change her last name to garcia or gonzales to see if she would get calls on the same resume that she uses her anglo last name on. Wouldn’t that be a hoot!!?
I have a last name that is generally considered “black” and I get a very high response rate to my resume submissions. Much more than I would expect.
James on November 25, 2007 at 7:58 AM
I cannot believe that this has even come up as an issue. I think being bilingual is great, as long as one of those is the language of the country you’re living in. Personally, I don’t like going out and feeling like I’M the one living in a foreign country, I imagine other Americans feel the same, so yeah, keep going Nancy!
4shoes on November 25, 2007 at 12:25 PM