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.

We are doomed!

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.

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

only if you did not live in, say, Mexico…

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

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?

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.

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.

Wanderlust on November 24, 2007 at 4:37 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Don’t want to hire spanish-only speakers? Uh, don’t hire them.
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

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.

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

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.

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.

Two years ago we had a death at my workplace and language barrier was a significant contributing factor.

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.

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.

And man, do they HATE it!!!

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?

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.

E PLURIBUS UNUM, baby!

Always Right on November 24, 2007 at 1:30 PM

…and could Mr. Right be fired for saying this on the job?

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

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).