There is an interesting lawsuit against an academic institution in Colorado. Spanish-speaking custodial workers at the Auraria Higher Education Center in Colorado are suing over the failure of the Center to give them instructions in Spanish — alleging that they have faced unsafe conditions over the use of English rather than Spanish. The case suggests that the use of Spanish can not only be legally required but that the use of English can constitute a type of unsafe workplace.
Roughly a dozen custodial workers filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that the Center only communicated with its workers in English. The complaint names the Metropolitan State University of Denver, the University of Colorado-Denver and the Community College of Denver.
Blaine Nickeson, an AHEC vice president, said that the AHEC does offer some translations, but that it cannot be required to use native languages for all of its employees.
I tend to agree. I cannot see how using English as the primary form of communication in the United States can be the basis for discrimination or an unsafe work environment. If schools are legally required to speak the language of custodians and other employees, can they refuse to hire non-English speaking employees or would that be a form of discrimination based on national origin? Such an obligation would presumably extend to all languages from Polish to Chinese to Spanish. It creates an added burden on businesses which could find themselves in a vice between the duty to hire without discrimination and the costs of supplying translations for any non-English speaking employees.
What do you think?
Source: CBS
“I tend to agree. I cannot see how using English as the primary form of communication in the United States can be the basis for discrimination or an unsafe work environment.”
So, what you’re saying is, if an employer deliberately removes the picture-based safety labels known worldwide, leaving only the warnings in English words, that constitutes a “safe working environment”? That it’s the fault of the employees for not speaking or reading English should they get sick or die? How very “libertarian” of you.
If I ask you to pick up something that I know has live electricity running through it, and the only warning signs are written in Swahili, is it your fault for not knowing Swahili, or my fault for not labelling or warning you about the electrical hazard? Is it my fault or your fault if you do something potentially lethal that you would not do if warned properly, or would not do without proper safety equipment and procedures?
Safety labels have universal symbols, recognizable even to those who don’t know what they mean (people who buy household cleaners know those symbols, not just industrial workers). Anyone who sees a four colored diamond or skull-and-crossbones label is going to hesitate until certain about safety. (But safety isn’t profitable for companies, is it? Thank you, George Bu**sh**, for lowering safety standards.)
If labels are removed in order to get people to work in unsafe conditions, the companies can and should be criminally charged under many statutes. From the EPA:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/workers/PART170.htm
170.210 Restrictions during applications
[…]
(b) Handlers handling highly toxic pesticides. The handler employer shall assure that any handler who is performing any handling activity with a product that has the skull and crossbones symbol on the front panel of the label is monitored visually or by voice communication at least every 2 hours.
From Illinois’ Toxic Substances Disclosure to Employees Act:
(820 ILCS 255/8) (from Ch. 48, par. 1408)
(c) The employer shall ensure that each label, sign, placard or set of operating instructions required by this Section is prominently affixed and displayed in such a manner that employees can easily identify the toxic substances present.
“Such a manner” includes symbols and words in the employee’s own language.
There have been cases where employers deliberately removed labels and made workers handle hazardous materials without safety equipment. If the same happened in Colorado, I won’t be surprised.
Juliet Lester Neary said:
“I love it when employers want the financial benefits of hiring immigrants, but none of the responsibilities.”
Well, let’s see. The program up there has a custodial staff of 106. Well over half are either Black or White folks.
The starting salary – at least the one listed on the wall in H.R. for all to see – is $1902 a month.
So would it be your considered opinion that they have a secret, lower salary for Hispanics?
Oh, right! $1902 a month, before taxes, is a huge amount of money. I dare you to try to support a family on that amount.
JLN – Support a family??? Anybody able to support themselves on that????
Well, I have, but I’m a ninja with money. I’ve also been hungry, cold and one paycheck away from homeless.
leejcaroll, I have to agree with you on the fact that if you live and work in a country, it is elementary courtesy and decency to speak the language of your host country. Not doing so is outrageous arrogance which is what many people say Americans abroad exhibit when as tourists they expect foreigners to all speak English. Such people who are taking money for working here, are outrageous when they expect US to accomodate them. Sorry folks, I have to insist on elementary courtesy and decency for ALL people.
“the manner in which the European settlers mistreated the First People is shameful on an epic scale.”
I can’t argue against that point nor would I. My great-great grandmother was full blood Blackfoot. “Shameful on an epic scale” is an exercise in understatement.
But I still think the point about acculturation is valid.
Gene,
I know I don’t have to tell you this, but in case some reader has been living in a cave as a hermit for the past few centuries, the manner in which the European settlers mistreated the First People is shameful on an epic scale. They stole their religion, their culture, their history and their language.
When I was in graduate school, one of the department secretaries was full blood Navajo. The department head was about half Navajo. He was proud of his heritage. He would sit in class and tell stories of the old ways and how they applied to the modern science we were studying.
The secretary did not know any words in the Navajo language, or have a clue about their religious beliefs except they were “pagan.” She did not know any of the oral histories, and did not seem to care.
I try to do my small part. I adopted the Cherokee word for the Blue Ridge Mountains as a username. We go to powwows when we can. My daughter has learned a lot about the culture just through exposure without me having to do a thing. Hardly what Andrew Jackson had in mind for the future of the nation.
Smartass.
But that is part of why we get along so well, OS.
Seriously though, when you go to live in an “alien” culture, even one that prides itself on being a melting pot, the responsibility to integrate to the culture is not a one way proposition. Learning the dominant local language is simply part of integration. And we are talking about immigration, not invasion and subjugation. If I moved to France, I’d learn to speak more French. If I invaded and subjugated France, I’d expect them to learn to use my mother tongue as the conqueror. Romans taught Latin everywhere they went and in your dealings with the state and in commerce, if you didn’t learn it, you were at a distinct disadvantage in dealing with Rome and Romans. Just so, you are still at a disadvantage when the cultural shift is voluntary. You do more harm to yourself than to those in the linguistic majority by refusing to learn the local language. If you consider how many immigrants have the language barrier used against them by bad actors in this country because those immigrants don’t communicate well enough to know their basic legal rights and protections or to ask for help, you’ll see this is a true proposition. It’s not a matter of racism or nationalism. It’s a matter of linguistic practicality.
“Language is a great cultural ‘leveler’ IMO so I’m with Gene on the point that immigrants should speak the language.”
************************************************
An excellent idea. Here are some helpful hints and tips to get you guys started.
Anonymously Yours
My Daughter is in Japan at present…. She’s been there for awhile….. She is staying in an American House….. But is required to learn Japanese fluently…..
——————–
The countries I checked out for immigration purposes required conversational fluency in their language for immigration and one for work permits. It’s not a big deal. For immigration one country gave a window for the requirement and their guidance said that the screening process took long enough that ‘visiting’ on a visa while awaiting a ruling on immigration provided enough time to become proficient prior to the final test(s) required. That seems reasonable to me.
Blouise raises a good point. One of the last companies I worked for was expanding and need a large addition with many dedicated engineering peculiarities built. They hired a German firm to do it (bas***ds- the owners, not the Germans) and the Germans flew over the entire construction crew from some Eastern European nation. Not one of them spoke American and the work foreman didn’t speak American well enough to interact effectively with the company’s safety department or logistics/contracting department. I kid you not. The job ended up being shut down and a new, generally American speaking crew was brought in. It was a very, very expensive mess.
Often times a large contractor you contract with then sub-contracts the work- ’embedding’ it’s called. There may well be a layer of liability in this instance that is not apparent from the story and was not apparent when the school contracted for the work. If the janitors were direct-hire though then I’d agree that the school is on the hook.
Language is a great cultural ‘leveler’ IMO so I’m with Gene on the point that immigrants should speak the language.
I am a liberal democrat, probably considered progressive but I think that should be a requirement for immigration purposes, to have to learn the language.
More then once when dealing with customer service, on the phone as well as in person, I have had to say I am sorry I cannot understand you because accents are so heavy and they are not proficient in English.
“If I am hired to do customer service and I cant speak to any of the customers, its not the employers problem.”
On what planet? It’s precisely the employers problem. Bad customer service equals pissed off customers equals soon to be ex-customers equals declining revenues.
Sweepenzie Julio.
“If they hire non-English speaking employees they must offer safety and work instruction in these employees language. ”
No they don’t. Your asserting facts not in evidence. If I am hired to do customer service and I cant speak to any of the customers, its not the employers problem.
I advise the school district to set forht the following accomodation. If the work day starts at Seven a.m. then have a boss there at Six and require the workers to be there at Six a.m. Turn on the Berlitz video on the Kings English. Give em coffee and donuts. At Seven they start sweeping, moping, and cleaning the outhouses. Tell em to pay attention when they wipe down the blackboards in the class rooms. Pay em for that first hour every day. At lunch time have a Spanish speaking person inquire as to the duties of the day and what they do or dont understand.
Give a test when you hire. If they speak Spanish but not good enough English to get by then put them in the morning class. If you get one from Chechnia or Armenia obtain the correct Berlitz video tape and keep em away from pressure cookers.
The solution is not to hire people who cannot speak english.
I personally think people should have to take english classes and pass basic tests before being allowed to move here.
Im sure the bleeding hearts on here will disagree
Something here smells funny, if you know what I mean.
Darren,
But the schools have the deeper pockets. 😉
I was a Civil Service Commissioner … there are groups of folks who purposely look for any “mistake” in the job description or workplace environment … the investigation, forms, and fines can cost an employer a pretty penny … especially when dealing with the feds. I suspect this group found a chink in the armor and are moving in for a possible settlement.
Experience in this field has, admittedly, made me somewhat cynical.
Blouise
I agree the contracting situation would be different. I would think it would be the responsibility of the company contracting with the school and not the school itself to provide the warnings in that case.
I wonder if the janitorial services are a “contract” situation … even more intriguing from a legal standpoint …
Some believe this would be discriminatory to require speaking English. It is not so if the job encompases this ability. Would an employer be liable for not hiring a person who only spoke Russian to be a 911 dispatcher who acted as a call taker and 99% of people calling spoke only English?
But I could see there being a mitigator in this issue where the job at hand did not involve the need to communicate in English. Yet, the plaintiffs in this case are alleging their safety was risked because the employer could not communicate in Spanish. In a way that could work for the employer because the employer could say that safety reasons require the proficiency in English. But, once the employer hired them despite their language restriction it’s a little late for the employer to make that argument.
I think the employer could have avoided this by making a requirement of “being able to communicate effectively in the English language” requisite upon hiring. It is not discriminatory based upon race or immigration status, it is a necessary skill required to perform a duty.
But the employer walked right into this legal liability by not accomodating their language ability. The employer knew they did not speak English sufficiently so they have to provide accomodation.
I find it very hypocritical of those who decry the fact that Americans are in the main monolingual, yet have no problem with foreigners who live and work here for being so arrogant and not speaking English. I will be in favor of this suit when those who are for accomodating them show the same concern for Americans who speak only English when they are only TOURISTS in foreign countries. If one thinks Americans are obnoxious for insisting on speaking English when abroad, then how much MORE obnoxious is it for immigrants to demand that WE speak THEIR language when they live and work here?
I would also check on their immigration status and demand proof of their legal status to even have a job here.
Randyjet that is not analogous. Being in a foreign country and trying (or not trying) to speak the language is not the same as living and working in a country but not knowing the language of that country.
Tricky situation in that the employers involved are state and, more than likely also federally, funded institutions. One certainly can not put “Must be able to understand English” on the job description without violating discrimination laws leaving the institution also open to lawsuits.
Someone had to have offered these employees assistance in the application and interview process, not to mention the background and medical check phase of hiring.
On way around all this nonsense is to invest in a practice called “Culture of the Workplace” study. The study falls under the medical phase of employee testing. The initial study is departmental and expensive but they stand up well in court if sued for discrimination or other alleged violations of the Equal Employment Opportunity laws.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.