What has been reported is:

The requirement was clearly posted and employees were given a year to learn the language. The EEOC claimed the store had fired two Hispanic employees for continuing to speak Spanish on the job.

That does not tell me they had failed to learn English. That only tells me they were speaking Spanish, at best to each other – who else would they be speaking Spanish to? Just because two Hispanics speak Spanish to each other does not mean they don’t speak English.

UPDATE 11/20 Below Story
How could an elected official who is payed to represent our needs and wants be so completely out of touch with us? This isn’t like it’s the first time we’ve seen the “woman” behind the curtain. It …

Does anyone know exactly what these two employes were saying and if they in fact had failed to learn English?

According to what has been reported, the it was clearly posted that the employees were required to learn English, and after a year, had failed to do so.

One thing is that they are required to be fluent in English so they can perform their jobs, follow directions and interact with English speaking customers.

The EEOC claimed the store had fired two Hispanic employees for continuing to speak Spanish on the job.

However, from Michelle’s post it’s not clear to whom and when they were speaking Spanish on the job. Maybe they were holding a conversation with each other while on the floor and waiting for customers.
Maybe not. But you cannot fire someone who is fully bilingual just because they spoke in Spanish to another Hispanic.

I favor 100% all immigrants having to learn English; but requiring English on the job should only apply to task related functions – not to casual conversations between employees.

On the job needs to be clearly defined; will I get fired for talking to my mother on the phone if I speak to her in Spanish? What if a Spanish speaking customer comes in?

Does anyone know exactly what these two employes were saying and if they in fact had failed to learn English?

This is NOT an argument about Jose and Juan (racist innuendo there Mark!) say ‘Que pasa?’ at the work place, but rather the employer’s ability to hire the most qualified person to hold the job.

Jose and Juan are common Hispanic names. Deal with it.

Just because you don’t understand the issue and are arguing about something completely different, that doesn’t change the facts.

It may surprise you, Mark, but as an employer, it is incumbent upon me to hire people that can communicate to my clients in a manner they can understand.

It doesn’t surprise me. As I said before that’s not what this is about. You have every right to require that your employees be capable of communicating with your clients in a manner they can understand (and that includes your right to hire someone who speaks fluent Spanish, to interface with your Spanish-speaking customers). What this issue is about is your ability as an employer to ban the use of a non-English language for a non-safety-related reason.

Do you really think the supervisor of the Thrift Shop fires anyone for saying “hola” in the morning?

The could, if you get your way. Pay attention.

Not the case.

I am not talking about chain restaurants either. There are none in this area, ethnically that is….

Most customers are English…rarely do I see hispanics…..double standard?

Wonder how many are illegals?

I have even heard stories that some employees spit on food before serving…..could be untrue, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

Just seems that all the politicans pander to the hispanics, illegal or otherwise, and I am sick of it.

Yes, I do not have to eat at those establishments, but I think the owners have to be legal…..BIG difference.
If I could prove they are hiring illegals, I wouldn’t eat there for certain.

just want to make sure people realize this is not confined to Spanish or any other single language

On November 19th, 2007 at 6:12 pm, gayle said: Ironic; I have NEVER been to a Mexican restaurant where any Caucasian/Black was employed.

Why go to a Mexican restaurant? Wishy- washy will only encourage more to come.

That is the most asinine argument against this argument I have seen in a long time.

This is NOT an argument about Jose and Juan (racist innuendo there Mark!) say ‘Que pasa?’ at the work place, but rather the employer’s ability to hire the most qualified person to hold the job.

It may surprise you, Mark, but as an employer, it is incumbent upon me to hire people that can communicate to my clients in a manner they can understand.

This is not an issue about ‘dead languages’ (false argument…nice try, Mark) or prohibiting some one from speaking another language during breaks or before/after work (again, nice try), but it is about having the ability to articulate, in English.

This is not about the ability to speak English or mandating that you use English when dealing with English-speaking customers. This is about prohibiting the utterance of non-English. i.e. Jose and Juan clock in for work. Jose sees Juan and says “Hey Juan! Que pasa?” And he’s fired for it.

The reason people want this overturned is that it can be used to discriminate against ethnicity or national origin.

A lot of you may still be in favor of it, but the vast majority above me are talking about how business should be allowed to require that all employees be able to speak fluent English. (Note all comments talking about learning English). That’s not being challenged by this legislation. This is about the ability of a business to prohibit (for a non-safety-related reason) the utterance of non-English words while on the job.

Note that this also applies to dead languages… so you business types need to stay away from “veni, vidi, vici”-type stuff.