Posted on 11/15/2007 4:39:26 PM PST by SmithL
A government suit against the Salvation Army has the House and Senate at loggerheads over whether to nullify a law that prohibits employers from firing people who don't speak English on the job.
The fight illustrates the explosiveness of immigration as an issue in the 2008 elections.
Republicans on Capitol Hill are pushing hard to protect employers who require their workers to speak English, but Democratic leaders have blocked the move despite narrow vote tallies in the GOP's favor.
For more than 30 years, federal rules have generally barred employers from establishing English-only requirements for their workers. But Senate Republicans have won passage of legislation preventing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from enforcing the rules.
House Democratic leaders, meanwhile, have promised Hispanic lawmakers that the language issue is a nonstarter and the resulting impasse has stalled the underlying budget bill, which lawmakers had hoped to send to President Bush this week.
The EEOC has come under assault from lawmakers such as Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., after the agency filed suit earlier this year against a Salvation Army thrift store in Massachusetts that had fired two Hispanic employees for speaking Spanish while sorting clothes.
Supporters of the EEOC regulation — which can be waived if there is a legitimate business or safety purpose to require English — say it protects workers from discrimination based on their national origin, which is barred under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
"I cannot imagine that the framers of the 1964 Civil Rights Act intended to say that it's discrimination for a shoe shop owner to say to his or her employee, 'I want you to be able to speak America's common language on the job,'" Alexander said Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Time to light up the phones to get this fixed.
Time to make English the one official language of this country.
Amen.
Some of the scoundrels who framed this POS legislation are still around, including the "main man-atee" himself, Unkkkle Ted. So why don't you 'axe' them? I think you'd be disappointed with their answer, proving the Act was crap to begin with.
Yep!
English-only? No. English definitely? Yes.
Libs want to keep the immigrants dumb and dependent. If they are required to learn the language they will catch on to the libs plans for them. Come to think of it maybe not, most will enjoy all the freebee’s they get from thier liberal democratic masters at the expense of the American middle class who has to pay for everything.
There is another winning issue for the GOP. Hope they jump on it.
Okay, but official for what exactly? for instance; do you feel it is necessary for federal legislation to be passed that would prohibit businesses from offering application forms or any advertisments in a foreign language? Because that’s how you xenophobic kooks are beggining to sound when you post this kind of nonsensical crap.
But, what you are saying here is that the GOP stepping in, publicly professing to legislating an English-only, prohibiting foreign languages in the course of business, is a winning issue? How does more government and prohibition on freedoms equate to winning? If this kind of sh!t is the modern day conservatism, then this country is going to a have a radical party realignment in the very near future.
No. This is about an employer being able to require her employees to speak English, or any other language of her choosing, in the workplace, without fearing the government will sue her for violating equal opportunity laws.
So then you support the EEOC lawsuit against the Salvation Army?
Let's play devil's advocate though: suppose a manager fired an employee for speaking a foreign language to a customer who did not speak English and the employee was helping make a sale? No, bad example...for the border/immigration crowd, this doesn't take out the raw emotions enough. Okay, lets say its the first Wednesday of November 2008 and two employees are discussing politics while no customers are around and they're stocking shelves within a few feet of one another. They are in celebratory moods because the Republicans have taken back the House and won the presidency one again. But their manager, being a hippie holding onto the past and an avowed far Left Democrat, overhears the discussion and terminates the employees on the spot. The former employees get an attorney because current "laws" have been broken. The MSM does not touch the story but people like the ratings-whore Bill O'Reilly take the story and run with it. How would you feel about a lawsuit in this instance knowing that EEO "laws" are on the books?
So, if the “required language” in any given workplace just happened to be Spanish, for example, and some English broke out amongst two employees working in proximity to one another while performing a mundane task, you’d support a similar canning Of the employees. Or is it that you’d reject any lawsuit brought on by the former employees whose only thing they had done wrong was to upset their employer by speaking English on the job.
What does official mean and how encompassing will “official” be? Is this a winning issue. Is this what Jesus had in mind when He asked us to love our neighbor? Can I get an “amen”, please!?
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
You've nailed it! Just take a look at the mess they have in Canada.
Can we start by not printing official election ballots in foreign languages?
How about ALL government documents and written/verbal correspondence in the welfare office, DMV, courts etc...
In the private sector, to each his own, and if a business wants to demand a language requirement for employment the government has no authority to punish the owner.
Positive immigration need assimilation, and its just plain rude to 'whisper', ie speak a coded tongue in which a person knows not what you may be sayin'.
Like my granpa used to say to any foreign dialect, be it spanglish, ghetto, or pig latin, 'if your cussin' me, youre two of em' !!!...
Are you implying that there’s something bad about being a xenophobic kook???
ping
Speaking a foreign language in the work place in the possible presence of other that don’t speak the language is rude.
I have worked in South Texas and yes, often they are talking about you. However their lack of fluency gives them away as the rude POS that they are.
In my office it is English or STFU.
Yes, but the present incumbent, El Gringo de Mejico, has made it clear he will veto such legislation. I guess his puppet masters in Mexico City have given him marching orders.
How about the option of passing legislation which would prohibiting the federal or state governments' requiring employers to offer application forms or advertisements in foreign languages, but rather leave that choice to the proprietor? It seems to me, in pursuit of true Constitutional liberty, it is more appropriate any restrictions ought be placed upon the government's reach and not upon that of the business owner's freedom of choice.
If they’re too lazy, sorry, or stupid to learn English, then allow employers to pay them in the equivalent currency of the country from which they hail.
Really, I thought, aside from the smear that I leavied, that I made some good and intelligent points regarding these issues and how they affect liberty. It’s too bad that you couldn’t be like they others — overlooking my immaturity and not stooping to my level — and then address the finer points that I made. Others responded with solid reasoning; can you?
I guess it is just easier to show your ignorance then. That way, you don't have to use any creativity in problem solving when trying to balance two competing interests. Bomb throwing is pretty easy though...you know, when the going gets tough and the topics become too complex to debate or when using actual reasoning becomes taxing on the brain. Have you squeezed the Charmin today, Mr. Whipple?
And I didn't see your answer to the one really good post about how having more than one language has created nothing but problems in Canada.
I was using a phone to get on the Internet and had limited time to reply to it. I wanted to address you first and then wait until I got home in order to research the issue in Canada -- I was not aware of a problem that they are/were having with two languages (presuming English and French). Maybe you could enlighten me on this. Nah, scratch that. I'll answer the other FReeper myself...I'm much more likely to get a reasonable reply.
Can you post a link to what you've brought up here or at least explain this. I didn't realize that there were problems (social conflict?) up in Canada in regards to the usage of two languages.
Can we start by not printing official election ballots in foreign languages?
This should not be happening at all. I think there would be wide support for eliminating this practice wherever it is occurring.
How about ALL government documents and written/verbal correspondence in the welfare office, DMV, courts etc...
The welfare office. Oh, hell no! However, the courts. If they are here, that's going to be kind of necessary in order for due process of law. It's either that or hire full-time interpreters. Which way is more costly?
In the private sector, to each his own, and if a business wants to demand a language requirement for employment the government has no authority to punish the owner.
I agree. But then you have some pitchfork wielders that don't want to see a foreign language (particularly Español) anywhere. I wonder if this would include a classroom in say a public school where a student wanted to learn a foreign language. Sound ridiculous, I know, but I wonder just how far some people want to take this.
Are you implying that there’s something bad about being a xenophobic kook???
No, not at all. It's a good foundation for a political party. In fact, the trend should probably spread. END SARCASM. Truth is, I don't care if that is your mode. It's when you seek government to enact your crazy and dangerous ideas on the whole of society is where I start having problems with you. When I have a problem, I am going to be vocal...like I am doing here on this thread.
Only with fellow FReepers who show their proclivity to be @$$holes or use a high degree of hyperbole and should be called on it. If you were to actually look, you'd see the truth in that.
And you call me ignorant?
Hey, there are many topics/subjects in which I am ignorant. I can recognize this about myself. Canada was just one of those topics. Although I do not view the idea of secession as inherently bad on political grounds; just a radical step that a people should be allowed to explore when their interests are not being served. Neither did Adams or Jefferson.
Yes
sorry, but if they cant speak in court, then they need to hire a lawyer the same as I would. or laraza could spend some of their dinero manning the courts. or better yet, how about their own friggin government can speak for em.
Better yet, how bout we just photo & print em and send em back home one time, the next time its life at hard labor...making gravel Americans dont wanna make...
It is sickening that we're, as a society, willing to provide this to our own much less an immigrant who is here illegally. If we didn't have such entitlement in the first place (save for those very rare cases where a citizen among us cannot mentally or physically provide for themselves and do not have family to take up the burden), providing for immigrants would be a non-issue.
If you would go a tad deeper into the bible that just bringing up Jesus' name, you'd find many references to obeying laws:...
Interesting scripture quoting, particularly Matthew. I think you misrepresent the context of what was happening as Jesus was speaking. Your selective quoting makes it seem as though Jesus was a statist. Yet I caution you against making that conclusion. Jesus was sought out for persecution precisely because he bucked the establishment and broke the so-called laws of His day (John 5:1-15)
Perhaps Matthew 15:1-9 could be applicable to this discussion. Could we go so far as to include John 13:31-35 as well? I don't know, it's pretty tough.
Besides, I don't see the Roman Catholic Church opening themselves up to taking in tens of millions of illegals. They could afford it, certainly, and could have hundreds of taco stands in the parking lot of the Vatican City to generate revenue. It's hypocritical of ANYONE to say that others have to spend money and time to support anyone else. They need to put their money where their mouths are.
It is very rare for any businessmen that masquerade as altruists church to put their money where their mouths are. For they recieved their tithings fair and square. See John 12:1-6.
And send the governments of the countries in which they came from the bill, right?
Or, we could welcome them like we have always done and have their subsequent generations benefit us greatly. In the mean time they get no handouts. I served with many people from south of the border that were here with greencards. Some of the most dedicated and thankful people I have ever worked with, worked for, and led.
Wow! I am at the FREE Republic, right? Fedreal legislation that criminalizes private advertising in a foreign language? Are you serious!? Should Spanish speaking television shows also be outlawed?
Just so we're on the same page, can I glean from this that you are not of the "border/immigration" crowd? This would mean what? That you don't support border enforcement, or you are not against illegal immigration, or what exactly?
susie
Do you get their irony here?
susie
Susie, Let me know if the post in the link found below, in its context, answers your questions.
I'll also offer this "throw in" from Ronald Reagan's conclusion to his/our farewell address to the nation in 1989:
And that's about all I have to say tonight. Except for one thing. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.
And how stand the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that; after two hundred years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.
We've done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for eight years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger. We made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.
And so, good-bye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
"The" or "their"? Also, which type of irony...irony comes in at least a few varieties on the periodic table.
Given the loss of value in the USD, that may not be a winning approach. The EU employees will break out in any of the EU languages and insist on payment in euros.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.