Posted on 04/25/2007 9:51:42 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Just when you think you have heard it all, along comes a story that is almost too ridiculous to be true. But it is. The idiocy of federal bureaucracies apparently is never-ending. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which might easily be called the Department of Political Correctness, has decided to take on the Salvation Army. Yes, the Salvation Army, that phenomenally successful assistance organization which began in Great Britain over one hundred and forty-years ago. The Salvation Army, which has helped thousands of people in countries all over the world, is being sued by the EEOC.
As most people are aware, the Salvation Army is a Christian evangelical organization the mission of which is to help the downtrodden, blind, sick, addicted and anyone else in need. "Army" personnel stand on street corners during Christmastime, ringing a bell on behalf of the poor. One of their most important ways to raise money is through donations of old clothes and household goods, which they sell in their thrift stores. They also operate soup kitchens and hire people no one else would hire. Since 1865 the Salvation Army has lived by Christ's admonition that as we do unto the least of our people we do unto the Lord. Now the organization is in trouble for insisting its employees learn to speak English.
It all started in a thrift store in Framingham, Massachusetts. Two Hispanic employees were given one year to learn English in order to speak the language of the country in which they live and the language spoken by other employees. They failed to do so; in turn the employees were fired. The EEOC filed a lawsuit against the Salvation Army claiming the employees had suffered "emotional pain, humiliation and embarrassment" as a result of the English-only policy.
First, the Salvation Army is a faith-based organization and is able to set rules for its employees that many public organization cannot. I am not a lawyer; however, I know that government should not be telling religious groups whom they can and cannot hire or fire. Specifically, when it comes to requiring English the courts have already ruled in the State of Massachusetts. In 2003 a federal judge in Boston upheld the Salvation Army policy requiring workers to "speak English to the best of their ability." The EEOC didn't like that ruling, so it is trying for one more favorable.
These are our tax dollars at work, yours and mine, paying the salaries of the EEOC lawyers who filed the lawsuit while the Salvation Army must use its own funds -- funds that might be better used helping the poor -- to hire attorneys to fight this case in court. What a waste of money on both accounts.
Then there is the EEOC itself, an organization which has spent the last 25 years or so filing lawsuits on behalf of real (and imagined) victims of every possible type of discrimination: sex, age, disability, race, etc. Often these lawsuits are against individuals and other times against large corporations or public agencies. A result has been thousands of hours spent by employers attempting to avoid litigation. I shudder to think of the amount of effort and money spent on lengthy seminars and briefings for human resource departments while American jobs have been disappearing overseas on almost a daily basis.
One of the latest EEOC "campaigns" is to end background checks by many employers because they might discriminate against people who have served prison terms. Now sometimes people do deserve a second chance when they have paid their debt to society but shouldn't the employer get to decide whether to hire someone with a criminal record? Imagine a future time when an employer could be fined for not hiring someone with a criminal record. I have no trouble believing that this is what the EEOC would like to see happen.
In the Boston case I wanted to know if the Hispanic employees were American citizens. Nobody could tell me. They most likely are not, but that does not matter to the EEOC, which probably did not bother to inquire. You need not be an American citizen to use a federal agency to file a lawsuit on your behalf. In what other country is there an agency that would help you sue yet another government agency or a private company if you weren't a citizen? And provide you with an interpreter to do so? Not one that I can think of.
This case would be entirely moot if we had an "English First" rule in our schools and required everyone to learn English for employment. I have given up on the idea that such common sense will again prevail in our society. Must our government work against us? Must it take American taxpayers' money to hire lawyers who sue on behalf of non-citizens who cannot be bothered to learn the language even "to the best of their ability?" And to sue one of our preeminent charitable organizations in the process? Apparently it can -- and it does.
---------
Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
PING!
So, being able to communicate with fellow employees and customers can no longer be a job requirement?
Great precedent. Maybe they can apply it to an air traffic controller. Why should he/she have to learn English?
The employees are probably Brazilians-—Framingham is loaded with them.
This is a great store-—I’ve made many donations,and some purchses,at that location.
The employees are probably Brazilians-—Framingham is loaded with them.
This is a great store-—I’ve made many donations,and some purchases,at that location.
They are promising that part of the shamnesty bill will be a requriement that the illegals learn English in order to become citizens.
I think this shows us just how serious they are about that.
You have finally done it!! As I read your post I totally lost my temper and my lunch appetite. When a government agency sinks to such depths that the Salvation Army becomes a target, then maybe all IS lost. As a young Jewish boy, I was told by my parents to NEVER pass a “SALLY” bell ringer, even if all I had was small change. As a young sailor, I recall the kindness done by them, quietly, steadily and constantly.
Good works, done by gentle people, without HUGE payrolls, without vast “do-good” campaigns, without “look at me” programs..are now to be judged, not by the quality of their charitable works, rather by their “POLITICAL CORRECTNESS”
I am a very large man, and when I bring donations of clothes to them, the genuine warmth of their thanks is so open and heart warming. One worker told me that they already knew who badly needed my large cast-offs and they would be given out within the week.
Now I know our government has reached bottom. How sad.
What if they worked at a computer company and were told they had to learn Visual Basic because that was the backbone of the network they would be administrating and they didn’t? A job requirement is a job requirement.
The Salvation Army is one of the very few organizations I donate money and goods to on a regular basis.
That they are now being attacked comes as no surprise.
I’ll guess that the EEOC is speaking of some program in which the Salvation Army taps into “faith-based” government money for running a program that is of community benefit.
Therefore, they think they can apply gov’t laws to gov’t programs....which they want the courts to declare that these “faith-based” programs are.
They are not, but it is always dangerous to take gov’t money.
But it's OK to tell private organizations and private companies who to hire and fire.
So I can be denied a job if it requires me to be fluent in Spanish but the Salvation Army can’t deny a job to someone because they can’t speak English??? Un-be-flipping-lievable! Let’s hope and help the Salvation Army win the lawsuit and set a precedent where the English requirement is upheld legally.
I thought that having the ability to read and speak English had long been a requirement for becoming a naturalized citizen.
This is in Rep Ed Markey’s [D-MA] district.
The DOJ should supply attys that only speak Urdu to the EEOC.
Excellent article!
PC INTREP
Next Case.
The EEOC has sunk to a new low.
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.