Virginia's downward spriral towards xenophobia

-----
Second-Class Citizens
Speak English or prepare to be fired -- without benefits. Sounds loco, Virginia.

Monday, January 28, 2008; A20
Editorial
Washington Post

VIRGINIA SEN. Ken Cuccinelli II (R-Fairfax) has introduced a piece of immigrant-bashing legislation that is meant to ease the way for bosses to fire workers who don't speak English. But the bill is so closed-minded and foul-tempered that it is too much for Mr. Cuccinelli himself. It would victimize employees who fail "to speak only English at the workplace," a formulation even the senator now allows is a bit harsh; who knows, maybe his own ancestors were known to utter a phrase or two in their native Italian on the job. So he has decided to remove the word "only" from his bill. Nice, but it doesn't help.

The senator, long regarded as among the more intolerant lawmakers in Richmond, has outdone himself. He says glibly that the bill responds to a growing problem of employees who are unfit for their jobs because they speak English poorly. The rub, he says, is that employers cannot fire them without risking higher taxes to pay unemployment benefits. His evidence? Well, says the senator, an employer complained to him about it. And who was that employer? Mr. Cuccinelli can't recall.

The senator's porous memory notwithstanding, his legislation highlights a few pertinent facts about the immigration debate:

First, xenophobia. Despite their protestations, the anti-immigrant crowd tends to blur the line between legal and illegal immigrants and tar them with the same brush. Although Mr. Cuccinelli spent much of his campaign for the state Senate last fall bashing illegal immigrants, this bill would apply only to legal immigrants, since illegal immigrants are already ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Second, overzealousness. Mr. Cuccinelli's bill rates poor English as an offense on a par with substance abuse, lying about past criminal convictions, missing work and committing infractions that cost an employer his business license -- all of them equal grounds for denying unemployment benefits to a fired worker. That's absurd on its face.

Third, blame-shifting. Clearly, it is an employer's responsibility to hire workers whose skills match the job. Yet Mr. Cuccinelli's bill would perversely penalize workers, not employers. This is grossly unfair.

Immigrant-bashers, even some who pay homage to America as a nation of immigrants, have a rich and ugly history in this country. Today, a venomous new chapter is being written in that history by lawmakers of Mr. Cuccinelli's ilk, for whom the very presence of people whose language, culture and values are different is a firing offense.

for link to this article click title of this post

What Language Do You Speak at Work?

-----
January 27, 2008
Under New Management
When English Is the Rule at Work
New York Times
By KELLEY HOLLAND

MEMBERS of Congress are battling. Blogs are trading complaints. Conservative commentators are grumbling about government overreaching into the workplace.

Why the fuss?

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, using authority it has had for more than a quarter-century, sued the Salvation Army last year over its requirement that employees in its office in Framingham, Mass., speak only English on the job — a requirement that cost two Spanish-speaking clothing sorters their jobs. The suit has landed in the middle of the virulent national debate over immigration and assimilation.

“Hot and bothered” would be a way to describe the political climate of the issue, said Reed Russell, legal counsel of the E.E.O.C.

Under the Civil Rights Act, rules limiting which languages can be spoken in a workplace are allowed only if they are nondiscriminatory and if they serve a clear business or safety purpose. In 2004, the Salvation Army decided to enforce an English-only rule after the sorters had been working in the Framingham store for several years, the commission’s complaint said. The commission found no such reason for the limitation. A Salvation Army spokesman declined to comment on the specifics of the case, which is pending, but the organization says it believes there is no legal basis for the suit.

Politicians like Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, have jumped into the fray. Last year, Mr. Alexander introduced legislation to prevent the commission from suing over English-only rules. After that measure died in conference committee, he introduced a similar one in December.

“This bill’s not about affecting people’s lunch hour or coffee break — it’s about protecting the rights of employers to ensure their employees can communicate with each other and their customers during the
working hours,” he said in a recent statement. “In America, requiring English in the workplace is not discrimination; it’s common sense.”

Time out, everyone. Let’s think about what really makes sense here.

Certainly, safety issues arise in some workplaces. The Federal Aviation Administration, for example, requires air traffic controllers to “be able to speak English clearly enough to be understood over radios, intercoms, and similar communications equipment.”

Managers may also need employees who can speak English to English-speaking customers. And they may hear complaints if English-speaking employees say they feel excluded or gossiped about when colleagues converse in another language. Such situations, in fact, gave rise to English-only rules in the first place.

“When employers call, asking if they can implement English usage rules, it’s usually because they have safety concerns,” said Wendy Krincek, a lawyer at Littler Mendelson, an employment law firm. “Or they have Spanish speakers and non-Spanish-speaking employees think they’re being talked about, or supervisors only speak English and they are monitoring how people speaking Spanish interact with co-workers and customers. You’ve got to show a business necessity.”

But from a management standpoint, these rules should be a last resort.

Good management depends on communication in every direction. If some employees are more comfortable speaking a language other than English, particularly over lunch or during breaks, and it has no effect on customers or safety or ability to function, it is hard to see the purpose of cutting that off. It is also hard to see how conversing in a foreign language is more off-putting than endless tapping on a BlackBerry.

Nonetheless, in a study of Latina executives published last October by the Center for Work-Life Policy, many said they refrained from speaking Spanish at work because they felt that doing so would hurt them professionally.

“Women told us they don’t speak Spanish on the phone to customers because it is such a black mark in their corporate culture,” said Sylvia Ann Hewlett, the founding president of the center. “The immediate judgment is they’re talking to their girlfriends or mothers or whatever. Spanish is not associated with business connections. It’s associated with gossiping or wasting time.”

One respondent, a Dominican marketing executive at a consumer products company, said her company discouraged her from speaking Spanish to Latin American customers — even though, she said, it helped her build relationships with them.

Wachovia, the bank based in Charlotte, N.C., has some experience, albeit indirect, with English-only rules. In the 1990s, First Union, a bank later acquired by Wachovia, was sued in federal court over its English-only policy. (The case was dismissed in 1995 on summary judgment.) But with Wachovia offering financial services nationwide and overseas, a diverse work force is almost a necessity, said Sharon Matthews, director of work-force policy.

The bank has call-center employees who can respond to customers in a variety of languages. And Wachovia actively recruits employees who speak more than one language, she said. “We expect our employees to be able to speak with colleagues in English, but we also place a great emphasis on bilingual or multilingual skills,” she said.

E-mail: newmanage@nytimes.com.


for link to article click title of this post

Learning a Second Language

How many average Americans who are not immigrants, know a second language? Even with language courses in high school, people seldom become fluent unless they take a trip abroad (or at least to Mexico). The article below is about a bill proposed in the Virginia legislature that will make it difficult if not impossible to get a job if a person doesn't speak English

A Houston construction company that has mostly immigrant workers has hired a Spanish teacher. The owners of the company want to be able to communicate better, as do the company supervisors.

Of course, this solution makes some people angry. Why would Americans accommodate to Spanish speaking employees?

1. Maybe because the management of the company has disposable income to pay for Spanish classes?

2. The managers believe that easier communication with their employees will make the company more efficient consequently creating more profit.

3. Or, the managers want to know what their workers are saying about them.

People in many countries of the world learn English so they can communicate with us when we visit them. Why can't we do the same for foreigners in the U.S.?

Recently when I spent a few weeks in Madrid doing research I found almost everyone I met spoke English. At the internet cafe I visited daily there was a young man who was South Asian. Although he was fluent in Spanish, we spoke only English. He wanted to practice. Why would he want to learn English? Last I heard, English is not the official language of Spain- and after a number of long conversations I never heard him say he wanted to immigrate to the U.S. He wanted to be able to speak to all kinds of people.

As for immigrants learning English, of course its necessary for survival. There may be complaints that immigrants can't speak English or are not learning fast enough, but the reality is, most if not all immigrants know a certain amount of English, and if they could, they would take classes. (see post "English as a Tool of Power," January 9, 2008). Anyone who expects new immigrants to speak English automatically should visit some of the rural primarias and secundarias in Mexico - especially the ones in rich neighborhoods. Getting an education is difficult in Mexico, but learning English is a luxury for the rich (or at least middle class).

-----

Bill Targets Workers Who Speak No English

By Tim Craig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 17, 2008; B01

RICHMOND, Jan. 16 -- A Republican state senator from Fairfax County has introduced a proposal that would allow a boss to fire employees who don't speak English in the workplace, which would make them ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II said the law is needed because a growing number of employers in Northern Virginia are frustrated that some immigrants never learn English, although they said they would when they were hired.

"The point here isn't to be mean; the point is to allow circumstances to give employers their own ability to hire and fire people who may not speak English," Cuccinelli said.

Some Democrats and immigration rights activists said they were outraged at Cuccinelli, saying the bill demeans the 1 in 10 Virginians who were born outside the United States. They said Cuccinelli's proposal was aimed at new legal residents who aren't native English speakers. Illegal immigrants are already ineligible for unemployment benefits.

"This is the most mean-spirited piece of legislation I have seen in my 30 years down here," Senate Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax) said.

Cuccinelli's bill is one of dozens this year that seek to address immigration and the growing influence of Hispanic culture in Virginia, including efforts to make English the state's official language.

Cuccinelli, who was narrowly reelected in November, said the bill is aimed at people who work in jobs in which they must interact with the public, such as sales clerks and receptionists.

State and national immigrant rights activists said the bill, as written, could result in some people being fired for speaking to a colleague during a break or over the phone to relatives in a language other than English, causing some critics to wonder whether the measure violates federal law prohibiting discrimination based on national origin.

"Anyone who cares about employee rights and civil rights and any employer who cares about not getting sued should question this bill," said Raul Gonzales, legislative director of the National Council of La Raza, Latino civil rights group in Washington.

Cuccinelli, who says companies are increasingly hiring people without face-to-face interviews, said he is just trying to protect employers from paying higher taxes because of unemployment claims.

In Virginia, employers may fire anyone as long as they adhere to civil rights laws. But if someone receives unemployment benefits, their previous employer might have to pay higher taxes.

"It works like an insurance policy," said Coleman Walsh, chief administrative law judge for the Virginia Employment Commission. "If you don't have any accidents, your premiums don't go up. If you have accidents, you have to pay higher rates."

Cuccinelli said he drafted the bill after a business owner approached him last year and complained that his unemployment taxes rose after he fired someone who didn't learn English.

"They had an understanding the employee would improve their English capabilities, and that didn't happen," Cuccinelli said. "We are an at-will employment state, but there is a question about having to pay more unemployment insurance."

Terminated employees are ineligible for unemployment benefits if they fail a drug test, falsify a job application with respect to a criminal record, commit an act that causes the employer to lose his business license or miss too many days of work. A claim can also be denied if the employee violates a "reasonable company law" and has "a pattern of misconduct that shows a willful disregard for an employer's legitimate business interest," Walsh said.

Gonzales said Cuccinelli's bill is not needed because Equal Opportunity Commission guidelines give employers the right to terminate employees for their language skills if their jobs require extensive interaction with the public or a need to understand basic safety information...

for complete article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR2008011603720.html

English as a Tool of Power

A lot can happen to someone who can't speak the language of the country they are in. Once in Milan, I missed a plane because it took me almost two hours to find the bus that would take me to the airport. Not speaking Italian, I found myself lost. I couldn't ask people, and if they said something to me I couldn't understand. The whole time I was only one block from where the bus would have picked me up.

It has to be similar for people who immigrate to this country and don't speak English. It doesn't help that they are highly criticized these days for not automatically knowing a foreign language. For most new immigrants who either work 2 jobs; don't have anyone to take care of the kids at night; or don't have access to a low cost English language program; expecting them to learn English quickly is terribly unreasonable.

Suggestions by lawmakers that immigrants not be allowed in the U.S. unless they speak English is a way to keep poor people out. People with resources might have taken English classes or even traveled abroad, but your average guy from a village in San Luis Potosi probably was only able to go to the 4th grade and never took a course in English.

The option of English or Spanish when you call the phone company may be something from the last two decades. Many times when I hear people complaining about undocumented immigrants they talk about how angry they are at having to listen to "for English push one, for Spanish press two."

I say to them, don't worry, Spanish will not take over the United States. The people moving here that speak that language are not in a position of power. As long as Spanish is being demonized (as are its speakers) those English speakers in power have a way to manipulate and control many the immigrants - for they are basically speechless in a governmental system that demands English.

Published on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 by The Baltimore Sun
US Should Resist Linguistic Terrorism of English-Only Laws
by Deborah Whitford

Language is a difficult subject to discuss dispassionately because it’s our essence. So when two languages come cheek to jowl, as English and Spanish have in the United States, it becomes a hot issue. As Chicano poet Gloria Anzaldua wrote in Borderlands: La Frontera: “So, if you really want to hurt me, talk badly about my language. I am my language.”

Linguistic terrorism has plagued children of immigrants and Native Americans for generations. Alberto Alvaro Ríos wrote in his book Capirotada: A Nogales Memoir: “If speaking Spanish is bad, and our parents speak Spanish, then they must be bad,” he concluded, “and we became ashamed of them.”

Fueling the language debate are clashes arising over illegal immigrants fleeing dire circumstances. But anti-foreign-language fervor has been around for a long time. We disrespected the languages of Native Americans and African-Americans because non-white minorities spoke them, and we shunned German during World War I. Now it’s Spanish.

The irony is that almost all of us have ancestors who were immigrants. The co-mingling of languages is as much a part of that brew as the people who speak them. Yet we have become so smug about English that we ignore the prominence of foreign words in our vocabularies.

French: casserole, cassette and clientele. Latin: acumen, genius, moratorium. Greek: thesis, barometer, autistic. German: angst, kindergarten, sauerkraut. Turkish: macramé, bridge, caviar. Italian: pizza, ghetto, ballerina. Japanese: banzai, sushi. Afrikaner: trek. Hungarian: coach, paprika.

As for Spanish, it left its mark upon our culture long before the arrival of Cristóbal Colón. Just close your eyes and press your finger onto any U.S. map, and chances are decent that you’ll be pointing to a place with a Spanish name (such as Colorado, Montana or Florida).

Yet we view foreign languages with suspicion and derision - the billboards in Spanish, the mom-and-pop piñata shops, the Little Mexicos. We’ve got them in our sights. Our weapon? Legislation.

Thirty states, from Arkansas to Wyoming, have enacted laws making English their official language.

This is not a bad thing as long as the sole purpose is to enable the government to run smoothly, unencumbered by language barriers. But it’s one thing to specify English as the official language and quite another to issue “English only” mandates that order all government employees to refrain from offering assistance in other languages. Heaven forbid a Navajo legislator should speak to his Navajo constituents in Navajo, or a bilingual welfare worker speak Spanish, or a state park ranger give visitors directions in French or German.

Yet 23 states have adopted measures restricting the public use of minority languages. During last year’s regular session of the General Assembly in Maryland, laws that would have required all government business statewide and in Baltimore County to be conducted in English were defeated.

An English-only mandate not only hampers effective communication but, according to the written opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court, it also “chills First Amendment rights.”

Stephen Montoya, the lawyer who represented legislators and state employees in Arizona seeking to overturn one such law, called it racist. “The only individuals in Arizona who don’t speak English fluently, or not at all, are people of color,” he said. “I see this as a way to keep them out of the political process.”

To legislate against Spanish is to marginalize the largest minority group in this country. The United States contains the fifth-largest Spanish-speaking population in the world, estimated at about 32 million. Spanish is the third-most-spoken language on the planet, with 400 million to 480 million speakers.

As for the assertions that these “foreigners” don’t want to learn English, considering the waiting list of immigrants clamoring for classes, that can’t be true.

Moreover, learning a foreign language takes time. Please, let’s give them a chance.

Language is a beautiful resource, a bridge to other cultures and new ways of thinking. It’s also constantly in flux; a language that doesn’t change dies.

If we stymie the process, the best we can hope for might be the unearthing of American English by future archeologists studying a dead culture.

Deborah Whitford is a writer, a student of Spanish and a courtroom clerk in Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix. Her e-mail is jwhitf6364@cox.net.

Copyright © 2008, The Baltimore Sun

previously posted on commondreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/09/6268/