Source
r/PoliticalDiscussion•
BrawnyJava

Are the President and the EEOC overstepping their bounds on language discrimination?

The EEOC recently sued a WI based factory for firing employees who cannot speak english.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-9-14.cfm

There are a number of issues here. Communication is important for safety in a plastic factory. Should the EEOC mandate that employers absorb additional costs in having to deal with a multilingal workforce? National origin is explicitly protected, but this case doesn't involve national origin.

Posted Jul 7, 2014, 4:50 PM UTC

1479
Angel3•

Did you read your own article?

According to John Rowe, director of the EEOC's Chicago District, which includes Wisconsin, the EEOC's pre-suit administrative investigation revealed that WPI fired the Hmong and Hispanic employees based on 10-minute observations that marked them down for their English skills, even though those skills were not needed to perform their jobs. All of those fired had received satisfactory ratings on their annual performance evaluations while working for WPI's Modern Plastics Division.

17
BrawnyJavaOP•

How is it possible they were able to receive satisfactory evaluations? You cannot listen to the AM safety briefing, read the policies, etc. You cannot understand instructions from your boss if you cannot speak the language. How did they even know they received satisfactory evaluations?

I think a lot of people would say its a basic requirement that you speak the language when you work in something as dangerous as a factory.

-3†
prizepig•

Speaking from my own experience... I worked in a factory a lot like this one not that long ago. We had a bunch of Mexicans and a few Cambodians, none of whom spoke English. In gerenal, their performance was as good as anyone else's.

Nothing really changes on a day-to-day basis, so there's no need for ongoing breifings or instructions. You learn how do the task at your station, keep your area clean and the general policies. Your instruction is typically with a coworker who speaks the same language, although I trained people who didn't speak English without any problems. It's not rocket science.

11
potato1•

The fact is that they received satisfactory evaluations. Your incredulity is irrelevant, it's a fact that their evaluations were satisfactory. You can't dispute that.

10
bigtoine•

How is it possible they were able to receive satisfactory evaluations?

Perhaps you should ask Wisconsin Plastics Inc, rather than some random commenter on the internet who's just going off the information at hand. Or are you suggesting that the EEOC fabricated annual performance reviews to use as justification for suing WPI?

Also, nothing in this article says the fired employees couldn't speak or read English. It simply says the company based their decision on "10-minute observations that marked them down for their English skills". That could mean almost anything.

4
LAudre41•

That's a fine generalization, but the fact finder in the above mentioned case found that speaking english was not a requirement for the job.

2
CirnoWhiterock•

If they really can't speak english then the employer has every right to fire them for lacking a needed skill. However, this particular case seems to be about a bit more then language.

11
BrawnyJavaOP•

This case is saying that you cannot fire people who are otherwise competent for not speaking english. I don't even know how you can be competent in any job without speaking the language.

-6
Angel3•

Im going to assume you have never worked in construction where 99% of the laborers are spanish speaking Hispanic yet the foremen only speak English. Would you say that construction companies should fire their English speaking foremen bealcause they dont speak the language?

7
BrawnyJavaOP•

I think they should have the right to. Its up to employers to decide what the requirements for a position should be.

2
Angel3•

If the foreman is doing his job and the workers under him are doing their job why would you fire him?

2
rynosoft•

I think they should have the right to. Its up to employers to decide what the requirements for a position should be.

What if one of their requirements is "not black"?

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Angel3•

Learn Spanish.

0†
lolmonger•

Would you say that construction companies should fire their English speaking foremen bealcause they dont speak the language?

No, because the reason for 99% of the laborers not speaking English is because they don't assimilate into the US.

Fundamentally, this comes down to whether or not people coming into the US should assimilate or not - - - -No other nation puts up with being linguistically bifurcated by immigration, and I don't think the US should either.

-2†
Angel3•

Your premise is mistaken in that you seem to think that a person has to speak English to be American. The official language of the united states is not English, the united states in fact has no official language. So, in of that fact, one could say that assimilating into American culture would require a person to be fluent in whatever languages they need to properly function. That would then create a situation where it would make sense to fire the English speaking foremen for not assimilating into American culture rather than the Spanish speaking workers.

0†
SapCPark•

The suit is based on national origin.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects employees from discrimination based on national origin, which includes the linguistic characteristics of a national origin group.

This is a pretty simple case, and based on the evidence listed as your source, its going to be an easy win for the EEOC

7
BrawnyJavaOP•

I'm sure the case will be won, but that's not my question. Is it appropriate that the EEOC does this? This adds to what we call "regulatory burden" and it harms our economy.

-1
iamelben•

This adds to what we call "regulatory burden" and it harms our economy.

Actually, what this adds to is protection against what we call "externalities", which include, but are not limited to "moral hazards." It's a moral hazard to fear termination based on a reason unrelated to your ability to perform your job.

11
intravenus_de_milo•

In a free market context, it could also be called a barrier to entry. The economy is strong when accommodations are made to maximize participation.

What's not great for the economy? Unemployed Chinese people who could otherwise be productive.

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

-1
unkz•

Fucking progressives, biggest idiots on the planet.

That's pretty needlessly uncivil, don't you think? I thought this subreddit was supposed to be better than that.

1
BrawnyJavaOP•

And it adds an unreasonable cost to employers to have to deal with a multi lingual workplace. Not to mention safety in a factory. How can you understand your boss if you cannot speak the language?

-4
iamelben•

How can you understand your boss if you cannot speak the language?

Maybe the boss should have considered that before he deemed them as hireable HIMSELF even though they didn't speak the language?

6
Angel3•

Whats stopping them from promoting a multilingual person to accommodate the workplace? Seems to me the person lacking a needed skill was the boss who couldn't communicate properly with his employees.

4
SapCPark•

Yeah. The EEOC has the right to do so. Their job ratings were satisfactory and their job did not require proficient English language skills. If the job required proficient English and they job performance was bad becasue they did not have the language skills, then they company has the right to fire them.

5
BrawnyJavaOP•

If the company in question didn't want to employ minorities, then wouldn't it have been easier to not hire them? Clearly there was a reason for firing them that isn't national origin. You're reading the EEOC's take on it but not the defendants.

-6
SapCPark•

The defendants lack a case becasue all of the reviews of said employees were satisfactory. The job was getting done.

7
bigtoine•

Preventing companies from firing satisfactory employees for discriminatory reasons harms our economy? How does that work exactly?

3
prizepig•

If English fluency was important for these positions why on earth did the company hire non-English speakers in the first place? It's not exactly something you can lie about on your application.

These employees were hired with full knowledge by all parties of what language they spoke, were employed by the company for at least a year, and received satisfactory ratings on performance evals. They were fired based upon an extremely superficial judgment unrelated to their job performance, and given no opportunity to improve.

I don't know if it qualifies as discrimination under the Civil Rights Act, but it's terrible business practice and shady as hell.

4
zoidberg1339•

Wait, you can't fire people for being unable to speak the language of the workplace now?

Jesus Christ, what's next?

2†
bigtoine•

No, you can't fire people for not having a skill that is not necessary to complete their job.

3
SapCPark•

You can't fire them if their job performance is satisfactory or better due to languages. Civil Rights Act

1
F-Stop•

How were they hired by that very company in the first place?

1
zoidberg1339•

Tax breaks, I'm guessing.

1
F-Stop•

Hire 'em for the tax breaks (knowing that English) isn't essential. If it was, they never would have hired them in the first place. Then fire 'em cause suddenly it is essential?

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

-1
potato1•

I work in a multilingual factory every day. Most of the line workers aren't fluent in English. That's not a problem though, because they aren't trained by the factory manager (that would be impossible with any more than 20 or so factory workers), they're trained by their line leads, who are trained by their supervisors, who are fluent in English.

Do you think the factory manager of a facility with hundreds or thousands of employees actually talks to every single employee individually about their jobs? Heck no.

2
FetidFeet•

I have dealt with these types of situations as a manufacturing manager. What happens is this- you hire a bunch of people that are OK for the production volumes you need. Then you lose some sales and you need to lay off 20-25 people. All of those people may have been performing adequately. But at the end of the day, you need to pick 20 people.

From a running a business standpoint, it probably makes sense to lay off the 20 people who can't speak English well, even if they were doing fine on the line. There's obviously some cost associated with running a bilingual shop, even if it's hidden. The law says you can't do this, even if its the correct business decision. So you don't do it.

I don't know if this is the way we want our country to work, but it's pretty clear this was a violation.

1
F-Stop•

So wait? The company that hired them knew they didn't speak English presumably? Filling out applications, interviews... What am I missing?

1