The article lays out the constantly occurring situation where companies have an increase in foreign-born employees due to the consistent rise of globalization and immigration. Foreign employees while beneficial to the company for their work, bring their native languages to a english dominant environment. The foreign employees naturally resort to their native tongue with people of the same origin and the english speaking employees feel like they are being isolated or gossiped about. This situation has put management in tough spot and to create a quick fix some are developing english only regulations that have different severities. There are some that say only english shall be spoken on premises while others only require english in front of customers. Due to recent rulings in the court most of these regulations or policies will become illegal as the violate Title VII of Civil Rights Act, except in the rarest of circumstances. This source is very reliable as it was part of a New York management journal and provides a good introduction to the concept of the english only decisions. It is very useful because I did not realize that there was such a movement in many business to ban foreign languages on their premises. This creates an interesting conversation because it can affect customer relations and communication amongst employee but language is a fundamental civil right.
2.) Mujtaba, B. G., Cavico, F. J., & Muffler, S. C. (2012). Language diversity in america: Challenges and opportunities for management. S.A.M.Advanced Management Journal, 77(2), 38-47,2. Retrieved fromhttps://search.proquest.com/docview/1027234879?accountid=28644
This next article is similar to the first one where it outlines the ever growing battle between management and employees about if languages other than english should be allowed in the workplace. This article gives facts of the importance of good communication in the workplace for the success of the business. They list a stat where about 70% of professional success is determined by speaking effectively amongst all employees. The article also brings out the situation where a variety of languages constantly being spoken naturally divides up employees, creates avoidable conflict, distrust among other things that can undermine the company. On the flip side though is that language is one of the main contributors to identity and culture for anyone especially immigrants. Thus the battle that the every company is undergoing with globalization and immigration at all time highs. The EEOC however has published very specific guidelines to outline when an English-only policy would be accepted. The article comes to the conclusion that employers and business should track the EEOC guidelines carefully so that all parties know their rights. The interesting thing though is that the “English-only rule can only be at certain times where the employer can show that the rule is justified by a business necessity.” These leads to the idea that many businesses might try to frame their policy to somehow stand up under that specific EEOC guideline. This article was informative and important because it provided a different side of the argument as the article talked about the importance of sound communication for good business and the potential problems with array of languages present. This article is important for research because it slightly prioritizes the commerce side of business over employee identity as long as all policies are in line with EEOC guidelines.
The next article while a little dated is important because it shows the where precedent for protecting minority rights, especially language, in the court of law was based on. The article outlines where the citizens in Alabama ratified a referendum where only english would be allowed, declaring it the official language of the state. This was then extended even further one-year later when Department of Transportation for Alabama adopted a ruling where it became mandatory for every part, especially the written section, be administered in english only. This eventually brought a class action lawsuit claiming the new policy was “unjustifiably excluded non-english speakers from receiving a drivers license, and discriminating based on national origin.” The state of Alabama previous to the change administered their drivers test in 14 different languages. The court struck down and reversed over three decades of precedent, saying the policy violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This created a new precedent where the protection of minority rights and identity were taken seriously, not just talked about. This article is dated which is a downfall but it is important to the paper because it shows a important point in the direction of minority rights protection.
4.) Fink, R. L., Robinson, R. K., & Wyld, D. C. (1996). English-only work rules: Balancing fair employment considerations in a multicultural and multilingual healthcare workforce. Hospital & Health Services Administration, 41(4), 473-483. Retrieved fromhttps://search.proquest.com/docview/206682216?accountid=28644
This article is very important and compliments the other sources I have because it brings up the difficulty of balancing english only rules in a work place but the workplace brought to light is the health care industry. There is a trend being well documented in the health care industry which is that the doctors, nurses, and managers of many healthcare forces are not representative of the American people anymore. This is a roundabout way of saying that healthcare staff are becoming more and more diverse, with english not being their first language. In any job trust is important but in a healthcare environment it is paramount and this can be frayed with he abundance of languages spoken. It is natural for people unable to comprehend the language being spoken by peers that it is gossip about them, which creates dissent and distrust. This article recognizes that in the healthcare environment it is necessary to enforce english only rules due to the importance and literal life and death circumstances of communication needed. The important thing that needs to be remembered is that a harassment free work environment is still achieved. The problem facing health care managers is the balancing act of enforcing needed the policy while still protecting the employees rights and making them feel like they have maintained their identity. I really liked this article because it brings up a very important example where yes, there is an english only work rule in effect but it is not with discriminatory intent. The true “intent” of these companies instituting such policies needs to be determined but, easier said than done.
This is a great complimentary article to go along with the others I have already obtained because it poses a theoretical, realistic situation. The article is from the Management Communication Quarterly and instead of talking about the english only issues they give tips for potential managers. They outline a situation in the article where the manager is facing two potential lawsuits about the introduction of the english only policy at his company. He faces a one from 15 bilingual employees claiming the policy is discriminatory but on the flip-side he faces another lawsuit from nine other employees if he does reveres the policy. The article then goes on to outline what specific steps should be taken to come out of this lose-lose situation as best as possible for the company. The dwelling points of the steps were to first take sure they are in compliance of the EEOC guidelines, so then you have a strong rationale to stand on. The next major step is to deal with each employee individually and understand their point of view in regards to their feelings about the policy. This article is very helpful because unlike all the previous articles it gives potential problem solving steps to deal with english policy adoption. The other articles all say things along the line that business will need to achieve this balance and prepare but never give any tips at how.
6.) Horsley, S. (2005) Fast-Food Restaurants Tackle Employees’ English Skills. NPR. Retrieved fromhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5072070
This article is perhaps my favorite article of all the ones I obtained because it really shows a company trying to combat and spearhead this potential issue in a very positive way. The fast food chain Jack in the Box in general throughout all their restaurant locations have a lot of Spanish-Speaking employees. This has created issues for Jack in the Box but many companies in the same bout where they have high employee turnover and high customer complaints. Jack in the box combated this problem by buying close to a million dollars worth of Sed de Saber kits which help their employees develop their english skills through a variety of skills and tests. The idea was met with great enthusiasm from the employees as they felt that the company was showing them how much they cared and wanted them to succeed. Chili’s, as well as Hilton, and Hyatt are going Jack in the Box becoming “language labs” for their employees who want it. This idea is phenomenal and to me reaches that balance that all these articles talked about previously. There is no english-only policy in place but the employees realize the importance of being competent in english skills and have taken in upon themselves to learn, while still keeping their Spanish roots. This article was from NPR which is avery credible source and is again a complimentary source with the other articles as it brings a real life example to table.
The final article I chose is from the New York Times because one, it comes from a very credible, journalistic source and secondly, it paints a picture that is far less pretty than some of the articles I have chosen. The article starts out by explaining that the EOCC recently used its authority to sue the Salvation Army because it required its employees in Massachusetts offices to only speak english on the job which resulted in to Spanish speaking women to lose their jobs. The suit soon became in the national spotlight sparking a debate over immigration. This debate then prompted a Republican in Tennessee to try and create a legislation that prevents the EOCC from suing over English-only rules. He is quoted as saying, “requiring English in the workplace is not discrimination; it’s common sense.” The conclusion of the article includes stories from female workers where they felt pressure not to speak any Spanish because it was a “corporate black mark.” This article shows that some companies are struggling to not only to balance business decisions with employee rights but creating inclusive environment for language. 8.) Dias, L. (2011). Human resource management. Saylor.org/books. ISBN 13: 978-1-4533194-3-7. Downloaded Jan. 9, 2014
The last source is the textbook from class which is good but gives pretty general information. I focused on Chapter three which was diversity and multiculturalism because it hit on a lot of points in my other sources. The chapter talked about the different privileges that happen in the workplace like race privilege which is where a lot of the language issues arise from. The next part of the chapter that really provides an important point is the explanation of the EOCC. This federal agency gets brought up a lot in the other sources I research, and the text book gives very good in depth info about it.