Language in the Workplace: Domination of English Carson L. Wlad Siena Heights University
Language in the Workplace: Domination of English The world is evolving in many ways thanks to the increase of technology, the development of transportation, and the continued encouragement of immigration or cultural diversity throughout the world. These developments have affected businesses of all kinds in the way they operate, the way they staff, and how they strategize long term plans. In saying that, if there is one way these factors are effecting businesses the most it has to be workplace environments as a diversity of languages are more prevalent than ever. This has caused a lot of conversations and questions being asked about what is the proper thing to do when it comes to languages in the workplace. Is it okay to “ban” or prohibit foreign employees from speaking their native tongue at work? Is there ever an instance where this is okay, or is that violation of rights? What are the rules and regulations in place for matters like this? These are just a few of the bevy of questions that both employees and employers are asking alike. When it comes down to it, like any emotional topic there is never an easy black and white conclusion.
When it comes to this discussion it is becoming more and more prevalent as more and more people come to the U.S that are foreign born individuals. This is reflected by the “2010 census. The Census Bureau reported that the population of the United States was 307,007,000, of which 12.5% was foreign born… with California at 26.8, New York at 21.7, New Jersey at 19.8, Nevada at 18.9, and Florida at 18.5%.” (Mujtaba 2012) These stats while helpful don’t exactly show how many of these foreign born individuals speak their native tongue at home. In a study done by the EEOC they reported that “2002 approximately 45 million Americans, representing 17.5% of the population, spoke a language other than English in the home.” (Mujtaba 2012) These are just a few stats about how the landscape is changing drastically when it comes to language in the workplace. The next thing to look at is well the history or importance of when language rights become a notoriety of importance. The answer to that is in 1999 when a circuit court for the state of Alabama set a new precedence in the case of Sandoval v. Hagan. The court came to the decision that Alabama’s English only driver’s license exam “violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision represents a tangible step forward in the protection of language minority groups.” (Garza 2000) This was the first step to taking language rights seriously as the court set a new precedent skewing away from the previous precedence that was founded on nearly 30 years.
When we now fast forward to current situation, I am not really sure that much has changed. We can all understand the importance of rights to workers but companies still are trying to implement English only rules as a way to make communication easier, and appease both employee and customer complaints. There was incident in 2007 where the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued a salvation Army due to requirement in their Framingham, MA offices for employees to only speak English on the job, which ended up costing two Spanish speaking employees their jobs. When asked to comment on the situation Lamar Alexander, Republican Senator from Tennessee, said “In America, requiring English in the workplace is not discrimination; it’s common sense.” (Holland 2008) Is it though? When on lunch and employees are speaking a language they are comfortable with, as long as it isn’t affecting customers or safety, then “It is also hard to see….is more off-putting than endless tapping on a BlackBerry.” (Holland 2008) There are even shared feelings among employees that are at companies without English only bans in place. In a study produced by the work-life policy they found that women “don’t speak Spanish on the phone to customers because it is such a black mark in their corporate culture…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.” (Holland 2008) There was even a Dominican marketing executive of a company that refrained from using Spanish even with Spanish speaking customers, which is a major advantage, because the company frowned upon it. These business environments described above don’t exactly resemble equality or a working environment that would help foreign employees thrive.
Well is there any protection for foreign employees so that they don’t feel undeterred from keeping to their culture in appropriate settings? The answer is yes in the form of the EOCC as they have made it vital to protect employee’s language rights as seen with the lawsuit against the salvation Army. They have basically crafted when and when it is not appropriate to have English only rules in the workplace. This is how the EOCC reacts to English only bans, "The primary language of an individual is often an essential national origin characteristic. Prohibiting employees, at all times in the workplace, from speaking their primary language, or the language they speak most comfortably, disadvantages an individual's employment opportunities on the basis of national origin. It may also create an atmosphere of inferiority, isolation and intimidation based on national origin, which could result in a discriminatory working environment. Therefore, the commission will presume that such a rule violates Title VII and will closely scrutinize it." (D’O’brian 1991) They do have one condition where they understand the importance of English and only English being needed to perform the job. They have a stated condition that reads, “if a single language is needed to effectively carry out the work process and the use of a different language will affect the outcome or safety of the workplace, an English-only policy is appropriate.” (Pakiela 2002) The most logical examples air traffic control communicating with pilots, and surgeons or doctors communicating in situations with patients. This gives some clarity to the situation but still leaves room for companies to try and exploit when language will affect safety, thus english must be priority.
I have brought up more than enough negativity when it comes to attempting to make many work places english speaking only. The company Jack in the Box has employed a new very unique technique that is a compromise between learning english and still having their foreign tongue. Jack in the Box naturally has a very high amount of Spanish speaking employees, and in a retail business where you take people’s orders English is vital. Jack in the box purchased “battery-operated LeapPad tablet with interactive textbooks designed specifically for Spanish-speaking hospitality workers” to enhance their english skills. (NPR 2005) The massive positive reception by employees has prompted them to purchase “more than 4,000 of the kits, at least two for each of its restaurants. The training's voluntary. Vice president Mark Blankenship says employees have responded enthusiastically.” (NPR 2005) This has been such a success because of how management at Jack in the Box handled the situation. They stressed that this was not an attempt to assimilate them or decay their culture, but to help them become more efficient at their jobs. They are entitled to speak Spanish on their breaks and in the back where customers are not being dealt with. They made the employees feel respected and the idea of helping them at their job gave them a sense of gratification, not isolation or inferiority.
When it comes to my conclusion I mean I really do not have one as this is a very touchy and delicate situation. In saying that though Jack in the Box has shown that there is a possibility of creating a balance that helps the company while still respecting the rights of the employees. The EOCC has also done a diligent job of protecting individuals that are having their rights infringed upon but they can only do so much. There are ways around their decisions of what constitutes when safety is required for only english to be allowed but at least it’s a start. If there is anything I have learned is that there is a problem where we do not respect foreign languages in the working environment and instantly associate them with gossip or non-work related dialogue. The only way this can change to me is when the managers and high level individuals of companies take it upon themselves to value diversity and set a clear, fair standard that creates balance. This is clearly much easier said than done but it all starts with approach and communication you have with your employees as seen in Jack in the Box. This discussion is not going away anytime soon, so more business leaders have to develop a plan to prepare and meet both the rights of employees and betterment of the company.
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 from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1027234879?accountid=28644