Requiring Employees to Speak English on the Job Is Not Discriminatory

Apparently, Nancy Pelosi and the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) don't agree. Story from Opinion Journal.

It's been less than a week since New York's Sen. Hillary Clinton and Gov. Eliot Spitzer had to climb down from their support of driver's licenses for illegal aliens. Now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has moved to kill an amendment that would protect employers from federal lawsuits for requiring their workers to speak English. Among the employers targeted by such lawsuits: the Salvation Army.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, a moderate Republican from Tennessee, is dumbstruck that legislation he views as simple common sense would be blocked. He noted that the full Senate passed his amendment to shield the Salvation Army by 75-19 last month, and the House followed suit with a 218-186 vote just this month. "I cannot imagine that the framers of the 1964 Civil Rights Act intended to say that it's discrimination for a shoe shop owner to say to his or her employee, 'I want you to be able to speak America's common language on the job,' " he told the Senate last Thursday.

But that's exactly what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is trying to do. In March the EEOC sued the Salvation Army because its thrift store in Framingham, Mass., required its employees to speak English on the job. The requirement was clearly posted and employees were given a year to learn the language. The EEOC claimed the store had fired two Hispanic employees for continuing to speak Spanish on the job. It said that the firings violated the law because the English-only policy was not "relevant" to job performance or safety.

Employers should be allowed to have speaking English on the job as a condition for employment. The language spoken by employees of a business is obviously a key factor in their job performance. If the employees cannot be understood by the customers, their employment is not economically viable for the employer. Additionally, it goes both ways. If a business wanted to cater to customers that spoke languages other than English, they should be allowed to try to employ people who can speak those other languages. It's not discrimination, it's just a practice that allows businesses to further enhance their economic viability.

However, some Democrats see this as an opportunity to demagogue.

"If it is not relevant, it is discriminatory, it is gratuitous, it is a subterfuge to discriminate against people based on national origin," says Rep. Charles Gonzalez of Texas, one of several Hispanic Democrats in the House who threatened to block Ms. Pelosi's attempts to curtail the Alternative Minimum Tax unless she killed the Alexander amendment.

[...]

Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois [also said] that English-only efforts were symbolic of "bigotry and prejudice" against those who speak other languages.

First of all, as I said in the paragraph above, this clearly is relevant to a business. Secondly, let's think a little bit harder about whether this is discriminatory or not. Would it be discriminatory for a business in France to require its employees to speak French? Of course not. Then why should it be discriminatory for an American business to require its employees to speak English? Finally, it does not discriminate against people based on national origin. Because, Spanish is not a language spoken in only one nation. Therefore, it does not single out people because of what country they come from.

The statements of Representative Gutierrez should be no surprise to anyone who has heard of him. Over the last few years, he has repeatedly claimed that efforts at cracking down on illegal immigration are simply a reaction from the racist, nativist fringe. He doesn't have the facts at his side, so therefore he smears his opponents as racist or xenophobic. It's quite typical of those who push for legalization or amnesty.

When did this country reach a point where speak English suddenly became a politically incorrect issue? Having one language that unifies the nation allows the United States to have immigration without the sectarian seclusion we see in Europe. However, it's much simpler to play up sectarian divides in an attempt to win votes. That seems to be what the Democrats want to do these days.

(Hat tip: Say Anything)