English Only in the Workplace

Yesterday I railed against an English-only bill introduced into the Virginia State Senate by Ken Cuccinelli (R, Fairfax).  My critique yesterday was based on a report in the Washington Post.  And though I largely stand by what I wrote yesterday, after finding the full text of the law - Senate Bill No. 339 - I'd like to offer a few clarifying thoughts.

The Post article led with a provocative - and perhaps misleading - statement:

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 unemployme nt benefits.

I'm no lawyer, but this doesn't seem to match up with the text of the bill, a proposed two-sentence insertion into the current code for Disqualification of Benefits (existing text of current code in normal type, proposed text in italics):

An individual shall be disqualified for benefits upon separation from the last employing unit for whom he has worked 30 days or 240 hours or from any subsequent employing unit:
. . .

2. a. For any week benefits are claimed until he has performed services for an employer (i) during 30 days, whether or not such days are consecutive, or (ii) for 240 hours, and subsequently becomes totally or partially separated from such employment, if the Commission finds such individual is unemployed because he has been discharged for misconduct connected with his work.

b. For the purpose of this subdivision, "misconduct" includes, but shall not be limited to:

. . . .

(5) An employee's inability or refusal to speak English at the workplace, in violation of a known policy of the employer that requires employees to speak only English at the workplace. The Commission may consider evidence of mitigating circumstances in determining whether misconduct occurred.

The Cuccinelli bill states that an employer could fire an employee who cannot or who refuses to speak English in the workplace "in violation of a known policy of the employer that requires employees to speak only English at the workplace."  The Post article did not cite this "workplace policy" caveat, which to me is significant.  After reading yesterday's article I had the impression that Cuccinelli's bill would allow employers to fire non-English speakers irrespective of whether English is necessary for their job or a stated company policy.  The Post made the bill sound worse than it is.

But the bill is still lousy.

As I wrote yesterday, this bill

• is largely unnecessary, for under current law employers can already fire workers who cannot speak English if their job requires them to do so (ie, a job performance issue);
• contributes to a dangerous and racist anti-immigrant atmosphere here in Virginia;
• denies unemployment benefits to working class residents under questionable circumstances, stalling the upward mobility of immigrant working class residents;
• provides a tax break for companies who engage in sloppy hiring practices.  If an employer has a stated English-only policy, why are they hiring non-English speakers in the first place?
• Not included in yesterday's post, but in the Washington Post article, is a legitimate concern that this law could make it illegal for employees to speak in another language at any time, even on breaks.  This is a problem.

Read yesterday's blogpost to see details on the above points, and please contact your elected representatives in Richmond and urge them to vote against this bill.

Comments

[LawAndGospel]

Reading this post and the earlier post about being in Peru, methinks your work is here and when you wonder if you can make a difference here- Si se puede. ( Apologies for not being able to figure out how to appropriately place the accent and exclamation marks which would be here).