Abstract

Latinos have the highest labor force participation of all male worker groups. However, Latinos are over represented in high risk, low-skill/low wage work. This overrepresentation is due to low educational attainment or limited English language proficiency as well as other factors, and these limitations negatively affect their chances of moving into high wage jobs. Moreover, some of the workplaces that offer high risk, low skill/low wage jobs to Latinos establish English only rules that prohibit the speaking of any language other than English on the job. Such rules can cause hardship and sometimes injury to employees who do not speak English fluently and do not fully understand written and spoken safety instructions. This is not to say that limited language ability and limited education make Latinos less valuable employees. Rather companies who hire workers with limited skills should provide training especially workplace English as a Second Language classes. These classes can provide the vocabulary and language skills necessary to increase the comprehension of written and spoken instructions. In addition, the authors do not argue against the establishing of English only rules. On the contrary, the authors believe that businesses wishing to establish such rules seek competent legal assistance to ensure their English only rule fulfills the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s criteria that a legitimate business necessity exists that required the creation of the language rule. Furthermore, businesses establishing an English only rule should make every effort to explain to employees why creating this rule is in the businesses’ best interest.

Background

Describing American culture is difficult. Most people trace their ancestry to countries all around the world. Many of our forefathers spoke languages other than English and they possessed distinct ethnic and cultural backgrounds and traits which are still recognizable. As our society has matured our democratic values and ideals bind us together as a society despite our many differences.

Some ethnic and cultural backgrounds seem to be valued more than those of certain other groups. It is our contention that less favored groups are expected to assimilate or adopt the values and characteristics of the more favored group (Huntington, March/April, 2004). Such an expectation is untenable. Indeed language, culture and ethnicity go to the heart of our being, or to put it another way, who we really are. Such a dilemma has become an increasingly troubling problem for Latinos, our Nation's largest ethnic group (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003).

Latinos are a community that is less favored by our society. The common thread is that they bear traits which are considered to be less Anglo, and are thus less favored and less valued than those who possess traits considered to be more Anglo (Huntington, 2004 March/April). For Latinos this is a perplexing problem. Some, proud of their ethnic heritage, speak Spanish and possess a culture deemed by many to be a threat to traditional Anglo values (Glenn, 2004). This has resulted in prejudice and discrimination against them (Huntington, March/April 2004) even though they are hard working and extremely passionate about democratic values and ideals. Nonetheless, they still face efforts to minimize the impact of their culture, and either to eliminate or minimize their use of Spanish.

These efforts to eliminate the impact of Latino culture and the use of Spanish are often based on a failure to comprehend what it means to be Latino. Resentment by the dominant group for outward displays of cultural heritage; and hostility toward them for their use of Spanish as a first language rather than English are indignities often endured by Latinos.

Bias, hostility and resentment often result in discrimination against Latinos, affecting their employment opportunities and participation in the workforce. Resulting consequences of this discrimination often means not only a loss of opportunity, but sometimes even a loss of life at the workplace. This paper will explore certain workplace safety issues involving Latinos as it relates to their language and culture, and consequences associated with the failure to acknowledge differences.

Defining the Problem

Recent Census Bureau data (2003) show that Latinos have replaced African-Americans as the largest ethnic group in the Unites States. Latinos in America are now the fifth largest Latino group in the world, and by 2025 (if not sooner), they will be the second largest Latino group in the world, only behind Mexico (Porter, 2001). Some see Latinos as nothing more than a transient group with little dedication to this country and its values, made up mostly of (undocumented) immigrants, who refuse to learn English, and who take jobs away from “real” Americans (Glenn, 2004). Tragically, this kind of attitude is endured by families of people like Jesus Suarez del Solar, Edward John Anguiano, Armando Ariel Gonzalez, or Gil Mercado (Hargrove, 2003). Each one of them was a Latino, and each gave their lives during 2003 in Iraq, as soldiers, fighting for our nation’s Democratic ideals. They are certainly “real” Americans having made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of all Americans, not just those who are more favored than others.

Admittedly, one factor that contributes at least in part to the negative attitudes and unfair bias against Latinos (in addition to their use of the Spanish language) is the fact that Latinos are not homogeneous, unlike many other ethnic groups (Morton, 2002; 2002 National Survey of Latinos). For example, Nicaraguans have a culture that is distinct from that of Puerto Ricans or Cubans or Mexicans. Each of these groups has distinct attributes that distinguish them from the other. Yet their common language and oftentimes their appearance, serve to mask interesting and natural cultural differences manifested in each group. The U.S. Census Bureau does not adequately account for these differences, and groups all such persons together under the category of “Hispanic,” long the term of choice for government and the media, but possessed of a certain vagueness that can offend (Hamilton, 2001). Glenn Flores, M.D. and his colleagues in their article, The Health of Latino Children uses the preferred term “Latino” “to denote all U.S. persons whose origins can be traced to the Spanish-speaking regions of Latin America, including the Caribbean, Mexico, Central America, and South America” (Flores, et. al., 2002). We adopt this definition for our use of “Latino” throughout this article.

Historical Background

Most people in the United States can trace their ancestry to a foreign land. As our nation developed, it came to be dominated primarily by the English, whose language, culture, values and system of governance came to prevail as our nation grew. However, preferring a genuine republic, our founding fathers developed a representative system of governance, about which James Madison wrote, “It is essential to such a government, that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it…” (Madison in Ravoke, 1999, p. 212).

From the beginning, our society had no favored or preferred class. Thus values, culture and language brought to our nation by Latinos are important to the future development of the nation. That many speak Spanish does nothing to dilute Anglo values or culture. Such an argument tends to mask other motives.

Latinos have resided in what is our nation’s southwest since before colonial times. Their cultural influence can be seen in the architecture, names of cities and other mediums. It is an anti-Latino and anti-Spanish language bias, along with prejudice and discrimination that has contributed to a crisis in education, employment safety, workforce training and development and other areas. It is not an answer to say that such matters will be resolved if Latinos would just assimilate and adopt traditional American values and language. Unlike many groups, Latinos retain deep ancestral ties and have resisted giving up their language, culture and roots (Ramos, 2000/2002). Language should certainly not be an issue.

Chen (1998) lamented that the interplay of language differences with social and political cleavages often result in hostility, conflict and violence (p.46). He points out that language is an expression and consequence of the varieties of cultures that unfortunately result in barriers to communication, understanding, and cooperation among peoples (p.46). This diversity in languages and culture has many positive effects such as the differences we see in architecture, music, restaurants and the like. However, there are also negative effects––just as language can include, it can also exclude.

The Crisis

Latinos have the highest labor force participation rate of all male worker groups. The proportion of Latinas who are working or looking for work has steadily increased (Siles & Peréz, 2000, p. 2). Low educational attainment, language proficiency, lack of work experience, training and other employability skills, forces Latinos into low-skill/low-wage, high risk jobs. Being relegated to these types of jobs (especially in the service and agricultural industries) increases the risk of injury or death (“Deadly Trend”, 2002).

In general, Latinos have low educational attainment, meaning they lag behind non-Hispanic groups in high school and college degree completion (National Survey of Latinos: Education, 2004). Large education gaps exist for Latinos that begin at pre-school age, and this perpetuates low educational attainment and reduced employment opportunity. As a result, Latinos are overrepresented in high risk, low-skill/low-wage work. Although many Latinos enter the workforce at an early age, working in low-skill jobs diminishes the opportunity to gain the kind of general work experience that brings about opportunities for better paying low risk positions.

Language proficiency has a powerful impact on the type of work one has access to, as well as economic mobility. English language skills are necessary for almost all jobs in the U.S. Data analyzed by Siles & Pérez (2000) indicates that “a notable proportion of Latinos who speak Spanish do not have a level of English language ability that permits them to enter high-paying jobs in the current labor force” (p.6). In addition, they state that “…lack of English language skills can affect employment paths or job opportunities early in a worker’s career” (p. 8) and “…chances to move into high-wage jobs and industries projected to experience growth, are small if their English language skills are not at the level expected by the marketplace” (p.8).

This is not to say that Latinos who do not have the language proficiency skills are not valuable employees. However, it is not enough that U.S. companies provide training for their employees. They must have a thorough understanding of the needs of their employees have. If the employees have trouble speaking and understanding English, then the company, as a corporate citizen, should provide training in his native tongue, especially when the work is considered to be high risk or hazardous. Therefore, any training provided must account for language and cultural differences. Brian Christopher of the Alice Hamilton Occupational Health Project says such training must be:

  • in a language that is familiar to the workers;
  • delivered in a learner-centered environment;
  • culturally sensitive; and
  • accompanied by a true commitment to safety (“Fatalities among Hispanics”, 2001, p. 1227).

With potential worker shortages being a concern for most U.S. businesses and as companies increasingly view their human capital as their greatest asset, they must concentrate more on employee development. Such development must include the nation’s largest ethnic minority group, as in the future, it will potentially form the largest segment of the workforce.

In our society there is a powerful tradition upholding the merits and desirability of “one country, one language,” a tradition so much in the foreground that the rival tradition (bilingual) has been well nigh forgotten…(Kloss, 1988, p. 367). As far back as 1988, Kloss pointed out that in this country one language philosophy has opened for debate issues of national identity, its parameters and constituent elements, along with questions of bilingualism and multilingualism (p. 371). Along with these questions, is the specific issue involving mastery of the English language. The meaning of mastery involves being able to hold a conversation, at least at a basic level in different social settings (i.e., the workplace business establishments and so on). In addition, mastery means speaking the language with little or no accent. Kloss (1988) noted that “a marked foreign accent may become a hallmark of social inferiority” (p. 367) and that societal attitudes are sometimes displayed as derision for those who do no master English perfectly. Such persons will find it difficult to climb the economic ladder (Kloss, 1988). Kloss also pointed out that “sticking to a foreign tongue meant being backward or un-American” (p. 370).

In the workplace, these attitudes, coupled with the fact that Latinos often have not mastered English lead to discrimination and prejudice against them. In its worst manifestation such prejudice leads to an attitude that Latinos are either disposable or easily replaced, especially immigrants hired at low wages to do the most undesirable and dangerous jobs. Many must perform with no training in safety and health, hampered by language and cultural barriers which make it difficult to learn and understand laws or rules which provide them with some measure of protection (“Hispanic workers face,” 2001).

Latinos are dying and being injured on the job at an appalling rate. From 1992 through 2001 more than 6,800 Latino workers died on the job, and most had poor English skills; and in some cases they were even illiterate in their own language (Hopkins, 2003). While the rate for all other workers fell 15.4% during this period, for Latinos the workplace fatality rate increased by 15.1%. At 5.2 deaths per 100,000 workers, the fatality rate for Latinos is 20% higher than for White workers (4.4 deaths per 100,000) and Black workers (4.1 deaths per 100,000) (“Fatalities among Hispanics”, 2001, p. 1227). Deaths among Latino construction workers increased from 1996 to 1999 by 68% rising from 133 to 223 (“Hispanic workers face,” 2001). Even so employment in the construction industry continues to rise (Jordan, 2004).

One of the more obvious reasons for these dismal figures is that Latino workers tend to be disproportionately represented in hazardous work environments. In addition, for a variety of reasons Latinos tend “to do anything they can to stay away from having any confrontation to jeopardize their work status” (“Fatalities among Hispanics”, 2001, p. 1227). As a result, hazardous conditions go unreported or warnings given by Latinos simply go unheeded. However, the biggest contributing factor to the rising Latino fatality rate is language. This rate can be reduced through increased training tailored to meet the needs of this population and delivered in a manner that is culturally sensitive. This will require an acceptance of Spanish as an effective means of communication.

The reality is that people whose first language is Spanish (and those who prefer to express their Latino heritage by speaking Spanish) are a significant and growing segment of our society. English is most certainly the primary language spoken in the workplace and is the dominant language spoken in our society. The fact that society values English more than Spanish is not a justification to those who often find hostile and discriminatory attitudes, and working conditions which inhibit their growth and advancement, and which raise numerous workplace safety issues. Even if we accept the efficacy of the arguments by some regarding the need for Latinos to better assimilate, the fact remains that language is still a barrier to the improvement of working conditions for Latinos.

One writer has stated that “the most significant source of increased language conflict in the workplace is the substantial growth in the national labor force of ethnic groups whose ‘primary language’ is not English” (Colόn, 2002). With recent Census Bureau data supporting the fact that the Latino population is rapidly expanding, there is more than sufficient merit to the idea that our country will see “continued tension over restrictions on language use in the workplace as the country becomes increasingly ethnically and linguistically diverse” (Colόn, 2002). The solution is based on the idea that society must actively assist Latinos who have poor language skills to insure that they are safe and secure in the workplace.

Legal Status for English-Only Rules

The law certainly recognizes that, absent intentional discrimination, an employer may adopt English-only rules so long as they are job related for the particular position in question, consistent with business necessity, and there does not exist an alternative employment practice with a less discriminatory impact on persons such as Latinos who speak Spanish (Title VII, 1964). If an English-only rule fails to meet these criteria, then it amounts to national origin or race discrimination prohibited by Title VII. In its Compliance Manual on National Origin Discrimination the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) views an English-only rule as job-related where a lack of proficiency in English interferes with the ability to perform job duties; in such case, the rule must prohibit all foreign languages spoken in the workplace (EEOC, 2002). “An English-only rule is justified by ‘business necessity’ if it is needed for an employer to operate safely or efficiently” (EEOC, 2002, Section C, No. 1). Employers deciding whether to adopt an English-only rule must weigh business justifications for the rule against possible discriminatory effects of the rule (EEOC, 2002). Finally, an employer should consider whether there are any alternatives to an English-only rule that would be equally effective in promoting safety or efficiency (EEOC, 2002). Thus, a rule, which meets these criteria, even if it produces a disparate impact on Latinos, is valid and allows employers to reach their full economic potential without being saddled with requirements, which might prove to be unduly burdensome.

With the law providing justification for legitimate English-only rules in the workplace, there is little if any moral justification for policies advocated by English-only or pro-English groups, which would deny Latinos the right to speak Spanish. There can be no justification when the health and safety of so many Latinos are at stake. Far too often, such persons possess few English skills, are desperate for work to support families here and abroad, and are susceptible to exploitation by employers, often because they live in constant fear of deportation (“Hispanic workers face,” 2001). The effect of language barriers sought by English-only advocates would be the loss of more lives and more injuries for they would do nothing to improve working conditions for Latinos, and they are ultimately nothing more than pre-textural reasons with a discriminatory effect. Someone who tells you they don’t like the way you speak is quite likely telling you that they don’t like you (Matsuda, 1991).

The U.S. Supreme Court in Hernandez v. New York (1991), a case involving race-based peremptory challenges in a trial that took place in a community with a substantial Latino population, observed that a significant percentage of the Latino population spoke fluent Spanish as their preferred language, and that it was “the one selected for speaking with the most precision and power, the one used to define the self” (Hernandez v. New York, 1991). The court also made the following observations:

Language permits an individual to express both a personal identity and membership in a community, and those who share a common language may interact in ways more intimate than those without this bond. Bilinguals, in a sense inhabit two communities, and serve to bring them closer…Mere knowledge of foreign language cannot reasonably be regarded as harmful. Heretofore it has been commonly looked upon as helpful and desirable…(Hernandez v. New York, 1991).

Discussion

After reading this article, some readers may assume that the authors are arguing that no workplace in the U.S. should create an English-only rule. This cannot be further from the truth. Businesses that have legitimate business or safety concerns that require all employees to know English at a minimum level should create such a rule. There is nothing in the law that says businesses cannot or should not establish such a policy. Courts have upheld English-only policies that clearly showed that the policy was not created to place undue pressure on limited English speaking employees, nor as a pretext to discriminate against a certain group or certain groups of employees. If a business believes that it is in its best interest then that business should seek competent legal advice. Furthermore, these businesses should make it clear to its employees that the policy is not being instituted against them, but show how and why this policy is in the business’s best interest.

Many businesses hire immigrant workers whose knowledge of English is limited. These workers are hired because they fill a need and are willing to work for low wages. However, one must wonder why a business that actively hires non-English and limited English speaking employees would establish an English-only policy. Enforcing such a policy would be difficult if not impossible and unfair to those who do not yet have the command of the language.

If a business is going to establish such a policy and has hired non-English and limited English speaking employees, that business could provide English as a Second Language (ESL) classes. Onsite ESL classes may be more desirable than sending employees to classes provided outside the workplace. In the workplace, work skills can be added to the class; thereby adding to the possibility that performance may improve. To do this, the ESL class should have workplace skills be a measurable outcome of the class. To ensure that workplace skills are a measurable outcome management should be involved in the planning of the class and clearly state the objectives or outcomes of the class.

Although providing ESL classes will help workers use the language, employers must remember that it takes time to learn a language and to be able to use it with any facility. Workers should be encouraged to speak while at work. That means English- speaking co-workers need to be sensitive to accents and poorly constructed sentences until the language learner becomes fluent. Businesses should also remember that it is a natural human response for someone to speak in their native language when he or she meets someone who speaks their native language. However, sometimes bilinguals when speaking their native language with a co-work will speak in English when discussing workplace issues. Businesses should recognize that this shows facility not inability in English.

Conclusion

Latinos whether native or immigrant, contribute to the welfare of this country. All Americans share in the fruits of their labor. According to Porter (2003) in an article in which he cites a study by Catanzarite, a sociologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, says that “there are more than 10 million Hispanic immigrants working in the U.S. About an additional 400,000, most of them poor and unskilled, arrive each year, sucked in by the labor market hungry for their services” (p. A2). Although many work in deplorable environments, make sub-standard wages, and risk their lives to live the “American Dream,” they are not valued and their contributions go unrecognized. As they continue to make their presence in the workplace, it is the responsibility of employers to provide safe and equal work environments where they are treated with respect and dignity and where they are not exploited because they lack proficiency in the language and understanding in the laws that protect their rights as workers. Catanzarite’s study showed a correlation between the number of immigrant Latinos who account for a quarter of the workforce in specific jobs and industries and the pressure of wages to go down, even for native workers, who also tend to be minorities. She says “the best way to eliminate the wage gap is to improve working conditions for new immigrants, by enforcing minimum wage standards for immigrant workers, providing amnesty for illegal immigrants and strengthening their workplace protections” (p. A2).

In the next few decades, this nation is projected to experience a critical shortage of workers, particularly in areas that require postsecondary education or skills training (Arredondo, 2002). Policy makers and employers will have to look upon Latino workers as valuable assets and regard their contributions to America’s workplace. No longer will a two tiered system work as all workers will have to have the requisite skills to move America forward in this global economy. Our nation should not view this as a problem, but as an opportunity to move forward.

References

Acosta-Belén, E. & Santiago, C. E. (1998). Merging borders: The remapping of America. In A. Darder & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The Latino studies reader: Culture, economy, and society (pp. 29-42). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Arredondo, R. (2002, September 22). An impending work crisis. Newsweek. Retreived March 24, 2003, from http://www.americaenespanol.com

Chen, A. H. Y. (1998). The philosophy of language rights. Language Sciences, 20(1), 45-54.

Colón, M. (2002). Line drawing, code switching, and Spanish as second hand smoke: English-only workplace rules and bilingual employees. Yale Law & Policy Review, 20, 227-261.

“Deadly Trend” of Hispanic worker deaths on top of agenda at OSHA. (2002, October, 17). Labor Relations Week, 16(41), 1257.

Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. (2002, December 2). Compliance manual. Volume 12, Section 623. Retrieved January 8, 2003, from http://www.eeoc.gov/eocf/national-origin.html

Fatality among Hispanic workers rising: Employers urged to provide more training. (2001, October 11). Labor Relations Week, 15(40), 1227.

Flores, G., Fuentes-Afflick, E., Barbot, O., Carter-Pokras, O., Claudio, L., Lara, M., et al. (2002, July 3). The health of Latino children: Urgent priorities, unanswered questions, and a research agenda. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(1), 82–90.

Hargrove, T. (2003, April 12). War casualties include many minorities. Retrieved May 9, 2003, from http://www.nandotimes.com

Hernandez v. New York, 500.U.S. 352, 364 (1991)

Hamilton, K. (2001, September 27). Finding a name that fits. Black Issues in Higher Education, 18(16), 40–41.

Hispanic workers face disparate risks, overrepresented in hazardous jobs. (2001, January 11). Occupational Safety & Health Reporter, 31(2). Retrieved May 21, 2003, from http://www.geocities.com/hispanics

Hispanics, other workers find risk of job injury, death rising. (2003, May 1). Labor Relations Week, 17(18), 550.

Hopkins, J. (2003, March 13) Fatality rates increase for Hispanic workers. USA Today. Retrieved March 13, 2003, from http://www.usatoday.com

Huntington, S.P. (2004, March/April). The Hispanic challenge. Foreign Policy, 141, 30-45.

Jordan, M. (2004, February 23). Latinos take the lead in job gains. Wall Street Journal 36, A2.

Kloss, H. (1988). The American bilingual tradition. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems Co.

Matsuda, M. J. (1991). Voices of America: Accent, antidiscrimination law, and jurisprudence for the last reconstruction. Yale Law Journal, 100, 1329-1407.

Morton, L.P. (2002, Fall). Targeting Hispanic Americans. Public Relations Quarterly. 47(3), 16-48.

Pew Hispanic Center and the Kaiser Family Foundation. (2004, January). National Survey of Latinos: Education. Retrieved April 1, 2004, from, http://www.pewhispanic.org/site/docs/pdf/LatinoEducation SummaryandChartpack%20Jan%2026%202004.pdf

Porter, E. (2001, April 24). For Hispanic marketers: Census says it all. The Wall Street Journal, B8.

Porter, E. (2003, August 19). Hispanic newcomers skew wages. The Wall Street Journal, A2.

Rakove, J. N. (Ed.). (1999). Madison: Writings. New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc.

Ramos, J. (2002). The other face of America. (P. J. Duncan, Trans.). New York: Harper Collins. (Original work published 2000)

Siles, M. & Peréz, S. M. (2000). What Latino workers bring to the labor market: How human capital affects employment outcomes. In S.M. Peréz (Ed.), Moving up the economic ladder: Latino workers and the nation’s future prosperity (pp. 1-34). Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza.

2002 National Survey of Latinos. (2002, December). Pew Hispanic Center and the Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved April 1, 2004, from http://www.pewhispanic.org/site/docs/pdf/LatinoSurveyReport Final.pdf

U. S. Census Bureau. (2003, June 18). Annual demographic supplement to the March 2002 current population survey. Retrieved August 3, 2003, from www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-100.html