ABSTRACT

English-only policies in U.S. companies have been questioned in recent years. Some employers feel that English-only policies increase efficiency, promote effective communication, and improve employee relations. Employees whose first language is English, however, resent being subjected to languages other than English when working in their own country.

To determine students' perspectives on and knowledge of English-only policies in U.S. companies, a survey instrument containing eight statements related to English-only policies was developed and administered to 384 students enrolled at a Mid-South university. Means and standard deviations were calculated; the guideline with the highest mean response was related to employees' belief that it is acceptable for employees to speak a language other than English during office break times. In addition, over 70 percent of students were unaware that U.S. courts have not mandated that English is the official language of the United States.

INTRODUCTION

English is the most spoken language in the world. In 2000, 322 million people were native English speakers. English is the language of international business, and most businesspersons see this trend toward a common global language as positive (Fox, 2000).

In some U.S. companies, however, mandating that English is the only language to be spoken in the workplace has been questioned especially in light of the fact that the United States has no federal policy declaring that English is the official language of the country (Stevens, 1999). Since the 1980s, many U.S. states have considered passing English-only legislation (Mora & Davila, 2002). To date, 27 states have made English their official state language (U.S. English, 2002). California's AB 800 legislation, enacted in 2001, made it unlawful to adopt a policy that prohibits or limits using a language other than English in the workplace unless employers can prove that such a policy is a business necessity and that employees are notified of the exact policy guidelines, including when the policy must be observed and the consequences for policy violation (Shaw & Miller, 2002).

CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO IMPLEMENTING ENGLISH-ONLY POLICIES

Decisions related to implementing an English-only policy must take into consideration the legal aspects of such a decision as well as employer and employee concerns.

Legal Aspects of English-only Policies

Title VII, Section 703, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly specifies that employers cannot discriminate against a person on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. What has not been clear in recent years is whether the Civil Rights Act is violated by states adopting English-only policies that may have a negative impact on ethnic and racial minorities (Flynn, 1995; Savage, 2001). Flynn (1995) and Walden (2002) maintain that the Civil Rights Act does not expressly include language and that no federal statute exists that prohibits companies from establishing English-only policies.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 1980 published guidelines on English-only rules in the workplace. The first guideline applied to the requirement that employees speak no language other than English while at work. According to the EEOC, this rule is in violation of the Civil Rights Act because the result of implementing such a policy might be the creation of an atmosphere in which some employees, because of their national origin, would feel isolated, inferior, or intimidated. Thus, these employees could perceive that they are in a discriminatory work environment. The second EEOC guideline applied to the requirement that English be spoken only at specific times. According to the EEOC, this rule was also considered invalid unless a company could justify its use based on business necessity. Companies mandating that English be spoken at certain times must communicate this policy to their employees and specify consequences when employees do not comply. The EEOC further stated that companies that feel justified in implementing an English-only policy should allow their employees to speak languages other than English in areas on the company premises where they usually go during their personal time (lunch and break times) (Walden, 2002).

These EEOC guidelines have been rejected by at least two U.S. courts. In cases in the early and mid-1990s, courts ruled that employees were not negatively affected by English-only policies in the workplace and that an English-only rule is not automatically demeaning, intimidating, or coercive (Petersen, 1994). Two later decisions, however, upheld the guidelines so the EEOC keeps enforcing their original 1980 guidelines (Walden, 2002). Walden (2002) advises that "until the U.S. Congress, the EEOC, or the U.S. Supreme Court give more guidance for businesses to maintain reasonable English-language workplace rules," (p. 614) companies should strengthen their policies by communicating English-only rules to all employees and consequences for not following these rules and also by permitting employees to speak whatever language they wish during their free time. A more recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 20, 1994, "declared that employers can enforce English-only rules in the workplace" (Dresser, 1996, p. 163). Many companies were pleased with the decision because they felt it would have a beneficial effect on working conditions.

Employers' Concerns with English-only Policies

Employers who feel the need to implement an English-only policy may argue that speaking one language during work hours increases efficiency, promotes effective communication, and improves employee relations. In at least one company, employers instituted an English-only policy because some workers used Spanish to harass their non-Spanish speaking coworkers. When employees are being harassed in a language other than English, a manager who speaks only English may not be aware of such harassment (Flynn, 1995; Petersen, 1994). In today's increasingly multicultural workplace, employers are faced with problems arising from employees who have limited proficiency in English. Employers who implement English-only policies feel that benefits include improving employees' proficiency in English in addition to improving supervisory effectiveness, promoting safety on the job, and reducing ethnic tension (Petersen, 1994).

The EEOC does not agree that an English-only policy reduces ethnic tension; their position is such that such rules may actually increase ethnic tension and result in divisiveness in the workplace (Roffer, 2000). The responsibility for justifying an English-only policy clearly rests with the employer (Shaw & Miller, 2002). Employers who determine that a single language is necessary for conducting business would need to be able to justify this rule by proving that using various languages at work would have an adverse effect on workplace safety or productivity (Pakiela, 2002).

Two employers were ordered to pay damages after firing or disciplining Hispanic workers who spoke Spanish in the workplace. In both cases, the companies had instituted English-only policies, including during lunch periods and breaks. In the decision, the employers were told that their policy constituted disparate treatment. Thus, English-only policies have been successfully challenged as being unlawful (Hatch & Hall, 2000).

The need for English-only policies varies according to the type of industry. Employers in the food service industry, for example, have indicated that they are more flexible about requiring that employees speak English only during work hours. They point out that fluency in the English language is a necessity for employees who deal with customers but that such fluency is not as necessary for kitchen workers (Schuster, 2000). A representative of Marriott Management Services agreed that speaking English is important when interacting with customers but less important when working behind the scenes (Blake, 1997). In the healthcare industry, speaking a language other than English is viewed as a legitimate concern in hospital settings where communicating with coworkers, such as in operating rooms, or with patients is of utmost importance (Fink, Robinson, & Wyld, 1996). Banks, retail establishments, and other industries where employees have direct contact with the public can justify an English-only policy based on business necessity. Likewise, safety-sensitive industries such as refineries and industries involving the use of dangerous equipment may legally require that employees converse in English only (Sklarewitz, 1992).

Employees' Concerns with English-only Policies

Employees' concerns may be looked at from the perspective of those whose native language is not English and employees whose first language is English. Employees who speak English as a second language may feel that English-only policies are really discriminatory in that they are aimed specifically at immigrant populations. These employees may feel that changing from one language to another during conversations "can facilitate interpersonal relationships and is a natural and spontaneous way of communicating" (Speicher, 2002, p. 621). Further, in a country that embraces workplace diversity, permitting employees to speak a language other than English, especially during personal conversations that are unrelated to job performance, would seem appropriate.

Employees whose first language is English often resent being subjected to languages other than English when working in a company in their home country. Common sense and good manners would support such an attitude. Well-mannered persons understand that speaking a language other than the language of the host country when within hearing distance of persons who are natives of the country is quite rude. Speaking in support of English-only policies, one supervisor stated: "How can we function as a team if we don't even speak the same language?" (Speicher, 2002, p. 621). In addition, U.S. employees whose native language is English often feel that coworkers who speak in a language other than English during work hours are being rude and exclusionary (Murphy, Barlow, & Hatch, 1993; Teboul, 2002). According to Dresser (1996), some companies have imposed the English-only rule because of a concern that employees who are speaking another language may actually be making negative comments about their coworkers or supervisors. The assumption is that if the comments were complimentary, they would be made in English.

Harassment issues may also be involved. Female employees have felt uncomfortable when male employees have made comments in a language other than English, especially when the comments were accompanied by laughter and looking in the direction of the female employees. Female employees may feel that they are the target of sexually suggestive comments and may even file sexual harassment complaints based on what they perceive to be vulgar and inappropriate behavior (Teboul, 2002).

SURVEY PURPOSE AND PROCEDURES

To determine students' perspectives on English-only policies in U.S. companies, a survey instrument containing eight statements related to English-only policies was developed and administered to 384 students at a Mid-South university. Using a student population was considered appropriate since today's university students are tomorrow's employees who will be affected by English-only policies in their work environments. A five-point scale was provided with five representing agree and one representing disagree. Students were also asked to provide their gender, age, classification, and status (business or nonbusiness major). Means and standard deviations were calculated using SPSS, Version 10.

DISCUSSION

As shown in Table 1, 201 females made up 52.3 percent of respondents while 183 males made up 47.7 percent of respondents. The majority (331 or 86.2 percent) of respondents were between the ages of 20 and 39. Students classified as junior/senior made up the largest group of participants (307 or 78.8 percent). Most respondents were business majors (290 or 76.1 percent). English was the first language of 95.3 percent (366) of respondents.

Means and standard deviations of student responses are shown in Table 2. The guideline with the highest mean response (4.05) was related to speaking languages other than English during office break times (the statement was correct). The guideline with the second highest mean response (3.99) was related to English as the official language of the United States (the statement was incorrect). The guideline with the third highest mean response (3.97) was related to English-only policies when safety is a concern (the statement was correct).

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The workforce in many organizations is becoming multicultural and multilingual. Employers charged with managing these diverse workforces have been faced with deciding whether English-only policies are necessary for effective communication among employees and with customers. The legal aspects of implementing English-only rules must be examined in addition to the impact such policies would have on productivity, efficiency, and morale.

Proponents of the use of languages other than English during work hours point out that having a diverse workforce is a distinct competitive advantage in today's diverse marketplace (Pakiela, 2002). Many companies feel that having employees who can speak more than one language is a decided advantage. For example, having employees who can greet customers in their native language is viewed in a positive manner. In addition, the ability to speak other languages is often necessary in emergency situations and in hospitals (Dresser, 1996).

On the other hand, speaking languages other than English can cause hostility and dissension among certain groups of employees. Employees who speak English only often feel that they are being excluded from conversations in another language or may feel that bilingual employees are being critical of others or are saying negative things about the non-English speaking employees. In addition, safety and workplace harmony must be considered.

A total of 278 (72.4 percent) students enrolled at a Mid-South university were unaware that U.S. courts have not mandated that English is the official language of the United States. Results of the question related to the legality of requiring employees to use English only on the company premises reflected students' uncertainty: 99 or 25.8 percent strongly disagreed while 82 or 21.4 percent strongly agreed. Their responses were understandable in view of the fact that some courts have upheld English-only policies while others have not. However, the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court ruling did specify that employers are within their legal rights to enforce English-only rules in their companies.

With the increasingly multicultural and multilingual populations of both U.S. firms and colleges and universities, employers and teachers need to address these issues in their courses, especially courses in business communication and in international business communication.

REFERENCES

Blake, K. (1997, February 24). On-site foodservice: Laws mandating exclusive use of English in workplace sparks debate, new solutions. Nation's Restaurant News, 31(8), 56.

Dresser, N. (1996). Multicultural manners. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

EEOC Speak-English-only rules, 29 C.F.R. 1607 (1980).

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, 473-483.

Flynn, G. (1995). English-only rules can cause legal tongue ties. Personnel Journal, 74(11), 87-92. Fox, J. (2000, September). The triumph of English. Fortune, 142(6), 209-212.

Hatch, D. D. & Hall, J. E. (2000, December). "English only" rules may violate law. Workforce, 79(12), 110.

Mora, M. T. & Davila, A. (2002, May 10). State English-only policies and English-language investments. Applied Economics, 34(7), 905-915.

Murphy, B. S., Barlow, W. E. & Hatch, D. D. (1993). Manager's newsfront: English-only rules might not violate Civil Rights Act. Personnel Journal, 72(10), 24.

Pakiela, A. (2002, May). English only: A workplace dilemma. Management Communication Quarterly, 15(4), 616-618.

Petersen, D. J. (1994). English only rules: Valid business policy or discrimination? Labor Law Journal, 46, 367-373.

Roffer, M. H. (2000, September). Holding employees' native tongues (English-only workplace rules). HR Magazine, 45(9), 177.

Savage, D. G. (2001, January). Speaking of justice. ABA Journal, 87, 30.

Schuster, K. (2000, April). Speaking the language. Food Management, 35(4), 24.

Shaw, J. B. & Miller, S. (2002, February). English-only rules: Dangerous ground for employers. The Business Journal, 11(2), 21.

Sklarewitz, N. (1992, Fall). American firms lash out at foreign tongues. Business and Society Review, 83, 24-28.

Speicher, B. L. (2002, May). Problems with English-only policies. Management Communication Quarterly, 15(4), 619-625.

Stevens, G. (1999, August). A century of U.S. censuses and the language characteristics of immigrants. Demography, 36(3), 387-397.

Teboul, J. C. (2002, May). Case study: The language dilemma. Management Communication Quarterly, 15(4), 603-608.

U.S. English, Inc.: Toward a united America. (n.d.) Retrieved November 19, 2002, from http://www.us-english.org/inc/official/states.asp.

Walden, G. S. (2002, May). Legal issues posed in the language dilemma. Management Communication Quarterly, 15(4), 609-615.

Catherine G. Green, The University of Memphis

Lillian H. Chaney, The University of Memphis

Table 1: Demographics of Respondents

 Gender Frequency Valid Percent
Female 201 52.3
Male 183 47.7

 Age
Under 20 36 9.4
20-39 331 86.2
40 or above 16 4.2

 Classification
Freshman/Sophomore 48 12.6
Junior/Senior 307 78.8
Graduate Student 26 6.8
Unclassified 7 1.8

 Status
Business major 290 76.1
Nonbusiness major 91 23.9

 First language
English 366 95.3
Other 18 4.7

Table 2: Mean Responses and Standard Deviations

 Statement Mean Standard
 Deviation

1. The U.S courts have mandated that English
 is the official language of the United
 States. 3.99 1.33

2. Requiring employees to use English only
 while on the company premises is legal. 2.93 1.49

3. An English-only policy is appropriate
 when work effectiveness or employee
 safety would be jeopardized. 3.97 1.19

4. Employees of U.S firms may speak a language
 other than English during office break 4.05 1.2
 times.

5. U.S employees who speak English only feel
 excluded when fellow employees speak in
 another language while at work. 3.52 1.29

6. When employees speak a language other
 than English in the presence of U.S.
 workers, U.S employees assume that they
 are being talked about in a derogatory
 or negative manner. 3.5 1.24

7. Most U.S workers agree with the saying,
 "When in Rome, do as the Romans,"
 regarding the use of English only during
 work hours. 3.8 1.1

8. English-only policies cause discomfort
 and stress for bilinguals in the
 workplace which may affect their
 productivity. 3.18 1.27