[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 79 (Tuesday, June 21, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
           SUPREME COURT DECISION NOT TO HEAR SPUN STEAK CASE

                                 ______


                           HON. BILL EMERSON

                              of missouri

                  in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 21, 1994

  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to note an important 
action by the Supreme Court. Yesterday, the Supreme Court refused to 
review a brief filed by the EEOC regarding the Spun Steak Co. of San 
Francisco. On June 3, prompted by the Clinton administration, the EEOC 
filed a brief on a pending case involving the Spun Steak Co. The case 
concerned a meat processing company whose employees were bilingual, but 
all shared English as their common language. The owner set a policy 
that English should be used during the performance of work-related 
duties in response to charges that two Hispanic workers were making 
derogatory remarks about an Afro-American and Chinese-American employee 
in Spanish. In order to reduce conflict, the owner required that all 
daytime employees speak the language that they all understood, English. 
Employees were permitted to use the language of their choice on work 
breaks and on personal time.
  Opponents of the workplace policy called this discriminatory, even 
though all the affected employees spoke English and were not deprived 
of the ability to communicate with each other.
  Frankly, I find it unbelievable that the EEOC thinks that it is the 
Federal Government's job to police the private sector work force in 
efforts to encourage the use of foreign languages in the workplace. 
Proficiency in the English language is the key to opportunity and 
prosperity in America. Illiteracy and limited English-language skills 
are major problems that directly affect the labor force today. If 
anything, we must encourage workers to learn English in efforts to 
foster productivity and growth. In answer to this increasing problem, I 
have introduced legislation that will provide tax credits to employers 
for the cost of providing English language instruction to their limited 
English-proficient employees. Providing an incentive for employers to 
make English-language training available is an essential step in 
realizing 100 percent literacy among American adults and in providing 
them with the knowledge and skills necessary for becoming responsible 
citizens and productive workers. For the adult learner in the 
workplace, the first step toward retaining their jobs, acquiring 
promotions or increasing performance levels, is the acquisition of 
sufficient English-language skills. How can the Federal Government 
support the goals of increased productivity in the American work force 
and then discourage the use of English on the job?

  In addition, there is the issue of workplace safety. In many 
instances, worker safety could be compromised by an atmosphere in which 
directions or warnings could not be understood. The ability to share a 
common language is crucial to safety in the workplace. This benefits 
not only the employer, but also the employee.
  In conclusion, I would like to say that this is yet another example 
of Government intrusion into private business' affairs. It is 
outrageous that certain Government agencies continue to had down 
excessive regulations that serve only to hinder the productivity of 
business. Responsible Government is not accomplished by a bureaucracy 
sitting in Washington and publishing burdensome standards and 
regulations so fast that the hardworking citizen cannot keep up with 
all of them. Many times, Government regulatory agencies concentrate so 
keenly on the means that they tend to lose sight of the end. Doubtless, 
some element of regulation may be necessary in this extraordinarily 
complex world of ours, but when an enterprise spends more time 
complying and documenting its compliance with Federal regulations than 
it spends in conducting its business, then the Federal Government has 
gone too far and this must change.
  The Clinton administration vehemently opposes the 1993 Federal 
appeals court ruling that upheld the right of employers to require 
workers to speak English on the job. The Supreme Court has rightly 
concluded that EEOC guidelines that assume that barring employees from 
speaking their primary language in the workplace may create a hostile 
environment are, in fact, invalid. I sincerely hope that the Clinton 
administration takes notice of this important decision and supports a 
national language policy that encourages the use of English in the 
official business of the Federal Government and in the workplace.