Just when you think you have heard it all, along comes a story that is almost too ridiculous to be true. But it is. The idiocy of federal bureaucracies apparently is never-ending. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which might easily be called the Department of Political Correctness, has decided to take on the Salvation Army. Yes, the Salvation Army, that phenomenally successful assistance organization which began in Great Britain over one hundred and forty-years ago. The Salvation Army, which has helped thousands of people in countries all over the world, is being sued by the EEOC.
2007-04-25 02:14:00 · 6 answers · asked by lundstroms2004 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
As most people are aware, the Salvation Army is a Christian evangelical organization the mission of which is to help the downtrodden, blind, sick, addicted and anyone else in need. "Army" personnel stand on street corners during Christmastime, ringing a bell on behalf of the poor. One of their most important ways to raise money is through donations of old clothes and household goods, which they sell in their thrift stores. They also operate soup kitchens and hire people no one else would hire. Since 1865 the Salvation Army has lived by Christ's admonition that as we do unto the least of our people we do unto the Lord. Now the organization is in trouble for insisting its employees learn to speak English.
2007-04-25 02:14:20 · update #1
It all started in a thrift store in Framingham, Massachusetts. Two Hispanic employees were given one year to learn English in order to speak the language of the country in which they live and the language spoken by other employees. They failed to do so; in turn the employees were fired. The EEOC filed a lawsuit against the Salvation Army claiming the employees had suffered "emotional pain, humiliation and embarrassment" as a result of the English-only policy.
First, the Salvation Army is a faith-based organization and is able to set rules for its employees that many public organization cannot. I am not a lawyer; however, I know that government should not be telling religious groups whom they can and cannot hire or fire. Specifically, when it comes to requiring English the courts have already ruled in the State of Massachusetts.
2007-04-25 02:14:59 · update #2
In 2003 a federal judge in Boston upheld the Salvation Army policy requiring workers to "speak English to the best of their ability." The EEOC didn't like that ruling, so it is trying for one more favorable.
These are our tax dollars at work, yours and mine, paying the salaries of the EEOC lawyers who filed the lawsuit while the Salvation Army must use its own funds -- funds that might be better used helping the poor -- to hire attorneys to fight this case in court. What a waste of money on both accounts.
Then there is the EEOC itself, an organization which has spent the last 25 years or so filing lawsuits on behalf of real (and imagined) victims of every possible type of discrimination: sex, age, disability, race, etc. Often these lawsuits are against individuals and other times against large corporations or public agencies. A result has been thousands of hours spent by employers attempting to avoid litigation.
2007-04-25 02:15:29 · update #3
One of the latest EEOC "campaigns" is to end background checks by many employers because they might discriminate against people who have served prison terms. Now sometimes people do deserve a second chance when they have paid their debt to society but shouldn't the employer get to decide whether to hire someone with a criminal record? Imagine a future time when an employer could be fined for not hiring someone with a criminal record. I have no trouble believing that this is what the EEOC would like to see happen.
2007-04-25 02:15:51 · update #4
In the Boston case I wanted to know if the Hispanic employees were American citizens. Nobody could tell me. They most likely are not, but that does not matter to the EEOC, which probably did not bother to inquire. You need not be an American citizen to use a federal agency to file a lawsuit on your behalf. In what other country is there an agency that would help you sue yet another government agency or a private company if you weren't a citizen? And provide you with an interpreter to do so? Not one that I can think of.
2007-04-25 02:16:14 · update #5
Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation
Written by Paul Weyrich
2007-04-25 02:16:47 · update #6
what a load of CRAP! what is this country coming to? the eeoc sounds like a group worth to much time on their hands. on a note closer to home- i work pt time at my son's grade school. we have more hispanics than anything else but all must learn english. our principal just hired a pt time lunch worker who speaks NO english. she thought it was great that this women could speak to the kids who don't know english well. just great, now they don't have to learn as someone can talk to them in their own language and we can't communicate with her at all.i'll have to get another child to translate for me. is that right or fair? no.while i have nothing personal against those from any other country, this is bullshit! if i'm going to move to mexico or france, i'm going to learn the language. why can't those coming into the u.s. do the same?
all of this makes my blood boil.
2007-04-25 02:32:37 · answer #1 · answered by racer 51 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Personal opinion all employers within the USA should require that all employees speak English. Doesn't have to be good English but does have to be understandable. The EEOC has done some good things but I believe they have out-lived their usefulness. It is time they butted out. We should all say a prayer that they leave the Salvation Army alone. Let the dollars they collect go to the work they do in this world.
2007-04-25 02:21:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
this is ludicrous! Why must my tax dollars pay for this kind of foolishness?...ENGLISH is the AMERICAN language...I don't even like the fact that our financial institutions ask which language when going to an ATM. And what about companies that are forced to put dual language labels on their products? As far as letting this screwed up government get involved in a religious organization goes...haven't they screwed up enough with their absurd meddling?
2007-04-25 02:27:22 · answer #3 · answered by Robert P 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
When did this occur? Were you even born while that occurred? And are you mindful that this ruling does not simply practice to FOX information? And in which within the ruling does it say FOX lied approximately some thing?
2016-09-05 23:23:24 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you get the feeling that the federal government has forgotten that it should be working for the citizens of the USA?
2007-04-25 02:41:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
My question to this is how can they be sued if is part of there companies policies? This getting ridiculous
2007-04-25 02:20:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋