Workforce Language Services

Research says diversity training can backfire for two main reasons: being mandatory rather than voluntary and focusing more on legal issues rather than the business benefits to having a diverse workforce.

Of course, one of the problems with having diversity training be voluntary is that you’re not getting the message to everyone.  In an article in the online version of the Virginia Pilot, a quote addresses this conundrum:

“Mandatory does get everybody in the same room,” she said. “I think having people who are very resistant allows us to get the topics right out there.”

Kalev said, however, that it’s OK if one-fifth of your employees don’t attend.

“Those 20 percent are probably closed-minded, and you don’t want to force them into the room,” she said. “The others will convert the 20 percent or make them not count.”

Since diversity and cultural competency trainings are a relatively new phenomenon, it’s expected that there will be some adjustments as the research on best practices continues to be done.  And addressing these two issues is a good place to start.

To read the entire article, click here.

Working at a community center in a community heavily populated by first-generation immigrants, the question of cultural competency and instances of cultural incompetency often come up.  Just today, a colleague shared with me something that a staff person said to her about the food being served at a block party: “We’ve got three kinds of food: two Spanish and one regular.”  At this point, I don’t even flinch when people, including Spanish speakers, refer to anything to do with Hispanic or Latino culture as Spanish.  But my colleague and I were shocked about the “regular food” statement coming from someone who had worked in this highly diverse, multilingual community for two years. 

Ian Reifowitz tackles the current face-off between native Americans and arriving immigrants in an article in the History News Network.  He goes more deeply into why some native Americans are anxious about living in an increasingly multicultural country than the normal battle cry of xenophobia and intolerance and also puts forth some suggestions for healing the rift between native Americans and immigrants:

The native population must also respond to immigrants’ efforts to integrate by ensuring that they and their children receive an equal opportunity to succeed economically and achieve positions of leadership in America. Just as American society can expect immigrants to adopt our language, adapt to our culture, and absorb our democratic values, immigrants and their children can expect and even reasonably demand that American society accept them as full members of the national community.

To read the entire article, click here.

Despite the fact that Macy’s does not have an official English-only policy (in line with the clear law prohibiting such policies), eight Somali employees in Minnesota fear for their jobs.  These employees work in the basement sorting merchandise, have no little to no contact with customers, and are sometimes called upon to interpret for Somali customers on the sales floor.

Macy’s has launched an investigation into the allegations that the employees were threatended with dismissal. 

The article also provides some context into the legal framework and the recent rise in complaints regarding civil rights violations:

As part of the federal Civil Rights Act, employers are barred from making decisions about or harassing workers based on national origin, language or accent. But nationally, these complaints are on the rise.

Between 2002 and 2007, complaints to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rose from a few hundred to almost 9,400. And even though the law is clear in prohibiting English-only rules, it does allow exceptions for business necessity. That means employers can require English for communication with customers or for safety reasons.

English-only rules also violate Minnesota state human rights law. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights reports it has received about half a dozen English-only complaints recently. Most came from Hmong speakers.

A recent Diversity Spectrum article provides a comprehensive overview of the changes in workplace hiring brought on by aggressive raids across various industries.  The article details Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) stepping up of actions taken against companies who fail to comply with immigration laws when hiring. 

Companies are now operating in a climate of fear at being targeted by ICE and currently have to choose between being compliant and being non-discriminatory.  Compliance is winning out:

There is a growing concern that companies may become so compliance-oriented with respect to immigration law that they risk discriminatory conduct, according to Lopez. To prevent this, HR executives must ensure that they are not being overly aggressive in their immigration compliance activities.”Sometimes the choice has to be made between immigration compliance and potentially discriminatory conduct,” Lopez says. “Companies should err on the side of lower liability, which now means risking a discrimination charge to ensure immigration compliance. But this must be a fact-based decision grounded in the specific workforce and the business line.”

If companies have to choose which gray area they will occupy, they will go with discrimination, Lopez says.

“Five years ago, they would have risked noncompliance on immigration issues to avoid any risk of discrimination charges,” he says. “Now, the opposite is true.”

However, if companies become so compliance-oriented that the workplace becomes hostile, those who are targeted may take action against the company.