Last week I presented a session at the 69th Annual Wisconsin Safety & Health Conference. In the US, there are approximately 50 million Latinos – one in six Americans (and 1 in 4 children!) – and the Hispanic population accounts for over half of US population growth in the last decade. I shared some eye-opening statistics, such as the following:
14 people die every day at work.
The workplace fatality rate among Latinos is 13.5% higher than for US workers overall.
Of the 11,303 Latino workers who died from work-related injuries from 2003-2006, 34% worked in construction.
Why is the fatality rate so much higher among Latinos? For starters, Latino immigrants work in high-risk jobs, such as construction, at a higher rate than the general population. Then there’s the language barrier. Approximately 65% of low-wage immigrant workers are Limited English Proficient (LEP), and not surprisingly, OSHA estimates that over a quarter of workplace injuries are attributable to the language barrier.
But it’s not just language; it’s culture, too. Among Latino immigrants, safety is often viewed through a different lens. Back home, there are far fewer government inspections of work sites, and in the event of a violation, a bribe often makes it go away. Workers may be required to risk their safety, as workers are often perceived is dispensable. Is this in every work site? Of course not. But it’s not uncommon.
In the US, these workers often fear that a complaint about unsafe work conditions or a request for personal protective equipment would cause them to lose their job. And what about reporting workplace injuries? There is the same concern. Moreover, for undocumented workers, a fear of deportation frequently serves as further motivation to quietly self-treat injuries that should be reported and treated. There’s also the perception that safety regulations exist to protect American-born workers, who aren’t as “tough,” as well as the perception that the government doesn’t truly care about immigrant workers and their well-being.
So what can you do to improve the safety of your workplace? Some suggestions:
Ensure that safety materials are reader-friendly and translated into the language(s) of your workforce. But that’s not enough: lower levels of literacy mean that you need to be sure to then train people – in their language – to ensure that these procedures and policies are understood. This can be done by hiring an interpreter or by using a bilingual supervisor.
Consider offering job-specific English as a Second Language training. This will help improve safety, productivity and engagement, and it will also help increase your pool of internal promotion candidates.
Consider offering job-specific Spanish training (as well as other languages of your workplace). With a focus on safety expressions and other key vocabulary, your managers will significantly increase their communication skills while at the same time developing your employees’ trust.
Workplace safety is too important to cut corners. Don’t let things get lost in translation!
Several farm worker interest groups are petitioning the EPA to require manufacturers to translate their pesticide labels to Spanish. The groups’ goal is to increase protection for farm works that apply agricultural pesticides.
The EPA is currently debating the issue and calling for public comment in the decision-making process. The EPA says in a press release that they recognize the decision will affect all consumers, not just farm workers. Currently, the EPA requires translation of some words or phrases of agricultural pesticides, but does not require bilingual labeling on all products.
The EPA comments:
In response to the petition, EPA is considering whether to require bilingual labeling in English and Spanishfor all pesticides or for only certain types of pesticides, certain pesticide use sites, certain pesticide active ingredients, pesticides in certain toxicity categories, or certain parts of pesticide labels.
This decision will be up for public comment until June 28, 2011. Information on the petition and how to participate can be found here.
Here are 3 questions the EPA asks the general public to consider:
Language characteristics vary by culture, region, and other factors. How could EPA ensure that Spanish text on pesticide product labels would be understood by all potential Spanish-speaking users?
Labeling in Spanish could potentially be required for all pesticide products, for a subset of pesticide products, or for a portion of the product label. If the Agency concluded that translation of a portion or portions of the label were appropriate, which portions of the pesticide label would it be most beneficial to have in Spanish, and why? If the Agency were to limit the requirement for translation to only certain products, which products should be considered, and why? (Note: please see the sample label in the docket to consider the different sections of a pesticide label.
Are there languages other than Spanish and English that EPA should consider for inclusion on pesticide labels? Which languages? Please explain your reasoning for including a language other than Spanish or English on pesticide labels, and cite documents that would further bolster your suggestion.
What’s the easiest way to prevent citation and penalties during an OSHA worksite inspection? According to OSHA, in fiscal year 2010, the ten most commonly cited standards were improperly implemented:
1. Scaffolding
2. Fall Protection
3. Hazard Communication
4. Respiratory Protection
5. Ladder Use
6. Lockout/ Tagout Procedures
7. Electrical and Wiring Methods
8. Powered Industrial Trucks
9. General Electrical Requirements
10. Machine Guarding
Far too many preventable injuries occur due to the failure to properly implement these standards.A great way to avoid these infractions is to translate your employee manuals and safety materials into the languages most commonly spoken in your worksite. You can also bring an on-site language trainer to go over the OSHA procedures in a simplified English training for your Limited English Proficient (LEP) employees.
Workforce Language Services offers translations in 50+ languages as well as on-site English and Spanish vocational training. Contact Hilary Hodge, Director or Programs, for more information hilary@workforcelang.com.
Immigration reform is one the most controversial political topics today. Let’s face it: any decision made related to immigration crackdowns are going to affect our workforce, where many sectors are based on cheap, unskilled labor that immigrants provide. For better or for worse, how will these crackdowns affect the U.S. workforce?
The New York Times uses Michel Malecot as an example, who is the owner of a small French restaurant in San Diego. He was charged and indicted with charges of employing 12 illegal immigrants. If found guilty, he faces the forfeiture of his restaurant and up to $4 million in fines.
The Obama administration has been getting tough on immigration enforcement laws, which were once considered lax. This year federal employees expect to announce a record number of investigation and fines.
Taking a look at the restaurant industry, 1.4 million workers, both legal and illegal, are foreign-born. “According to 2008 estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center, about 20 percent of the nearly 2.6 million chefs, head cooks and cooks are illegal immigrants. Among the 360,000 dishwashers, 28 percent are undocumented, according to the estimates.”
While hiring illegal immigrants may be industry standard, the crackdowns are welcomed from many immigrant rights supporters, who see that illegal immigrants are underpaid and also afraid of complaining to their employers.
It can be complicated business for everyone involved. Employers don’t want the burden of policing their employees when they provide what appears to be legal paperwork, and even electronic verification systems have incorrect information that could turn away eligible workers. Many employers are now petitioning for immigration reform that makes it easier for undocumented workers to gain legal status.
Many Korean immigrants have recently found themselves in the Korean American Resource and Cultural Center taking classes in—what else?—Spanish. People like Sue Choe, who owns a laundromat in Koreatown, see many reasons to learn the language that many of her customers speak.
Aware of an ugly history between Korean-Americans and African-Americans–one that erupted into violence in some cities in the 1990s–Korean business owners are trying to soothe mutual suspicions with Spanish-speaking workers and customers. The effort is mostly born of an increasingly interdependent employer-employee relationship.
It is just one of the ways in which new waves of immigration and intermigration between neighborhoods is fast changing the city, mixing new combinations of ethnic groups together and forcing them to search for ways to coexist as so many previous generations of immigrants did.
Beginning a community dialogue is important, especially recalling the 1992 race riots in Los Angeles. It’s also important because Koreans and Hispanics don’t just live in the same communities, they work together too. Hispanics have become the primary labor pool for Korean business owners, and cultural differences have erupted in the workplace.
Latino workers, many earning less than the minimum wage, complain that their Korean bosses neglect to pay overtime and are often callous about days off or job-related injuries.
In turn Korean owners, at times unfamiliar with U.S. labor laws, see ingratitude and disloyalty in their employees’ complaints. They argue that their up-from-the-ground businesses are a team effort that also has the owners working long hours.
Disputes have hurt both sides. Learning to understand the cultures around you (and their languages) is a great start. Read the full Chicago Tribune article about this issue here.
Want to learn the languages spoken in your neighborhood? Visit MultilingualChicago.com to learn about language classes and workshops in your area!
A labor group surveyed restaurants in Chicago and found significant segregation between front-of-house workers (waiters, hosts) and back-of-house staff (busboys, dishwashers). The study “found that nearly 80 percent of whites work in the front, nearly two-thirds of Latinos in the back.”
To those of us who have worked in the restaurant business this doesn’t seem like news at all – the discrimination is all too prevalent. Common all over Chicago’s pubs and steakhouses, we see that “taking the order or seating the clients is the girl next door or a suave older man, most likely white, while a cadre of young Mexican men construct the meal behind the scenes.”
Taking the issue to task, the Restaurant Opportunities Center of Chicago teamed with the Working Hands Legal Clinic to file a federal lawsuit against one Andersonville eatery, claiming that the establishment mistreated its kitchen staff. McCormick and Schmicks’ chain just settled a $1.1 claim from black employees who said they weren’t considered for hosts and servers.
But in the restaurants’ defense, aren’t they hiring based on a special skill set required for that position, not based on race? For example, knowledge of food and wine pairings or simply communicating a food order in English.
I would argue that while restaurants don’t always discriminate blatantly, they rarely train or promote their current back-of-house staff. Wouldn’t a restaurant get better long-term results from a staffer with a long employment history at the restaurant, happy to be promoted, than a new hire? Busboy to server would be the perfect transition, for example.
To read the full report in the Chicago Tribune, click here.
While Latinos make up more than a third of the Texan workforce, they earn 35% less than their white counterparts, reports the Texan Tribune.
On average, they earn about $11.50 per hour, compared to $17.90 for non-Hispanic whites. The gap is larger here than in the rest of the country: Outside of Texas, Latinos earn $12.42, while their Anglo counterparts earn about $17.55.
Regardless of skill, Latinos were responsible for most of the expansion in the state’s labor pool since the mid-1990s and have been a boon to the state’s economy. “The Latino population’s increase transformed Texas’ labor force and led to faster economic growth,” the report says. “Latinos accounted for 76 percent of the state’s labor force growth between 1994 and 2008.”
One factor that may account for the discrepancy is the education gap. 40% of Latinos age 25 or older didn’t graduate from high school, compared to 5% of whites. However, some educators say that cultural and economic factors often trump the importance of going to school; the responsibility to take care of one’s family has an impact on dropout rates.
Read more about the Latino pay gap here, in the Texan Tribune.
Nine years ago, over 12,000 Hispanic farmers sought to put an end to discrimination with a class-action lawsuit against the U.S. federal government. To this day, they’re still waiting for a resolution.
Their hope was that the suit would change the way the U.S. Department of Agriculture treats minority farmers. Hispanic farmers with claims against the government petitioned for class-action status, which they have not yet been awarded. Without it, each farmer has to litigate his own case individually, all over the nation.
“It makes no sense from a legal, logical or moral standpoint,” [farmers’ attorney Stephen] Hill said.
“There are lots of farmers who could lose what are otherwise valid claims, and I guess in the governments’ view they see that as money being saved. But saved at an incredible cost of what is equitable and fair.”
Families like the Chavez’s believe they were discriminated against and have lost much of their farm as a result. The family was unable to get low-interest loans from the USDA, and they say that they were discouraged from applying or given misinformation. “It was like they just didn’t want us to have the money,” said Vera Chavez.
The USDA has reported special efforts to promote civil rights and end discriminatory practices. They are reviewing farmers’ complaints by a special task force. Meanwhile, thousands of farmers wait their turn in this drawn-out case.
A hotel owner in Taos, Texas recently asked that all his Hispanic employees “shorten” their names to something a little more “American.” According to an article posted by Asylum, the new boss mandated the following upon his takeover:
1. No speaking Spanish in front of the boss.
2. Everyone’s fired and has to re-apply for their jobs.
3. It’s “strongly suggested” that employees shorten their long, silly Spanish names. (”Who has the time to say ‘Marcos?’ Why not Mark or Bill?” That’s actually a real example.)
Roberto Ruiz of the San Antonio Public Policy Examiner sees this as a strong case against America’s declaration as of late that we live in a “post-racial” society. He also points out that Hispanics make up the majority population in Taos.
It usually comes as a surprise to people when I mention that our republic does not have an “official language.” Wisely, this nation’s founders decided not to declare an official language, their reasons included “a belief in tolerance for linguistic diversity within the population, the economic and social value of foreign language knowledge and citizenry, and a desire not to restrict the linguistic and cultural freedom of those living in the new country.”
In a previous blog post, “What’s in a Hispanic name,” we’ve looked at the Hispanic naming system and how it is often confused in the United States, resulting in a loss of culture and identity for many Hispanic Americans (click here to go to the post).
More than 400,000 children work on farms nationwide, making up about 20% of the U.S. farm workforce. The Association of Farmworker Opportunity Program wants to put a end the exploitation of migrant child workers. Their first stop: North Carolina.
The Children in the Fields campaign is working to build grassroots support in North Carolina and four other key states to combat the exploitation of U.S farm worker children.
“This state (North Carolina) has thousands of migrants in the fields and is an area with a lot of agricultural activity, where the problem of children working in dangerous conditions is very large and growing,” [regional coordinator Emily] Drakage told EFE Thursday.
Children are permitted to accompany their parents in the fields at the age of 12, and by the age of 14 can work hours that do not interfere with the school day. No child under the age of 16 can perform any “dangerous” activities, as defined by the Department of Labor.
However, kids as young as 6-years-old have been found laboring in the fields for 12 hours a day, around plants “treated with pesticides, in extreme weather conditions and surrounded by machinery with sharp blades.”
In addition to the dangerous conditions, migrant worker children also face linguistic barriers due to missing school and educational growth.
Several farm worker interest groups are petitioning the EPA to require manufacturers to translate their pesticide labels to Spanish. The groups’ goal is to increase protection for farm works that apply agricultural pesticides.
While Latinos make up more than a third of the Texan workforce, they earn 35% less than their white counterparts, reports the Texan Tribune.
Nine years ago, over 12,000 Hispanic farmers sought to put an end to discrimination with a class-action lawsuit against the U.S. federal government. To this day, they’re still waiting for a resolution.