Feedback on Hispanic Employees and on Undercutting Human Resources

Regarding an item in the last newsletter about improving communication with non-English-speaking employees, Chuck Miller, Principal, Lakeshore Communications, Wilmette, Illinois, writes:

“While having supervisors become Spanish-speakers is a good idea, the best idea is to have all materials, especially employee handbooks, benefit communications and messages from HR and management translated into Spanish.

Plus, all communications, either in Spanish or English, should be in plain language and simply written for ease of understanding. A translation of college-level English may not be terribly helpful to Spanish-speakers with below average skills in Spanish. I’d also use a phrase checklist, where common phrases used by supervisors or HR are listed next to their Spanish translation so a supervisor or HR person could point to or check off a phrase that a Spanish-speaker may not understand.”

Another reader—who did not identify him/herself, also writes in about non-English-speaking employees:

“I am most concerned about the language used by the author from The Herman Group in the answer to the question regarding Spanish-speaking employees. Referring to Spanish-speaking employees as ‘these people’ and asking if they are ‘legal’ is derogatory and draconian…Perhaps this ‘expert’ is unaware that–given the quality, or lack thereof, of the educational system in the United States–there are huge numbers of native-born citizens who reside in this country legally, who do not have competency and/or fluency in the English language and speak most comfortably in their first language, or the language of their parents.

I question if the author would have used the same language if he was referring to German-speaking or French-speaking employees.”

This letter, from Burbank, California, author and speaker Eden Rosen, was also about the item on non-English-speaking employees:

“You stated that it is foolish not to discipline an employee for bragging about the deal the employee just got. For your information, according to the California Labor Law, it is illegal to discipline employees for talking about their salaries and/or raises. If the company is in California, to discipline that employee is illegal.”

Regarding an item in the last newsletter called “How Do We Prevent Division Presidents from Undercutting HR?” the owner of a Massachusetts technology business writes:

“Yes, it was inappropriate for the employee to brag about her deal. Obviously the president made a huge error in judging the total worth of the employee. Additionally, there was no qualification as to what the questioner defined as a ‘significant increase.’

But, more importantly, when did HR start ruling the company? I think it is more an issue of HR undercutting the president. It is the president that has to work with the employee, not HR.

It is the president that knows the employee’s performance (or at least should) both on and off the record.

It is the president who knows the constraints of his/her budget.

It is the president who has to produce based upon the performance of their employees.

It is the president who knows what it takes to produce the service they are selling and what customers are thinking about their relationship with the company.

HR does not have responsibility or accountability over any of these areas. Therefore the job should be left to the people that know what they are doing and have the responsibility for it.”