The U.S. Department of Labor injury reports coupled with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) incident reports citing training and language as major causes of accidents, prompt the question of possible lack of understanding by the operators, emphasized by language differences. Given the Census Bureau forecast of a large growth in immigration in which the ethnic groups may be categorized as poorly educated, with little or no English speaking skill, the question of effective training needs to be addressed and the means with which to measure the effectiveness.
An interpretation of population trends within the United States reveals significant population growth in two cultural groups, Hispanic and Asian. It has been estimated that the Hispanic community may comprise as much as 25% of the workforce in the next 10 years. While that number may not be reached, other estimates show Hispanic penetration into the workforce increasing about 1% per year and general Hispanic population growth estimates of 40 to 60% over the next two decades. Coupling such rapid growth rates into the workforce with estimates that some 12 million adults 16 years of age and older speak something other than English as their primary language at home should cause concern. Assuming the percentage of non-English-speaking people in this influx to be approximately 9%, some 435,000 new immigrants will lack basic English skills. What effect, if any, will be seen as these immigrants enter the labor market? While the simplistic answer is to have everyone learn English before they apply for a job, it isn't a practical solution. People have to be able to work to survive, to provide for their families, and to become contributing members of society.
People have to be able to work to survive, to provide for their families, and to become contributing members of society.
There have been a number of initiatives to establish training courses for ESL workers. They have met with limited success. Among the reasons noted for poor participation in the training were: (1) workers could not afford to take time off for the training, (2) some workers had more than one job and thus were not available for the scheduled training session, (3) workers were unwilling to expose their lack of English for fear of losing current employment, and (4) undocumented workers were unwilling to expose their U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) status for fear of being deported.
The major emphasis today is on Hispanic workers and their safety. The National Research Council held a workshop that concluded that NIOSH needed to focus on four groups of predominantly Hispanic workers, who were recorded as having higher injury rates over the rates for other ethnic groups. These groups were:
- workers and employers who speak and write little or no English;
- recent immigrants rather than established populations;
- workers with low literacy levels in both English and Spanish; and
- workers with high-risk occupations and industry sectors.
Considering the worker, aspects such as level of education, ethnic background, specific training successes or lack thereof, and language all bear on the possibility of misunderstanding on the part of the worker during the training sessions, thus leading to an accident. Couple that with the probability that training content and operational support are most often provided by English-speaking instructors, with training materials and manuals written in English.
Determination of cause and effect, and proposed solutions, may be obscured by the lack of understanding of the culture of the people being investigated. As noted by Vazquez and Stalnaker:
- Latino culture teaches that authority figures are to be shown exceptional respect.
- Latinos tend to do as they are told.
- Eagerness is not considered appropriate.
- Latinos revere their jobs and fear employer punishment for any reason.
- Latinos place high value on family and are likely to talk to each other about issues that they are unwilling to discuss with supervisors and non-Latinos.
- Developing trust requires time and depends on the development of personal relationships.
Such cultural characteristics are rarely considered when training programs are being developed, the drive being primarily concerned with the information being presented, not necessarily the depth of understanding of the recipient.
Since it was established, OSHA has written a number of safety standards for a variety of industries; however, OSHA has just recently begun to translate the standards into other languages. The effectiveness of such translations may be called into question: Do the ESL workers have access to and do they read such standards? Classes taught in the native language of the students are not necessarily the solution, and just because a class has been taught, there is no guarantee that the lessons taught have been learned. Couple the nuances of language among the various Spanish-speaking countries with significant cultural differences, and there is a challenge to industry to both understand and solve this critical problem. There are inroads being made, but publications addressing issues of safety, operator language, and cultural differences are practically nonexistent, even if only Hispanic workers are considered. Similarly, where training is considered, questions must address the training language, testing methods, certification of results, and support materials for operator use.
If the extent and content of federal government programs intended to alleviate the problem were reviewed, it would be noted that typical courses are from 1 day to 3 days in length, with 20-25% oriented to government regulations, policies, and penalties. The remainder of the course content covers general topics, with no particular emphasis noted. There were no metrics identified with which the effectiveness of any training program could be measured other than dollars spent versus the number of people trained.
There are no specific data gathered by federal or state agencies reflecting ESL, training, and ethnicity in regards to operator safety. However, given the lesser skill demands in industry segments with high fatality rates, the education of the ethnic groups may provide additional insight into a possible source of the problem. None of the current databases, as available from the DOL or the Census Bureau, provide information that could be used to determine a correlation between accidents and language or training. There were no metrics identified to judge the effectiveness of the training, thus, the question remains, what approaches provide sufficient safety information for the entry-level worker, especially an ESL entry-level worker. The Outreach Program provides a report structure, including reference to the language used for the course (Spanish or other), however there isn’t any published evaluation of the effectiveness of the completed training conducted or any follow-up on the overall effectiveness of the programs when measured against the operator injury rate in selected industries.
Conclusion
The United States is blessed with a great diversity of people who seek to live and work here, but those same differences of language and culture can contribute to misinformation, misunderstanding, and injury on the job. Effective training will be the key to overcoming barriers posed by non-English-speaking workers. Training materials, safety materials, and other information intended to help the worker must be presented at the educational level of the worker, in an appropriate language, and in a manner easily understood by the worker.
Raymond E. Floyd has a BSEE from Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL, an MSEE from Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, and a PhD in Engineering Management from California Coast University, Santa Ana, CA. He spent 26 years with IBM as a Senior Engineer, retiring in 1992. He formed his own company, Innovative Insights, Inc., with emphasis on RFID system design, integration, and testing.
Written for TrainingIndustry.com
