Ah, the first amendment. Such a nice amendment. And so misunderstood.
I’m not going to claim to understand the first amendment completely, but I do know that on private property, you don’t necessarily have the right to say whatever you want under the first amendment. For example, on a regular basis, I attract a troll, and I don’t post his comments. And, yes, it’s a him. And then he writes that I’m censoring him and don’t have the right to do this under the first amendment, and I wonder when I became Congress.
But back to the topic of discussing politics at work…
When you consider discussing politics at work, the first amendment isn’t necessarily behind you (unless you’re a government employee):
Jonathan A. Segal, vice chairman of the employment services group at the New York offices of the law firm WolfBlock, said that this was the most common misconception about policies intended to curtail communication about politics (and other sensitive subjects) at work. “People get into heated political arguments with colleagues at work and they think, ‘I can do this. The First Amendment is behind me.’ But they’re wrong,” he said. “The law generally in most states doesn’t prohibit discrimination based on political speech.”
He noted that employees of government agencies could be an exception. Because the organizations are part of state or federal governments, ordinary constitutional protections do apply.
Read That Campaign Button Can Sting You At Work for questions and answers on discussing politics in the workplace. And remember that every workplace is different. Some are excellent places for a robust debate. Some are not.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Employees need to also understand that when the manager or company cracks down, it’s not necessarily because they are trying to curtail your freedoms - it could be that they need to protect you and your coworkers from a hostile working environment. I’ve worked in places where people started mouthing off about all kinds of political issues and it became very uncomfortable.
The last place I worked at, I got to hear such lovelies as, “Well, too bad for the Native Americans that they were almost wiped out; they should have fought harder,” and “Racial profiling by mall security is okay because everyone knows that black people shoplift more often,” it can get really tense. Now, I’m all for spirited and lively conversation - even debate - and that was actually able to happen where I worked because it was a very diverse workplace. People who said F-ed up things were basically viewed by most as “that person who says f-ed up things.”
Had it been a place with only a few people of color, those incidents could have been a disaster. When it comes to conversation about racial, religious, and economic issues there needs to be awareness of power dynamics in the workplace. For example, one former coworker posted this terribly offensive spam hoax “article” about Muslims, the devil, and 9/11. And of course, it had a tone of “we are all Christians and THEY are all infidel murderers.” It was up for about one hour before management got wind and had it removed.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
That’s a good point. I think that often these incidents begin with people making assumptions like, “We’re all Christians here…” I can remember when I taught at a Catholic school that was often the assumption, and compounded by the assumption that all Christians vote only for “pro-life” candidates.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I try to make a point to avoid political statements at work unless I am absolutely certain I am in like-minded company. It is often difficult to gauge a person’s political sentiment and it often takes a while before I know with any degree of accuracy.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I tend not to make any political statements outside the home.
But my dad is a political scientist and I might just be full.
And, yeah, it’s really hard to gauge people politically. One of my best friends at a former job blanched at a Planned Parenthood postcard that I gave her and I realized that I had misjudged where she was on the reproductive rights spectrum.