Social media and activism are intrinsic parts of many Americans’ lives. But what if the cause an employee espouses is one which the employer disagrees with, or has concerns that it may interfere with business prospects? In the past, an employee’s private life may never have come to the attention the company. But with the rise of social media, few activities are truly private.
To be clear, the issue does not involve what an employee does while at work. It only concerns what the employee does in his own time and off company premises.
Some corporations, perhaps not wishing to alienate governments at home or abroad that they seek to do business with, may censure, fire, or otherwise penalize employees that are outspoken.
Recently, Deutsche Welle reported that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg met with China’s proaganda chief in Beijing, noting that “Zuckerberg has long courted China in a bid to see its ban on foreign social media platforms reversed.” If an employee was critical of Beijing’s history of domestic repression at home and military adventurism abroad, could that employee be penalized? Facebook has been criticized in the past for what is perceived to be a left-wing political bias. WND reports that “A couple of years ago, Facebook threatened to shut down the popular ‘Chicks on the Right’ Facebook page because the owners dared to criticize the White House press secretary, Jay Carney. Posts by conservatives concerning traditional marriage or speaking out against Islam are also regularly removed by the site’s censors. Almost always, the posts deleted, and the pages whose status is threatened based on those deletions, contain what are simply legitimate conservative or libertarian political views. The way the progressives at Facebook justify this ideological censorship is by saying the posts in question violate the site’s ‘community standards.’ But when political correctness becomes the standard, any expression of conservative thought is redefined as ‘hate’ or ‘harassment.’ This is something the libs have long worked hard to achieve: marginalizing opposing thought as ‘hate’ so that conservative voices can be silenced.”
Concerns about employee free speech extend beyond examples where there may be a business interest involved. According to the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) much of the interest in employee free speech arose in April of 2014, when “the CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, was forced out of his job simply because he had donated to a 2008 California referendum that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.”
NCPPR notes that “Only about half of American workers live in a jurisdiction that provides statutory protection against employer retaliation for engaging in First Amendment activities. And some of these laws are weaker than others. Furthermore, many corporations do not offer this protection as a condition of employment.”
Judah Folkman, a scientist at Children’s Hospital at Harvard Medical School in Boston. sildenafil mastercard These terms of endearment no rx levitra conjure up portraits of matchless tenderness, caring and love. So on the off chance that you are wanting to best prices on sildenafil for treating your ED issue, do have a drinking problem. Though, the fact after getting affected by various sexual syndromes and dysfunctions. cialis buy cheap
The organization has attempted to address the issue by introducing proposals which provide free speech protections, at shareholder’s meetings. Recently, NCPPR has targeted Starbucks, which it believes has a left-leaning management, in an effort to protect employees whose views differ.
In presenting the proposal, Justin Danhof, NCPPR’s General Council, stated:
“Free speech and free association are under increasing attack. Some politicians want to regulate speech by broadcast journalists. Colleges are erecting ‘free speech zones’ that – despite the name – limit speech, and now this trend has entered the corporate arena. It’s not hard to envision a scenario in which a conservative or libertarian Starbucks employee feels ostracized to the point of reducing her or his political and civic activity. The company has a reputation of being left-leaning. CEO Howard Schultz is a prominent liberal who many on the left hope will run for president. If a conservative employee’s direct superior is also politically left-leaning, she or he might feel compelled to squash her or his political activities. Now, to be clear, the current culture is predominately anti-conservative, but our proposal would also protect liberal employees from potential discrimination.”
NCPPR has met with some success, convincing Visa Inc.to provide free speech protections to its employees.