New York – Days after the deadly shooting of conservative activists Charlie Kirkmany workers were fired for comments on his death, including MSNBC political analyst Matthew Dowd.
It’s far from the first time I’ve lost my job for what I say publicly – including in social media posts. In the United States, the law may vary between states, but overall, there is little legal protection for employees who speak in and out of private workplaces.
“Most people think they have the right to freedom of speech…but that doesn’t necessarily apply to the workplace,” Vanessa Matsis-McCreadyAssistant and Vice President of Human Resources Services, participates in PEO. “Most employees in the private sector have no protection from such speeches at work.”
In addition, the prevalence of social media has made it increasingly common to track employees’ behaviors and Dox people’s behaviors outside of work, or to post information about them online with the intention of harming or harassing them.
Protection for workers varies from one state to the next. In New York, for example, if an employee attends a weekend political protest but does not contact the organization that hires them, their employer cannot fire their activities when they return to work. But if the same employee attends a company event on weekends and talks about their political views in a way that makes others feel unsafe or discriminate or harassing, they can face consequences at work, Matsis-McClady explain.
Most people in the United States breach the “will to” employment law – which essentially means employers can choose the right hiring and fire, including speaking to employees.
“The First Amendment does not apply to private workplaces to protect employees’ speeches,” said Andrew Kragie, an attorney specializing in Maynard Nexsen’s employment and labor law. “In fact, it does protect the right of employers to make decisions about employees based on what they speak.”
Kragie said there are “protective pockets” all over the United States under various state laws, such as statues that prohibit the political views of workers being punished. He pointed out that this made the explanation of water come true, making the water blurred.
Steven T. Collis, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, and faculty at the school’s Baker-Loughlin First Amendment Center also pointed to some state laws that say employers cannot fire their workers’ “legal off-duel behavior.” However, there is usually one exception, which is believed to be destructive to the employer’s business or reputation, which may be a reason to fire someone through public comments or social media posts.
“In this case, if someone feels that one of their employees has done something that shows that they are glorifying or celebrating a murder, an employer can fire them even if they use one of the laws on books,” Collis said.
This process is different for public employees, from school teachers and postal workers to elected officials. This is because the First Amendment plays a unique role when the government is an employer, Collis explained-The Supreme Court ruled that employees are protected if they act in a private capacity but speak in terms of public concern.
However, this has not stopped the public sector from Kirk’s die. For example, the Pentagon leaders reveal a “zero tolerance” policy for any post or comment that reveals or celebrates the killing Kirk.
The policy announced on social media on Thursday came hours after many conservative military influencers and activists began retweeting posts they believed were retweeting Parnell and his boss, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
“It is unacceptable for military personnel and civilians to celebrate or ridicule the assassination of a fellow American compatriot,” Parnell wrote Thursday.
The ubiquity of social media, it is easier than ever to share opinions about politics and major news events when unfolding. But posts on social media have left records and in a time of escalating political polarization, these statements can be seen as a destruction of the reputation of an individual or his employer.
“People don’t realize they’re town square when they’re on social media,” said Amy Dufrane, CEO of the Institute for Human Resources Certification. “They don’t have a private conversation with their neighbors on the fence. They’re really promoting their own opinions.”
Political debate is certainly not limited to social media, but is increasingly entering the workplace.
“We have gamifications of how we communicate in the workplace, slack and team, chat and all of these things, they are very similar to how you might interact on Instagram or other social media, so I do think that makes it feel a little less and someone might be more inclined to take a step and say, ‘Oh, I can’t believe it,’”McClady explain.
According to the Institute for Human Resource Certification, many HR professionals say they are not ready for political discussions in the workplace. However, these conversations will occur, so employers need to develop policies regarding acceptable or unacceptable workplace behavior.
“HR has to really drill and make sure they are very clear about their policies and practices and communicate with employees about their responsibilities as an organizational employee,” Dufran said.
She said many employers are reviewing their policies on political speech and providing training on appropriate behaviors both within and outside the organization. And the cruel nature Kirk’s On the day after his death, the killing could have caused some of them to react more intensely.
“Due to the violent nature of some political discussions, I think employers are really worried about them keeping the workplace safe and that they are alert to anything that can be seen as a threat, and that’s their duty.”
Employees can also be seen as ambassadors for the company’s brand, whose political speeches can dilute the brand and damage its reputation, depending on what is said and how it is received. This has led to more companies taking action on what employees say online, she said.
“Some people who posted and post spread and suddenly, the employer’s phone line just complained non-stop,” Matsis-McClady explain.
Still, experts like Collis expect significant changes in how employers monitor workers’ speeches – pointing out that online activities have been attracting attention for at least the last 15 years.
“It’s been a long time since employers have censored employees based on what they post on social media,” he said.
____
Associated Press writer Konstantin Toropin in Washington contributed to the report.
