Question:
My employer threatened my job this morning over something I posted online. I have strong political beliefs and care about what’s happening in the Middle East and the election. I choose to share my views with my friends online because I fear what might happen if the wrong party wins.
I don’t want to leave my job. I like what I do and other than this, my employer generally leaves me alone—which I appreciate. I admit some of my posts seem intense. That’s intentional. I want them to go viral. That’s why I wrote a post saying would-be assassins targeted the wrong candidate. I also tweeted that a Republican shooter wouldn’t have missed and included a call to action in the tweet. My employer freaked out, saying I advocated violence.
Even if I did, my employer overstepped and needs to realize employers aren’t allowed to fire employees for what they say when the employee posts from their personal social media accounts.
Further, my posts have NOTHING to do with my work performance, so I refuse to cave to pressure and dilute what I write. I don’t represent my employer 24/7 so how is it anyof my employer’s business what I post?
Answer:
Except in certain cases, employers can discipline or terminate employees whose posts cross the line, even if those employees post from their own accounts. When an employee’s posts endorse or encourage violence, it potentially creates a toxic, hostile environment.
Recently, multiple employers have fired employees for posts endorsing violence. When an auto racing broadcast employee posted “the next shooter isn’t going to miss” and “By September 1, that man will be DEAD. And the half of us in this great nation who understand what a threat he is to DEMOCRACY will stand and cheer,” his employer fired him, https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2024/07/16/race-on-broadcasting-employee-fired-over-trump-death-post-says-he-was-hacked/.
When a pharmacy worker wrote “damn, they missed” after the assassination attempt on former President Trump failed, Guardian Pharmacy fired her, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13637033/texas-pharmacy-worker-trump-rally-shooting-comment.html.
When a school employee posted “Shoot—if Only he would’ve had his scope sighted in correctly,” a South Dakota School District fired her, https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/education/2024/07/15/ben-reifel-middle-school-employee-fired-after-trump-rally-shooting-post-sioux-falls-school-district/74413055007/.
When a sheriff’s deputy posted Chief Justice Robert’s life “needed to be shortened, his employer let him go, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/sheriff-comments-social-media/2020/12/26/7b631ee4-47c1-11eb-975c-d17b8815a66d_story.html.
Employers can also discipline or terminate an employee whose posts depict or glorify illegal activity; make slurs, use discriminatory language or constitute hate speech against any group based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics; engage in cyberbullying; threaten employee health or safety; or include manifestos or engage in conspiracy theories and use inflammatory rhetoric.
For example, when a Citi personal banker tweeted “No wonder …Hitler wanted to get rid of all of them” with a smiley face, Citigroup fired her, https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/citi-fires-employee-revolting-anti-semitic-social-media-post.
Even if employers can fire employees for offensive posts, they need to first review applicable federal and state laws. The National Labor Relations Act protects an employee’s right to communicate with one another about workplace issues such as wages, benefits, tip-sharing arrangements, management, hours or other work conditions. These issues overlap with political views. Also, some states, currently California, Colorado, Louisiana, New York and North Dakota, prohibit employers from taking adverse employment actions against employees based on lawful off-duty conduct.
Finally, not only might your post cost you your current job, it might make finding a new job harder. Fifty-five percent of the employers that review job candidates’ online accounts prior to hiring reported they found content that caused them not to hire a candidate, https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2377-social-media-hiring.html.
So, here’s my question. Can you voice your views without advocating violence? Isn’t there enough killing now?
© 2024 Lynne Curry, PhD, SPHR, SHRM-SCP
Subscribing to the blog is easy
If you’d like to get 1 to 2 posts a week delivered to your inbox (and NO spam), just add your email address below. (I’ll never sell it.) I’m glad you’ve joined this vibrant blog. Thank you!
I think stuff like this speaks to the person’s character and I wouldn’t want to work with someone who felt that violence was a justified response to political disagreement, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they were on. Call me old fashioned, but I still believe in civil discourse and that the best way to solve political disagreements is in the voting booth.
And the ‘thot plickens.’ It’s getting closer. The line is getting thinner. And the opportunities to cross that line are becoming ever more potential.
The separation between First Amendment Rights of Free Speech and the Rules and Customs of Common Decency is becoming thinner than razor thin.
Without any comment in support, or criticism of what this article speaks to, what I read is that someone/anyone was offended by something/anything that someone/anyone else said. One opinion crashed headlong into another opinion and a decision ensued.
It’s one thing to damage or destroy something physical – a possession, structure, device, data or process. And certainly to injure or kill a person or animal. But here, we’re talking about a thought, an idea or ideology, an opinion – something that is entirely personal – on a per-person basis – not firm, that you cannot see any marks or scars on; something that can be changed on a whim with the simple will or desire to change it. The examples of this are countless, but changing religion or political party allegiance are good examples of this – we all know people who have done it.
As often as not in cases like this, whether it is acceptable or protested is more dependent upon who hears it and whether they object to it – allies agree, foes protest. Although I’ve had friends argue against things with me, as I have with them – and we at least can amicably agree to disagree on whatever THAT matter is.
Without any assessment of the subject of this article, there are those who are as adamantly FOR this cause as there are those who are adamantly AGAINST this cause. It seems to me that there’s a war-between-countries going on over just this disagreement. And you can ‘fill in the blank’ on the cause-for-the-moment, hour, day, week, year or generation, and whether it is intra- or inter-office, -family, -ethnicity, -gender, or any other subdivision of life.
it seems like society is close to ‘turning final’ on a complete standstill and crash because someone will always be offended by something that was said – and that will set in motion another objection that someone else will be offended by. It is so sadly sickening to watch this occurring. Ironically and as an example, I’m sure there are those who will find my neutral-but-objective assessment of this article goes against their grain, when my comments are not about the article at all – so sue me. There’s no winning this insane and inane battle-of-society.
There is no expectation of privacy in email or social media posts. Employers will and do review them and often enough have legal support for firing workers whose posts were deemed offensive because they seemed to advocate violence or major law breaking. As well, potential employers–employers a candidate has interviewed with or with whom a person has filed an application–my review social media and personal email posts to get more of an idea about a candidate. Learning that a person was fired on account of their social media and/or online posts isn’t going to help their chances at finding new employment, either. These are the facts in today’s job world.