People should freely be able to have opinions on Twitter, Youtube, TikTok, CBS News, etc. and those opinions should not get them fired from their jobs just because some exec or some vocal group disagrees... as long as they're not representing the company. "I work for Pepsi and think the President is "..." for example.
On the other hand, unless it's whistleblowing, badmouthing your company to a broadcast audience when you don't have the imprimatur to do it, will most likely have consequences. Broadcast communications are the purview of The PR dept. This is for the PR dept to handle. You can opine it with your friends, family, etc. but not to a broad audience like that, unless you are considering the consequences.
I think your political views shouldn't, but producing bad pr for your company has clear, verifiable, and obvious damage to your company is grounds for dismissal. Many emplyment contracts already stipulate such things as that, and additionally, could be possibly construed as unauthorized communication in the name of the business. While I would not likely personally fire someone for posting such things, I would for the attitude that begat them. Self sabatouging people are a net burden on any enterprise.
I agree with your points. There is an intersection between free speech and contracts with a company --sometimes it's murky and it's best to avoid a conflict of interest --unless that's what you're looking for.
...People should freely be able to have opinions on Twitter, Youtube, TikTok, CBS News, etc. and those opinions should not get them fired from their jobs just because some exec or some vocal group disagrees... as long as they're not representing the company.
That is an unrealistic take. Especially when the opinion is critical of the company. Much less when it's something as simple as the company not wanting to be associated with such viewpoints.
As a private person, you should be able to have viewpoints that differ from the company position. I'm free to think that drinking in excess is bad for society, even if I work for Pabst. I am free to believe that workers are free to seek unionization even if the company does not have nor wants unions. I probably won't be tolerated for agitating for unionization though. But I can opine on how I think unionization is good/(or bad if I work for pubic education)
What They are normally not tolerated for is for maligning the company, institution or organization. That one should keep to friends, family, trusted people, but not something you voice in a megaphone of a public forum.
Comments
To me there are two aspects:
People should freely be able to have opinions on Twitter, Youtube, TikTok, CBS News, etc. and those opinions should not get them fired from their jobs just because some exec or some vocal group disagrees... as long as they're not representing the company. "I work for Pepsi and think the President is "..." for example.
On the other hand, unless it's whistleblowing, badmouthing your company to a broadcast audience when you don't have the imprimatur to do it, will most likely have consequences. Broadcast communications are the purview of The PR dept. This is for the PR dept to handle. You can opine it with your friends, family, etc. but not to a broad audience like that, unless you are considering the consequences.
I think your political views shouldn't, but producing bad pr for your company has clear, verifiable, and obvious damage to your company is grounds for dismissal. Many emplyment contracts already stipulate such things as that, and additionally, could be possibly construed as unauthorized communication in the name of the business. While I would not likely personally fire someone for posting such things, I would for the attitude that begat them. Self sabatouging people are a net burden on any enterprise.
I agree with your points. There is an intersection between free speech and contracts with a company --sometimes it's murky and it's best to avoid a conflict of interest --unless that's what you're looking for.
That is an unrealistic take. Especially when the opinion is critical of the company. Much less when it's something as simple as the company not wanting to be associated with such viewpoints.
As a private person, you should be able to have viewpoints that differ from the company position. I'm free to think that drinking in excess is bad for society, even if I work for Pabst. I am free to believe that workers are free to seek unionization even if the company does not have nor wants unions. I probably won't be tolerated for agitating for unionization though. But I can opine on how I think unionization is good/(or bad if I work for pubic education)
What They are normally not tolerated for is for maligning the company, institution or organization. That one should keep to friends, family, trusted people, but not something you voice in a megaphone of a public forum.
You get an upvote for teaching me a new word today, "imprimatur". It looked like a typo.