It’s no secret that political and social views are quite polarized throughout the world, with differing opinions about what is right or wrong varying based on where one falls on a spectrum of liberalism versus conservativism. This has led to what many refer to as culture wars, with many falling to one extreme or the other. Certainly, voicing an opinion is perfectly fine, and protected by the Constitution. But when it comes office environments, there is a decreasing tolerance for social protests in the workplace. Not long ago, companies were lenient with their employee activist policy, but the pendulum is swinging, and a number of big companies are drawing a line in the sand to keep activism out of the office.
(Forget affirmative action, fix our education system instead! Read more in this Bold story.)
In the last few months, companies are beginning to push back against extreme employee views and actions. The latest involved Google firing more than two dozen employees after anti-Israeli protests disrupted working environments. This is one of many such examples where companies are reassessing their employee activity policy platforms. Certainly, companies need to be socially responsible and align their actions with their company values. But carte blanche permission allowing social protests in the workplace is not something conducive to business success. These impacts extend beyond the inner operations of a firm into consumer choices and behaviors. Companies are realizing this in light of recent reactions to company-supported activism. This is why Google and others are changing how they respond to social protests in the workplace.
Recent Shifts in Employee Activist Policy
The latest news related to a change in employee activist policy involved Google in response to employee protests. Choosing to take swift action, the company fired 28 workers who participated in a sit-in protest in the office. The protest was against Google’s recent $1.2 billion contract with the Israeli government for cloud computing. Taking a pro-Palestinian stance, these workers launched major social protests in the workplace that went beyond a basic sit-in. Google alleged that their actions not only disrupted workflows but also involved defacement of property. This was the basis for the company’s immediate termination of the employees. And it reflects a trend that involves other companies besides Google.
At least three other companies have taken a new approach to their employee activist policy as well. For example, Starbucks recently sued an employee union for using its platforms to promote pro-Palestinian content. While the two are trying to work things out without litigation, it’s clear Starbucks was willing to take action. Similarly, NPR recently fired a senior editor after he publicly critiqued their coverage of an alternative media network. And The New York Times investigated possible leakage of confidential information regarding the Gaza war. It suspected some employees opposing recent content were using such tactics as a means of protest. In each case, it’s evident that social protests in the workplace are being less favorably tolerated. It’s clearly a sign of the times.
Recent Lessons in the Business World
In considering these recent changes in employee activist policy, it’s likely past events are influencing company choices. In recent years, larger social issues are finding their way into office politics. When racial tensions were high amidst George Floyd’s death, several companies supported Black Lives Matter. Since that time, controversies surrounding abortion rights, ethnic wars, and views on sexuality have emerged. Social protests in the workplace have thus become more common surrounding these subjects. But these issues are not only more divisive but routinely extend well beyond corporate interests. That doesn’t mean some companies haven’t taken a stand one way or the other. But the repercussion of doing so has at times had some serious impacts as a result. In most instances, these haven’t been favorable.
There have been a few notable examples of companies that supported these types of social protests in the workplace. For example, Disney took on Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida over the Parental Rights in Education Bill. Pressured by LGBTQ employees, Disney took a hard stand against the bill that banned specific content in schools. This launched an all-out war between the governor and Disney that cost the company a significant amount of time and money. Anheuser-Busch/InBev had a negative experience as well related to its employee activist policy. Its marketing promotion of Bud Light using a transgender influencer triggered widespread boycotts by a sizable percentage of its consumer base. In all likelihood, the company wouldn’t choose to make that choice again if it could do it over.
A Place and Time for Activism
When it comes to an employee activist policy, companies must take a fresh look at their approach. Many companies including Google prided themselves on having open dialogues and internal debates among its workers. This can encourage inclusion as well as innovation when mixed with diverse views and opinions. But allowing social protests in the workplace takes this collaborative approach too far. Rather that considering alternative views and agreeing to respectfully disagree, such protests undermine productivity. This is why Google fired workers recently and they were right in doing so. When employees take social protests in the workplace to an extreme, they no longer have the company’s and their coworkers’ best interest in mind.
The bottom line is that a company’s environment should not be used as a personal platform to voice opinions and dissent. Companies in exploring an employee activist policy should make sure their stance aligns well with their corporate values. They should also only address social issues that clearly demands attention. Making a decision about what a company’s health coverage will cover might be important. But commenting on other social issues when they don’t affect company activities is likely to be beyond any necessary scope. And certainly, disruptive social protests in the workplace shouldn’t be allowed. The First Amendment gives everyone the right to verbalize their opinions in public, but it doesn’t extend into private workspaces. That is why for the most part activism should be something employees pursue out of the office.
Stamp Out DEI in College Admissions and It Will Transform Into Something Else
