May 17, 2007
Media Contact: Amy Wolf
(615) 322-NEWS
Amy.wolf@vanderbilt.edu
Businesses Involvement in Politics Could Affect Employees’ Freedom of Speech
NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Politics and business have long gone hand-in-hand. But a Vanderbilt University professor finds that private companies’ enthusiasm for politics is affecting some employees’ First Amendment rights—and there’s not much an employee can do about it.
“There have been many situations where a worker is punished or fired for their own political expression or for refusing to participate in conveying an employer’s preferred message,” said Bruce Barry, professor of sociology at Vanderbilt and professor of management at the Vanderbilt Owen Graduate School of Management.
According to Barry, infringements on employee free speech have taken the form of punishing an employee for a certain political bumper sticker he has on his car; firing a worker for the contents of a personal blog; or not hiring a person who doesn’t want to take part in a political rally.
In his new book, Speechless: The Erosion of Free Expression in the American Workplace, Barry points out that although these kinds of situations involve punishment for activities that many people would assume are protected free speech; the law gives employers wide latitude to control the expressive activities of their employees.
“Employers commonly put words in employees’ mouths regarding the firm, its culture or its products and services and are free to punish non-conformity,” said Barry.
Barry said a difference in opinion can be grounds for firing because unregulated free speech could be considered a threat to the company’s economic and political interests.
“For most workers in most situations, employers in the private sector have no obligation to respect the expressive rights or impulses of those who work for them,” said Barry. “Even in public-sector jobs, where the government is the employer, the reach of the First Amendment is quite limited.”
Americans believe an individual’s right to free speech trumps an employer’s right to control them, but Barry said that belief is misplaced. He cites a 2001 national opinion survey showing that 80 percent of respondents thought it was illegal to fire a worker for expressing political views with which the employer disagrees.
“Unfortunately those respondents were wrong,” said Barry. “Some states have laws protecting employees from being punished for political activity, but most workers enjoy no such protection.”
Barry points to “compelled speech” as a particularly troublesome form of employer control over employees’ rights to free expression. Worker speech is compelled when employees believe that they must associate themselves with a certain point of view to maintain favor with their employers. Examples include participation in corporate-sponsored lobbying efforts and corporate-backed political events, such as a candidate speech at the workplace.
Barry warns of the risk of compelled speech when corporations participate in campaigns through political action committees (PACs), which collect and distribute employee contributions. Barry cited research that found in 2004 more than half of companies in the Standard and Poor’s 500 Index had PACs. Barry said the way they “invite” employees to contribute can easily cross the line into coercion.
“Corporations have been known to give ‘public’ recognition to PAC contributors at meetings of executives, raising the pressure to give,” said Barry.
Barry also cited a survey by CFO Magazine that found almost 25 percent of respondents at the level of corporate vice president or higher felt that not giving to the PAC would be detrimental to their career.
Barry argues in Speechless that limits on freedom of expression at work have a chilling effect on the exercise of those rights both on and off the job, impairing the health of democracy and civil society. More information on the book, including sample chapters, can be found at www.speechlessthebook.com.
For more news about Vanderbilt, visit the News Service homepage at www.vanderbilt.edu/news.
