3 ms·
Of course they do? The alternative often mentioned in this context is to have some kind of democratic system for setting a definition and then resolving disput
by dnissley 6y ago
Of course they do?
The alternative often mentioned in this context is to have some kind of democratic system for setting a definition and then resolving disputes around it, but certainly you can see how we've already started down a path that has the potential to utterly consume an otherwise functioning organization.
I wouldn't begrudge a company for trying the above approach, but I personally wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, and I'd appreciate it if they were as transparent as Basecamp has been.
- tomlockwood 6y ago> Of course they do? I've never worked for an organization that has had a company definition of what is and isn't political speech.
- dnissley 6y agoThe default in my experience seems to be companies that have a generic policy about what is acceptable to talk about in the workplace, which usually excludes the topics of politics and religion. Some articulate it better than others, but when push comes to shove it's up to the owners to decide what will happen in the end. And in that sense they absolutely get to define what the company handbook means when it says political speech.
- tomlockwood 6y agoActually after having a quick lil Google about this, companies that mention "political activity" in their guidelines are in the minority (1/4) and Basecamp may actually be contravening the NRLB guidance on political speech - particularly since its pretty clear that the political speech in question was surrounding a matter at the workplace. So no, they don't "absolutely get to define what the company handbook means" - there are legal boundaries to what they can prohibit. Additionally, we should be absolutely cynical about companies prohibiting political speech. As this Basecamp example shows, they'll attempt to do so about workplace matters.