Few things can divide a workforce more than heated political debate that spills over into the private arena. In an election year, employees become passionate about supporting their candidates and causes, but it does not have to be about an election in order to be volatile. Issues regarding pending legislation that impacts an employee’s personal life or touches on a sensitive moral issue can happen at any time. As in most things related to free speech, the emphasis must be on job related activities while at work. Dress codes can prohibit wearing of campaign paraphernalia at work during working hours. But how restrictive can an employer be without infringing on the right of self expression? The answer is not the same in all circumstances.
Most people believe that companies should not take sides in a political debate. Actually, federal law allows for a company to persuade executive and administrative personnel to vote for or against a particular candidate. This class of employee is usually applicable only to upper management. Outside of this restricted class the law is much more limiting. Good management practice would dictate that issues of importance for the business should be known and publicized, but coercing employees is a form of mind control generally not accepted by the law or by common practice. It is always a good idea to find out the local state law regarding these practices, because even forcing employees to attend meetings of a political nature can be in violation of law.
Most states provide for an employee to exercise their right to vote by mandating time off on an election day. Restricting political expression can be a violation of law and some states even go as far as making it illegal to take any adverse reaction to employees because of outside-of-work political activity or  voting for certain candidates. The safe position on internal campaigning is to treat it the same as any other solicitation on the premises. Covering political canvassing along with charitable and other distractions in written policy is necessary to maintain order in the workplace. In addition to non-solicitation policies, there should also be clear policies on the use of electronic means such as the telephone, email, and the internet for business only.
Many companies still have not addressed social media use with company policies. With the advent of smartphones in everybody’s pocket it is difficult to track and in most cases should not be overly restrictive. A culture that rewards productive labor and measures results based on factual work can make it easier to give a sense of individual freedom without being overly restrictive. Training and feedback are key elements to keeping political free speech alive while maintaining workplace as a place to do work.
It is complicated. If not sure of the answer, ask an attorney. Policies are guidelines to maintaining efficiency and it is in the best interests of the company if HR professionals are continually tweaking policies to reflect current thinking and legal precedent. It is NOT the job of human resources to police policy or to punish offenders. Arranging for training of managers and insuring that they know when a line is crossed is the best policy.
Image credit: sibgat / 123RF Stock Photo