In an increasingly polarized world, discussing politics in the workplace can be harmful to employees and negatively impact company culture, says Jasmine Escalera, a career expert with MyPerfectResume.com.
Indeed, a recent survey by the career website found a majority (89 per cent) of employees believe employers should limit or discourage political discussions. The survey, which polled more than 1,100 workers, found eight in 10 (80 per cent) said political neutrality in the workplace is important to their job satisfaction. Three-quarters also said they’d leave a job if their employer promoted political ideologies with which they strongly disagreed, with the percentage increasing among those aged 25 or younger (92 per cent).
Read: U.S. abortion ruling thrusts employers into divisive arena
People generally expect their workplace to foster productivity and anything that could potentially impact that, including their ability to grow and advance within their careers, is viewed as a threat, Escalera adds, noting political conversations at work can also affect employees’ emotional, mental or spiritual health. While there are certain times when politically charged conversations are just naturally going to happen, she says it’s important for employers to have appropriate policies in place and for company leaders to exemplify proper behaviour.
Dave McKechnie, a partner at law firm McMillan LLP, agrees employers should take steps to remove ambiguity and make clear what is and isn’t acceptable in terms of political discourse in the office. He notes Canadians are coming off the heels of a closely watched U.S. election that was extremely polarized and are heading into an increasingly divisive election of their own.
“Employers are smart if they set the ground rules now on what is appropriate and what is unacceptable discourse in the workplace. . . . It’s going to change by workplace, but certainly having goal posts or boundaries for employees as we come into this period, is going to be smart.”
McKechnie notes freedom of speech provides employees with protection from government intervention, not from consequences from private sector employers. While political speech may be covered by provincial human rights legislation, it’s important that employers understand the nuances in what exactly is considered protected political speech in their province. He notes some employers are building these policies into their written harassment and discrimination policy. While there are also differences among the provinces on whether employers must have a written harassment and discrimination policy, he strongly suggests every employer adopt one.
Read: Workplace vaccine mandates being upheld as challenges largely tossed out, say experts
“One of the first questions [employers will] get asked at a human rights tribunal is [whether they] have a policy that deals with this conduct and [whether they’ve] trained employees on this [policy]. It’s not hard to put together a harassment [and] discrimination policy. There’s plenty of examples.”
MyPerfectResume.com’s survey also found 79 per cent of respondents said they fear expressing political beliefs outside of work could lead to negative repercussions from their employer. When it comes to their social media presence, McKechnie cautions employees to tread carefully. “There are a number of cases where somebody’s social media conduct comes into the workplace. . . . If you’re a big public company that prides itself on respect and other values [and] has a well-known brand, having an employee, who identifies themselves as part of that brand, say something that’s incendiary or discriminatory, is something a company doesn’t have to accept.”
Among the survey’s respondents, 73 per cent said they’ve witnessed concerning situations arising from political discussions at work, including arguments (47 per cent), favouritism (44 per cent), bullying (36 per cent), disciplinary action (34 per cent) and retaliation, such as exclusion from projects or unfair treatment (34 per cent).
Read: 61% of Canadian HR professionals say harassment a growing issue: survey
A recent case in New Brunswick highlights how politics can trickle into the workplace unintentionally. Shannon Aitchison, a Canada Post worker in New Brunswick, was suspended after refusing to deliver flyers from a Hamilton-based anti-abortion group, which called for a ban on “child sex-change,” according to a report by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. Aitchison, who told the CBC she’s the mother of a transgender adult, says she also had a disciplinary meeting and her union has since filed a grievance on her behalf.
A spokesperson for Canada Post quoted by the CBC said the flyer “does not meet the definition of non-mailable matter.”
McKechnie views this case as another important reason why employers should have a policy in place, noting Canada Post had an internal process from which management could draw. But, he warns that these types of competing rights cases can apply to many private employers. Competing rights cases involve instances where legislation that protects against delivery of services in a discriminatory manner is pitted against legislation that protects individuals from delivering a service that’s contrary to their religious views.
He believes these cases will become more prevalent in Canada over the next few years, so it’s critical employers have a plan in place to address these situations before they arise.
Read: Mindfulness training reduces workplace bullying, harassment: UBC study