Employee conflicts re:war

jules2001

I have an employee who is telling other employees that he is praying that Iraq wins the war and that America is wrong. And yes, employees are upset. I plan to talk with him individually and the company as a whole (reiterating what is below). I am going to have everyone sign a policy to the effect of:
Attention Employees:

Many employees have strong beliefs about politics, war and religion. Comments regarding these topics have no benefit to the business or to the jobs that each employee is here to perform.

Employees should not speak to other employees about their beliefs. Please respect one another. If someone speaks to you about these topics, please tell that person that you do not want to discuss it and notify your supervisor as soon as possible.

Failure to abide by this policy will result in discplinary action.
What do you folks think?

Gillian

I would try a private conversation first. If that doesn't work your approach might work, however, I would change the wording to reference controversial subjects in a generic way and add language about the work disruption, which is what you are trying to change. If you mention religion, you may run into religion discrimination issues.

System

Ditto, Gillian. No point in making a policy for one obnoxious employee. Tell him his expressions about Iraq vs USA are offensive and he should cease and desist immediately or risk discipline up to and including discharge. The employer can set certain standards for the workplace. You wouldn't think twice about warning/discharging someone who touts the advantages or naziism or cannabalism or killing one's neighbor. His comments are disruptive in the workplace. End of story.

jimlegal

Out of your concern for this employee, I would speak with the employee directly, explaining that you are concerned for the employee's safety for when the War does start a possibility exist that certain individuals in the "public" may retaliate against supporters of Iraq. In fact in our area the FBI has opened a 24hr manned situation monitoring center, which one of its purposes is to act on retaliatory strikes in our area. Remember retaliatory strikes did occur after 9/11... Hopefully after such a discussion your immediate problem will be resolved, then you can take a moment to create a policy that works for your company. Good luck!

Paul in Cannon Beach

I agree with Norawi. This guy is a jerk. He knows what he is saying is offensive. There is a difference between two people discussing an issue such as the war and someone intentionally trying to inflame others or get a shock.

You have a moron for an employee. Sorry.

Paul

Parabeagle

I agree with all the previous posters. Private, one-on-one direct approach is my recommendation here. Having a policy is great, but there's no need to draft a policy for EVERYTHING. This sounds like a case where your employee needs to learn a little discretion before he "slips on his soap in the shower." And if that happened, you'd have two disciplinary issues to deal with, not just one.

Whatever

I agree that the employee should be spoken to privately. He is obviously making the statement to get attention. I would not do a written statement because of one individual. The fact is that people everywhere (including the workplace) are discussing the Iraqi situation. It is natural. And, it can be done in a reasonable manner. During the presidential election (and the post-election period) there was lots of talk about politics. It happens in all companies. You don't can't stop it. The only problem is when someone crosses the line. (Unfortunately, I'm not always sure I know what the line is). In most cases, people do not cross the line.

Trinity

My answer: Since he has all this time to make political speeches, maybe ask his supervisor if he can help you out with some special projects to take up all the free time he appears to have..or at the very least when talking to him, refer to this and see if that shuts him up. Let him know that the company and employee's time is valuable and he is taking away from office productivity, first by visiting instead of working, then with words purposely said to affect employee's concentration and performance.

Hatchetman

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-19-03 AT 08:19PM (CST)[/font][p]I have to take a different position from the others.

As long as you permit employees to engage in non-business related discussion, I don't think you are justified to tell this employee anything different than you would tell any other employee about non-business related discussions.

While I appreciate free speech isn't necessarily part of the workplace and that a private sector employer probably has some latitude that doesn't exist in the public sector (where I work), I'm not sure that you wouldn't be committing a violation of a public policy concept as long as you permit discussion of non-work-related matters if you then had to terminate the employee for violating instructions not to tell his thinking to others if you allowing a general discussion of the U.S.-Iraqi war (which I don't think you'd be able to effectively prevent in the first place).

I WOULD have a general meeting with all employees, as you thought, to talk about the war situation in general and discuss not only the tenor of the war debate for all, but other aspects that may impact them -- general worry; friends/family in the armed services or possibly in Iraq; call-ups; etc. You just don't have to concentrate on the arguments that occur.

Certainly remind all employees that we all have different feelings -- some may oppose the war; some support it; some may think the US is a bully and picking on innocent Iraqis; others may think that Saddam is an evil person and needs to be removed even if there were no issue about WMD's.

"But regardless of our individual opinions, we all work together as adults and to remember it's only discussion and to still respect others, even though with whom you may disagree with strongly. The work environment demands that." Etc., etc. You get the point.

And then discuss other issues about the workforce and the war and what the company's policies, suggestion or help is in the various war-related issues.

dolores

I agree with Hatchetman. When you start issuing memos dealing with prohibitions against "beliefs" where will it end? How about beliefs on AIDS, euthanasia, abortion, etc.? I myself think that when you start trying to limit the discussions of your employees, you are courting grievances, possible lawsuits, but perhaps worst of all -- hurting workplace atmosphere. Employees spend a lot of time at their job, one of their outlets, I think, is conversing with other employees -- sometimes about banal, noncontroversial subjects, sometimes not. Perhaps instead of trying to address the problem of what is being said, you should look at is there too much conversation going on when employees should be working instead. Courts don't have a problem with regulating the wheres and whens of speech -- they do with the content.

njjel

I read the above posts with interest as at our office we have "no war, peace" posters tacked just about everywhere. Most folks just look the other way.

Shawn

Ignore the whole thing. Lots of people say dumb things at work and we don't issue memos each time. This too shall pass. I saw a sign on the news today that said "give war a chance".

cappyfire

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-21-03 AT 03:39PM (CST)[/font][p]I agree. Tho his speech is offensive to some, the test is whether or not he is addressing matters of public concern. "America is wrong" is addressing his opinion of public policy. Read this months issue of Virginia Employment Law Vol. 15, No2. Very interesting.

Don D

The posts represent every corner of the pool table. I too think the man has a right to his personal beliefs (and they're 180 degrees from mine), and if others are expressing theirs or are allowed to, so should he be. I don't get too anal about what I perceive might possibly be offensive to somebody and go off in all sorts of directions with my attempt to redirect behavior just because conversations get lively and one steps out of the rigid circle. His opinion is his opinion, even if he makes it up on the spur of the moment for its shock value. You can't tape people's mouths shut over what seems to be incompatible with the majority of opinions on the war or any other subject.