Skip to main content

Talking politics at work can be toxic. Alexandria association says don’t outright ban it

Talking about politics at work can lead to a toxic environment, especially when it devolves into arguing about politics. Even so, a recent survey by Indeed, a job listings website, found 35% of office workers admit to openly discussing their political views in the office.

Almost half of office workers have overheard co-workers talking about politics, and half in the same survey said it makes them uncomfortable. Two in five of those office workers surveyed reported workplace discrimination or even harassment based on political views.

Companies have an obligation to protect employees against harassment of any kind, but may be hesitant to implement policies that restrict employees from expressing their views.

Some companies have tried an outright ban on political discussions in the office, while others have not enacted any restrictions, according to the Society for Human Resource Management, which is based in Alexandria, Virginia.

“Both ends of the spectrum have proven quite unmanageable,” said Johnny Taylor Jr., the society’s president and CEO. “You can’t have people coming to work every day attacking other people. That’s on one end of the spectrum. Then, it is naive to believe that no one will talk about what’s on the news every day, social media or otherwise.”

Taylor said employers are hoping to “meet in the middle.”

“We’re not going to be able to prohibit it. How would you enforce this? But we also aren’t going to allow employees to engage in uncivilized ways because ultimately we don’t get a good return on our investment because employees are attacked over their political viewpoints,” Taylor said.

The organization recommends companies do set policies on political talk at work. Specifically what constitutes a conversation, and what crosses the line that makes others feel uncomfortable or harassed. And, with consequences.

“Say ‘Here are the guardrails,’ and then say ‘If you don’t follow them, the first time and the second time, we will remind you progressively that this is not the way we operate our culture here. By the third time, we will not let you work here anymore,'” Taylor said.

Private companies are not bound by First Amendment freedom of speech protections, but they are bound to the protection of employees from any kind of discrimination. Taylor suggests political discrimination, though not a protected class, could be considered protected.

There is a financial consideration for companies when considering policies around political conversations in the workplace that turn toxic.

“After someone has experienced an uncivil act or a toxic act at work, it takes them an average of 31 minutes to get themselves back into the game. That means out of every hour, the employer is potentially losing 50% of the productivity they want to get out of that employee,” Taylor said.

Indeed said such occurrences have a profound effect on the workplace, with 42% saying politics had impacted their team in some way, shape or form, and 34% saying politics have negatively affected team morale.

Indeed’s full survey results are online.

Massachusetts court hears arguments in lawsuit alleging Meta designed apps to be addictive to kids

BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts' highest court heard oral arguments Friday in the state's lawsuit arguing that Meta designed features on Facebook and Instagram to make them addictive to young users. The lawsuit, filed in 2023 by Attorney General Andrea Campbell, alleges that Meta did this to make a profit and that its actions affected hundreds of thousands of teenagers in Massachusetts who use the social media platforms. “We are making claims based only on the tools that Meta has developed because its own research shows they encourage addiction to the platform in a variety of ways,” said State Solicitor David Kravitz, adding that the state's claim has nothing to do the company's algorithms or failure to moderate content. Meta said Friday that it strongly disagrees with the allegations and is “confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.” Its attorney, Mark Mosier, argued in court that the lawsuit “would impose liabilities for performing traditional publishing functions” and that its actions are protected by the First Amendment.
Read Next Story