Freedom of speech in the private sector.

Post Reply New Topic

If the employee is an actor being paid to follow a script, they should follow the script on camera and if they bad mouth the company on camera that's the editing department's deal to deal with. For minimum wage workers who are paid for the quality of their work, as in cleaning or cashiering or cooking, it shouldn't matter what they say so long as they do a good job regarding what they're paid to do. If their managers abuse them and yet they're unable to find work elsewhere, they should have the freedom of speech to complain about it without fear of retaliation. None of that "open door" nonsense either since that is within the business itself and they just ignore everything a worker says. No. Customers should be able to know whether the business they are providing money to is worthy of the money they provide, and there is no better source of information than those who actually do the work. If they workers love their job, and are free to say so if they don't, then it highlights the investment a customer is making when they purchase their goods, but if the employee hates their work and is free to say so, and by free to say so I mean free to say so without fear of retaliation, then that would discourage customers from investing there and rightfully so. Without the ability to fire an employee for their speech, they may be forced to modify their own behavior towards their employees (although I know in practice they'd more likely just search for other reasons to kill off their employee.)

Last edited by iamnotaparakeet on 15 Jan 2013, 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Inherent or not, if the freedom of speech is abridged it matters not the particular method by which it is.

So what? The first amendment protects your freedom of speech from the government, not from businesses. If you came into my business and started lipping off, I'd tell you to leave. If you didn't comply, I'd physically throw your ass out (as is my right on my property). Your freedom of speech doesn't override my rights as a business owner. My rights as a business owner do override your freedom of speech. Again, your freedom of speech is protected from government restrictions, not from individuals or businesses.

Allow me to re-state the question: Are you indicating that an Employer, simply by virtue of having employees, now is required to pay those employees if they want to bad-mouth the employer, in public, on company time?

Does this mandate end somewhere? Can an employer put in a handbook "Employees are not allowed to bad-mouth the company"? I would think that would defeat your concept, but it would be an enforcable agreement.

Unless they are being paid to speak a script as an actor, the employees should have freedom of speech at all times. Including pessimistic statements about their employer, or even just the freedom to answer the question of "how are you doing today?" with "I feel tired" and not get written up or fired for it. If the employer wishes to have all their employees behave as actors, they should pay them as actors and not as workers.



If an employee voluntarily signs an agreement to limit their freedom of speech, then they would abridge their own speech, but such an agreement should never be a condition of employment and it should be plainly stated that it is not a condition of employment.

As an employee, you "voluntarily" agree to show up at defined times, to do defined tasks, and to get paid some (more or less) defined amount. Under the concept you are advocating, employers would have to pay someone to show up a defined time and be able to insult or belittle the employer with no form of redress.

If a customer walked into a store and started making negative statements towards the store, there is a very good chance that the store would ask the person to leave. Under the concept you are advocating, Employers would have less ability to control employees, who they pay, then customers.

I have a related question. What if one employee engages in some form of harrassment of another employee? Would that not be free speech and protected under the concept advocated above?

Insulting a non-living entity is one thing, but harassing another living being is another entirely. However, I would rather advocate freedom of speech than advocate its limitation, since once you start into limiting another person's right to speak then you have no real stopping point. Managers often get away with harassment of their underlings, although they shouldn't, and use other reasons to terminate them should they speak up. There should be more equality in laws regardless of rank, and I mean practical equality and not just equality upon paper. Personally, I think that when infractions upon the rights of others occur everything should be considered individually as to whether a person is violating the rights of others but freedom of speech should be the general rule. Harassment is wrong though. Good use of pathos in rhetoric to make a pretext.

I brought up the harrasment issue because it is a fairly logical outcome of the approach that you are advocating. Under your concept, the employer has lost the right to prevent an employee from bad mouthing the employer, but is still required to pay renumeration. At some point, the employee's comments towards the employer could possibly consist of harassment, since you are advocating that the employee has the "right" to attempt to drive customers away from the employer.

I also have an issue with the arguement that employers are "non-living". Ignoring the vast number of living individuals acting as businesses, all businesses have living officers (by definition), and most have living shareholders, even if they might be a step removed by mutual funds, pension funds,etc.

Businesses are not alive, only those working for them are.

I realize that you may have differing views than I on the legal status of Corporations, but your approach still would restrict the displine options of businesses that are not Corporations. Are individuals who run businesses or partnerships subject to the same approach?

Actually, I personally wouldn't mind if there were a threshold number of employees/managerial ranks for such freedom of speech not to be abridged since in a small business to speak badly of the business is directly reflective of the owner. However, once a business gets large enough that the managerial ranks start treating the business policies as divinely inspired it is no longer a personal matter but an impersonal matter of calling such pretentious nonsense what it is. However, it is better for individuals to not have their rights removed regardless of employment circumstance.

A person is not free when he not only cannot speak freely for much of the day when he works but also when he cannot speak freely outside of work for fear of "embarassing the employer" .. to say, well, there's no right to a job, then in other words for people at the bottom, they're never free. To eat, they have to trade away their freedom. I suppose they're "free" to do that. Why not just live in a dictatorship? It's more honest.

Karl Marx was right; when survival comes into play, a person is not free. The solution is a guaranteed income for all to cover survival. People no longer need be enslaved to survive.

More honest, but to a worse degree too. I'd like to see something different where rights are adhered to and loophole seeking for the abolishment of rights is punished, but the state not being in complete control of everything. IDK. Everything gets too complex after a while, but simplicity is often simply crap. I just want the freedom to say that I'm tired and not have to pretend I'm not a pessimist. Heck, I'd really like to work as a manager at my job and just hide away from the customers - that's would be an excellent job for an introvert!

You have to produce to survive. If nothing is produced, you will be unable to consume and consequently, you will die. There is no slavery here and no sacrifice of freedom. It's the nature of life. Each individual has basic consumption needs in order to stay alive.

Labor is not the same as production. You can do a lot of work without producing anything. But if you fail to produce, you won't get rewarded with the products (or money for products) that you need to survive.

If you want to be employed by an organization, you can exchange your labor for money. Then you can spend the money on the consumer goods you need to survive. You don't have to labor for someone else's production. You can produce for yourself. You are free to choose.

There is no such thing as guaranteed income. Any attempt to guarantee income is masking the act of taking from producers and distributing it. So basically, you're endorsing slavery... forcing the people who produce to carry the weight of those who don't produce. Eventually, the people who produce are going to stop production because it's easier to be a non-producer. It's not sustainable.

Why don't you start your own business?

I would gladly work on my own producing food as a farmer, using geothermal wells and other power sources for electricity, and building my own homes and habitats if I could just do that without having so many fees and taxes for every little thing.