{"id":159,"date":"2020-03-28T15:44:36","date_gmt":"2020-03-28T15:44:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crowhill.net\/blog\/?p=159"},"modified":"2020-03-28T15:44:36","modified_gmt":"2020-03-28T15:44:36","slug":"do-employers-have-a-right-to-regulate-employees-speech-when-theyre-not-on-the-job","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/crowhill.net\/blog\/2020\/03\/28\/do-employers-have-a-right-to-regulate-employees-speech-when-theyre-not-on-the-job\/","title":{"rendered":"Do employers have a right to regulate employee’s speech when they’re not on the job?"},"content":{"rendered":"

P&C drink and review Port City’s Long Black Veil<\/a>, an American style, black IPA, then discuss whether employers should have any say in what employees do on their own time. <\/p>\n

There seems to be a difference in degree, based on the extent to which the employee represents the company. To put it simply, there’s the line worker, the manager, and the company officer, and in each case, the company has an increasing interest in the employee’s positions on issues. Or at least what they say about them. <\/p>\n

Is it different when the company has an explicit goal? How about a nonprofit that advocates for a particular issue. Can they only hire people who agree with them? <\/p>\n

Is company culture a good enough reason? What if a company doesn’t want any Trump voters? <\/p>\n

The old standard, back in the 80s, was that the only thing that mattered was your ability to do the job. That was the standard progressive view. E.g., Bill Clinton’s sex life was irrelevant as long as he was doing his job well. <\/p>\n

The new standard is harder to parse, but the boys do their best to meander their way through it. <\/p>\n