Free speech at work

Can you really lose your job for posting an opinion on Twitter, or even for clicking “like” on somebody else’s message? Surprising though it may be to employees, the answer is often yes.

Pascal Besselink, a Dutch employment lawyer, estimates that about one in ten firings in the Netherlands is now related to behavior on social media. Few get much attention because companies tend to settle disputes quietly. Even when firms are right, they prefer to stay out of the spotlight, so many buy off fired employees in exchange for their silence.

Controversial opinions were once expressed in bars after work, and went no further. Today Twitter and other social media broadcast employees’ thoughts and also make it easy for anyone who is offended to put together a crowd and retaliate against the poster and their employer.

Firms are increasingly concerned about what their employees say and write outside the office.  To prevent conflicts, companies are beginning to spell out their expectations in codes of conduct and social-media policies. The level of detail varies. Intel simply asks employees to “use common sense”. General Motors’ 12-page social-media policy includes a reminder that “your online communications will not be excused merely because they occurred outside of work hours or off GM premises.”

Though it is not necessarily in companies’ interests to allow the free expression of opinion, it is clearly in society’s interest. Free speech is a cornerstone of democracy. At the moment workers are too easily gagged.

In laying down clearer rules, legislators should remember that offending and harassing are different. It is not reasonable for companies to try to prevent their employees from expressing displeasure at gay marriage. But an employee who repeatedly says at work that gays are damned, even after being told to stop, has crossed the line into harassment. That should be grounds for dismissal.

There is also a difference between what people do at work and what they do outside. Speech is like a dress code. Companies can ask their employees to look the part while at work. After people go home, though, they should be able to express their opinions freely, just as they are free to change into jeans and a t-shirt.

Most employers simply want a pragmatic approach to regulating speech at work that allows people to get on with their jobs while avoiding both the courts and the media. That is easier said than done. 

From The Economist (edited)

The killer whale (TED Ed)

You can also watch the video by clicking on the Play Button

Coronavirus and greetings

Some people around the world shake hands. Some hug. Some rub their noses together. And some—many in fact—kiss on the cheek. But now, as Covid-19 spreads around the globe, people are rethinking how they say hello.

The WHO recommends a few protective measures to avoid spreading the coronavirus. That includes frequent and thorough hand-washing, social distancing (staying at least a meter from anyone who appears sick), and not touching your eyes, nose, and mouth.

Some countries have gotten a bit more culturally specific. The United Arab Emirates on Jan. 31 called on residents to suspend nose-to-nose greetings—a traditional way for men in the Arabian Peninsula to say hello.

In Egypt, a country with a reputation for comedy in the Arab world, a popular rhyme has emerged: “مش هنسلم، مش هنبوس، مش هننشر الفىيروس” (“We won’t shake hands, we won’t kiss, we won’t spread the virus”). Cheek kissing is common between men (and often between men and women) in the country and across the rest of the Arab region.

In Iran, where the outbreak has killed the largest number of people outside China, one popular video on social media shows men in surgical masks tapping feet instead of kissing to avoid unnecessary contact..

In parts of Europe, it’s similarly common for people to greet each other with a kiss on the cheek. France’s health minister recently warned against kissing, or la bise, as the French call it. Switzerland’s health minister has suggested droppings the cultural practice altogether.

Both handshakes and kissing are used across Asia, including Indonesia the world’s fourth most populous country. Indonesian authorities are recommending a namaste-style greeting. Nearby Singapore is also circulating notices to encourage waving, elbow-tapping, and the namaste as alternatives to handshakes and kisses.

       From Quartz 

Football talk in the workplace

Chartered Management Institute head Ann Francke (photo) said sports chat can exclude women.

"A lot of women, in particular, feel left out," she told the BBC's Today programme."They don't follow those sports and they don't like either being forced to talk about them or not being included. I have nothing against sports enthusiasts or cricket fans - that's great. But the issue is many people aren't football fans. Bosses should crack down on sports chat.”

Ms Francke is concerned that discussing football and, for example, the merits of video assistant refereeing (VAR) can disproportionately exclude women and divide offices.

Anyway, Ms Francke does not think sports chatter should be banned, just moderated. She said that good managers should be inclusive and ensure that everyone in their team feels comfortable.

But sports journalist Jacqui Oatley thinks cracking down on sports chatter would be a "terrible idea".

"If you ban football chat, then all you're going to do is alienate the people who actually want to communicate with each other," she told the Today programme.“It would be so, so negative to tell people not to talk about sport because girls don't like it or women don't like it, that's far more divisive. The secret was to discuss sport in an inclusive way and to notice if people are blankly staring into space during the conversation.”

And the majority of people responding to a LinkedIn post from the BBC appear to agree with Ms Oatley.

Office manager Debra Smyth worries that other topics could also be censored if sport chatter is banned. "I personally think companies should not dictate what people talk about, as not talking about it will alienate those with similar interests. Where would it end? Banning people with children  from talking about them so as not to alienate people without children. Certainly not!"

Recruiter Peter Ferguson said: "I have seen managers and staff build a more direct bond over a shared love of sport which has excluded those who don't share that interest. The answer is not to ban the conversation, it is to ensure managers and staff are trained to understand that those shared interests should not get in the way of management decisions or working collaboratively."

   From BBC (edited)