Can, or should, politics and work mix?

As tensions on geopolitical issues constantly become more contentious, dialogue about world issues around the coffee machine may no longer apply to the modern-day workplace.

A recent study by Enhancv revealed that one in three Gen Z employees often lie about their political beliefs to avoid workplace conflict. More findings discovered that one in five feel threatened discussing politics at work, while 31 per cent of workers overall experience conflict at work due to their political beliefs.

These statistics were trumped by the 5 per cent who have been disciplined at work for expressing their political opinions, with Gen Z being 10 times more likely than Baby Boomers to be reprimanded for expressing their political beliefs.

Talking politics at work always has the potential to cause tension between colleagues, but considering the magnitude of the global issues circulating in 2024, these discussions can quickly become extremely passionate and intense, leading to conflict in the workplace.

It should be to no one’s surprise that young employees entering the workforce for the first time would attempt to avoid this potential conflict by concealing their political beliefs when they enter the office.

But should this be the case? Should employees – young workers especially – feel an impending doom each time they exert a political opinion in the workplace?

HR Leader reached out to Michael Bradley, managing partner of Marque Lawyers, about this topic, to which he referred to some of the legal ramifications that can arise if an employer were to act against their employee over a political opinion.

“The legal position is that it is unlawful for an employer to take adverse action against their employee because of the employee’s political opinion, which is a protected right,” Bradley said.

“How far the law will go to protect an employee’s right to express their political opinion is a more controversial question because the employer has other obligations – for example, workplace safety – that may conflict. The employer may also have legitimate commercial imperatives; for example, if its business is one that requires it to be apolitical, then that could be compromised by its employees making public political statements.”

“However, there is a fine line between an employer imposing reasonable requirements on its employees regarding overt expression of their political opinions and active or tacit suppression of their beliefs by effectively imposing conformity. It’s very easy for ‘neutrality’ to, in reality, be acquiescence in a dominant one-sided viewpoint.”

HR Leader also reached out to broadcaster, columnist, and author Antoinette Lattouf, who is at the centre of a high-profile unfair dismissal case in the Federal Court of Australia against the public broadcaster ABC after she was sacked for sharing a Human Rights Watch post that said: “Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war”.

Lattouf’s situation really muddies the water, as she was posting to her own social media platform – instead of stating her opinion in a workplace context. Weeks after her dismissal, two WhatsApp group messages were leaked to the press, which showed coordinated efforts by “Lawyers for Israel” and “Jewish Creatives” to pressure the ABC board to end Lattouf’s short-term presenting contact.

Her situation highlights the toxicity that can arise in a workplace – especially one of ABC’s stature – if an opinion goes against the grain of the organisation.

“Discriminating against or dismissing an employee because of their political opinion is unlawful, but this doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, particularly when corporations are increasingly bullish in how they crack down on employees,” Lattouf.

“While this heavy-handed crackdown is a bid to preserve or save the brand’s image, it often has the opposite effect. It damages the brand, and it demonstrates how paper-thin the corporation’s commitment is to genuine diversity and inclusion. It also terrifies other staff who fear their speech is hardly free and can be weaponised against them.”

Lattouf raises a crucial point in regard to an employee’s speech being weaponised against them. It directly ties into the findings where employees feel threatened discussing politics at work, as at any point and time, their dialogue can be used against them.

This is especially true for younger workers, for whom Lattouf agreed, are in a tricky situation, considering their passion for social and political expression.

“It’s a tricky time for young workers, with their lives increasingly played out online coupled with the casualisation of the workforce. It’s hard to determine how and when personal political and social expression can be used against an employee.

“For example, if a young employee is working from contract to contract and there are gaps between gigs, does their political expression via attending a rally or posting a hashtag become fodder to be used against them in the workplace when they formally return?” Lattouf said.

“As we know, using facts and credible sources while expressing an opinion won’t necessarily save a person’s job when there is pressure for an employer to act a certain way.”

The terrain is incredibly precarious; therefore, showing extreme caution about what one expresses when they’re in the workplace or even what they conduct on their social media has been a widely adopted procedure.

It’s a procedure, however, that Bradley believes shouldn’t exist in the Australian workplace.

“It’s wrong to tell anyone what they should or should not do. Sure, we can take the view that young people should keep their opinions to themselves because they have nothing to gain from being outspoken, and because we know that there’s a strong probability they’ll pay a career price if they do speak up,” Bradley said.

“But they may have higher personal imperatives that make that impossible for them, such as their personal values or life experiences. My view as an employer is that I have no right to tell anyone what they should or shouldn’t say, within the boundaries of legality.”

Overall, it comes down to how the employer approaches these situations and how they are going to set their boundaries when it comes to political discourse in the workplace. If these boundaries are shrouded in biased judgements, then the consequences for employees, as well as workplace morale, can be extremely detrimental.

“While there is no constitutional right to free speech in Australia, it remains an important and assumed right for many. It’s a powerful tool that can empower individuals and drive important conversations,” Lattouf said.

“At the same time, it’s crucial for employers to create a safe and inclusive work environment. If the majority of staff departures are from marginalised groups or if those being punished for their political opinions also largely hail from marginalised groups, it’s a clear sign that the workplace and management style needs serious reflection.”

“This would suggest that the workplace is far less safe and inclusive than one employee’s Facebook post.”

Kace O'Neill

Kace O'Neill is a Graduate Journalist for HR Leader. Kace studied Media Communications and Maori studies at the University of Otago, he has a passion for sports and storytelling.