Businesses Impeding Free Speech Rights in the Workplace
by Dmitri Iglitzin & Steven Hill
The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees not only the
freedom to speak but also the freedom not to listen. The US Supreme
Court has recognized that "no one has a right to press even good ideas
on an unwilling recipient." Nevertheless, American businesses are
increasingly violating what should be the acknowledged free speech
rights of their employees.
Frito-Lay Inc., one of the world's largest producers of snack foods, is
also one of the country's worst abusers of its employees' right not to
listen. It routinely not only compels its employees to listen to
anti-union diatribes, on company time and property, but also forces its
drivers to allow anti-union advocates to accompany them on their routes,
requiring the captive drivers to listen to their anti-union speech.
Frito-Lay sugarcoats what it is doing by portraying this as merely
"communicating" with its employees, i.e. exercising its own free speech
rights. But an Aug. 6, 2007 letter, which was sent to several hundred
Teamster-represented employees in Washington state informing them of
Frito-Lay's impending effort to oust the union, had menacing undertones:
"We will probably use several methods of communication over the next few
weeks, including employee meetings, letters, route rides, and individual
discussions." Left unstated, but nonetheless crystal clear to employees,
was that listening to these "communications" would not be voluntary. To
the contrary, any refusal by an employee to participate in such
communications--wherever, whenever and for however long the company
wished--would be grounds for discharge.
Unfortunately this kind of behavior is not unique to Frito-Lay. Many
American companies take advantage of the intrinsic vulnerability of
their employees at the workplace. A report for the federal government,
based on a study of more than 400 union representation election
campaigns, found that during 92 percent of union organizing drives,
employers forced their employees to attend closed door anti-union
meetings. In addition, 78 percent of employers directed supervisors to
deliver anti-union messages to employees in one-on-one meetings.
Not surprisingly, employers have never seen fit to grant union
representatives the same equal right to address employees. And nothing
in federal law requires companies to allow labor representatives onto
the employer's property to speak to workers, even if just to give an
alternative view to the employer's anti-union speech.
So in many American work sites today, not only are workers' free speech
rights being violated on a regular basis, but there's also no free
market of ideas. Instead there exists a communication monopoly where
workers are subjected to Soviet-like conditions, indoctrinated into the
employer's anti-union credo and relentlessly harassed by their employers.
To counter this, a nationwide campaign has been launched to win basic
free speech rights for workers. A proposed law, titled the Worker
Freedom Act, would make it illegal for an employer to require workers to
sit through meetings while the employer lectures on religious or
political beliefs, including beliefs about joining a union. This law
would not prohibit employers from sharing their opinions with their
employees, but it would grant the employees the right to walk away.
The WFA has been introduced into numerous state legislatures, and the
Michigan, New Hampshire, and Oregon houses of representatives all have
passed it. It was passed by the Colorado Legislature in 2006 before
being vetoed by the governor. Clearly, a lot of people agree with the US
Supreme Court that there is a compelling need to "protect listeners from
unwanted communication." Whether in situations such as children in
school or passengers on a bus, the court wrote that "the First Amendment
permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when
the 'captive' audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech."
If "captive speech" is not permitted to be imposed on students in
school, why should it be imposed on workers at their jobs? Should
American workers have to forfeit their First Amendment-type freedoms
whenever they show up to work?
Free speech is as American as apple pie, so it seems oddly un-American
that in the twenty-first century American workers don't enjoy basic free
speech rights in the workplace. The current momentum in favor of the
Worker Freedom Act suggests that Americans recognize it is simply wrong
that working Americans are denied this basic right. It's past time to
support legislation that will give workers and worker representatives
free speech rights in the workplace.
Iglitzin is a labor law attorney in
Seattle; Hill is political reform director at the New America Foundation
and author of "10 Steps to Repair American Democracy"
(http://www.10steps.net).
|