CHAUDHRI: Geopolitical tensions create shaky ground for employees

Article content

Last weekend, the Toronto Pride parade was cancelled only a few short hours into the event, after pro-Palestinian protesters blocked the parade from proceeding.

If you live in the city of Toronto, you are no stranger to these ongoing protests including the University of Toronto encampment that was ordered to be cleared out by an Ontario court less than a week ago.

Many Canadians are taking public positions about geopolitical issues including the situation in Gaza, the U.S. presidential election and leadership in our own country. Viewpoints are often controversial and almost never universal.

Gone are the days that employers are privy to few personal details of their workers. Few can claim ignorance to the political leanings of their employees. And when political views or online conduct become controversial, employers feel compelled to act or at least insist that employees follow the company’s code of conduct.

I have written somewhat extensively on how social media blurs the line between personal views and employment including last year when Elon Musk joined the board at Twitter. Musk tweeted a photo of himself that appeared to be taken during a Joe Rogan podcast when the two infamously smoked marijuana during the episode. The caption read: “Twitter’s next Board meeting is going to be lit.” He also posted, “Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy.”

Following Musk’s board appointment, at least one Twitter employee reportedly commented on the company’s Slack channel, “If an employee tweeted some of the things Elon tweets,” they’d likely be the subject of an investigation from HR.”

The employee went on to ask, “Are Board members held to the same standard?”

That incident is a great example of how power is linked to literary liberation. Powerful people are less often sanctioned at work by saying controversial things.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.

Play Video

I also wrote last year about Jordan Peterson’s run in with his regulator over comments he made online. His regulator, the College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO), sanctioned him following the receipt of various complaints regarding public comments he made on social media and in an online interview.

The CPO ordered Peterson to complete a remedial program including social media training. Peterson refused to comply and claimed that the CPO was infringing on his freedom of expression. He sought a judicial review of the decision at the Superior Court of Justice.

Peterson’s case presents a dangerous precedent for what could happen to regulated professionals that use social media in a personal or controversial way.

And while it makes sense that employers would insist that employees maintain professional decorum online, perhaps that is now too heavy a burden to bear.

Social media is no longer seen as optional. Its essential. It’s where many of us live our lives. It’s no longer the town square — it’s our backyard, where we go to school, seek medical treatment and where we connect daily with family and friends.

It is also the primary place political discourse ensues.

Employers and regulators should be extremely careful to sanction employees for espousing personal views online. My sense is, as social media becomes more intertwined with our personal lives, the act of sanctioning employees for online conduct simply will not age well.

Have a workplace problem? Maybe I can help! Email me at sunira@worklylaw.com and your question may be featured in a future column.

The content of this article is general information only and is not legal advice.