Companies should be prevented from trying to silence their employees
公司應(yīng)該允許員工發(fā)聲
615 words
CAN YOU?really lose your job for posting an opinion on Twitter, or even for clicking “l(fā)ike” on somebody else’s message? Surprising though it may be to employees who expect firms to indulge their odd working hours, their tastes in coffee and their pets, the answer is often yes. Pascal Besselink, an employment lawyer in the Netherlands, reckons that about one in ten abrupt sackings there is connected to behaviour on social media.
有人真的會(huì)因?yàn)樵偻铺厣习l(fā)表自己的觀點(diǎn)唱较，或者只是給某人的觀點(diǎn)點(diǎn)贊而丟掉工作嗎相艇？令人意外的是踱阿，就像那些本以為公司會(huì)容忍他們奇怪的工作時(shí)間，對(duì)于咖啡的品味以及寵物員工會(huì)被炒魷魚(yú)一樣歼冰，答案往往是肯定的。Pascal Besselink是荷蘭的一名勞工律師，他在接受采訪時(shí)說(shuō)到未約定的解雇案例中粤咪，有十分之一都與在員工在社交媒體的表現(xiàn)有關(guān)。
Controversial opinions were once expressed in bars after work, and went no further. Today Twitter and other social media broadcast employees’ thoughts; they also make it easy for anyone who is offended to put together a mob and retaliate against the poster and their employer. Jittery firms respond by sacking the offender. Some, like General Motors, have introduced conduct codes which police workers’ speech even when they are not at work.
在過(guò)去渴杆，人們?cè)谙掳嗪笕ゾ瓢珊葍杀戎Γ谀抢锸惆l(fā)自己的觀點(diǎn)，即便是富有爭(zhēng)議的言論磁奖，也止步于酒吧內(nèi)部囊拜。然而今天推特及其他社交媒體的普及，使人們的觀點(diǎn)暴露在大眾視野中比搭；這些社交媒體也讓被冒犯的人聚集在一起冠跷，對(duì)推主和其雇員施加報(bào)復(fù)更為容易。
A firm may judge its self-interest correctly when it punishes workers who speak out. America’s National Basketball Association probably lost hundreds of millions of dollars this season because of a Chinese blackout imposed after the general manager of the Houston Rockets tweeted in support of democracy in Hong Kong. Sacking him would have been costly, too—but not that costly.
一家企業(yè)如果懲罰其暢所欲言的員工身诺，可能它對(duì)自己利益的判斷還算正確蜜托。美國(guó)國(guó)家籃球協(xié)會(huì)本季度約損失了上百萬(wàn)美元，僅因?yàn)樾菟苟鼗鸺目偨?jīng)理在推特上發(fā)表了支持香港民主的言論而遭到了中國(guó)的封鎖戚长。辭退他付出了代價(jià)盗冷，但如果不這么做，可能將會(huì)有更高昂的代價(jià)同廉。
Though it is not necessarily in companies’ interests to allow the free expression of opinion, it is clearly in society’s interest. Free speech, including by employees, is a cornerstone of democracy. At the moment workers are too easily gagged.
雖然并不是所有的暢所欲言都與公司的利益掛鉤仪糖，但肯定是與社會(huì)利益密切相關(guān)柑司。包括公司員工在內(nèi)的言論自由，是民主的基礎(chǔ)锅劝，但現(xiàn)在這個(gè)自由的渠道卻常常被堵住攒驰。
In countries such as America most employees have scant protection against punitive? (punish) employers. In others, laws written to protect religious freedom are being extended to govern other beliefs and views. British judges have decided that ethical veganism deserves legal protection. A think-tank was ruled to have acted legally when it did not renew the contract of a researcher after she tweeted that biological sex is immutable (see International section). This case-by-case evolution leaves employees and employers unsure which views are acceptable and where.
一些國(guó)家，比如美國(guó)故爵，對(duì)員工懲罰政策的保護(hù)措施遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠玻粪。其他的一些方面，比如宗教自由诬垂，國(guó)家有法律明文規(guī)定保護(hù)和捍衛(wèi)不同的信仰和觀點(diǎn)劲室。英國(guó)法庭已將倫理素食主義列為法律保護(hù)的一項(xiàng)內(nèi)容。還有一個(gè)案例结窘，一個(gè)智庫(kù)不愿與其研究員續(xù)約而被告上法庭很洋，因?yàn)樗谕铺厣习l(fā)表了反對(duì)變性的言論，法院判決結(jié)果是該智庫(kù)采取了合法手段隧枫。這些大大小小的案例讓老板和雇員不能確定什么樣的喉磁、在什么地點(diǎn)發(fā)表觀點(diǎn)是合適的。
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, no matter how strongly others disagree—at least if that is not relevant to the job they do. 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.
在制定更明確的規(guī)則之前官脓，立法者需要時(shí)刻清楚地分辨捍衛(wèi)和騷擾的區(qū)別协怒。如果一個(gè)雇員發(fā)表自己無(wú)法接受同性婚姻的看法，無(wú)論其他人多么強(qiáng)烈的反對(duì)卑笨，只要跟他的工作內(nèi)容無(wú)關(guān)孕暇，這個(gè)人就不應(yīng)該受到懲罰。但如果一名員工反復(fù)在工作場(chǎng)合大肆詛咒同性戀湾趾，制止無(wú)效的情況下芭商，他已經(jīng)構(gòu)成騷擾了，這是應(yīng)該被立即解雇的搀缠。
There is also a difference between what people do at work and what they do outside. Speech is like a dress code. Just as companies can demand that their employees look the part while at work, they should be able to restrict what they say there, provided they are clear and fair about it. 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. A woman fired in 2004 by a housing firm for displaying a sticker backing John Kerry on her car was poorly treated. The situation is more complicated when it comes to public figures such as sports stars, who in effect sell their image as well as their labour.
此外铛楣，人們?cè)诠ぷ鲌?chǎng)合的行為，與他們?cè)谏钪械男袨橐灿袇^(qū)別艺普。言論就像是穿搭法則簸州，就像公司可以規(guī)定員工在工作場(chǎng)合的穿著一樣，如果有清晰歧譬、公正的言論條款岸浑，他們的言行舉止也會(huì)受到制約。同樣的瑰步，人們下班后可以隨心所欲地把工作服換成牛仔褲和T恤矢洲，他們也應(yīng)該自由地表達(dá)自己地觀點(diǎn)才對(duì)。在2004年缩焦，一名女性因在她自己車上貼了一張聲援John Kerry的貼紙而被家政服務(wù)公司解雇读虏，這就是非常失敗的案例责静。言論自由這一點(diǎn)要是放在公眾人物（如運(yùn)動(dòng)明星）身上，情況就更復(fù)雜了盖桥，因?yàn)樗麄兊男蜗髮?shí)際上也是商品灾螃。
Firms will lobby to preserve their freedoms. But robust laws against unfair dismissal that protect speech would help them stand up to complaints from angry mobs and the Chinese government. Politicians should hold their nerve. Many complain that their constituents have become so ideological and tribal that they have forgotten how to talk to those with opposing views. Geographical and technological spaces are increasingly segregated. That makes it all the more important that people encounter different views at work—and especially outside it.■
公司會(huì)建議保留他們的自由，但建立有說(shuō)服力的法律來(lái)幫助因言論導(dǎo)致的不公正解雇揩徊，可以抵擋憤怒暴民和中國(guó)政府的投訴腰鬼。政客需要再忍忍，關(guān)于他們的選民變得如此理想化和集中固化有很多的投訴 塑荒，以至于他們已經(jīng)忘記了該怎樣與反對(duì)的觀點(diǎn)對(duì)話熄赡。地理和技術(shù)差距是不同地區(qū)的人分化更明顯糕殉。這就使人們?cè)诠ぷ魃暇钗小⒂绕湓谏钪杏鲆?jiàn)不同觀點(diǎn)的情形比以往任何時(shí)候都多。■
