Companies should be prevented from trying to silence their employees
公司应该允许员工发声
615 words
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 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.
有人真的会因为再推特上发表自己的观点，或者只是给某人的观点点赞而丢掉工作吗？令人意外的是，就像那些本以为公司会容忍他们奇怪的工作时间，对于咖啡的品味以及宠物员工会被炒鱿鱼一样，答案往往是肯定的。Pascal Besselink是荷兰的一名劳工律师，他在接受采访时说到未约定的解雇案例中，有十分之一都与在员工在社交媒体的表现有关。
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.
在过去，人们在下班后去酒吧喝两杯，在那里抒发自己的观点，即便是富有争议的言论，也止步于酒吧内部。然而今天推特及其他社交媒体的普及，使人们的观点暴露在大众视野中；这些社交媒体也让被冒犯的人聚集在一起，对推主和其雇员施加报复更为容易。
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.
一家企业如果惩罚其畅所欲言的员工，可能它对自己利益的判断还算正确。美国国家篮球协会本季度约损失了上百万美元，仅因为休斯敦火箭的总经理在推特上发表了支持香港民主的言论而遭到了中国的封锁。辞退他付出了代价，但如果不这么做，可能将会有更高昂的代价。
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.
虽然并不是所有的畅所欲言都与公司的利益挂钩，但肯定是与社会利益密切相关。包括公司员工在内的言论自由，是民主的基础，但现在这个自由的渠道却常常被堵住。
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.
一些国家，比如美国，对员工惩罚政策的保护措施远远不够。其他的一些方面，比如宗教自由，国家有法律明文规定保护和捍卫不同的信仰和观点。英国法庭已将伦理素食主义列为法律保护的一项内容。还有一个案例，一个智库不愿与其研究员续约而被告上法庭，因为她在推特上发表了反对变性的言论，法院判决结果是该智库采取了合法手段。这些大大小小的案例让老板和雇员不能确定什么样的、在什么地点发表观点是合适的。
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.
在制定更明确的规则之前，立法者需要时刻清楚地分辨捍卫和骚扰的区别。如果一个雇员发表自己无法接受同性婚姻的看法，无论其他人多么强烈的反对，只要跟他的工作内容无关，这个人就不应该受到惩罚。但如果一名员工反复在工作场合大肆诅咒同性恋，制止无效的情况下，他已经构成骚扰了，这是应该被立即解雇的。
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，人们在工作场合的行为，与他们在生活中的行为也有区别。言论就像是穿搭法则，就像公司可以规定员工在工作场合的穿着一样，如果有清晰、公正的言论条款，他们的言行举止也会受到制约。同样的，人们下班后可以随心所欲地把工作服换成牛仔裤和T恤，他们也应该自由地表达自己地观点才对。在2004年，一名女性因在她自己车上贴了一张声援John Kerry的贴纸而被家政服务公司解雇，这就是非常失败的案例。言论自由这一点要是放在公众人物（如运动明星）身上，情况就更复杂了，因为他们的形象实际上也是商品。
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.■
公司会建议保留他们的自由，但建立有说服力的法律来帮助因言论导致的不公正解雇，可以抵挡愤怒暴民和中国政府的投诉。政客需要再忍忍，关于他们的选民变得如此理想化和集中固化有很多的投诉 ，以至于他们已经忘记了该怎样与反对的观点对话。地理和技术差距是不同地区的人分化更明显。这就使人们在工作上、尤其在生活中遇见不同观点的情形比以往任何时候都多。■
