Government workers literally cannot leave politics at the door. Each HR News reader ultimate answers to one or several elected officials. As public sector human resources professionals, you serve employees who write, implement and enforce policies and regulations that elicit strong and varied opinions from those who are affected. You ensure utilities crews and sanitation departments remain sufficiently staffed. Law enforcement and public health have always been and shall forever remain highly politicized endeavors.
Add a deadly pandemic the likes of which has not been seen in more than a century as the backdrop for a contentious presidential election being shaped by an imploding economy, and just try to prevent arguments over politics from fraying nerves and hampering operations.
No, really, Try.
Doing so is equal parts a legal duty for public sector HR and basic concern for employees’ emotional well-being. Successful efforts will benefit the remotest workers to the same degree as essential employees who interact with colleagues and constituents each day.
The good news is that rules for drawing bright lines between acceptable and unacceptable behavior by government employees exist. Also, a range of tactics have proven effective for insulating oneself from unwelcome and upsetting discussions with coworkers.
Laws Govern Political Campaigning by Government Workers
Legal compliance offers a strong foundation for keeping politics from overwhelming productivity. The Hatch Act bars federal employees, appointees and contractors from, among other things,
- Using their official titles or wearing their uniforms while demonstrating or taking part in electoral campaigns,
- Soliciting donations for causes or candidates while on duty,
- Discouraging or encouraging members of the public with whom they interact in an official capacity from running for office, and
- Using federal vehicles or facilities for campaigning during business hours.
Each state and the District of Columbia has a law similar to the Hatch Act that restricts the political activities of state and local government employees. For example, Section 24-50-132 of the Colorado Revised Code bars state employees from using “any state facility or resource or the authority of any state office in support of any candidate.” The statute further makes it illegal for state workers to “campaign actively for any candidate on state time or in any manner calculated to exert the influence of state employment.”
Across the country, section 3-8-12 of the West Virginia Code states that “a person may not, in any room or building occupied for the discharge of official duties by any officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision, solicit any contribution for any political purpose, from any officer or employee of the State, or a political subdivision.”
Essential Legal Resources for Public Sector Managers and Supervisors
- Office of Special Counsel Hatch Act Overview —on.ipma-hr.org/exf
- National Council of State Legislatures 50 State Table: Staff and Political Activity —on.ipma-hr.org/tfs
- Pickering Connick Test —on.ipma-hr.org/pv9
Managers and supervisor should remind employees about these laws. They cannot, however, use the laws to immediately suspend or fire employees. Even active duty members of the military retain First Amendment rights to speak, assemble and petition. Which is why federal courts developed something called the Pickering Connick test.
Applying this test makes it possible to ensure government employees can express political opinions and engage in the political process without worrying about losing their jobs. In very simple and nonlegal terms, an employee passes the Pickering Connick test if they speak (or act) on a matter of public interest without either disrupting the workplace or impeding the operations of the government entity that employs them.
Another way to conceive of this is that managers and supervisors must generally allow government employees to do things that some coworkers and officials will not appreciate. When annoyance or embarrassment crosses the line into actually causing harm, an actionable offense has occurred.
Managers Must Set and Enforce Rules and Expectations
Some speech and certain types of displays can never be permitted. Clearly, HR must work with managers and supervisors to investigate and end open expressions of racism, bigotry and sexism. But what to do about subtler forms of imitation or abuse cloaked in vocal or visual support for certain policies and politicians?
Preventing bad behavior is key to keeping the peace and protecting vulnerable employees. Writing, distributing and occasionally reinforcing rules against wearing candidate gear and displaying campaign materials will help. Enforcing the rules consistently and equitably will go even farther.
Make it clear to employees that the organization is not dictating what anyone should believe or do outside of work. Make it equally clear what violating, for instance, the dress code will mean. When specific guidance comes from outside the agency or department, share that with workers.
An example of this last situations involves the federal Office of Special Counsel determining in mid-July 2020 that wearing a face mask or shirt that states “Black Lives Matter” does not violate the Hatch Act. According to the OSC, simply acknowledging the concept of Black lives mattering is not a means of supporting any particular partisan outcome. The Hatch Act only bars explicitly political activity, which it defines as something “directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.”
Establish Personal Boundaries
Equitably enforcing federal or local laws and workplace policies starts with acknowledging that people’s opinions differ. More specifically, managers and HR pros cannot be fair if they assume that everyone in the organization shares their political beliefs.
“Live and let live” is not the same as “survival of the fittest,” however. Accepting that people will say and do things that engender disagreement must not amount to allowing loudmouths and bullies to run rampant.
Closing off that nightmare scenario requires empowering each employee to shut down conversations before they escalate into disputes. Managers and HR pros need to support employees who refuse to be baited into discussing politics with a coworker. They should also model the considerate behaviors they wish to see.
When uncomfortable conversations become common, it can help to deliver the message that this must stop. Sending a group email that calls out no particular individual can serve this purpose well. Write something like, “Many people with many opinions work here. Sharing those opinions could start arguments or cause offense, which helps no one. Please keep the workplace pleasant, for yourself as much as anyone else, by keeping your political opinions to yourself.”
Of course, some workers simply enjoy arguing. It is often the case that these individuals seek each other out and build legitimate friendships on their continuous back-and-forth. Tell them to take it outside.
Explain to your workplace pundits that their coworkers do not necessarily enjoy their banter. Do not equivocate on the fact that the arguers are not allowed to disturb others in nearby cubicles and offices, commandeer conversations in the breakroom, hijack group chats online or drown out the truck radio during trips to jobsites.
Last, make it OK—expected, even—for an employee who does not want to take part in political discussions to say, “I do not want to talk politics.” There are polite ways to phrase this.
Sometimes, nothing needs to be said at all. An acquaintance of the author described her strategy this way: “I tend to give momentum-killing answers to political statements at work, stuff like a disinterested ‘Uh-huh.’ People seem to get the message, at least usually.”
When people refuse to take the hint, useful responses to unwelcome invitations to political discussions include, in rising order of dismay,
- I don’t think that’s appropriate to talk about at work.
- I disagree, but I won’t debate this with you. Let’s just focus on work.
- Please don’t think I agree with you, and please don’t say that again.
- I find that offensive. If you say something like that again, I will report you to HR.
Another acquaintance of the author offered a suggestion for further action, saying, “Oftentimes, someone at work will say something stupid about politics and knowing there’s no point in arguing, I’ll turn my annoyance or anger into something useful by emailing a representative or making a donation or something.”
30 September 2020
Category
HR News Article