USA 
United Kingdom
Since pin badges were first used in the late 19th century, people have used them to express political preference, personal affiliations, and national identity.
This editor is no exception. Among the pins I have donned at various stages have been the miniaturized shirt of legendary English soccer player Steven Gerrard and, a touch more edgily, a badge that told one of the major British political parties to f*** off.
Although diminutive in size, the cultural history of pins is rich and deep. Beginning as a tool for political or advertising campaigns, pins quickly became a symbol of morale, solidarity, and support during World War I and II. Post-war, they took on greater significance in pop culture and counterculture, such as the infamous 1960s CND badge or Britain’s iconic punk pins.
Today, we wear pins to represent the big and the small. As a symbol of nationality, or a reference to a niche hobby. As a political declaration, or just because it looks aesthetic.
But the power of pins should not be underestimated. As America becomes more politicized and polarized, they have never carried more weight in the workplace than they do today.
They are capable of brewing social media PR storms, triggering terminations, and prompting lawsuits. Beyond their individual symbolism, pins have more broadly come to represent the difficult balancing act of representation and divisiveness that exists within each American workplace.
What issues are pins creating in US workplaces?
Recent years have seen a spike in the number of workers using pins as a form of representation and expression at work for their ideology, nationality, or identity.
Some employees, for example, may use a pronoun pin to indicate how they would like to be referred to by colleagues. Other relatively low-stakes examples might include permitting staff to wear a pin reflecting a hobby or a local sports team.
But more significantly for HR professionals and employers, workers are increasingly using pins to indicate their stance on personal, political, and societal issues that bring division or unrest in the workplace.
The Israel-Gaza war is one of the most pertinent examples of workplace division facing American employers today. As the conflict has escalated, employees have affixed pins representing their Israeli or Palestinian nationality or heritage, or as a sign of solidarity.
Such cases have drawn strong, polarized opinions from employees and customers alike. Keen to avoid the wrath of being ‘canceled,’ subject to boycotts, or staff protests, some employers have elected to ban specific pins.
Delta Air Lines, for example, recently amended its uniform policy following a controversial (and subsequently deleted) response from a customer service employee responding to a customer who posted an image of two flight attendants wearing Palestinian pins on the social media platform X. Flight attendants at Delta can now no longer wear pins representing countries or nationalities other than the US.
Some will agree with Delta’s decision. Others will feel it’s too strict, or even reason it’s not severe enough. Even across Delta’s own workforce, the spectrum of opinions will be wide and deep.
Unfortunately for employers like Delta, there are no easy answers when it comes to company policy on pin-wearing with the threat of protest or uproar at every turn.
Is it legal to ban pins in the workplace?
Should HR teams allow all forms of pin-based personal expression? Is a blanket ban on badges advisable? Or if it’s not as black and white, where do we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable pins?
Just like every form of individual expression – take what workers get up to on their personal social media profiles, for example – the middle ground between complete freedom and total restriction is decidedly gray.
To begin, we can rule out the two extremes.
On the one hand, HR teams should be wary that a zero-tolerance policy for all badges and pins could pose legal risks. “Prohibiting workers from wearing pins that display political messages or express views about their work conditions may violate their rights under the National Labor Relations Act [NLRA],” says Peter Cassat, partner at Culhane PLLC and a labor & employment attorney who advises employers on best practices and compliance, including on dress code issues.
From retention to risk reduction: How to deliver training to improve employee experience
There are a range of challenges facing people leaders when it comes to creating a compelling employee experience. It can be difficult to keep workers engaged, particularly where training & development is concerned. But whether it's compliance risk through mandatory training, or retaining staff through career skills building, it's business-critical for effective learning programs to enhance the employee experience.
Join us for a webinar hosted in partnership with WILL Interactive to learn how to deliver training to improve workplace culture and the bottom line.
The webinar will cover:
How the training you provide can elevate or diminish the employee experience
The benefits a more modern training experience can bring to the organization include retaining staff, addressing competency gaps, and even reducing compliance risk for mandatory training
The role exceptional training can play throughout the process of employee and workforce development
HR Grapevine is recognized by SHRM to offer Professional Development Credits (PDCs) for SHRM-CP® or SHRM-SCP® recertification activities.
“In addition, denying workers the right to express themselves may lead to discrimination claims, particularly where these policies are enforced inconsistently or against protected classes of workers.”
At the other end of the spectrum, employers should appreciate that the current climate of polarization has not made it easy to simply allow all pins. “One person’s freedom of expression is another’s terror,” a Director of Employee Relations at a major US airline tells HR Grapevine under the provision of confidentiality.
“Imagine a workplace where some employees wear Confederate flag pins, claiming it’s in honor of their Southern heritage. Their Black coworkers may feel unsafe or even terrified in seeing that their colleagues seem to support the idea that slavery was okay and should never have been abolished.”
Conversely, he argues, someone supporting the “All Lives Matter” campaign may find a Black Lives Matter pin offensive, which could quickly lead to arguments. “Put another way, morale will sink quickly and be hard to rebuild,” he explains.
With blanket bans and total freedom fraught with risk, then, is prohibiting some but not all pins the solution?
Prohibiting some pins may be the answer – but be prepared for the reaction
While personal expression is important to many employees, generally there is no First Amendment right to freedom of speech in the workplace, particularly for private sector employers—though a ban on pins that infringes on a worker’s right to organize, for example, could pose the threat of legal challenges.
So, like most HR policies, the response from employees (including the threat of possible legal action) to instruction on what they can and cannot wear will hinge on the execution.
Depending on your company and its culture, you may deem it necessary to prohibit some pins that may be a source of controversy or disagreement among your employees or stakeholders; but if so, you should be prepared for strong reactions that are inevitable with tensions as high as they are across corporate America.
The Director of Employee Relations offers the example of an employer that permits Black Lives Matter pins but prohibits “All Lives Matter.”
“That’s not illegal, since there’s no First Amendment right, but it can play out negatively in other ways,” he explains, adding that the same outcome could occur from any other ban on a specific type of pin or badge.
“Customers may vote with their feet or wallets by avoiding your company. Or employees may jump ship for an employer whose values better align with theirs.”
Cassat agrees it is challenging to attempt to manage the display of pins, jewelry, or similar items through dress code policies. “It may be preferable to have policies that avoid such specific details and instead require employees to maintain a “professional” appearance or to avoid wearing jewelry, pins, or other items that contain messages that are inconsistent with the Company’s commitment to equality and tolerance in the workplace,” he proses.
Beyond the badges: America’s divided workplace isn’t going away
Whatever stance you choose on your employee's freedom to wear a pin or badge, remember that effective communication is fundamental to how they will react.
“As with above, tone and context are critical in delivering that message,” the Director of Employee Relations adds. “Come across as pandering to one side or the other, and you risk losing good employees who feel marginalized and unsupported.”
“Employee relations issues often can take on a second life in that what is remembered as being worse is the employer’s response to a situation rather than the situation itself,” Cassat echoes. “Most employees will agree that not all messages can be tolerated in the workplace – but there may be much criticism of an employer that attempts to either overregulate employee behavior or elects to stick its head in the sand.”
Whether employers like it or not, the polarization of their workforces on key societal and political issues is not going to pass overnight, and pins have become a symbol of this polarization that requires careful policy and management.
HR teams must be wary of the growing division within their workforce and do what they can to promote a workplace that is respectful, inclusive, and sensitive to how workers choose to express themselves.
