USA 
United Kingdom
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The first amendment rights outlined above are the most sacrosanct part of the Constitution. But in a world where people still feel the need to protest to affect meaningful change or undo unjust laws “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” is both more important than ever and under threat like never before.
Protest has never been popular with those in power. Not in any form. Not even the “good trouble” civil rights activist John Lewis referred to. The non-violent type. That non-violent struggle was no more welcome back in the day than that of agitators that chose to use “any means necessary” to achieve their aims, no matter how often that history is rewritten. Martin Luther King might be lauded now and have his birthday celebrated nationally, but it’s worth remembering that he didn’t die peacefully in his sleep.
The point of protest is to disrupt enough to create change. If it isn’t making those in power nervous then it isn’t effective protest. And of course, it is bound to cause inconvenience to others along the way. How far you should go with that is a much bigger discussion.
The question being asked here is does the workplace make for an appropriate arena for personal protests, or is that a boundary which, if crossed, makes continued employment untenable?
Google fires Gaza protesters
The question was raised after Google workers were fired after their involvement in a sit-in protest at company offices in New York and California.
They were part of the No Tech For Apartheid movement, which objects to a $1billion contract Google has with the Israeli government, linked to the Project Nimbus cloud computing agreement. The protest lasted 10 hours, with participants occupying spaces near Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian’s office.
Tensions had been mounting within Google over its involvement in Project Nimbus, but the conflict reached a new peak following the continuing Israeli onslaught in Gaza.
Police were called to remove the protestors, and arrests followed. Footage circulated online shows security staff informing protesters that they were being placed on administrative leave and that their actions could be classified as trespassing.
A statement from No Tech For Apartheid said: “Google workers do not want their labor to power Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. The time is now to rise up against Project Nimbus, in support of Palestinian liberation and join calls to end the Israeli occupation.”
Last month, a Google worker from the protest group disrupted a talk being given by the company’s Israel chief, as he accused the company of “powering genocide.” He was later sacked.
Jane Chung, a representative for the protest group, condemned Google’s decision, accusing the company of silencing its workers through arrests.
Google’s response suggests that while it allows dissent and encourages open discussions, there is a line between personal expression and workplace disruption. The company’s actions also raise broader questions about the rights of employees to challenge corporate ethics particularly over ‘real world’ issues.
Should employees protest at work?
It raises the question - should employees be allowed to protest in their workplace and to what extent? At what point does advocacy become disruption? And when does the right to express moral objections give way to a company’s right to maintain order and protect its interests?
In that situation even First Amendment rights may be superseded by the employer’s contractual obligations. While the First Amendment generally allows for peaceful protest, employees must understand that the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly are not available to employees in a private workplace.
While employees argue for the right to challenge their employers on moral grounds, when such actions disrupt the business or violate company policies, can they still expect to keep their jobs?
“We are a workplace and our policies and expectations are clear: this is a business, and not a place to act in a way that disrupts coworkers or makes them feel unsafe, to attempt to use the company as a personal platform, or to fight over disruptive issues or debate politics,” CEO Sundar Pichai wrote in a note to employees. It is notable that he specified debating politics was outside of the bounds of what is allowed at Google.
Thomas Kochan, a post-tenure professor at MIT Sloan School of Management, believes such a stance will not quell the desire to act and may even have made it more likely.
“It's laying the foundation for the next set of protests and for inflaming concerns of employees,” he says. “They may be able to suppress any particular action at one point in time, but they won't be able to suppress the interest of employees having a voice.”
But while many will feel the need to remind their employer of a moral imperative, Johnny C. Taylor Jr, president, and CEO of trade association SHRM, said: “You’d be surprised about how many people want to come to work just to work. They’re not interested in debating social issues at work.”
Guidelines for protesting at work
Amid a backdrop of an empowered and activated workforce, continued anti-war organizing in communities across the country, and a presidential election just months away, what exactly is the best way to deal with in-work protests?
Employers and employees alike should familiarize themselves with the rights they have regarding protest and the laws within specific states.
Policies must be clearly communicated to all stakeholders, outlining what constitutes acceptable forms of protest (in line with federal and state law) and the consequences for ignoring those agreed boundaries.
By establishing those agreed ‘terms of engagement’ employers can safeguard their operations while also honoring the democratic rights of their workforce.
If, as one commentator described it, democracy is a choice and protest a full-contact sport, it requires a careful set of rules. Particularly in the workplace. But if you've chained yourself to the CEO, you can expect an email from HR.
