On the question of early legislative elections, everyone has their own opinion: a few days before the Olympic Games, it is politics that is at the center of the game. First round on June 30 to elect the 577 deputies, second round on the 7th July, with learned calculations on the duels and triangulars envisaged. Man has (re) become a “political animal” in the sense of Aristotle, armed with his “logos”, his words, his arguments to convince, to crush his opponent. However, the city is also the company: within this contractual and collective perimeter, should the “logos” remain in front of the building reception, in the locker or in the cloakroom, or enter victoriously through the main door?
52% of employees respond that they speak politics “diplomatically”, but for 33% “it’s too risky” (LinkedIn/Le Parisien/Aujourd’hui en France, March 2022). “Of course we can talk politics in business,” confirms Eric Manca, associate lawyer at the August Debouzy firm. For him, “the company is not a closed, resolutely closed and blind place. Each employee carries his privacy, his personality, his opinions there. Political freedom is also one of the three fundamental freedoms, along with religious freedoms and philosophical, guaranteed to the individual Unless there are restrictions in the internal regulations and exceptions specific to public services, the employee absolutely has the right to address the political subject (article L 1121-1 of the labor code), just as he could do with any other subject in his daily life, and certainly even more so in this period of early legislative elections, where we can think without being too mistaken that the political subject finds itself in top of the podium for the most discussed topics at the coffee machine”. But like all freedom, it has its limits…
Its expression must therefore not disrupt the proper functioning of the company. “It must, for example, not degenerate into proselytizing action within the company, to the detriment of all or part of the work community and, more broadly, of what is agreed to be called the “legitimate interests of the company”. And if one of the people present does not want to listen, to respond, to indicate their opinions, we should not insist. If we are told “no” once, that’s no. “Persisting then becomes wrong, since it is a source of tension and misunderstanding.” Before the European elections, 54% of employees (62% of managers, 52% of workers and 63% of 25-34 year olds) believed that companies “should encourage employees/citizens to vote” (Odoxa survey for Enterprise and Progress, June 5, 2024).
Reserve towards customers
It’s all in the interpretation of “incite”. Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, yes. But without explicit insistence or voting instructions, neither from the employer, nor from the manager, nor from colleagues. Highly sensitive subject. “This freedom of expression is limited by the obligation not to offend others, isolate them, stigmatize them. We would then be in the case of disruption to the proper functioning of the company. In such a scenario, the employer must intervene as a result of the obligation of safety and risk prevention which it owes to each of its employees, to put an end to the situation of disturbances/tensions which would be reported to it. Failing this, its liability would be incurred. analyzes the lawyer. Some HR managers also talk about “uninhibited” and “limited” comments. “If we obviously have the right to have a political opinion and to express it, there are racist, xenophobic, homophobic opinions – without forgetting certain gestures as loaded with meaning as words – which are no longer there, to note of the crime”, warns the lawyer.
Also be careful of overinterpretation: a dismissal motivated by the employee’s political opinions is considered abusive (Court of Cassation June 27, 1990 No. 86-41.009 And article L.1132-1 of the labor code). “On the other hand, if we can talk about everything “at the coffee machine”, between colleagues, there is an obligation of reserve which naturally makes sense with regard to customers, who are not intended to support or suffer the moods or political, religious or even philosophical considerations of one’s commercial interlocutor. Especially when this obligation of neutrality is integrated into the internal regulations which are binding on everyone. “In which case it becomes restrictive and a risk factor which can go as far as dismissal, for those who venture into it,” concludes Eric Manca.
.