“Free speech is a great thing when you’re not at work,” Explain Corporate Executives
Above: Corporate Executives say free speech should exist for a minimum of two hours per day.“As Americans, we take free speech very seriously,” explained Citigroup CEO Charles Prince. “Which is why we allow you some free speech during the six hours a day that you’re not at work. At the office, of course, we’ll be monitoring and filtering your emails, prohibiting millions of web sites, and blocking instant messenger.”
“And of course, if you curse at the wrong time or express a contrary opinion, you’ll be fired,” added Peter Wuffli, CEO of Swiss mega-bank UBS.
But Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott disagreed. “Yes, of course our stores are equipped with video surveillance — not for security, but to see if you’re talking about unions. But don’t think that just because you’ve left the Super Center for the day, you’re free to talk to your coworkers about unions. We’ll find out, and you’ll all be fired.”
Added Scott: “Always low wages. Always.”
Free speech experts have widely praised the executives. According to an analyst at the Heritage Foundation, “these executives have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to occasional free speech — if only those creepy Chinese could follow their lead, the world would be a much better place.”
Question… if you shut down Wal-Mart, where will the 1.3 million people who work there, get jobs?
Just curious how you could kill 1.3 million jobs, and it be a good thing.
Comment by James — February 9, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
This post is about free speech issues in the work place. Your comment is about an arbitrary hypothetical situation that nobody on this blog suggested. But to respond to your question in a non-radical way, a preferable situation would be one where Wal-Mart employees could keep their jobs but also have dignity, civil rights, a living wage, and benefits — not to mention a union. This would increase Wal-Mart’s prices, but the improvement of 1.3 million lives is probably worth that sacrifice.
Comment by organelle — February 9, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
I’m still trying to figure out the problem here. If the computer you use at work is company property, and you are billing the company for your time (on the clock, or on duty), why shouldn’t have a say on what personal activities you can and can’t engage in? They are Paying for both the time, and the computer.
I wonder how people who complain about his would feel if they called a plumber, and while the clock was ticking, the plumber said, “hey, can I use your computer real quick? I have to check a few Emails.” Then an hour later, the plumber is not only checking Emails, but IMing with a few buddies, posting a few comments on blogs and playing card games?
Ooh, I have to go, my boss is coming! ;~D
Comment by ParaTed2k — February 10, 2006 @ 8:25 am
Thanks for your comment.
The problem is that many office workers don’t have free speech at the office, which is where they spend most of their time. So if the U.S. says it’s a country with free speech, for these office workers, it’s only true a fraction of the time.
So you ask, if it’s company property, why can’t they control your personal activities? Well, where do you draw the line? Why not eliminate ventilation? After all, it’s their air ducts. My point is, people have natural rights in a civil society. Corporate ownership of the means of production (including both mechanical and “human resources”) is not a natural right. Free speech is. So if you pit the two against one another, free speech should win. You may not legally own the computer, but if you’re forced to sit at it for ten hours a day, your right to email what you please shouldn’t be restricted.
One fundamental problem with the plumber argument is that corporations are not humans. Using a computer owned by a large corporation is quite different from using an individual’s only personal computer.
Independent plumbers do have a good amount of free speech. Of course, if you’re a rude plumber, you won’t get as much business, but that’s a human interaction issue, not a free speech issue.
Comment by organelle — February 10, 2006 @ 11:29 am
While I’m not a big fan of working, nobody is forced to work 10 hours a day, or even 8, or 4. Furthermore, if you make a choice to work in a given environment with whatever policies that corporation has, you also get to choose whether you abide by their rules or not; therefore, you do to some extent choose whether or not you have free speech on the job.
Whether or not you work for a corporation or a person or a community or a non-for-profit quasi-governmental organization makes very little difference when you think of it in the above terms: either you play by the rules or you play elsewhere. I’m not so sure I find that stance unreasonable as long as I can still choose where and if I work.
Comment by J — February 12, 2006 @ 9:42 pm
One could argue that nobody is forced to do anything. However, J, if people want to eat, they need to work, often ten or more hours per day. Wal-Mart has been exposed for hiring illegal immigrants and locking them in stores overnight. Nobody’s forcing the employees to return the next day for more, but they still do. They’re not masochists; they just don’t have a whole lot of options.
The same is true, to a lesser extent, for non-illegal immigrant Wal-Mart employees, many of whom are on welfare.
As for white collar corporate employees — we have a market economy, and these companies will pay a rate such that they can fill their positions. So you may choose one job or another, but from a holistic perspective, somebody — in fact, millions of people — will be working at these anti-free speech jobs. This is a structural problem, since everyone should be entitled to free speech.
Comment by organelle — February 12, 2006 @ 11:22 pm