Disruption in the name of political causes need not be tolerated in the workplace.

Google LLC made a clear statement to that effect this month when the tech giant, which has always advertised a workplace culture open to internal debate, chose to fire as many as 50 workers involved in sit-in protests against its (non-military) US$1.2 billion Nimbus contract with the Israeli government.

Similar rifts have recently exploded into public view at The New York Times and National Public Radio (NPR) south of the border.

Whether a company has a  “conscience” is not up to its employees but to the employer itself. There is no First Amendment right of free speech in Canada and human rights legislation in most provinces does not protect political opinions.

Google declared that its fired workers had violated its policies by disrupting work and taking over office spaces. But a company need not have a policy prohibiting disruption any more than one prohibiting theft.

As Google chief executive Sundar Pichai wrote to staff: “We also need to be more focused in how we work, collaborate, discuss and even disagree. We have a culture of vibrant, open discussion that enables us to create amazing products…. But ultimately 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.”

An appropriate position for any employer to take.

In 2018, Google did not renew a contract with the Pentagon because its employees were upset with that deal. Not this time. It reverted to focusing on the bottom line. And, for that matter, on protecting its Jewish and other employees who complained about the disruption to their own work lives.

Google isn’t the only company grappling with politics in the workplace.

NPR just suspended a senior editor for writing an article criticizing the public broadcaster’s news coverage as too “progressive.” He then “resigned.”

Meanwhile Starbucks Corp. sued its union for posting pro-Palestinian tweets using Starbucks’ branding.

The reflexive support of progressive causes, often reflecting the wishes of employees, is increasingly coming back to haunt companies by alienating their customers. They are wary of such  backlashes, more so after Bud Light’s sales — and the share price of its parent — cratered after it used a transgender influencer in its commercials, prompting boycotts of its products.

Employers have a right to prevent their workplaces from being disrupted, as Google did, not only from blockades or sit-ins but from walkouts or even petitions circulated in the workplace. Our workplaces, legally, are owned and managed by employers which have a legal interest to block anything impairing productivity or even morale.

I had a recent case where employees openly revolted because their employer donated money to Israel to assist its war effort. They reacted to the point of insubordination and received reprimands accordingly. It is the employer’s money to spend as it wishes, subject to the opposition of shareholders in a public company.

In a similar way, employers can determine what and whether political opinions can be discussed in the workplace and can, without recourse, decide only to hire or to fire employees of a particular political opinion, in most provinces, including Ontario. Of course, most employers sensibly have policies prohibiting any political discussions in the workplace as it creates antagonism and discord, never good for productivity. And, after all, the business of business remains business, not the advancement of political themes.

Clearly firing someone for being a leftist or conservative is not cause for discharge and such an employee would be entitled to wrongful dismissal damages. But firing an employee for supporting Hamas’ atrocities or screaming out antisemitic or other racist slogans on social media or at public rallies is cause for discharge without severance as the employer has an interest in ensuring that its brand or reputation is not sullied by being associated with a racist employee.

I expect there to be far more Googles going forward. The woke era is drawing to a close.

“Woke” has become little more than a derisive term. We see far fewer pronouns on emails. Companies are increasingly walking away from their DEI training. There are not as many declarations of Indigenous land claims at the opening of functions. The appropriateness of gender alteration surgery for young people is now facing a serious challenge from the United Kingdom’s recently released Cass report. And two provinces are no longer afraid to block biological males from using female change rooms and play competitive sports against women.

This sea change against wokeism has imperceptibly crept up over the last couple of years. Employers are no longer pandering to political correctness among their employee groups. Even Google, once a leader among woke companies, is firing employees for political activity impacting productivity.