Can I be sacked or reprimanded for political activity outside work

MegamanBoo

So I'm interested in pursuing some political activity outside work. I'm not talking anything extremist here but I work in the tech industry and I feel strongly that a lot of companies in this area are benefiting from an overly generous tax regime. As you may have guessed I'm quite left leaning. I believe that a lot of large multi-national companies in my industry are getting very soft grants and often pushing the boundaries in applying for these grants, knowing they'll never be audited to any degree of scrutiny.

I don't know yet what shape my campaigning might take but do I have anything to worry about legally here? Let's suppose I ring Joe Duffy tomorrow saying that at various points throughout my career I've heard a lot of accounts of abuse of the grant system. Now, without accusing my employer of anything somebody might hear this and suppose I'm talking about my current job. Could this lead to me being accused of bringing the company into disrepute, or defaming my employer? It's not that I want to point the finger at my employer but I feel I should be able to speak about my career in general without accusing anybody directly.

Maybe this question should be in the legal section but I'd be interested in hearing what people thing.

the_syco

MegamanBoo wrote: »

Let's suppose I ring Joe Duffy tomorrow saying that at various points throughout my career I've heard a lot of accounts of abuse of the grant system. Now, without accusing my employer of anything somebody might hear this and suppose I'm talking about my current job.

I'm sure they'll find a reason to let you go, and I doubt you'll find work in the sector again.

Eric Cartman

wouldnt expect any promotion or managerial work if it became known. You should know how the tech sector screens candidates and social media at this point. One photo with an extremist left wing agitator, a friendship with the head of a protest group / union etc... could leave you blackballed or down the list in a lot of places.

A great form of protesting the tax measures we implemented to attract all this FDI would be for people who dont like it to quit the tech sector , basically get the same result as what would happen if opponents got their political wishes, only nobody else is dragged down with them.

Also if you ever decided to venture into startup land you'd struggle, VC's and angel investors are terrified of politically staunch people, employee owned collectivism or anti shareholder profit behaviour fears would make you startup toxic.

overall I would say its a terrible idea to get involved in any fashion beyond complaining to your family and people down the pub.

_Brian

Eric Cartman wrote: »

wouldnt expect any promotion or managerial work if it became known. You should know how the tech sector screens candidates and social media at this point. One photo with an extremist left wing agitator, a friendship with the head of a protest group / union etc... could leave you blackballed or down the list in a lot of places.

A great form of protesting the tax measures we implemented to attract all this FDI would be for people who dont like it to quit the tech sector , basically get the same result as what would happen if opponents got their political wishes, only nobody else is dragged down with them.

Also if you ever decided to venture into startup land you'd struggle, VC's and angel investors are terrified of politically staunch people, employee owned collectivism or anti shareholder profit behaviour fears would make you startup toxic.

overall I would say its a terrible idea to get involved in any fashion beyond complaining to your family and people down the pub.

If it becomes known I’d agree the above is possible.

I’ve seen cases where
One particular employee was bad mouthing multinational companies while working in a multinational i was supervisor in. My boss made a case of blocking his promotions and indeed suggested managing him out a few times.

drunkmonkey

The bigger the company is the less of a fiddlers they'll give about firing your woke ass. People are let go all the time, a lot don't make it to the labour court, there just paid to feck off.
Unless your an accountant and understand the intricacies of corporate taxation i'd stick to furthering your career gained from your subsidised grant fuelled education.
I expect my employees to not let my company down in public, I assume your employer holds you to the same standard.
Call Joe all you want but if you do make a name for yourself and Google indexes you or you've some Lefty loony tunes stuff on Facebook etc I wouldn't be expecting any job in the future let alone one in the sector your tried to burn down.

mvl

so, just out of curiosity - for how many large tech multi-nationals have you been working, the ones "knowing they'll never be audited to any degree of scrutiny" ... OP, you sound like a troll.

Wanderer78

MegamanBoo wrote:

So I'm interested in pursuing some political activity outside work. I'm not talking anything extremist here but I work in the tech industry and I feel strongly that a lot of companies in this area are benefiting from an overly generous tax regime. As you may have guessed I'm quite left leaning. I believe that a lot of large multi-national companies in my industry are getting very soft grants and often pushing the boundaries in applying for these grants, knowing they'll never be audited to any degree of scrutiny.

The wealth created, trickles down, apparently. Maybe advocate for them to partially pay their tax revenue in stocks and shares, and stick them into a sovereign wealth fund, so we might get more of the wealth created

myshirt

The problem is it's pub talk, fantasy, and hot air. You've no rational arguement.

Dodge

MegamanBoo wrote: »

So I'm interested in pursuing some political activity outside work. I'm not talking anything extremist here but I work in the tech industry and I feel strongly that a lot of companies in this area are benefiting from an overly generous tax regime.

They are. 100%

However your choice is (a) accept the money they pay you and shut up, or (b) leave the industry and start your campaign.

You can’t have it both ways. It really is that simple

OMM 0000

Dodge wrote: »

They are. 100%

However your choice is (a) accept the money they pay you and shut up, or (b) leave the industry and start your campaign.

You can’t have it both ways. It really is that simple

I think this is the fairest solution.

I want to add the following:

Your political views are only a problem if the management team disagree with you. They will definitely disagree with what you're doing, as you're actively making trouble for them. I would fully expect them to begin a process of getting rid of you, even if it's informal and unspoken.

Jim2007

MegamanBoo wrote: »

So I'm interested in pursuing some political activity outside work. I'm not talking anything extremist here but I work in the tech industry and I feel strongly that a lot of companies in this area are benefiting from an overly generous tax regime. As you may have guessed I'm quite left leaning. I believe that a lot of large multi-national companies in my industry are getting very soft grants and often pushing the boundaries in applying for these grants, knowing they'll never be audited to any degree of scrutiny.

I don't know yet what shape my campaigning might take but do I have anything to worry about legally here? Let's suppose I ring Joe Duffy tomorrow saying that at various points throughout my career I've heard a lot of accounts of abuse of the grant system. Now, without accusing my employer of anything somebody might hear this and suppose I'm talking about my current job. Could this lead to me being accused of bringing the company into disrepute, or defaming my employer? It's not that I want to point the finger at my employer but I feel I should be able to speak about my career in general without accusing anybody directly.

Maybe this question should be in the legal section but I'd be interested in hearing what people thing.

So you want to continue to enjoy the benefits of working at such companies while at the same time criticising the practices that deliver up those benefits to you. You are just being a hypocrite, so be surprised if Joe Duffy or who ever challenges you on it.

As for a political campaign, you are not going to be take very seriously if you are continuing to benefit from the very companies you are criticising now are you? Just another disgruntled employee acting up.

You can't be sacked for your political opinions, but you sure as hell can be managed out and if your campaign even gets a little traction then you can expect to find it difficult to find a new position.

Wanderer78

Jim2007 wrote:

So you want to continue to enjoy the benefits of working at such companies while at the same time criticising the practices that deliver up those benefits to you. You are just being a hypocrite, so be surprised if Joe Duffy or who ever challenges you on it.

We re all effectively hypocrites as we all interact with large corporations on a regular basis, but it would be rather risky to openly criticise your employer

Mrs OBumble

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The wealth created, trickles down, apparently.

At least some does.

I've done a fair bit of pretendy R&D work, and the spare cash I had enabled a fair bit of recreational spending that's not happening for me now.

Wanderer78

Mrs OBumble wrote:

At least some does.

Not enough is unfortunately, a large proportion is trickling up

OMM 0000

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Not enough is unfortunately, a large proportion is trickling up

I think that's fine.

If you look at how society is changing over time (0 AD - Now), it's a marathon not a sprint.

We are on the right track, just need to keep moving forward.

Wanderer78

OMM 0000 wrote:

I think that's fine.

I disagree of course, and plenty of others, including respected commentators, also agree. I do think more of the wealth could/should be redistributed, this could be done at a very slow pace, as not to create dangerous instabilities, I personally think, all employees of large corporations should receive a very small percentage of pay in stocks and shares, as it is their work that helps to create that wealth. a small percentage of tax revenue could also be paid in stocks and shares, and be placed into a sovereign wealth fund, this wouldn't break large corporations. Our current approach of having maximum share ownership held amongst only a few is dangerous

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I disagree of course, and plenty of others, including respected commentators, also agree. I do think more of the wealth could/should be redistributed, this could be done at a very slow pace, as not to create dangerous instabilities, I personally think, all employees of large corporations should receive a very small percentage of pay in stocks and shares, as it is their work that helps to create that wealth. a small percentage of tax revenue could also be paid in stocks and shares, and be placed into a sovereign wealth fund, this wouldn't break large corporations. Our current approach of having maximum share ownership held amongst only a few is dangerous

They can always set up their own companies to create wealth. Employees get paid for their labour or can go elsewhere or set up their own business. They can also buy shares in a company.

Owners owe them nothing else. And what happens in private companies, what happens to employee shares when they move to other companies, potentially rivals. Are they going to pay tax on these shares?

It never fails to amaze me how willing some socialists are to spend other people's money.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

all employees of large corporations should receive a very small percentage of pay in stocks and shares, as it is their work that helps to create that wealth. a small percentage of tax revenue could also be paid in stocks and shares, and be placed into a sovereign wealth fund, this wouldn't break large corporations. Our current approach of having maximum share ownership held amongst only a few is dangerous

Its fairly common to get shares or stock options if your working for larger multinationals. I had a few but thought that its fairly risky both working for a company and investing cash in their shares.

The government knows nothing about investing in shares either.

Dial Hard

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And what happens in private companies, what happens to employee shares when they move to other companies, potentially rivals. Are they going to pay tax on these shares?

Doesn't seem to be an issue for the many, many private companies that already do this. And yes, you pay tax on the shares when you sell them, either RTSO or capital gains depending on how they were issued in the first place.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

We re all effectively hypocrites as we all interact with large corporations on a regular basis, but it would be rather risky to openly criticise your employer

why would that make anyone a hypocrite

facehugger99

I think in any other country, a political activist that was found to be gorging at the trough while simultaneously railing against the unfairness of it all, would be swiftly told where to go.

But this is Ireland so I predict a bright future for the OP.

Hoboo

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I had a few but thought that its fairly risky both working for a company and investing cash in their shares.

How so?

Assetbacked

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They can always set up their own companies to create wealth. Employees get paid for their labour or can go elsewhere or set up their own business. They can also buy shares in a company.

Owners owe them nothing else. And what happens in private companies, what happens to employee shares when they move to other companies, potentially rivals. Are they going to pay tax on these shares?

It never fails to amaze me how willing some socialists are to spend other people's money.

This is deluded horse manure. Good capitalism requires competition and Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple are dominant to the point where it is not possible to compete fairly with them. Think about it, if people suggested to promote your company online and you didn't want to use Google or Facebook (WhatsApp and Instagram), you're pretty snookered. These mega companies grew so big so quickly and now dominate to the point where they need to be broken up, for the good of capitalism. That is not socialism, you don't know what socialism is.

Assetbacked

Assetbacked wrote: »

This is deluded horse manure. Good capitalism requires competition and Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple are dominant to the point where it is not possible to compete fairly with them. Think about it, if people suggested to promote your company online and you didn't want to use Google or Facebook (WhatsApp and Instagram), you're pretty snookered. These mega companies grew so big so quickly and now dominate to the point where they need to be broken up, for the good of capitalism. That is not socialism, you don't know what socialism is.

Well done. Don't think anyone could misunderstand my post any better. AND to make it better, the poster that makes Corbyn look like Thatcher thanked it.

Dial Hard

Dial Hard wrote: »

Doesn't seem to be an issue for the many, many private companies that already do this. And yes, you pay tax on the shares when you sell them, either RTSO or capital gains depending on how they were issued in the first place.

It can be a very good option to keep key staff. But the comrade above isn't talking about reasonable staff involvement, but compulsory employee ownership. Don't confuse the two.

Wabbit Ears

Back on topic, the company I work for have a social media policy where its clearly stated that what you do online when employed by the company is a representation of the company. So, yea, If you go all political activist with regards to something that puts the company in bad light you'll find yourself fired through the golden ticket of gross misconduct.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

They can always set up their own companies to create wealth. Employees get paid for their labour or can go elsewhere or set up their own business. They can also buy shares in a company.

Owners owe them nothing else. And what happens in private companies, what happens to employee shares when they move to other companies, potentially rivals. Are they going to pay tax on these shares?

It never fails to amaze me how willing some socialists are to spend other people's money.

setting up your own business isnt easy, and some simply dont have the abilities or interest in doing so, and corporations obviously need employees. payment of labour simply isnt enough for some, in order for some to gain access to some of their most critical of needs, housing and accommodation are the obvious ones. if you require an ever increasing amount of your pay, to gain access to these critical needs, you ll quickly find 'options', such as stock options, arent really an option at all.

most large corporations arent owned by individuals but by share holders, which of course can include investments such as pension funds etc, but share ownership is becoming deeply unequal, its not uncommon for ratios to be as high as 300-400:1, in income, including stock options, in large corporations. its also common for high level employees to receive a large proportion of their income, sometimes the majority of their income, from stock options. i do believe this should be more equally distributed amongst all employees.

obviously its common for people to move from company to company, from sector to sector, acquiring stock options as they do, without causing major problems, and as others have explained, sometimes taxes are paid upon doing so, i.e. we already do this, and its fine

no idea why socialism has been mentioned, as im not a socialist, but speaking of money, id class share buy backs as a method of money creation by large corporations

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Its fairly common to get shares or stock options if your working for larger multinationals. I had a few but thought that its fairly risky both working for a company and investing cash in their shares.

The government knows nothing about investing in shares either.

thats interesting!

rock22

You cannot be disciplined for political activity. Remember this is Ireland not US

Assetbacked

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well done. Don't think anyone could misunderstand my post any better. AND to make it better, the poster that makes Corbyn look like Thatcher thanked it.

You said employees can go set up their own companies. Who can set up their own company to compete with Google and Facebook?

Assetbacked

Assetbacked wrote: »

You said employees can go set up their own companies. Who can set up their own company to compete with Google and Facebook?

Is that the only industry they can set up in? Why should they have that right? Niche companies have grown up in almost every industry since commerce began

I wouldn't be against huge conglomerates being broken up, but not just given to the employees

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

setting up your own business isnt easy....

Cry me a river. Of course it's not easy. That's why there will always be more employees than owners. And yet, despite it not being easy to setup your business you want them to give it away to employees.

Hoboo

Assetbacked wrote: »

You said employees can go set up their own companies. Who can set up their own company to compete with Google and Facebook?

That's like saying you can't start a local football team, because it can't compete with Real Madrid.

Absolute nonsense.

Geuze

MegamanBoo wrote: »

So I'm interested in pursuing some political activity outside work. I'm not talking anything extremist here but I work in the tech industry and I feel strongly that a lot of companies in this area are benefiting from an overly generous tax regime. As you may have guessed I'm quite left leaning. I believe that a lot of large multi-national companies in my industry are getting very soft grants and often pushing the boundaries in applying for these grants, knowing they'll never be audited to any degree of scrutiny.

Can you list the grants that MNC ICT companies get from the State?

Please be specific.

Dodge

rock22 wrote: »

You cannot be disciplined for political activity. Remember this is Ireland not US

OP, please ignore this completely untrue statement

EDIT; you can probably disregard the business v workers argument for the past 10/15 posts too

Jim2007

Wanderer78 wrote: »

We re all effectively hypocrites as we all....

Except we're running political campaigns against it at the same time.

Jim2007

Assetbacked wrote: »

You said employees can go set up their own companies. Who can set up their own company to compete with Google and Facebook?

Why would you have to or want to compete with Google or Facebook in the first place? All you need is sufficient income to live a comfortable life. If you write custom applications you need may be 20 customers per year, a niche product may be a 500 - 600 licence fees per year, a professional accountant about one client per month.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote:

Cry me a river. Of course it's not easy. That's why there will always be more employees than owners. And yet, despite it not being easy to setup your business you want them to give it away to employees.

Once again, you will find most large corporations aren't owned by an individual, but by share holders, which can be past and present employees, individuals that have never had any employment contract with them, I.e. normal investors, investment funds etc etc etc, so no crying would be required. Not only would I like a more equal share of the wealth created from such businesses, via rising asset prices, I.e. rising share prices, with pre existing employees, but I'd also for the general public

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Not only would I like a more equal share of the wealth created from such businesses, via rising asset prices, I.e. rising share prices, with pre existing employees, but I'd also for the general public

And just to be clear you're not a socialist.

And how are all the 10s of thousands of employees working in Multi-National companies going to find high skilled employment when the Multi-National company owners stop pissing themselves laughing and relocate. And that's just for starters.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote:

And just to be clear you're not a socialist.

Again, yes I'm not a socialist, as I believe capatalism has been one of the greatest creations of mankind, truly liberating and advancing our species, I also believe that it's survival is critical to our survival

Deleted User wrote:

And how are all the 10s of thousands of employees working in Multi-National companies going to find high skilled employment when the Multi-National company owners stop pissing themselves laughing and relocate. And that's just for starters.

Please explain to me in detail why these mnc's would leave our country, causing this unemployed, as not much will truly change for them? for example these measures could be implemented without an increase from our current corporate tax rate of 12.5%, baring in mind, there is currently a deficit of a few billion already from this.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Again, yes I'm not a socialist, as I believe capatalism has been one of the greatest creations of mankind, truly liberating and advancing our species, I also believe that it's survival is critical to our survival

Whereas if I see something that quacks and walks like a duck...

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Please explain to me in detail why these mnc's would leave our country, causing this unemployed, as not much will truly change for them? for example these measures could be implemented without an increase from our current corporate tax rate of 12.5%, baring in mind, there is currently a deficit of a few billion already from this.

Sorry, I thought you were going to demand companies give employees some meaningful ownership of companies. How much today, and how much tomorrow?

No MNC's stock is based on a branch or subsidiary operating in Ireland so the shares you'll be demanding will be in the parent company's shares trading on the NYSE and the like. Are you seriously asking me why MN wont be heading for the hills? I never assumed the CT was impacted.

Jim2007

Deleted User wrote: »

No MNC's stock is based on a branch or subsidiary operating in Ireland so the shares you'll be demanding will be in the parent company's shares trading on the NYSE and the like. Are you seriously asking me why MN wont be heading for the hills? I never assumed the CT was impacted.

It is not a big deal, MNCs do it all the time. They do it as bonus, discounted buying schemes, rights issues, options etc.... I have only every worked for MNCs and I still have shares and rights vesting next year, the oldest one being from as far back as 2007.

Jim2007

Jim2007 wrote: »

It is not a big deal, MNCs do it all the time. They do it as bonus, discounted buying schemes, rights issues, options etc.... I have only every worked for MNCs and I still have shares and rights vesting next year, the oldest one being from as far back as 2007.

As do I, but you're not comparing like with like.