Do Workers Have Free Speech Rights at Work Today?

Many Americans bring up free speech in various conversations, but labor lawyer Andrew Strom says most private-sector employees can still be disciplined or fired for lawful opinions that a boss dislikes. On America’s Work Force Union Podcast, Strom breaks down the legal gap between public and private workplaces, explains why union contracts provide a stronger shield through just-cause standards and points to a state law in Connecticut that provides broader protections without disrupting day-to-day operations.

• In the working world, Strom says the First Amendment generally protects government employees, not private-sector workers.
• Union contracts can protect speech by requiring just cause for discipline and allowing grievances that restore jobs and back pay.
• Some states provide statutory speech protections, and Strom argues these examples show broader safeguards are workable.

The United States celebrates free speech as a civic value, a cultural marker and a constitutional promise. Yet in most private workplaces, labor lawyer Andrew Strom says that promise stops at the time clock.

On America’s Work Force Union Podcast, Strom, an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School and a longtime labor law writer, laid out a blunt reality: the First Amendment is not a general workplace shield. In his view, that disconnect helps explain why so many workers self-censor, especially when public debate grows louder, and employers become more sensitive to reputational risk.

Strom’s argument was not that workers should be able to say anything without consequence. He drew a line between protected opinion and conduct that disrupts work or targets co-workers. His core point, however, was narrower. Lawful political speech and ordinary expression should not be grounds for firing workers who are otherwise doing their jobs.

Why the First Amendment usually does not protect private workers

Strom said many Americans assume the U.S. Constitution follows them everywhere. In practice, he explained, the First Amendment limits government action. That distinction matters because most workers are employed by private companies.

In Strom’s framing, the legal system creates two categories of workers. Government employees can have speech rights in certain circumstances because the employer is the state. Private-sector employees generally do not, because employers are not bound by the First Amendment in the same way.

That gap, Strom argued, is why workers can face discipline for a wide range of expression, including social media posts, attendance at public events or even conversations with co-workers that a supervisor dislikes. He described this as a largely unspoken feature of modern employment: employers can exercise broad control over workers’ speech even when the speech occurs off the clock.

A Supreme Court example of protected speech for public employees

To illustrate how speech protections can work when the employer is the government, Strom discussed a U.S. Supreme Court case from the early 1980s involving a clerical worker at a Texas law enforcement agency.

Strom said the employee made a private remark to a co-worker after an assassination attempt on a sitting president. She was fired and ultimately took the case to the Supreme Court. Strom said the court recognized her First Amendment rights as a public employee and emphasized the danger of supervisors using workplace authority to silence speech simply because they disagree with the viewpoint.

Strom’s takeaway was not that the comment was wise. Instead, he argued the case showed why democratic norms require room for imperfect speech, especially from ordinary people who do not have editors, speechwriters or communications teams.

Social media and the modern workplace: More speech, more risk

Strom said the rise of social media has intensified the consequences of casual expression. A comment that once would have stayed between two co-workers can now be shared widely, stripped of context and attributed to an employer.

He acknowledged that government employers sometimes argue that public-facing speech can undermine public confidence in an agency. Strom described this as a balancing test: the law may weigh the worker’s right to speak against the employer’s interest in effective operations and public trust.

Still, Strom argued that the public should not expect uniform opinions from large institutions. He said it is normal and healthy for big employers, including major brands and government offices, to contain a range of viewpoints. In his view, punishing a low-level worker for a controversial opinion often reflects overreaction rather than operational necessity.

At-will employment: The legal engine behind workplace censorship

Strom tied the speech problem to a broader feature of American employment: at-will work.

He explained that most U.S. workers can be fired for almost any reason, including those unrelated to job performance, so long as the reason is not illegal discrimination or retaliation under a specific statute. In practical terms, that means a boss can end someone’s employment because the boss dislikes the worker’s viewpoint, Strom said.

Strom argued that this is why free speech at work becomes a class issue. People with wealth, job mobility or public platforms can speak more freely. Workers living paycheck to paycheck often cannot.

How union contracts change the rules: Just cause and grievances

Strom said union contracts are one of the most concrete protections workers can secure. The just-cause standard is the key difference, he said.

Under a typical collective bargaining agreement, Strom said discipline must be supported by a legitimate workplace reason tied to performance or conduct. A supervisor’s personal disagreement with a worker’s opinion is not enough.

He pointed to a recent example involving a worker at a major auto manufacturer who was disciplined after making remarks during a high-profile workplace visit. The union filed a grievance, and the worker was reinstated with back pay, Strom said.

For Strom, that outcome illustrates why collective bargaining protections can go beyond wages and benefits. It can also create due process. It forces employers to justify discipline. It gives workers a mechanism to challenge unfair punishment, he said.

State laws can protect speech: Connecticut as a model

Strom said some states have adopted laws that provide varying levels of speech protection for private-sector workers. He highlighted a Connecticut law as one of the strongest examples.

Under Connecticut law, employers generally cannot discharge employees for exercising First Amendment rights, Strom explained, as long as the activity does not materially interfere with job performance or the working relationship.

Strom acknowledged that Connecticut courts have not always interpreted the law as broadly as worker advocates would prefer. He described a case in which a worker objected to an employer directive regarding patriotic displays, and the court rejected the claim on narrow grounds.

Even so, Strom argued that states can enact speech protections, and workplaces will still function.

The practical takeaway Strom wants workers to hear

Strom’s message was both legal and practical. In most private workplaces, he said, workers should assume their jobs are at risk if they express an opinion that management dislikes.

At the same time, he argued that this reality should not be accepted as normal. Strom framed worker speech rights as a bipartisan issue rooted in basic fairness. If public employees can have protected speech, he said, it makes little sense for private-sector workers to have fewer rights.

In Strom’s view, unions, state legislatures and future federal reforms each offer a path toward a workplace culture where workers can participate in public life without fearing that one poorly phrased sentence will cost them their livelihood.

Go Behind the Scenes of the Labor Movement

Every victory at the bargaining table starts with workers standing together. From the shop floor to the statehouse, hear how activists are fighting for better wages, safer conditions and a stronger future. Subscribe to the America’s Work Force Union Podcast to get the latest interviews with the leaders and organizers building worker power across America.