Political tensions in the workplace reached a fevered pitch before the 2024 U.S. presidential election, but ongoing global uncertainty has meant that divisions persist.
A new study from ResumeBuilder, for instance, highlights that one of today’s most politically charged issues—the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine—is making its way into hiring decisions. The firm found that nearly one-third of the approximately 1,000 U.S. hiring managers surveyed are hesitant to hire a job candidate with an expressed pro-Palestine viewpoint.
“The ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict has intensified political passions, making it imperative for HR to guide hiring managers and recruiters in distinguishing between personal political opinions and actions that may impact employment decisions,” says Stacie Haller, ResumeBuilder career expert.
About 8% of hiring managers acknowledge that they have rejected a pro-Palestine job applicant, and 19% would consider doing so. Five percent said they have terminated an employee because of that viewpoint. Hiring managers said they largely learned of candidates’ views during social media screenings, while almost half said applicants offered this information during the hiring process.
When asked why they are cautious to hire or retain pro-Palestine employees, two-thirds of hiring managers cited fears that such individuals would drive up internal conflict; almost as many were concerned about workplace activism. Other top reasons include worries about workplace safety and negative publicity.
The findings suggest HR may need to revisit training for hiring managers in light of current political conditions, Haller says, noting that HR plays a “crucial role” in ensuring hiring decisions are bias-free.
HR should already provide continuous training to mitigate bias in decision-making and ensure legal compliance, Haller says.
“Just as training addresses biases related to race, religion and sexual orientation, it should also encompass political beliefs,” she says. Federal law doesn’t protect against job discrimination based on political beliefs, but some state and local jurisdictions do.
Personal beliefs vs. illegal affiliations
Yet, there are important nuances that should be made in such training. For instance, HR must emphasize the difference between “personal political beliefs” and “affiliations with organizations engaged in illegal activities, such as those designated as terrorist groups,” the latter of which is unprotected.
When hiring managers were asked about job candidates who are pro-Hamas—which has been designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department for nearly 20 years—8% said they have rejected such applicants, and more than a third would consider doing so.
“It’s essential to differentiate between personal political beliefs and involvement in activities that support designated terrorist organizations, which is illegal,” Haller says. “Such involvement is not protected and can have legal ramifications for both the individual and the employer.”
Training should also emphasize the objective evaluation criteria that hiring managers are expected to rely on, Haller says, with an emphasis on clarity and consistency.
Both are also key for managing the current workforce. HR should ensure that policies are developed and communicated company-wide that dictate “acceptable workplace behaviors,” including expectations for political discussions in the workplace.
Similar to the distinctions that need to be made about protected activity in the hiring process, HR has to educate managers and leaders on the differences between workplace activism and personal political beliefs. While employees are entitled to political opinions, Haller says, participating in activities that support terrorist organizations must not be tolerated.
“It’s imperative that hiring managers are thoroughly educated on these policies to ensure compliance and uphold the organization’s integrity,” she says.
A changing landscape ahead
As HR works to ensure hiring managers are making decisions free from their own biases, they may also have to contend with external pressures.
For instance, the new Trump administration’s position on DEI is an about-face from that of the Biden administration and is already driving some in the corporate space to pull back on DEI commitments.
“Efforts to dismantle DEI programs have led many corporations, educational institutions and government agencies to reevaluate and, in some cases, discontinue these initiatives,” Haller says. “This shift has already manifested in various sectors, with reports of DEI-related positions being eliminated and programs being defunded.”
Similarly, the Trump administration is giving “increased scrutiny” to political expression in the workplace, including related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, Haller says, which could inflate the risk for hiring bias.
“The administration’s stance has fostered an environment where political dissent is more closely monitored, potentially introducing biases into the hiring process,” she says. “This development underscores the necessity for hiring managers and HR to be well-versed in the legal parameters surrounding political beliefs in employment decisions.”
Credit: Source link
