“There is only one way to avoid criticism: do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing,” Aristotle said. But in recent times, Australia’s largest employers have increasingly decided to take the opposite path.

To be viewed as good corporate citizens they have found a conscience, taking public positions on issues such as tax reform, mandatory vaccinations, fossil fuels and climate change. They have embraced diversity and inclusion initiatives and quotas. A few memorable examples include the AFL converting its football logo into the word “Yes” in support of marriage equality in 2017, and, in August 2023, Qantas announcing its support for the Indigenous Voice to parliament at an event attended by the prime minister.

Many workers expect their employers to take a stand on the issues of the day. The 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer survey shows an employer having “a societal impact” is a strong expectation or dealbreaker for 69 per cent of people considering a job, with candidates looking for businesses that reflect their personal values. But as consumers we are less convinced by corporate values. The Good Study 2024 survey found that while Australians overwhelmingly wanted companies to do good, only 39 per cent believed they should take a position on social and political issues, while 50 per cent said they would boycott a brand over its position on current wars and conflicts.

Where does this leave employees who might oppose the political “beliefs” of their employer, particularly if the topic is inherently important to the individual’s sense of self?

To date, employee attempts to admonish employers publicly for their values, or lack of them, have failed. In 2012, a public servant, Michaela Banerji, became so incensed by the immigration policies of her employer, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, that she established an anonymous Twitter account in which she was highly critical of her employer. She was dismissed for breach of the public service values, and ultimately lost her case, with the High Court finding in 2019 she had no unfettered implied right or freedom of political expression, and that her opinions (even though anonymous) were contrary to the department she was serving.

Australian classical pianist Jayson Gillham has hired lawyers in preparation for legal action against the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra after it cancelled performances by him after he spoke at a concert about the deaths of journalists in Gaza, which he described as “targeted assassinations” and an “international war crime”.

It’s unlikely political commentary was an express term of the contract the MSO negotiated with Gillham, making justifying anything other than playing the piano problematic on legal grounds. I have some sympathy for Dolly Parton’s views on not insulting half your audience when making political comments. “Keep your mouth shut if you want to stay in show business,” was her advice when asked about Donald Trump recently.

Gillham was expressing his personal views about the conflict when the MSO had remained silent, but things become more complicated when it is the company purporting to voice the political opinion. Employees opposing the political “beliefs” of their employer can be placed in a precarious position if the topic is inherent to their self-identity. Suppose you work for a company taking an active pro-Israel or pro-Palestine stance. Your employer might issue directions to attend internal information sessions on the topic, request that you change your email signature to incorporate new corporate messaging, or ask that you share supportive content on LinkedIn. If you are actively opposed to the position, or simply wish to remain neutral, you may find yourself in an ethical quandary.