The cases of James Watson, John Rocker, Jimmy the Greek Snyder and others show that employees who say controversial things may lose their jobs or be subject to sanctions from their employer. Is that legal, constitutional or wise?
Each employer who does this may claim it only affects its own employees, but it really affects all. If every person who has a job can’t speak out about immigration taking their job, then it has expropriated their rights systematically. Employers have a common interest in labor issues. If all employees can’t speak out on labor issues, then employers have pre-empted the political rights of employees as a group. The result is that only employers can speak out and they speak out on the side favoring employers.
This pre-empts debate and harms the country. The systematic expropriation of political rights from all employed persons is the expropriation of political rights in the Constitution. It is a fundamental denial of liberty by employers. It is, in effect, subversion of the Constitution.
Whether its company or league rules or other limitations by associations or groups, the act of limiting employee rights systematically to speak out on employer employee issues is a systematic usurpation of employee rights by employers.
Damage to employees from this, e.g. immigration and reduced wages or lower employment to population ratios might then be actionable against employers as a group. That is a class action by employees against employers for immigration damages, including tax costs of schools for legal immigrants and lower wages and lower job participation ratios from legal immigration are possible under this theory.
Employee employer relations includes immigration policy, affirmative action, civil rights legislation, race, etc. All these things are part of the work place and affect employment. Employers who try to systematically remove the right of all employees to discuss them are undermining the right of the country as a whole to discuss them. The employers are usurping control of employer employee or consumer seller issues to themselves. They are thus liable for their unjust enrichment from all government policies or market place damages they have imposed or skimmed.