10 Leaders The EconomistFebruary 29th 2020
2 crats. In 2017, for example, they piled into newly issued 100-year
Argentine sovereign bonds that are now worth only 43 cents on
the dollar. The government is expected to make a formal propos-
al for a debt restructuring next month. Some creditors grumble
that the imf should share more of the pain and take a big write-
down, too. But the fund’s job is to lend when others will not. It is
therefore entitled to insist on being repaid even when others are
not. If it succeeds, the restructuring should lead to reductions in
debt principal and interest costs worth perhaps 10-20% of gdp.
Argentina will still need a new imfloan to help repay the old
one. But it has ruled out entering the kind of special programme
the imf has traditionally reserved for countries that are chroni-
cally incapable of living within their means. In the past these
programmes have involved long-term loans, but also bossy de-
mands for austerity at home. Instead Argentina has been lobby-
ing the fund and g7finance ministers for a cuddlier approach
that prioritises growth. This chimes with Ms Georgieva’s ambi-
tions to remake the imf: instead of being the hard-nosed enforc-
er of global finance, she wants it to do more to help poor coun-
tries grow in the long run.The trouble is that plenty of Argentine governments, inves-
tors and imfstaffers have counted on growth to restore Argen-
tina’s health only to be disappointed. The imf should avoid im-
posing needless humiliation or suffering on Argentina but it
must also avoid indulging any delusions that it will suddenly be-
come a thriving tiger economy.
Ms Georgieva should take a twin-track approach. First, in-
stead of making numerous detailed demands, the fund should
merely set a few hard targets for the budget deficit and inflation
and let the government work out how to achieve them: by grow-
ing faster if possible, and if not, then by belt-tightening. Second,
the fund should provide candid advice. Inflation, which exceeds
50% a year, cannot be tamed only through price-controls and
arm-twisting the labour unions. Argentina’s growth prospects
would be improved if the government spent less on pensions,
civil servants and energy subsidies and more on investment.
Growth would benefit if taxation were friendlier to exports and
labour laws were less inimical to hiring. If both Argentina and
the imfwant to give growth a chance, they should favour ruth-
less truth-telling. Fingers crossed, it will be 22nd time lucky. 7C
an youreally lose your job for posting an opinion on Twitter,
or even for clicking “like” on somebody else’s message? Sur-
prising though it may be to employees who expect firms to in-
dulge their odd working hours, their tastes in coffee and their
pets, the answer is often yes. Pascal Besselink, an employment
lawyer in the Netherlands, reckons that about one in ten abrupt
sackings there is connected to behaviour on social media.
Controversial opinions were once expressed in bars after
work, and went no further. Today Twitter and other social media
broadcast employees’ thoughts; they also make it easy for any-
one who is offended to put together a mob and retaliate against
the poster and their employer. Jittery firms respond by sacking
the offender. Some, like General Motors, have
introduced conduct codes which police work-
ers’ speech even when they are not at work.
A firm may judge its self-interest correctly
when it punishes workers who speak out. Amer-
ica’s National Basketball Association probably
lost hundreds of millions of dollars this season
because of a Chinese blackout imposed after the
general manager of the Houston Rockets
tweeted in support of democracy in Hong Kong. Sacking him
would have been costly, too—but not that costly.
Though it is not necessarily in companies’ interests to allow
the free expression of opinion, it is clearly in society’s interest.
Free speech, including by employees, is a cornerstone of demo-
cracy. At the moment workers are too easily gagged.
In countries such as America most employees have scant pro-
tection against punitive employers. In others, laws written to
protect religious freedom are being extended to govern other be-
liefs and views. British judges have decided that ethical vegan-
ism deserves legal protection. A think-tank was ruled to have act-
ed legally when it did not renew the contract of a researcher aftershe tweeted that biological sex is immutable (see International
section). This case-by-case evolution leaves employees and em-
ployers unsure which views are acceptable and where.
In laying down clearer rules, legislators should remember
that offending and harassing are different. It is not reasonable
for companies to try to prevent their employees from expressing
displeasure at gay marriage, no matter how strongly others dis-
agree—at least if that is not relevant to the job they do. But an em-
ployee who repeatedly says at work that gays are damned, even
after being told to stop, has crossed the line into harassment.
That should be grounds for dismissal.
There is also a difference between what people do at work and
what they do outside. Speech is like a dress code.
Just as companies can demand that their em-
ployees look the part while at work, they should
be able to restrict what they say there, provided
they are clear and fair about it. After people go
home, though, they should be able to express
their opinions freely, just as they are free to
change into jeans and a t-shirt. A woman fired
in 2004 by a housing firm for displaying a stick-
er backing John Kerry on her car was poorly treated. The situa-
tion is more complicated when it comes to public figures such as
sports stars, who in effect sell their image as well as their labour.
Firms will lobby to preserve their freedoms. But robust laws
against unfair dismissal that protect speech would help them
stand up to complaints from angry mobs and the Chinese gov-
ernment. Politicians should hold their nerve. Many complain
that their constituents have become so ideological and tribal
that they have forgotten how to talk to those with opposing
views. Geographical and technological spaces are increasingly
segregated. That makes it all the more important that people en-
counter different views at work—and especially outside it. 7Woking nine to five
Companies should be prevented from trying to silence their employeesFree speech at work