Amazon.com’s Whole Foods Market doesn’t want to be forced to let workers wear “Black Lives Matter” masks and is pointing to the recent US Supreme Court ruling permitting a business owner to refuse services to same-sex couples to get federal regulators to back off.
National Labor Relations Board prosecutors have accused the grocer of stifling worker rights by banning staff from wearing BLM masks or pins on the job. The company countered in a filing that its own rights are being violated if it’s forced to allow BLM slogans to be worn with Whole Foods uniforms.
Amazon is the most prominent company to use the high court’s June ruling that a Christian web designer was free to refuse to design sites for gay weddings, saying the case “provides a clear roadmap” to throw out the NLRB’s complaint.
The dispute is one of several in which labor board officials are considering what counts as legally-protected, work-related communication and activism on the job.
You can get mad at Amazon, but really it’s the Supreme Court you should be mad at. Amazon is going to take advantage of whatever it thinks will make them more money. The government is the thing that is supposed to keep them in check.
Edit: A lot of people seem to be reading something different from what I wrote. I didn’t say you shouldn’t be mad at Amazon, or that Amazon isn’t at fault for their own actions. What I did say is that you should expect this type of behavior from a business and should expect our government to do a better job at keeping this behavior in check.
I’m mad at both. Amazon is trash. The current court is trash. And all the ghouls that got us this shit ass court are trash, from Mcconnell to Trump to every dummy that votes for Trump to the stupid stupid Democrats who didn’t fight tooth and nail when Obama’s pick didn’t get a hearing and didn’t pack the courts at the 1st opportunity. Oh and fuck RGB who should have fucking retired at the start of Obama’s 1st term. Octogenarians who survived multiple bouts of cancer don’t have the luxury of hanging out so the 1st female president gets to appoint their successor. Democrats are so fucking inept it’s hard to believe that they aren’t sandbagging us on purpose
it’s hard to believe that they aren’t sandbagging us on purpose
It’s hard to believe that they’re not doing it on purpose exactly because they are doing it on purpose. The system isn’t broken, it’s doing exactly what it is designed to do. You cannot use the system against itself. Voting helps prevent the greater evil but that just gets you the lesser evil. If you want an answer that is not evil at all, we need to create that entirely separately, outside of the established system and politics.
I don’t disagree with anything you said. You’re right on every account. We’re still seeing it in action as Feinstein refuses to step down and backing up the appointment of judges. RBG and Feinstein both destroyed their legacies by hanging on to power for far too long. It’s insane that Mitt Romney, of all people, is the one I agree with. He’s not going to run and encouraged other old people to stop running and let the next generation have a chance.
I’ll take both please
When the corporations can fund the politicians there is no difference between them.
“Amazon is going to take advantage of whatever it thinks will make them more money.”
Yea I will in fact get mad at that kind of behavior. Lots of businesses doing it (and commenters like you normalizing it) doesn’t make them less responsible for their shitty behavior.
They specifically said you can be mad. It’s the first sentence in OP’s comment. WTF are you on about?
Did you miss where where the point of their comment was to deemphasize Whole Foods’ fault and culpability in this? Or are you starting a linguistics discussion?
Edit: in other words, they say “You should expect businesses to act this way” and I say otherwise
You either get it or you don’t. I can’t help you with your lack of reading comprehension.
They specifically said that “you can be mad” about it.
You want to have it the way that they’re pushing some kind of agenda, when in fact they’re simply stating what’s true.
what the fuck is this shit, on my lemmy? fuck them both is the only sane conclusion, not “it’s a business so it’s fine”
I didn’t say it was fine… I said it’s to be expected and the reason they need guard rails.
You expect too much from people. The majority of this platform, like most others, is comprised of emotionally immature children. They simply want to screech when they see something they don’t like. Not approach the subject from a dispassionate viewpoint.
We both know what you said. But since you didn’t publicly attack Amazon, they’ll strawman it so it appears you’re defending them.
It’s kind of wild that Lemmy seems to be even more left and hive minded than Reddit was. In the earlier days, it seemed like it wasn’t going to be that way.
I joined Reddit in 2014. It was great back then. Open discussion (for the most part) was common place. You could disagree, but not everyone was a “fascist” or “liberal commie”. Now insults, extremism, and radical attitudes are common place. No middle ground. “agree with all my viewpoints or you’re the enemy”. Lemmy doesn’t look much different.
I’ve only been on this platform for maybe a week, and I’ve already blocked a dozen instances/communities. Not interested in extremism.
I joined Reddit in 2011, it was great. I joined Lemmy after the API price changes meant I couldn’t use my favorite app anymore. Lemmy at that time was a lot like early Reddit. It changed at break neck speed. I guess that’s just the times we’re in now. Everyone in their tribes and if you’re not part of their narrowly defined tribe, you’re the enemy.
I can get mad at Amazon and Supreme Court at the same time, but not for this. Having uniform requirements is reasonable thing to do, especially for customer facing employees.
why?
Because business is about making money by providing best services. Having dress code is part of it.
I fear for the public education system when someone like you has to ask this question.
Getting mad is not important. Making society better is. And everyone involved is responsible for their own actions.
These people are morons with 8th grade reading comprehension skills.
Come to think of it, maybe they are in fact 8th graders?
Fuck Wholefoods
None of my homies shop at Wholefoods
You don’t shop at Whole Foods because of it’s policies.
I don’t shop at Whole Foods because I don’t believe in paying $4 for a apple.
We are not the same.
It’s $6, grandpa.
It’s Amazon/Whole Foods’ policies that lead to charging such ridiculous prices for their items. You are the same, even if you don’t realize it.
Whole Foods was charging ridiculous prices long before Amazon got involved.
True. And that hasn’t changed either.
I absolutely would be willing to pay 4 or more for an apple, if it were local, and profits go to a local farm. I’m aware that means I eat in-season then too
So just drive to your local farmers market. Get a pound or two for $5 and cut out the middle man. I go occasionally, I get good deals like $1 massive sweet onions, 3 for $1 bell peppers (like softball sized ones), etc. Go early though, they usually sell before official times and are sold out within 3 hours (restaurants hit them hard)
I do
I live very close to the largest continuous fruit growing area in Europe. In-season 5kg crates go for five Euros, at the end of the season as low as one euro for 5kg on clearance. Don’t expect fancy-pants new strains to go at that price, though, it’s going to be Elstar or Holstein Cox.
And, fun sidenote: Out of season it’s indeed more CO2-advantageous for us to import apples from New Zealand than to store them. Buy apple sauce.
Out of season it’s indeed more CO2-advantageous for us to import apples from New Zealand than to store them
Not necessarily true, it would depend on the how clean the energy source of the refrigeration is. The only other major CO2Eq emission from storage of perishables is refrigerant leakage, but in most commercial scale usages that’s really low.
There isn’t one in my town so boycott goin strong for N years?
Idk that 5% cash back is hard to beat. I mean sure, fuck amazon for being anti-union, definitely need to trust bust them to but until then I can’t get 5% cash back when buying household goods anywhere else.
That 5% would be great, if WF wasn’t like 50% more expensive LOL
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/whole-foods-vs-trader-joe-180008164.html
It’s not “Whole Foods” it’s Amazon. Whole Foods died when Amazon bought them.
source: I’m from Austin and know several people that work there from employees to management. They killed everything that was whole foods.
Pretty sure Whole Foods had shitty conservative executives back then too didn’t they?
deleted by creator
They also fought against tighter regulation and labeling of organic and GMO products.
deleted by creator
And then Amazon bought them and as I’m certain it was fucking awful to work there.
edit: seems familiar… package deliveries, pickers, warehouse workers, pee bottles
That’s because they largely bought out most of the places that were better to work at.
Profit sharing ended in 2019. It’s all been big ol Amazon now
You can’t escape those fucks living in Texas. They’re everywhere.
in austin; those fucks call themselves liberal.
deleted by creator
It was shitty and ruled by a worker abusing chud before Lord Bezos bought it, too.
It’s been like that about Whole Foods since the 80s. John Mackey is a libertarian fuckhead and it’s been a series of people realizing it ever since.
They hired union busters all the time.
In the 10’s he tried to sell his book “conscious capitalism” on the shelves. Surprise surprise, no one bought it.
I think I’ve heard about this.
Reminder that Amazon is funding cop city https://news.littlesis.org/2022/11/15/meet-the-major-corporations-and-cultural-institutions-helping-build-cop-city-in-atlanta/
Why does anybody think it’s a good idea to wear political statements into work? Just do your job.
Imagine if you ran a business and one of your customer-facing employees showed up in a MAGA hat. You’d probably want them to leave it at home right?
You think equal rights and fair treatment for all is “politics”?
Unfortunately it is.
They aren’t banning masks that say “equal rights and fair treatment for ALL” , they are banning BLM masks, BLM is a political movement/organization.
No BLM is a statement that black lives matter. That’s completely different from saying, for instance, blue lives matter. One is a race that people are born into and the other is a job. It’s not political, it’s a cry for help.
Ya it’s a political movement that wants cops to stop killing black people.
But if I can’t wear my rainbow onesie to work it’s literally genocide.
Lol apparently people here don’t see sarcasm.
Everyone knows they’re being sarcastic, but we also live in a world where it’s a crime punishable by death to be LGBTQ+, where mentioning the topic in public is a crime and there are US politicians who have literally called for genocide against LGBTQ+ people, so it’s just a shitty thing to say.
we also live in a world where it’s a crime punishable by death to be LGBTQ+,
Oh yeah, how many whole foods do they have?
. there are US politicians who have literally called for genocide against LGBTQ+ people
No they’re aren’t. You’re lying
deleted by creator
Michael Knowles, at the CPAC conference
So when the statement of
there are US politicians who have literally called for genocide against LGBTQ+ people
Is made… you reference a person who ISN’T a politician as your source? What office does Michael Knowles hold?
deleted by creator
Thanks for proving me right about your lies
I think there’s a difference between not seeing sarcasm and not finding it amusing (particularly in certain circumstances).
We do. We just don’t like you two very much.
Either employees should be allowed to wear personal accessories to express themselves, or they should not. How do you define what is and is not political?
Also, this article’s vague, but “no slogans, logos, or advertising except for Whole Foods branding” is Whole Foods’s official dress code. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/whole-foods-black-lives-matter-mask.aspx
The plaintiffs were told they had to remove their Black Lives Matter face masks because they violated the dress code, but the workers refused and were sent home. After being sent home several times, they were fired for violating the company’s attendance policy.
The problem with all of these things is always unequal enforcement. For example if the store allowed an employee to wear a thin blue line mask, and fired another employee for a BLM mask
if the store allowed an employee to wear a thin blue line mask,
Except the store didn’t do that
deleted by creator
So we don’t really know one way or another.
It’s was a dismissed court case… What are you talking about “we don’t know” court records are a thing. You can get them directly by submitting a FOIA request.
Or just reading the new articles that spawned from the case.
“The evidence demonstrates only that Whole Foods did not strenuously enforce the dress code policy until mid-2020, and that when it increased enforcement, it did so uniformly,” Burroughs wrote in a 28-page decision.
There’s no evidence that it was unfairly applied. And if you have such evidence I’m sure you can submit it to the plaintiff’s lawyers and they’ll set you up with a sweet payday.
Whole Foods, part of Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O), has long maintained that its adopted its dress code–which also covered visible slogans, logos and ads
Would ALSO cover “thin blue line” as well btw… Technically it would cover the proper American flag as well…
Agreed, if I ran a grocery store chain I’d just have the employees wear uniforms with no personal expression.
At the end of the day it’s the business’s right to set whatever policy they want though. If the government decides employees have a constitutionally protected right to wear whatever they want to wear to work, we’re gonna see a lot of crazy bullshit.
If the government decides employees have a constitutionally protected right to wear whatever they want to wear to work, we’re gonna see a lot of crazy bullshit
Would it be a bad thing? I think with some sensible exceptions it would be a very good thing to permit free expression as the default.
Up to the business. If they don’t want political statements or and statement made at work, I can understand it.
That just means that employers can push their own political agendas and suppress alternatives.
“Employees may not wear pins of a political nature, such as expressing support for Joe Biden. Wearing a pin expressing support for Donald Trump is acceptable because that is not political.”
Like I said, it either has to be all or nothing - allow self expression or do not. Allowing self expression only if the company agrees with the expression is essentially compelled speech.
That just means that employers can push their own political agendas and suppress alternatives.
Damn straight
Except BLM and LGBTQ isn’t political. It’s Civil Rights. This isn’t Dem vs GOP, it’s ethical vs unethical treatment of humanity. Unfortunately certain individuals in the US portray this as political, but that’s so they can use it as leverage for their goals. You wouldn’t say “stop beating a slave and set him free” because your political affiliation says so, you say it because you see a human being suffer.
Except BLM and LGBTQ isn’t political. It’s Civil Rights.
I’m sorry but you just sound naive. These are not mutually exclusive. Civil rights are part of politics. All you’re arguing is that you think the politics you like should be allowed in the work place, and the politics you don’t like should not. That’s the hottest take in the entire post.
So, we can ban crosses? I’m obviously going a bit far, but both somewhat touch on the way people believe rights should be secured, and both involve human rights (one to free expression of religion, another to life and fr33dom from unfair treatment in general). Both make statements to others that others may find uncomfortable, depending on their beliefs.
…yes? Why shouldn’t a business have the right to ban their employees from wearing a cross? Go work somewhere else if wearing a cross is that important to you…
The point is the the USA the complaint would never have been made about the cross.
I mean, I agree, to an extent. As someone else pointed out, the cross banning would never work out in the US, and that shows the difference in how both things are treated here.
I just want to say that restricting someone’s right to wear a cross to work is hella illegal in Canada.
so we can ban crosses
When there’s comments here bringing up the first amendment and apparently forgetting that it includes that whole thing about not having a national religion, which is exactly what’s happened/continuing to happen with christianity. It’s just a little bit different than “black lives matter,” which is just…a fact?
is lemmy being brigaded? seriously, what the fuck is this. “just do your job” is never an adequate response to worker complaints
Yeah, I’m seeing this kind of trash on a lot of posts when lemmy was not even close to this bad just a month ago. It’s fucking gross.
Redditors ruin everything they touch
It is odd. I’m a Wilsonian Neocon with the caveat that I understand not everyone can always get what they want, but Lemmy’s usually “I hate the US so much that I support Russia” not anti-union shit. I suppose the GOP just made the UAW strike into a political talking point so the bot account goons are trying to steer conversations against unions even when the community never wanted it.
Ah the old, “an influx of normal opinions not in my extremist progressive echo chamber is brigading”
I would agree with you, but this is pretty blatant far-right bias and with the genocidal turn that camp has taken, it’s vitally important to take sides.
Otherwise, I agree with you.
Lol “genocidal turn”
Imagine if you ran a business and one of your customer-facing employees showed up in a MAGA hat. You’d probably want them to leave it at home right?
I think it’s good when people support good things and bad when people support bad things. Amorally applying the rules for their own sake is actually not a virtue; the rules should be oriented to promote good outcomes and discourage bad outcomes. Otherwise, what’s the point?
Who decides what’s good or bad?
We all do. We already do this throughout society. Individually we make choices on what is good or bad, and collectively those choices add up and are expressed either in law or social contract.
I actually had to talk to the boss and tell him that this manager’s motherfucking confederate flag hat made me uncomfortable, like he was a floor manager who wore the stars and bars every day, in a western state that didn’t exist during the civil war… and they didn’t say anything to him until a customer complained. He wore that shit for like a month. The good ol boy’s club is unreal
Because workers are more important than the businesses they work for, obviously.
Why does anyone think whether black people matter or not is political?
Because BLM is a political movement
And what are the politics of the movement?
Convincing black people that everyone is against them and that they should feel bad about it, while convincing white people that the only way they can do anything about it is by giving them money
most confusing poster in this whole thread. you say some good shit then dumb shit like this
I speak the truth
That’s where the constant disclaimers to the effect of ‘the views expressed do not nessecarily reflect the position of the company blah blah blah’ whenever someone speaks who isnt the principal executive of the organization. The problem being though it doesn’t go both ways, when one of the high leaders speaks it’s portrayed as ‘our company believes’ which then at least somewhat implies the employees of said company are in agreement. Individual expression is just leveling the field by letting the employees say 'the views of the company do not reflect my own.
It’s less common for any smart business to make highly charged statements unless they happen to be sure the majority will support them for it, but not unknown. I’ve seen a couple small ones around here that went as far as to plaster Q slogans all over their signs. From a business perspective they just alienated a major portion of their potential customers without anyone setting foot in the door.
Removed by mod
iiuc, wf is not saying that customers can’t wear BLM masks. They don’t want to show a political stance and, as a result, don’t want BLM masks worn by their employees, because that could be misconstrued as wf or Amazon taking a political stance. I can understand that. However, they, then, must ban ALL shows of politics in their store by them and their employees, and that includes LGBTQIA+ stuff. Otherwise, they’re just banning BLM stuff, which will be
misconstrued (notice the crossed out ‘mis’) as them taking a political stance against black folks.Being tired and thinking Bureau of Land Management made this very confusing at glance.
Also fuck the courts for that BS.
Why is it “fuck the courts”? This whole thing is about what a worker can do while on the job… If a company doesn’t want to be associated with something it should have a right to employ whatever restrictions on dress it wants. That’s kind of the point of dress codes with companies to begin with.
dress code is also completely made up bullshit that has no reason to exist in the modern world
why does a company’s right to “employ whatever restrictions on dress it wants” overrule the person’s innate wish to express themselves?
Companies can choose who works there just as people can choose who to work for. If companies don’t like what an employee is wearing then they can fire them, and if people don’t like what a company isn’t allowing them to wear they can quit.
but in actual practice, people are basically locked into jobs. it is not reasonable for someone to have to switch jobs over dress code and you know that; the employer shouldn’t just get to slowly immiserate people
Oh okay, we have just as much choice about where we work as they have about who they hire? 🙄
dress code is also completely made up bullshit that has no reason to exist in the modern world
If you say so captain.
dress code is also completely made up bullshit that has no reason to exist in the modern world
This is a ridiculous notion.
There are plenty of people that would show up to work without bathing while wearing sweatpants and teddy bear slippers if they were allowed. Source: I worked in a low-end call center fresh out of school and a good quarter of the people actually did dress like this most days.
Without a dress code a business has no grounds to address the situation.
If I walked into a new grocery chain or restaurant and everyone was dressed in dirty house clothes the best reaction I would have is to ask someone if this was a joke day. The more likely reaction would be just turning around and walking out.
Do workers have the right to refuse to be associated with something that the company want them to display on their dress code? For example, a corporate sponsor? If no, why do companies deserve more rights than people?
Do workers have the right to refuse to be associated with something that the company want them to display on their dress code?
Yes… by leaving/quitting/etc…
So that’s a no, then - you don’t have a right for something if you have to leave the system to exercise the right. For example you wouldn’t have the right of freedom of speech if I said “yeah you can say whatever you want if you leave the country!”
So, why do companies deserve more rights than people?
So, why do companies deserve more rights than people?
They don’t… It’s their property. Just like you would have a right to ask someone to leave your property at anytime for any reason.
Okay so imagine that you’re on Elon Musk’s private jet, 36000 feet in the air, and he asks you to strip down into a thong and perform an erotic dance for him. It’s his property, he has the right to tell you what to wear. If you don’t like it, you’re free to leave; of course. Do you think that’s acceptable?
Yes you would have a right to leave at any time. Failure on Elon’s part to allow you off the craft promptly and in safe manner would literally be kidnapping or unlawful detention. Which I believe would be up to 3 years of imprisonment… and generally a felony.
Also, would probably be soliciting and probably a whole slew of other illegal actions here if that situation would occur.
Did you think you had a gotcha there?
If someone had a necklace with a cross on it, can Amazon ban it? Should they ban it?
How about non-religious ear rings or other jewelry? How about a hair bun? Wedding ring?
There’s generally some leeway given for cultural adornments. So the question is what specifically is bad about a BLM adornment?
If someone had a necklace with a cross on it, can Amazon ban it? Should they ban it?
Yes, but not “Ban” but make “not visible”. Things that cannot be banned are required religious symbols. Think Yarmulca or the Sikh turban (sorry I don’t know the proper name). Where the religion requires wear. The cross can simply be worn under the shirt and not be visible. Dress code is all about visibility. You won’t find a dress code that mandates undergarments for example. There is of course caveats with some jobs where wearing of the item presents an actual safety risk… Eg necklack falls out of the shirt and gets caught in machinery and now there’s a bloody mess all over the floor. But even with protected items like a turban, if it displayed logos the company would probably be in the right to ask you to change into a different turban that was more neutral.
How about non-religious ear rings or other jewelry? How about a hair bun? Wedding ring?
Yes… I’ve worked in places that had such rules. A simple example would be the military. I’ve not seen Wedding ring restriction… but can think of several cases where that would be reasonable to also limit. Lots of people willingly stopped wearing their wedding bands in my motorpool after someone degloved a finger… I have seen plenty of places that ask people to remove other piercings/jewelry and it was a non-issue.
There’s generally some leeway given for cultural adornments. So the question is what specifically is bad about a BLM adornment?
If they’re applying the policy fairly… which according to the court case findings they are/did… And that policy was effectively “no logos”… Then everything you’ve mentioned doesn’t fall within the policy. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a wedding ring with a Mountain Dew logo on it (like articles of clothing).
Here’s a rendition of the general policy per a thread from 2 years ago https://www.reddit.com/r/wholefoods/comments/nxgnje/whats_the_dress_code/
You must wear plain tshirts (no pattern or multiple colors, only plaid) pants must be one color and in good shape (no holes) you can wear shorts in grocery and front end and produce but must wear pants in prep foods. Close toed shoes. Hats must only be whole foods logo and if u wear leggings you have to wear a shirt that is long to cover the butt. No pins on your apron and no logos or sports teams or bands.
Similar codes published by other users at https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Whole-Foods-Market/faq/what-is-the-dress-code?quid=1bk0o1sch5n8v93m in 2020. It’s a quick google search to find more references if you’d like.
Nothing here would limit religious garb, rings or other jewelry, and I’m sure some other section would cover hair than the one that was furnished. Requiring a bun or other hair style for longer hair makes sense for anyone dealing with food, so at face value not illogical to see. So I’m not sure why you’re bringing all this up. Could a company require compliance with these things? Sure… If you want to be paid to work, you follow the rules. Otherwise, go find another job elsewhere. It’s like trying to work for a high end upscale restaurant… then being mad that you have to wear a suit.
I’m bringing it up because the rules are inconsistent. A wedding ring is a cultural adornment. It’s allowed except in scenarios that involves using machinery that it would be a health hazard.
So we have many cultural adornments allowed, except this one particular one. So it’s not “the rules are the rules” kind of scenario. There is a specific reason why the BLM masks are being singled out.
Masks are allowed. Similar to a hair scrunchy or hair clip it’s something the company should prefer the employees to wear because it improves safety.
Does having BLM on the mask make it a safety concern? Nope, it doesn’t. The mask improves safety having a mask that the employee likes wearing makes it more likely they’ll wear it, so allowing BLM masks is encouraging better safety.
And what’s the reason? The far right has deemed a cultural item to be undesirable. Why would a political movement deem a cultural adornment often worn by a certain ethnicity to be undesirable?
Sorry but logic just isn’t on your side with this one. It’s discouraging a commonly accepted cultural adornment that’s being done solely out of political motivations of the employer. Other cultural adornments are allowed (some are even encouraged when they improve safety) but this particular adornment is being singled out despite the fact that it improves safety. The BLM masks are only considered political speech by a subset of the population who are of a certain political persuasion.
It’s a politically motivated attack against cultural expression, ie. culture war bullshit. Am I meant to not notice that there’s one political party is promoting this “culture war” crap and pretend the actions of Amazon aren’t politcal while some underpaid worker wearing a BLM mask isn’t cultural?
I’m bringing it up because the rules are inconsistent.
Not at all… It’s not breaking the rule because the rule isn’t “no cultural adornment” … It’s no brands or logos.
Why do I have to keep fucking repeating this on every damn thread?
BLM is not trademarked (people have tried and failed though!) so it’s not a brand. It’s three letters so it doesn’t qualify as a logo. If it were consistently stylized then maybe it could be considered a logo. But there’s not consistency in the stylization, only thing that’s consistent is it’s the same three letters from the alphabet in the same order.
LOL <- do you think that’s a logo too? If so then, LOL at your silly rationalization. Oh noes, someone might sue me for infringing on the “LOL” brand/logo!
Now you’re assuming what the actual design of the pin and mask were… Do you know it was just “BLM”… and why wouldn’t that count as a brand/logo? Just because it’s not trademarked it’s not a logo? That’s silly and certainly not a consideration for what is and isn’t a logo. There are many masks and pins that are absolutely stylized. But I have no idea which these people were wearing so I won’t speak to that.
LOL <- do you think that’s a logo too?
LOL can be a logo. But I find myself again pointing to the rules that Whole Foods have in place…
You must wear plain tshirts (no pattern or multiple colors, only plaid) pants must be one color and in good shape (no holes) you can wear shorts in grocery and front end and produce but must wear pants in prep foods. Close toed shoes. Hats must only be whole foods logo and if u wear leggings you have to wear a shirt that is long to cover the butt. No pins on your apron and no logos or sports teams or bands.
“plain”, “one color”, and NO pins… These things are obvious and clear words that don’t leave imagination to the intention of management. Even if it was just the letters BLM put together in a neutral font… it’s still a violation of the contract you would have agreed to in order to work there. If you have no intention of following the rules, then don’t work there… and certainly don’t “surprise pikachu” when you get fired.
But even to just the point of what a logo is…
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logo
2: an identifying symbol (as for use in advertising) 3: an identifying statement : motto
We could argue that BLM meets or doesn’t meet requirement for definition 2… But it DEFINITELY meets definition 3. BLM just on it’s own is 1 of 2 things… Bureau of Land Management, or “Black Lives Matter” (whether the non-profit or the movement). It’s definitely identifying because nobody is wearing a Bureau of Land Management mask or pin.
You’ve got some is/ought fallacy going on here. And it’s unfortunate. But I’m not sure if comparing something as culturally ubiquitous as a wedding ring compares to something as divisive as BLM. Yes, it’s unfortunate that BLM is divisive. It ought not be. Yes, you could even say wedding rings are symbols of power and oppression, and ought be considered in the same way as BLM. But that is not the case.
Wedding rings are symbols of power and oppression.
I just said that. If you disagree then that means wedding rings are a divisive issue. Since it’s a divisive issue it should be banned.
You’re using tautological logic here. Anything that’s divisive is political, anyone declaring they disagree with anything makes something divisive, therefore anything people disagree over is political. Anything political should be banned. All power is given to those who decide what is political and what isn’t because anything can be declared political.
Given we’re in a culture where people will feign disagreement and argue in bad faith, the logical result is employers have absolute control over employees. Starting to feel really dystopian if we follow this kind of logic.
Honestly do you really think there is no intent behind the culture war strategy of declaring anything associated with minority groups to be “divisive” in an effort to have it banned? Who actually believes black lives don’t matter? Should anyone try to appease that sort of person?
There’s a joke in an episode of the new Reno 911 where they go out on a call about BLM setting fires.
This mix up is also included on The White Lotus
deleted by creator
I’m with Amazon on this, seems a reasonable ask for employees to not wear any political/cultural/social things at work with their official uniform.
Guys is it Political to not want to get killed by the police or just get seen at the hospital when you’re having chest pains?
Interesting take you have there.
BLM is a brand though. The lady who founded it just bought a £1.25M house in LA’s exclusive Topanga neighbourhood for all cash.
That doesn’t sound like some sort of grass roots, help lift people up, Mother Teresa sort of organisation to me.
Hence yeah, people don’t like BLM. Some don’t like what it stands for, while others, like me, don’t like it because the founders used it as a massive vehicle for grifting and lining their own pockets.
The idea behind Black Lives Matter is not a brand, though. People who support the cause are simply supporting equity and progress. These fundamentals don’t change just because one person affiliated with the marketing of the idea may be questionable.
There are multiple segments to BLM, since the fight for progress takes multiple fronts. And indeed, the head of Black Lives Matter Greater New York City, which is not affiliated with Khan-Cullors’ Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, called for “an independent investigation” to find out how the global network spends its money.
And it turns out that the reason Patrice, the woman buying homes you’re referencing in bad faith, acquired some personal wealth from having a best selling book from back in 2018, and a television deal to produce content with Warner Bros.
I’m sure her earning wealth through program advocacy and people reading stuff won’t change anything about how you feel about them, though.
I agree the larger philosophy behind BLM isn’t a brand, but the slogan “BLM” is a brand.
To me personally, BLM is kind of stupid, the correct slogan we should all be wearing is ACAB, because from everything I have seen, US police are just as happy assaulting and killing anyone who gets in their way, regardless of colour. Cops in the US just want to kill people, it’s an us versus them mentality, and I’d say it’s pretty colour blind, like those 5 Nashville black cops who tortured and killed that black motorist. And I remember seeing the Atlanta BLM protests in 2020, and there were loads of black cops horrifically beating protestors too. It’s honestly not a black problem, it’s a blue vs everyone else problem.
And then some of the absolute worst police killings I’ve seen have been white cops killing white people, such as Daniel Shaver, Ryan Whitaker, and Officer Longman of Utah.
Some cops are definitely racially biased, but it’s hardly Mississippi Burning anymore, even in the South. What is a problem is a general militarisation of police and complete lack of oversight or consequences for their actions.
But make no mistake, any cop would just love to kill you to make his or her day, whether you’re white or black.
The idea behind Black Lives Matter is not a brand, though
It’s completely a brand. It’s founded on the false assertion that most people think that black people don’t matter and they should die. Telling black people they need to be upset and feel bad that everyone everywhere is out to get them, and tells white people they need to make amends for things they’re never done.
There’s a bunch of different autonomous groups, with no one “founder.” This has always been the single talking point that the fox news crowd loves to parrot to sound like a “gotcha” when they want to be racist but are too cowardly to show who they really are. If that’s not obvious by now, then idk what to tell you, except that arguing against human rights and for police brutality is not going to endear you to people.
There’s a bunch of different autonomous groups, with no one “founder.”
https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/474143254
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/474143254
No… There’s a proper 501-C that exists. So yes, there is a founder. While a lot of the marches are not necessarily associated directly with the organization, a lot of the donations get pooled into the organization. They make plenty of money doing it too.
Edit: There’s also orgs like…
Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation
As well associated with people like Khan-Cullors (https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse-khan-cullors-real-estate-buying-binge/)
Removed by mod
Oh cool dig!
deleted by creator
It’s political to insist that getting shot in response for attacking the police is just “because you’re black”.
So if they’re banning BLM as political, do they have to be even handed and ban all political iconography?
Is a rainbow political? Obviously anything with an American flag is political, so those need to be banned. Anything like a cross obviously would be forbidden - necklaces would have to be tucked in and invisible. Christianity is far more of a political thing in the US than BLM, as it’s being used to specifically and actively drive legislation. Would they then have to ban employees from other religious dress, like wearing a hijab or yarmulke? I don’t recall Muslims or Jews passing legislation in the name of their religion at the national level, but do activities in Dearborn or Williamsburg count?
Are wedding rings heteronormative? They’re certainly both a cultural and a social thing. Makeup is also both cultural and social, and additionally potentially has gendered implications. If we ban rainbows, do we ban anyone wearing makeup or require everyone to do so, since they’re potentially signaling gender identity?
I’m going to start using GOP rhetoric and replace rainbow flag with wedding rings.
Wedding rings is woke propaganda.
Makes sense to me. If it’s political for me to be able to get married because I’m gay, I don’t see why straight couples shouldn’t be up on the chopping block. So no employee better be wearing a ring.
So if they’re banning BLM as political, do they have to be even handed and ban all political iconography?
Yes… because the policy is
no slogans, logos, or advertising except for Whole Foods branding
I think you’re way into the weeds here and forget the most important thing to remember about “freedom”: things like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are a compact between you and the government, not you and private companies. Private companies don’t owe you anything besides whatever the government has expressly legislated, such as explicit protection for religious clothing and icons like crosses, Sikh turbans, etc.
However, beyond that, individual companies have the right to request their employees look and dress in certain ways. The flip side there is, if you don’t like those rules, you are free to not work there anymore.
Of course, legislators can always choose to pass laws forcing companies to allow more exemptions, but that hasn’t happened yet for displays of a political organisation.
I get that. It makes logical sense. It’s just that corporations have so much power to impose their will and it feels weird to me that we let them do that even when it comes to how a human presents themself.
I agree with you about that, but these employees have chosen to do a job where they come face to face with customers daily, and some of those customers may get offended by seeing an employee wearing a BLM badge, in red states for example. The company doesn’t want to antagonise a potential customer and lose a sale, so they’re asking that no employees wear any political markings. And honestly, I think that’s a fair request if you work in a customer-facing role.
Notice that this ruling only applies to Whole Foods workers, not Amazon warehouse workers, who can probably wear whatever they want since they don’t deal with customers.
Because it is weird. It’s even weirder for any average person to defend it.
No, I am very well aware of that. But they’re not saying “You can’t wear a BLM button because we do not think black lives matter, but you can wear a proud boys one if you want.”
They may or may not have that right - that’s going to depend on both the currently existing corporate rules and any state/local legislation.
I was thinking in particular about a case in the past 5 or so years where a company was sued for forbidding one employee from wearing a hijab while allowing others to wear crosses. It was a case of religious discrimination.
My point is that for this to be non-discriminatory it has to be a policy that’s handled in an even handed fashion. Of course it has nothing to do with the constitution - I’m not even sure why you’d introduce that unless you’re staying to strawman. But I know that I can’t fire someone for saying in the workplace that they agree with Trump unless I have a wholesale policy banning talking about politics. I’d be in trouble if I said people could talk about politics, but they could only say nice things about Biden and bad things about Trump. You might be able to get away with that at a locally owned auto body shop, but not at a major corporation.
My further point is that saying that black lives matter isn’t political, unless there’s a major political party that thinks black lives don’t matter. Rainbows aren’t political, unless there’s a major political party that thinks the LGBT community shouldn’t be visible. Books on gay parents aren’t political unless there’s a political party that thinks gay people shouldn’t be allowed to be parents. But that same party would allow a flag pin, or a yellow ribbon, or a book about a hetero couple with a kid. It’s only political when they disagree with it. Otherwise it’s just “normal.”
You actually can fire people based on their political beliefs, because believe it or not, political affiliation is not a protected class under current US federal law (maybe some state law though). There are only 7 current federally protected classes: age, race, sex, religion, marital status, disability, and sexual orientation. That’s why Republicans have been announcing they want to make political affiliation a protected class soon, because I guess that’s the next big battleground, is employers start to hire/fire based on politics.
I take your points, but I guarantee you this isn’t a decision about politics by Amazon, but purely a maximisation of revenue decision. Whole Foods employees interact with customers face to face, every day, all across the US, from blue states to red states. They know that their customers in some places consider BLM to be a political organisation, one that they don’t support, and that goes for proud boys, KKK, whatever. The point is, you don’t want to antagonise any customers coming in through the door, and corporate is aware that people are awfully sensitive these days and ready to kick off over any tiny thing, so to ensure no customer gets offended and takes their business elsewhere, and to ensure a policy which can be applied nationally for all states where Whole Foods exists, it’s just easier to say they won’t allow anything which their customers could potentially consider political.
That’s all this is, it’s not the political dog whistle some are making it out to be. This is just corporations wanting to remain neutral and take money from every customer, not just liberal ones. Hence I agree with this policy, it’s not coming from a bad place and it’s not an absurd request either.
And yes, as you said, not allowing someone to wear a religious article of clothing is a lawsuit waiting to happen, which will be a slam dunk, but this isn’t the same.
I agree, but then I started thinking “why the hell do I think it’s so reasonable for a corporation to strip away the humanity of its employees” and I’m not sure where I’ve landed now.
deleted by creator
If no one is allowed to wear any flair then that’s fair. But everyone is allowed (and possibly encouraged?) to wear pride stuff in June as part of the anyway corporate rainbow-washing. So I have to ask why it’s OK to wear “LGBTQ+ folks deserve life and civil rights” stuff but it’s not OK to wear “Black folks deserve life and civil rights” stuff? Why is stating that Black lives have value so offensive that it’s worth fighting all the way to the Supreme Court to ban it?
It’s not just a corporate thing, police, military, and fire brigade aren’t allowed to wear overt political badging either.
There’s a general rule that if you work for an organisation which asks you to wear a work related uniform of some kind, you don’t get to add anything to it, political or otherwise. You don’t see bobbies with a Pink Floyd sticker on their chest.
“strip away the humanity”
I’m dead. That’s got to be the greatest use of hyperbole I’ve seen in a long time. Bravo, sir. Bravo.
deleted by creator
Yeah, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Agree or not (and I agree with what BLM stands for), it is sadly controversial. And I get why a business would not want employees overtly supporting or opposing something some customers could find controversial.
Time to start wearing a mask that says Union
AFAIK the ruling about serving same sex couples specifically relates to “compelled speech”, which means it definitely doesn’t apply in this context and Amazon is hoping that right wing courts will expand the ruling (they might).
deleted by creator
What a wild hill to die on.
After reading this, why am I getting a feeling in my stomach that reminds me of being on a roller coaster right before a big drop? Why do I feel like all of America is going to be like that very soon?
My gut says it’s going to be more complicated than that. I believe in people and at a certain point the reactionary stuff is going to overplay their hand and I think we’re already seeing it.
At a certain point this stuff just breaks down, people will lose their patience. In my wildest dreams the 2020 riots were a kind of dress rehearsal for something more organized in the future. Eventually I think liberals might lose their ability to usurp movements.
Don’t get me wrong, we’re headed for bad times, but we don’t have to feel doomed. Believe in people.
I believe in a subset of people. But that subset of people is not enough to prevent things from getting very ugly.
I expect we’ll have something to eclipse 2020. But I also expect there’s going to be a very strong reactionary backlash waiting in the wings again. I’m hoping to secure more viable refuges by that point.
Oh yeah, there will be a bigger reactionary backlash, and that backlash will cause even more “normal unaffiliated” people to realize what’s at stake. I don’t mean to sound accelerationist or apocalyptic, but everything has a breaking point and pronounced change only comes through conflict.
I think we’re seeing a little bit of it through the abortion bans. People are genuinely pissed off about that.
We just have to hope there will be enough people who won’t tolerate reactionaries. I can’t say what will happen, but you’re right, it might get very ugly soon. But at the same time we can’t say we’re already defeated
The abortion ban is why I disagree with your take. Liberals said if abortion gets banned they were gonna riot and stayed out in the streets for exactly 2 or 3 days. Liberals have trained a lot of people to think we can vote our way out of anything. They don’t even really support things like abortion related mutual aid bc stuff like that is seen as lesser importance than defeating Trump (or whoever the next Republican is.)
I don’t think we are defeated but winning isn’t gonna come from us reacting to terrible things happening, it’s gonna come from more proactive organizing before shit hits the fan.
deleted by creator
there’s a balance. arming up and prepping without organizations is pointless - the paramilitaries will crush a lone homesteader. community defense requires a whole community.
If you harbor 5 fugitives, you have something to fear from the government. If you harbor 500 fugitives, the government has something to fear from you.
What I’m saying is, when the time comes, I hope you’ll have way more than 2 cows.
I’m not saying we are or will be vanquished. I am saying that the balance of guns and land is not in our favor (although the balance of distribution infrastructure is slightly in favor of the libs).
Liberals will largely stand by if fascism takes over, especially in this country. One of the best hopes we have is that the military would crack down on a coup, and the balance of representation in the military is very much not in our favor. The other best hope is balkanization or at least devolution, where state and local governments become more relevant than the federal government and this allows us to thrive in pockets.
deleted by creator
it’s a cycle that keeps escalating so long as profits get squeezed tighter and tighter. at some point the whole system breaks and the only question is who seizes power when that happens. if we have orgs and can channel popular discontent, it will be us. if not, we’ll be posting from the camps. the future is not yet written - projecting the present forward into the future is good at telling you what will happen next week but it’s a shitty approximation before you even get out to a year.
Any way you put it, things are going to get crazy. That’s why I’m getting that feeling.
Companies have no rights unlimited genocide on corporate personhood
