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.
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.
“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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
Whole Foods doesn't want employee uniforms to make a political statement.
Bet every single person here would be pleased if this was about banning Trump masks. I'll give you a crisp $20 bill if those are allowed. Or any other sort of political speech.
The fact that there is an organization of the same name does not mean they own the slogan. People using the slogan almost never do so in reference to this organization nor are necessarily even aware that such an organization exists.
BLM is more of a human rights statement. Anything is "political" if the right choses to whine about it. An example is putting pronouns on name tags. It's a great idea to ensure employees are addressed correctly and frankly shouldn't be any more political than a name tag containing your name, but the right choses to view them as political because they need a constant culture war.
This is like saying "Trump has Little Hands" is a political organization because some guy wants to copyright "Trump has Little Hands" to sell on merch. Absolutely ridiculous take and it clearly show where you stand on these sorts of issues.
BLM is a movement concerned with police brutality against minorities
There is a political organization called BLM, but nobody but right wing whack jobs gives a shit about that organization
There is also the Bureau of Land Management that is also refereed to with the acronym BLM,
Somehow you know BLM on a mask doesn't refer to the Bureau of Land Management but you're being deliberately stupid it referring to a political organization and not the movement.
Jeff Bezos isn't going to give you any money no matter how wide you spread your asshole for him.
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?
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.
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.
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…
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
You can't seriously be surprised by this. When you work for a company, especially one that interacts with customers, you're almost guaranteed to have to follow uniform requirements. This isn't new.
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 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.
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.
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.
They're not doing anything if the sort, that's hyperbolic nonsense. When you're paid to represent a company, you shouldn't be displaying items that link them to a course they're not corporately linked to. Once you leave at the end of the shift you can put all the political regalia you like back on.
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.
Yeah, it just seems like common sense to me that you don't wear political regalia to work, and that's coming from the UK where our workers rights are a big stronger.
Like it or not, while you're on the clock, you're on the companies time and the only political stuff you should be promoting, if any, if causes they've aligned themselves too corporately.
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.
We don't have either of those in my area, unfortunately. Trader Joe's is pretty awesome, but even they have some fucky sourcing and, at least at the one here, a really high turnover rate for employees.
I wish there was a Wegmans in my area. In college, the one near me put discount deli food out at 8am. So I'd get a $2 sandwich and a $1 soup (which would have been like $9). I survived off of discount food.
It seems to me like WF is trying to avoid a bud light situation. Employees wearing BLM stuff will certainly put off a lot of people in many areas. So it's about not alienating a big portion of their customers, which would be a significant hit to sales.
Anyway, I find it odd to some extent that a business was not allowed, possibly, to limit what employees wear, especially if they interact with customers. A key tenant of sales and customer service is to make the person feel respected and to take an interest (fake if nothing else) in the customer.
It’s sad that a significant portion of their customers don’t believe black lives matter and that as usual money is more important than that to corporations
No, you are conflating the organization with the phrase. Probably why they picked that name. People oppose the org and their Marxist agenda, not so much (I hope) black people.
I can easily see this being a safety issue. You don't usually want employees wearing stuff that could anger other employees or customers, no matter the reason.
I am getting tired of being surprised that out of 77 comments not one mentions that the SCOTUS did NOT allow "Christian business owners to refuse same-sex couples." This was and is against the law. SCOTUS said they don't have to create pro-same-sex materials. It should be a straightforward and obvious conclusion that only went to SCOTUS because of the current anti-religious sentiment.
Would a liberal sign maker be required to create pro-life materials? Of course not.
Should a conservative sign maker be required to make pro-choice materials? Of course not.
The law cannot force you to make materials or statements that you do not agree with.
If they have a dress code for their employess, it's their right to prevent their employees from wearing anything not up to code. No matter if it's making a statement or not.
Another example of a company with street cred giving it up. If employees felt safe wearing BLM masks to work that meana the company's image as is consistent, even internally.
Welp, just cancelled Amazon Prime. Never shopped at Whole Foods, so can't do any more there.
Kinda the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Probably should've done it a long time ago with all the union busting and general shittiness they are towards employees. But FFS if you're gonna pay people the bare minimum, treat them like cogs, at least allow them to have something they care about on their person while they're doing that shitty job.
Saying that black people are humans and their lives matter as much as any other human should be the least controversial thing ever. But a bunch of racists made it controversial and Amazon is just going along with that.
A company not wanting it's employees to wear politicized materials while at work is what makes you mad? I suppose you also want them to be able to wear rebel flag or SS masks? A Trump facemask with MAGA on it? Maybe you just read the title?
Black Lives Matter is a unambiguously good stance.
The rebel flag signifies support for people who fought a war against their fellows for the right to hold others in chains. SS signifies support for a mass murder's campaign to subjugate the world and drag the world into darkness. Support for Trump is support for an autocrat who would replace Democracy with a cult of personality.
The fact that you cannot distinguish these beyond lumping them together as political stances doesn't speak well for your analytical skills. How about you can support your fellow man but you can't support evil?
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.
The original article contains 159 words, the summary contains 159 words. Saved 0%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
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.
The original article contains 159 words, the summary contains 159 words. Saved 0%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Honesty, imo, shame on Amazon for not barring anything but solid-colored, patterned, or Bezos-Empire-Branded masks, explicitly, in their dress code.
I’m a (mostly) vegan, liberal AF, solidly middle-class, homeowner married millenial parent (i.e the portrait of a Whole Foods customer), and I agree with BLM, but I would be put off by any political or politicalized messaging in a supplier/customer relationship. I’m here for your general tao seitan and a TTLA…not for your influence.
Saying that black people exist and should remain alive is not a political statement. Do you want to ban hats that say "veteran" too? Or maybe charity and cancer awareness logos?
Being a live black person is not a political act. Think about that when ordering some seitan and being "liberal AF", whatever that means.
Political - adj - Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
I don't know if you really don't know the difference between being black and supporting the BLM movement, but there is a definite difference. A good quick measure is would a politician hold an opinion on it? For a specific example do you think Tim Scott (one of the black Republican Presidential Candidates) would wear a BLM face mask?
I will assume that you are arguing and good faith and genuinely don't see the difference, so here are a few contrasting examples:
Wearing a hat that says Veteran is a statement of fact, like wearing a hat with your college's logo. It is not inherently political or supporting any particular political ideal.
Wearing a VFW hat on the other hand, would be political. The VFW seeks to educated and change the opinions of legislators regarding veterans.
If a black person was wearing a hat that said I am Black. That would be a statement of fact and not inherently political or supporting any particular political ideal.
Wearing a BLM hat on the other hand would be political. The BLM organization and supporters of the BLM ideals seek to educate and change the opinions of legislators and the public regarding black people.
Without typing out the same comparisons again, cancer awareness and most charities would fall under political ideals also. They almost always seek to influence government legislation or funding.
Saying that black people exist and should remain alive is not a political statement
It's absolutely political because it sits on the false premise that others argue otherwise. Nobody does, it's a false premise used to create racial divide and lower the moral of the black community
Politicize the idea the that an ethnicity shouldn't be arbitrarily beaten by police.
Ban that idea because it's "politicized"
Everyone is ok with it because despite politicize is a verb we're supposed to pretend this isn't being done by someone that thinks it's ok for police arbitrarily beat the shit out of minorities.
It's almost like this a system of some kind. And maybe racist? A racist system? So not only aren't we doing enough to take on systemic racism, corporations like Amazon are creating new forms of systemic racism.
Believe it or not it is possible to fully support a political ideal while still thinking corporations should stay out of politics.
For example, I think that cops taking money from people (Civil Asset Forfeiture) without charging them with a crime is amoral, unconstitutional (4th amendment), and un-American.
If, however, I saw a sign about it in my local McDonald's I would definitely be like WTF?!?
Im ok with this. While BLM is a good thing, having to wear uniforms that promote any organization other than your employer is a problem. Imagine being forced to wear a pro-Trump t-shirt. Or an anti-union vest. Or some anti-gay, pro-religion hat while flipping burgers.
Huh? This isnt about wholefoods not wanting to force their workers to wear blm masks, this is about wholefoods wanting to forbid their workers from wearing them
Obviously, no business wants to be associated with BLM any more than they want to be associated with the KKK. Every company I've ever worked for has had dress codes that prohibited divisive political slogans and offensive language.
They're both reprehensible political extremist movements. BLM has the added stank of being a fraudulent money-laundering scam on top of it, too.
I guess the Summer of Love didn't happen.
Sorry you live in a shitty town where a BLM sticker triggers snowflakes.
Go to any city in America and you'll see all sorts of BLM, rainbow flags, signage on storefronts. This isn't just mom & pop shops, but major companies too.
Great, and each company is entitled to its own rules on those things. Whole foods have decided on theirs and their employees can lump it or go and get a job with the more progressive companies that do allow it.
The left has no leg to stand on when bitching about ideological symbols when kids are getting kicked out of school for having a Gadsden flag patch on their backpack.
The BLM/KKK thing is a false equivilance, but his right to say that companies have the right to decide if employees can display political iconography on their uniform and most of them won't want it due to the hassle it will bring and also that it may indicate a corporate connection that isn't there.
How the fuck is that divisive, political, or offensive?
What's divisive is morons like you saying "No, ALL LIVES MATTER".
You're either completely missing the point, in which case you're dumber than I thought possible, or you're willfully ignoring it, in which case you're just a racist.
I never said, and I never say, "All Lives Matter." That's what stupid conservatives say because they don't understand that's exactly the rhetorical trap BLM has set for them in order to call them racists. Please notice I didn't step in that trap, so don't shove me into it.
When it comes to "What belongs on people's clothes while representing their employer," BLM and KKK are the same.
BLM's message isn't really "Please stop murduring us." It's "You white people are all a bunch of racists."
It's slanderous (which is why it's offensive), it's obviously political at a glance, so inherently so that I don't know how to explain it, and a lot of people don't go for that shit and a lot of other people do (which makes it divisive).