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.

  • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    176
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • xtr0n@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      136
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • alignedchaos@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      “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.

      • BigNote@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They specifically said you can be mad. It’s the first sentence in OP’s comment. WTF are you on about?

        • alignedchaos@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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

          • BigNote@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

    • _number8_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      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”

        • SpookyUnderwear@eviltoast.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • SpookyUnderwear@eviltoast.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Getting mad is not important. Making society better is. And everyone involved is responsible for their own actions.

    • BigNote@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      These people are morons with 8th grade reading comprehension skills.

      Come to think of it, maybe they are in fact 8th graders?

    • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Travalaaaaaaanche!@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • unphazed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          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)

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

    • Kittenstix@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • azerial@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • isthingoneventhis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Being tired and thinking Bureau of Land Management made this very confusing at glance.

    Also fuck the courts for that BS.

    • phillaholic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a joke in an episode of the new Reno 911 where they go out on a call about BLM setting fires.

    • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      35
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • _number8_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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?

        • Nahvi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • crab@monero.town
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • _number8_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            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

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          dress code is also completely made up bullshit that has no reason to exist in the modern world

          If you say so captain.

      • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          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…

          • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?

            • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                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?

                • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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?

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?

            • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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?

              • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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!

                • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

            • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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?

  • serial_crusher@lemmy.basedcount.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    43
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

      • Kittenstix@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • shiveyarbles@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • Juno@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ya it’s a political movement that wants cops to stop killing black people.

            • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              No… It’s asking people to adhere to the policies that existed when they were hired…

              no slogans, logos, or advertising except for Whole Foods branding

              You can literally search “whole foods dress code” and find reddit posts of people discussing this YEARS ago.

              https://www.reddit.com/r/wholefoods/comments/mdcifx/dress_code/

              This is nothing new… It’s a bog standard policy for many places.

                • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  LMAO A tankie talking about “boot licking”. That’s hilarious. You worship someone who literally killed my people for no reason… And defend it like it was okay. Talk about boot licking.

                • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Signage and displays isn’t a violation of dress code… So yes. This is different.

                  I’m sure if they decided they could make money off of the BLM movement they’d put up signage and displays for it too. But they’re the one’s paying the bills… they get to make up the rules in their establishment.

        • Zippy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Summer people think MAGA is patriotic. Personally I wouldn’t want someone wearing that either.

    • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • serial_crusher@lemmy.basedcount.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

          • freeindv@monyet.cc
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            if the store allowed an employee to wear a thin blue line mask,

            Except the store didn’t do that

              • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

                https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-dismisses-whole-foods-workers-lawsuit-over-black-lives-matter-masks-2023-01-23/

                “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…

      • Zippy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Up to the business. If they don’t want political statements or and statement made at work, I can understand it.

        • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • freeindv@monyet.cc
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            That just means that employers can push their own political agendas and suppress alternatives.

            Damn straight

      • serial_crusher@lemmy.basedcount.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • chatokun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • serial_crusher@lemmy.basedcount.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        …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…

        • can@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The point is the the USA the complaint would never have been made about the cross.

        • chatokun@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • LordPassionFruit@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I just want to say that restricting someone’s right to wear a cross to work is hella illegal in Canada.

      • HorseWithNoName@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

    • unphazed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • JasSmith@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • _number8_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      is lemmy being brigaded? seriously, what the fuck is this. “just do your job” is never an adequate response to worker complaints

      • HorseWithNoName@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • kbotc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • freeindv@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah the old, “an influx of normal opinions not in my extremist progressive echo chamber is brigading”

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because workers are more important than the businesses they work for, obviously.

    • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

        • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • Lifted_lowered@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

    • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • scottywh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think there’s a difference between not seeing sarcasm and not finding it amusing (particularly in certain circumstances).

        • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • freeindv@monyet.cc
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            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

  • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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).

  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    Holy shit. So Amazon and Whole Foods are just openly racist now. Not even trying to hide it anymore.

    Conservatives will be celebrating as soon as they have someone read this article to them.

  • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.