this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
755 points (95.3% liked)

World News

32363 readers
585 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] serial_crusher@lemmy.basedcount.com 35 points 1 year ago (26 children)

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?

[–] Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 year ago (48 children)

You think equal rights and fair treatment for all is “politics”?

[–] Kittenstix@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 2 points 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 1 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (47 replies)
[–] Blake@feddit.uk 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] serial_crusher@lemmy.basedcount.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zippy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] chatokun@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

…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 4 points 1 year ago

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

[–] chatokun@lemmy.world 3 points 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HorseWithNoName@lemm.ee 3 points 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?

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

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

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bear@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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?

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Who decides what's good or bad?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

load more comments (19 replies)