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
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/
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
Profit sharing ended in 2019. It’s all been big ol Amazon now
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
You can’t escape those fucks living in Texas. They’re everywhere.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
Time to start wearing a mask that says Union
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”?
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.
Unfortunately it is.
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…
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
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.
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?
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.
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”
Because workers are more important than the businesses they work for, obviously.
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?
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
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”
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
But if I can’t wear my rainbow onesie to work it’s literally genocide.
Lol apparently people here don’t see sarcasm.
I think there’s a difference between not seeing sarcasm and not finding it amusing (particularly in certain circumstances).
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
We do. We just don’t like you two very much.
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.
Amazon bought Whole Foods, they’re the same company now.
Jesus y’all. Let me spell this out plainly.
-
BLM is a political organization.
-
Wearing BLM gear is a political statement.
-
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 might mean something if “BLM” was owned by an organization.
So Black Lives Matter is not a political slogan, let alone an organization? Saying Black Lives Matter means nothing to anyone except by taking it literally? Nothing to do with politics whatsoever?
By that metric any opinion is political.
You only think it’s political because conservatives don’t like it.
The statement Black Lives Matter is not political, you absolute ham sandwich…
On its own it’s not, but it definitely is in the current political and cultural context. There’s no getting away from that. It’s going to provoke a political reaction in any conservative and there’s no point in pretending otherwise.
deleted by creator
That’s an indictment of Conservatism. What are they trying to Conserve and when was America great? Cause it was not great for folks of color or queer folk back then, and we wont go back.
I can and do agree with everything you argue while also maintaining the objectively obvious fact that context matters in politics.
The statement itself shouldn’t be political in its sentiment, but obviously the organization exists and it has its own policy positions, events, advocacy, and I can go to their website to donate. I think it’s fairly obvious which one Whole Foods would be concerned with.
Ah, so if I wear a hat at work that says “save babies” and then an organization pops up called “Save babies” and they start donating to politicians, should I no longer be allowed to wear my “Save Babies” hat?
Yup
If the company you’re representing would prefer you didn’t, then sure.
Let’s use another example, if someone was a big supporter of fascism and was wearing a hat or mask that said, “save fascists”, would you prefer the store couldn’t prevent them from wearing that?
How bad would the phrase have to get to change your mind?
I’d say the difference comes down to choice. You choose to be a fascist. You choose to be a trump supporter. You don’t choose to be black. You don’t chose to be an infant.
Examples. If you wore a SPLC clothing article, I think the employer would be allowed to object, but if you wore clothing showing support for women, or indigenous people, then they should abide it.
Removed by mod
So you deny that BLM is a political org?
They sure seem to be calling for political action.
Having a just cause does not make a movement apolitical. Agreeing with that cause does not make the statement apolitical.
You seem to have your emotions mixed up with facts. And here I thought that was a conservative trait.
While I would agree that it is political, it’s because it is a movement and has become political. The organization was created after the movement and does not necessarily reflect the will or intentions of the actual movement. It’s like if back in the day there was an org called Women’s Suffrage. It doesn’t mean the focus of all people who want women’s suffrage are part of an organization named that after the movement started.
Women’s suffrage is probably the worst example you could have chosen – in what way is fighting for the right to vote not inherently political?
I was saying that BLM is a political movement. It’s not necessarily an organization.
I refer you to Skunk Anansie, though.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://youtu.be/mcaUer4fuU8?si=b8g5NIuCk3-1w2AT
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Then neither is “Make America Great Again”
That’s multiple candidates campaign slogans. It’s was a Republican presidential slogan in 64 and 80, very famously part of Reagan’s campaign.
The statement itself is as political as the statement “black lives matter”.
Let me make it a little more clear: how about “All lives matter”?
BLM is a political organization.
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.
Let me spell it out plainly:
- 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.
You are really jumping through some hoops to prove that the saying, “Black Lives Matter” has nothing to do with politics. Say it out loud for us. Say it’s not a slogan and has no ties to political views.
Not accepting facts contrary to your position? How very conservative of you.
No matter how far left I am, there’s always assholes like you pushing people back to the right. I’m not going right because a bunch a angry teenagers are… angry. But you’re not doing the liberal cause any justice here. In fact, you’re actively hurting it.
Are you saying black lives don’t matter?
Where is the debate on the statement “black lives matter”? Please argue against that statement.
No what you’re saying is that the statement has been politicized by bad actors. But those are the politics of the bad actors, not politics around the statement itself.
Should the depiction of the Earth as being round be banned as well? There is controversy around that, by idiots and grifters of course, but how is it different about the controversy around BLM?
Surely you share the same opinion about those who wear gear that says “All lives matter”? They’re just good people preaching a message of love?
Maybe I would if I bash my head into a wall enough to cause enough brain damage that I don’t understand that “all lives matter” is part of the politicization effort by bad actors.
See there is an actual real world where people did things with motives that are very well understood. If your “logical” arguments are completely dependent on ignoring specific realities, it’s not really a logical argument at all. Demanding someone ignore reality so you can have a big “aha! I proved you to be a hypocrite!” kind of moment is rather silly isn’t it?
So you only bashed your head enough to not understand that the phrase “Black Lives Matter” is borne out of a social/political movement?
Are you saying all lives don’t matter?
Where is the debate on the statement “all lives matter”? Please argue against that statement.
No. Because they are in bad faith inverting the wording of the phrase to sound like “muh common sense” but in reality are just reactionary contrarians that are communicating their social conservative opinions.
Saying Black Lives Matter is only political to right wing racists who believe that the status quo, that Black Lives Don’t Matter, is fine.
So it’s political then? Just because one side of the spectrum has heinous beliefs does not make a thing non-political.
It’s both because one side wants it to be to diminish its power. But at its core it’s a human rights issue. It’s the words Black Lives Matter, strange if you get upset hearing that and think it’s purely political and should be snuffed out where you don’t like facing it. 🤔
Removed by mod
If this thing was a fight to wear “Make America Great Again!” masks, these people would sing a different tune. And some ass will be along to explain how that’s totally different…
The whole notion of BLM is political. In the same sense that no one denies making America great is a bad thing, no one denies black lives matter. Yet they are political slogans, end of story. Whole Foods does not want employees wearing controversial political slogans.
I’ve supported the idea of BLM from day 1. Even dumped a right-wing buddy I was slowly turning around. I have zero patience for the haters. Zero. But if I owned a business, employees would not be wearing anything that even smelled of politics.
These children can’t get their emotions untied from facts.
deleted by creator
-
What a wild hill to die on.
In that case, the workers should wear union masks instead.
deleted by creator
Exsqueeze me? What the amazon fuck, WholeFoods.
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.
Reason 9,000,975 for not shipping Amazon/Whole Foods.
That Bill of Rights isn’t for humans. It’s for corporations.
Don’t forget, Corporations are Peopleᵀᴹ
Corporations are people the same way Soylent Green is people, in that it is made of them. That’s it.
True if Soylent Green was immortal and sought money and power at any cost.
The GOP and right wing justices’ blithering about the Founding Fathers, Originalism, and “historical tradition” is absolute, self-serving BS and regularly the opposite of historical reality. If you have a few minutes this history of U.S. corporations is fascinating. An excerpt:
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:
-
Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
-
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
-
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
-
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
-
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
-
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
-
In the legal sense, “personhood” just means an entity can appear in court and defend themselves, not that it’s made of people. It doesn’t even give the corporation any human rights, it mostly just means that you can sue them
I don’t know why anyone would be mad about than
Corporations also tend to grind people up.
When I worked at a big box store for years I wasn’t allowed to wear my BLM shirt or anything “political” but my Trumper coworkers got away with wearing their Trump shirts or Let’s Go Brandon shirts, and they even put Let’s Go Brandon stickers up all aroubd the employee facing areas. If you told managers about it they addressed it as a dress code violation and regarded you as a snitch.
