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
I don’t disagree with anything you said. You’re right on every account. We’re still seeing it in action as Feinstein refuses to step down and backing up the appointment of judges. RBG and Feinstein both destroyed their legacies by hanging on to power for far too long. It’s insane that Mitt Romney, of all people, is the one I agree with. He’s not going to run and encouraged other old people to stop running and let the next generation have a chance.
“Amazon is going to take advantage of whatever it thinks will make them more money.”
Yea I will in fact get mad at that kind of behavior. Lots of businesses doing it (and commenters like you normalizing it) doesn’t make them less responsible for their shitty behavior.
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.
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.
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.
There isn’t one in my town so boycott goin strong for N years?
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.
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.
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
Time to start wearing a mask that says Union
What a wild hill to die on.
In that case, the workers should wear union masks instead.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
I refer you to Skunk Anansie, though.
Removed by mod
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
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.
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.
-
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
deleted by creator
It seems to me like WF is trying to avoid a bud light situation. Employees wearing BLM stuff will certainly put off a lot of people in many areas. So it’s about not alienating a big portion of their customers, which would be a significant hit to sales.
Anyway, I find it odd to some extent that a business was not allowed, possibly, to limit what employees wear, especially if they interact with customers. A key tenant of sales and customer service is to make the person feel respected and to take an interest (fake if nothing else) in the customer.
It’s sad that a significant portion of their customers don’t believe black lives matter and that as usual money is more important than that to corporations
I can easily see this being a safety issue. You don’t usually want employees wearing stuff that could anger other employees or customers, no matter the reason.
Or maybe it’s the embezzling and theft of funds by the leader.
Jeff Bezos is embezzling?
Alienating racists isn’t a bad thing.
I’m with Amazon on this, seems a reasonable ask for employees to not wear any political/cultural/social things at work with their official uniform.
So if they’re banning BLM as political, do they have to be even handed and ban all political iconography?
Is a rainbow political? Obviously anything with an American flag is political, so those need to be banned. Anything like a cross obviously would be forbidden - necklaces would have to be tucked in and invisible. Christianity is far more of a political thing in the US than BLM, as it’s being used to specifically and actively drive legislation. Would they then have to ban employees from other religious dress, like wearing a hijab or yarmulke? I don’t recall Muslims or Jews passing legislation in the name of their religion at the national level, but do activities in Dearborn or Williamsburg count?
Are wedding rings heteronormative? They’re certainly both a cultural and a social thing. Makeup is also both cultural and social, and additionally potentially has gendered implications. If we ban rainbows, do we ban anyone wearing makeup or require everyone to do so, since they’re potentially signaling gender identity?
I’m going to start using GOP rhetoric and replace rainbow flag with wedding rings.
Wedding rings is woke propaganda.
Makes sense to me. If it’s political for me to be able to get married because I’m gay, I don’t see why straight couples shouldn’t be up on the chopping block. So no employee better be wearing a ring.
I think you’re way into the weeds here and forget the most important thing to remember about “freedom”: things like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are a compact between you and the government, not you and private companies. Private companies don’t owe you anything besides whatever the government has expressly legislated, such as explicit protection for religious clothing and icons like crosses, Sikh turbans, etc.
However, beyond that, individual companies have the right to request their employees look and dress in certain ways. The flip side there is, if you don’t like those rules, you are free to not work there anymore.
Of course, legislators can always choose to pass laws forcing companies to allow more exemptions, but that hasn’t happened yet for displays of a political organisation.
No, I am very well aware of that. But they’re not saying “You can’t wear a BLM button because we do not think black lives matter, but you can wear a proud boys one if you want.”
They may or may not have that right - that’s going to depend on both the currently existing corporate rules and any state/local legislation.
I was thinking in particular about a case in the past 5 or so years where a company was sued for forbidding one employee from wearing a hijab while allowing others to wear crosses. It was a case of religious discrimination.
My point is that for this to be non-discriminatory it has to be a policy that’s handled in an even handed fashion. Of course it has nothing to do with the constitution - I’m not even sure why you’d introduce that unless you’re staying to strawman. But I know that I can’t fire someone for saying in the workplace that they agree with Trump unless I have a wholesale policy banning talking about politics. I’d be in trouble if I said people could talk about politics, but they could only say nice things about Biden and bad things about Trump. You might be able to get away with that at a locally owned auto body shop, but not at a major corporation.
My further point is that saying that black lives matter isn’t political, unless there’s a major political party that thinks black lives don’t matter. Rainbows aren’t political, unless there’s a major political party that thinks the LGBT community shouldn’t be visible. Books on gay parents aren’t political unless there’s a political party that thinks gay people shouldn’t be allowed to be parents. But that same party would allow a flag pin, or a yellow ribbon, or a book about a hetero couple with a kid. It’s only political when they disagree with it. Otherwise it’s just “normal.”
You actually can fire people based on their political beliefs, because believe it or not, political affiliation is not a protected class under current US federal law (maybe some state law though). There are only 7 current federally protected classes: age, race, sex, religion, marital status, disability, and sexual orientation. That’s why Republicans have been announcing they want to make political affiliation a protected class soon, because I guess that’s the next big battleground, is employers start to hire/fire based on politics.
I take your points, but I guarantee you this isn’t a decision about politics by Amazon, but purely a maximisation of revenue decision. Whole Foods employees interact with customers face to face, every day, all across the US, from blue states to red states. They know that their customers in some places consider BLM to be a political organisation, one that they don’t support, and that goes for proud boys, KKK, whatever. The point is, you don’t want to antagonise any customers coming in through the door, and corporate is aware that people are awfully sensitive these days and ready to kick off over any tiny thing, so to ensure no customer gets offended and takes their business elsewhere, and to ensure a policy which can be applied nationally for all states where Whole Foods exists, it’s just easier to say they won’t allow anything which their customers could potentially consider political.
That’s all this is, it’s not the political dog whistle some are making it out to be. This is just corporations wanting to remain neutral and take money from every customer, not just liberal ones. Hence I agree with this policy, it’s not coming from a bad place and it’s not an absurd request either.
And yes, as you said, not allowing someone to wear a religious article of clothing is a lawsuit waiting to happen, which will be a slam dunk, but this isn’t the same.
Yeah, it just seems like common sense to me that you don’t wear political regalia to work, and that’s coming from the UK where our workers rights are a big stronger.
Like it or not, while you’re on the clock, you’re on the companies time and the only political stuff you should be promoting, if any, if causes they’ve aligned themselves too corporately.
Yeah, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Agree or not (and I agree with what BLM stands for), it is sadly controversial. And I get why a business would not want employees overtly supporting or opposing something some customers could find controversial.
Tell us how you really feel, Whole Foods!
Sadly, if Republicans had their way, wearing masks at all would be a political statement.
I never go to whole foods. I wish I did, just so I can start wearing a BLM mask going there. But don’t wanna give them any of my money for protesting.
