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.

    •  Solar Bear   ( @bear@slrpnk.net ) 
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      69 months 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?

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Honesty, imo, shame on Amazon for not barring anything but solid-colored, patterned, or Bezos-Empire-Branded masks, explicitly, in their dress code.

    I’m a (mostly) vegan, liberal AF, solidly middle-class, homeowner married millenial parent (i.e the portrait of a Whole Foods customer), and I agree with BLM, but I would be put off by any political or politicalized messaging in a supplier/customer relationship. I’m here for your general tao seitan and a TTLA…not for your influence.

    • Saying that black people exist and should remain alive is not a political statement. Do you want to ban hats that say “veteran” too? Or maybe charity and cancer awareness logos?

      Being a live black person is not a political act. Think about that when ordering some seitan and being “liberal AF”, whatever that means.

      • This feels very similar to me to businesses freaking out and trying to prevent their employees from wearing rainbow flag or pronoun pins. Or rainbow masks, for that matter.

        I think employee uniform requirements should be just enough to make employees identifiable so they can do their jobs (e.g. answer customer questions about where the lettuce is or whatever). Just a mandatory hat or shirt is enough to do that. Beyond that, they’re humans. Let them be fucking humans.

      • Saying that black people exist and should remain alive is not a political statement

        It’s absolutely political because it sits on the false premise that others argue otherwise. Nobody does, it’s a false premise used to create racial divide and lower the moral of the black community

      1. Politicize the idea the that an ethnicity shouldn’t be arbitrarily beaten by police.
      2. Ban that idea because it’s “politicized”
      3. Everyone is ok with it because despite politicize is a verb we’re supposed to pretend this isn’t being done by someone that thinks it’s ok for police arbitrarily beat the shit out of minorities.

      It’s almost like this a system of some kind. And maybe racist? A racist system? So not only aren’t we doing enough to take on systemic racism, corporations like Amazon are creating new forms of systemic racism.

    • That idea has no bearing on reality, you likely support many businesses owned by right wing assholes indirectly just by living somewhere that doesn’t use 100% renewable energy for all of its power needs, for example, and so do I, you can’t really help it. Corporations are people under US law and they have been doing political speech under that regime in the form of unlimited spending for over a decade. If Amazon actually believes that black lives matter they should indeed say it. False neutrality and saying that black lives matter is too political a stance for them to want to take is a stance in itself.

    •  araneae   ( @araneae@beehaw.org ) 
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      How Cool And Liberal and definitely not two faced. So while black people begin to avoid Whole Foods, you’ll still be shopping there because its not a problem for you. And as a good liberal of course, you agree there’s no reason people can state “black lives matter to me” on their clothes. Sure, in the privacy of your own property but not in Massa’s house. Bezo’s free speech quashes the protections of the speech of his lessers and… that is simply the law. You’re relieved of guilt.

      You know, I’m not a tankie, but the self deluding, boot licking, and casual racist assumptions about whose lives are “political statements” based on their lamenting of being constantly murdered and stepped on by society, do give me a sympathetic window into their specific disgust of neoliberals. People like you go along to get along and nothing more.

      You’re quite fine with racism because Whole Foods is cheap.

      • But this is specifically about workers wearing a BLM mask. Not the general public.

        Amazon/Wholefoods are totally within their rights as employers to enforce a dress code. That’s it. That’s the end of the line.

        Now, if they had previously let workers wear “FJB” masks without enforcing the dress code, that’s obviously a bias and something that should be dealt with.

        This is, quite obviously, a worker violating a dress code and seeking publicity by riding the coattails of a heated issue with their own persecution complex.

        • If Amazon has a dress code, either it allows for a degree of self expression or it does not. The move to ban political messaging in the workplace doesn’t apply to the mere statement “black lives matter”. Black Lives Matter was a social movement and its name was informal and de-facto. There is an activist organization Black Lives Matter that claims (to my knowledge) a limited ownership of white-on-black “#Black Lives Matter” but the phrase itself doesn’t have a PO box, it doesn’t make political contributions. It is a value statement that one believes black human beings have inherent value. So to cede that the English phrase “black lives matter” is political assumes that the default LEGAL and POLITICAL viewpoint is that they do not, which is the terrifying, unspoken, yet not codified by law, truth underlying half of the America justice system. When you make the argument that Amazon has the right to ban such a phrase from clothing on political grounds you and Amazon are both admitting that you believe black lives in a general sense have no value and you’re willing to take it to court, because that is where this is probably going.

          Are we really thinking that anyone at Amazon who matters actually believes that? Believes that this fundamental values conflict of American access to protected speech would actually resolve in a way that decidedly points to black lives having no worth as a legally upheld opinion in America? Really that is neither here nor there, we’re watching a version of this fascist semantics argument about free speech play out with minor or medium consequences all over the internet. This sort of move will curry some favor with racist culture warrior consumers and businesses, but it is about clamping down on employee rights to communicate symbolically at all. If the color chartreuse was a meme amongst unionists and union proponents, Amazon would do the same thing. On one side of the coin they are making a concession toward a racist status quo and on the other they are saying that the SCOTUS ruling they cite allows them to ban symbols in the workplace.

          It isn’t good to shop at Whole Foods with this knowledge in the back of your brain. We will now, if you want, employ the thought terminating cliche that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, and this is almost always true. However Amazon should not be allowed to target symbolic expression like this without a dress code saying “our employees wear an apron with the Amazon smile on it and a grey, breathable jumpsuit underneath”. There are workplaces like this with dress codes where this isn’t an issue. You are seeing Amazon casually admit it controls the symbolic language of the workplace entirely if it suits their agendas. Legality is not universal truth, especially when the Supreme Court has been arranged to flagrantly serve the interests of the business class. So there’s one argument for why people should get to wear chartreuse colored shirts that say whatever the fuck they want but hate speech.

          I lost this typing it the first time and my second try wasn’t as good. I don’t care if you have a bunch of holes and flaws in my arguments to point out, I will quietly read them and appreciate them, but I will maintain you’re arguing for something racist and unethical either way unless it’s a really good argument. IE you’re not going to get me to say “gee you are right” by drawing similarities to Twitter cancellations over bad words and deplatforming of conservatives for speech that would get them punched in the nose in a public venue. In life, it is impossible to avoid political ideas, and even more impossible to avoid the techniques for propagating memetic formatted ideas like ads for conflict diamonds or unwell street preachers screaming the good word. You should buy your seitan somewhere that isn’t trafficking with fascist pseudolegal interpretations of free speech so they can control their employees by betting that a spineless lower court will uphold a directly evil SCOTUS ruling.

  • Obviously, no business wants to be associated with BLM any more than they want to be associated with the KKK. Every company I’ve ever worked for has had dress codes that prohibited divisive political slogans and offensive language.

  • Another example of a company with street cred giving it up. If employees felt safe wearing BLM masks to work that meana the company’s image as is consistent, even internally.

    And they just threw it away.

  • Welp, just cancelled Amazon Prime. Never shopped at Whole Foods, so can’t do any more there.

    Kinda the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. Probably should’ve done it a long time ago with all the union busting and general shittiness they are towards employees. But FFS if you’re gonna pay people the bare minimum, treat them like cogs, at least allow them to have something they care about on their person while they’re doing that shitty job.

    Saying that black people are humans and their lives matter as much as any other human should be the least controversial thing ever. But a bunch of racists made it controversial and Amazon is just going along with that.

  • Im ok with this. While BLM is a good thing, having to wear uniforms that promote any organization other than your employer is a problem. Imagine being forced to wear a pro-Trump t-shirt. Or an anti-union vest. Or some anti-gay, pro-religion hat while flipping burgers.