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.

  • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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).

    • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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
        0
        ·
        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
        0
        ·
        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
          0
          ·
          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
          0
          ·
          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
            0
            ·
            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.

  • Nahvi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am getting tired of being surprised that out of 77 comments not one mentions that the SCOTUS did NOT allow “Christian business owners to refuse same-sex couples.” This was and is against the law. SCOTUS said they don’t have to create pro-same-sex materials. It should be a straightforward and obvious conclusion that only went to SCOTUS because of the current anti-religious sentiment.

    Would a liberal sign maker be required to create pro-life materials? Of course not. Should a conservative sign maker be required to make pro-choice materials? Of course not.

    The law cannot force you to make materials or statements that you do not agree with.

  • serial_crusher@lemmy.basedcount.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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?

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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?

    • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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.

    • unphazed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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
        0
        ·
        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.

    • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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
        0
        ·
        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
          0
          ·
          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.

      • serial_crusher@lemmy.basedcount.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        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
          0
          ·
          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
            0
            ·
            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
                0
                ·
                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
        0
        ·
        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
          0
          ·
          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
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

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

            Damn straight

        • scottywh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          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
          0
          ·
          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
            0
            ·
            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

    • chatokun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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.

    • _number8_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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.

  • NaoPb@eviltoast.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    If they have a dress code for their employess, it’s their right to prevent their employees from wearing anything not up to code. No matter if it’s making a statement or not.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      And it’s also everyone else’s prerogative to identify bad faith identity politics running a business and run far away from said business.

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

    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.

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

        Idk if you’ve ever worked a shitty oppressive “essential” job during the peak of a pandemic because you couldn’t afford to quit, & the US unemployment system doesn’t pay out if you get fired for a cause dress code violations, so I had to not wear it in order to stay employed. I hope you understand, random who is casting aspersions on me and blaming me for the oppression and double standard and my workplace taking a racist political position, that I just described.

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

        Like fuck you very much for implying that I don’t believe black lives matter? When I literally just described the repression of political speech in the workplace I faced?

        • Serpent@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You chose to write it on the internet. I didn’t expect you to get upset at a basic question.

          All I wanted to know was how they stopped you when other people were allowed to wear political clothing. I’m not implying anything.

  • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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.

    • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      On one hand, I agree with you

      On the other hand, how do we live in such a fucking hellscape that “black lives matter” is a politically charged statement and not an obvious fact. Same for LGBTQIA+ folks deserving equality. (frustration not pointed at you, but at the social climate)

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

      Interesting that pride stuff is considered political because my shitty mega corporate big box employer considered a BLM shirt political but let us wear our pride pins whenever because that was within the dress code

    • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      imagine realizing this and going “they should ban queer people” instead of “banning politics is impossible because there’s no such thing as an apolitical stance”

      • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re right. Banning politics is impossible. That’s my point. I don’t think anyone can logically argue against the stance that black lives matter nor against the stance that the LGBTQIA+ folk lives matter. However, by taking the stance that BLM masks are not allowed but other masks are allowed, Amazon is also taking the stance that black lives don’t matter. Whether or not this is intentional, is irrelevant.

        I’ll give you an example of a workplace doing it mostly right. My old employer didn’t do many things right, but for political stances, they did. “No graphics, logos, or lettering, unless Company’s, on shirts, jackets, pants, etc. is allowed while inside the building, whether on shift or off” When covid hit, this extended to the masks with the “etc.” part. When George Floyd was murdered, for example, some of the employees (myself, and HR, included) wanted to wear the “I can’t breathe” masks. We weren’t allowed. Some of us did anyway, and just prepared to take the write-up. The write-up never came, because corporate silently supported us and the stances we took. However, rules are rules, so we got a “talking to” and a tisk-tisk finger wave.

        Banning potentially offensive political stances in the workplace is important to a degree, but you have to understand that some things are not political stances so much as they are supporting the lives and rights of other humans. After Amazon management staff had pools going on who of their floor employees would die next from covid during the start of it all, I highly doubt that the company understands (or cares about) the value of human life, so it’s no surprise they’re banning BLM masks from their employees. Whole foods, I know. But wf is Amazon.

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          However, by taking the stance that BLM masks are not allowed but other masks are allowed, Amazon is also taking the stance that black lives don’t matter. Whether or not this is intentional, is irrelevant.

          This isn’t the stance though…

          The policy is literally NO Logos/branding on ANYTHING. Their rules even call out wearing shirts that are ONE color… The point is to wear simple plain clothes. The issue isn’t anything related to BLM or any other political stance… It’s that the workers are violating basic dress codes.

          If you’re a lifeguard… and the dress uniform is a white shirt and red shorts so you’re identifiable in your job at the pool… And you come wearing tie-dye sweat pants, a metallica t-shirt, and a nascar hat… I’m not anti-metal or anti-nascar for telling you to change your clothing or leave.

          The BLM part of this is irrelevant as that’s not what the dress code/policy takes offense with.

          This went to court already and was dismissed because there was no evidence that the policy was targeting the plaintiffs… or that it was applied unfairly. This court case was fucking 8 months ago… https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-dismisses-whole-foods-workers-lawsuit-over-black-lives-matter-masks-2023-01-23/ Why is this coming up now as a big deal?

          • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s great. The article was scant with its details, so I appreciate your efforts here. I somehow doubted that wf would be so brazen, and I’m glad to see I was right with this assumption.

  • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.