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.

  • Lifted_lowered
    link
    fedilink
    172 years 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.

  • @NaoPb@eviltoast.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    112 years 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.

  • @FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    175
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    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.

    • @orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      Getting mad is not important. Making society better is. And everyone involved is responsible for their own actions.

    • @_number8_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      262 years ago

      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”

        • @SpookyUnderwear@eviltoast.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          52 years ago

          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.

          • @FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            32 years ago

            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.

            • @SpookyUnderwear@eviltoast.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              32 years ago

              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.

              • @FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                32 years ago

                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.

    • @alignedchaos@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      292 years ago

      “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.

      • @BigNote@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        They specifically said you can be mad. It’s the first sentence in OP’s comment. WTF are you on about?

        • @alignedchaos@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          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

          • @BigNote@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            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.

    • MxM111
      link
      fedilink
      17
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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.

    • @xtr0n@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      1352 years ago

      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

      • @FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        52 years ago

        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.

      • Blake [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        202 years ago

        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.

    • @BigNote@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      These people are morons with 8th grade reading comprehension skills.

      Come to think of it, maybe they are in fact 8th graders?

  • GrayoxOP
    link
    fedilink
    1442 years ago

    Fuck Wholefoods

    None of my homies shop at Wholefoods

    • @Kittenstix@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      02 years 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.

    • @Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      59
      edit-2
      2 years 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!
        link
        fedilink
        English
        92 years 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.

        • Drusas
          link
          fedilink
          152 years ago

          Whole Foods was charging ridiculous prices long before Amazon got involved.

      • @GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        62 years 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

        • @barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          32 years 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]
            link
            fedilink
            22 years 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.

        • @unphazed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          102 years 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)

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    52 years ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    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.


    The original article contains 159 words, the summary contains 159 words. Saved 0%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    62 years ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    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.


    The original article contains 159 words, the summary contains 159 words. Saved 0%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • Maeve
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      Reason 9,000,975 for not shipping Amazon/Whole Foods.

    • @SpookyUnderwear@eviltoast.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 years ago

      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.

    • Drusas
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      Wegmans is extremely regional. And when I did live somewhere that had one, I almost never went because it was always massively over crowded.

      • Derin
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        Fair enough. I guess I should have specified it was for those with one in their area.

    • I wish there was a Wegmans in my area. In college, the one near me put discount deli food out at 8am. So I’d get a $2 sandwich and a $1 soup (which would have been like $9). I survived off of discount food.

      • Derin
        link
        fedilink
        32 years ago

        Same. Wegmans fed me through college, and oh did they feed me well.

      • Travalaaaaaaanche!
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        We don’t have either of those in my area, unfortunately. Trader Joe’s is pretty awesome, but even they have some fucky sourcing and, at least at the one here, a really high turnover rate for employees.

  • @azerial@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    882 years ago

    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.

  • transigence
    link
    fedilink
    202 years ago

    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.

    • @Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Sorry you live in a shitty town where a BLM sticker triggers snowflakes.

      Go to any city in America and you’ll see all sorts of BLM, rainbow flags, signage on storefronts. This isn’t just mom & pop shops, but major companies too.

      • transigence
        link
        fedilink
        52 years ago

        The left has no leg to stand on when bitching about ideological symbols when kids are getting kicked out of school for having a Gadsden flag patch on their backpack.

        • Saik0
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Yeah this one in particular pisses me off… A kid lost out on school time because of a flag that had nothing to do with “the south”… and was never co-opted by “racists”… yet the only people I saw freaking out about that was conservatives… And yet here we are…

      • @NuPNuA@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        42 years ago

        Great, and each company is entitled to its own rules on those things. Whole foods have decided on theirs and their employees can lump it or go and get a job with the more progressive companies that do allow it.

      • transigence
        link
        fedilink
        42 years ago

        They’re both reprehensible political extremist movements. BLM has the added stank of being a fraudulent money-laundering scam on top of it, too.
        I guess the Summer of Love didn’t happen.

        • NXTR
          link
          fedilink
          17
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Ahhh yes the BLM movement, famously known for lynching thousands of people just like the KKK!

          Also, the KKK were only fighting to uphold their racist ideals. This is exactly the same as the BLM movement trying to fight against racism.

          No false equivalence here!

        • @holland@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          112 years ago

          Yes, both are extremist movements. One (BLM) doesn’t want black people to be murdered in the streets, while the other (KKK) want to murder black people in the streets. What is wrong with you?

        • @mookulator@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          62 years ago

          I believe black people’s lives matter. I hold that view so strongly that I’m willing to shout it in the streets. Does that make part of a political extremist movement?

          • @freeindv@monyet.cc
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            If by “shout it in the streets” you really mean “shut down the streets” as BLM tends to do, then absolutely yes you’re an extremist

          • transigence
            link
            fedilink
            22 years ago

            It makes you disingenuous. Everybody knows and believes black lives matter. Shouting it in the street amounts to a society-wide false accusation of racism.
            If you then go on to set property on fire or use the message to swindle people out of their money, then you are a political extremist and a criminal.

    • GrayoxOP
      link
      fedilink
      10
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      How is the statement Black Lives Matter a divisive political slogan? Take all the time you need.

    • @innermachine@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      142 years ago

      Uniform is uniform, no politics in work is how every job I’ve had was. Can I wear a Spanish flag pin cuz it’s my heritage? No it violates dress code

    • Are you seriously equating BLM to the KKK?

      BLM’s message is “Please stop murdering us”

      How the fuck is that divisive, political, or offensive?

      What’s divisive is morons like you saying “No, ALL LIVES MATTER”.

      You’re either completely missing the point, in which case you’re dumber than I thought possible, or you’re willfully ignoring it, in which case you’re just a racist.

      Which is it?

      • transigence
        link
        fedilink
        42 years ago

        I never said, and I never say, “All Lives Matter.” That’s what stupid conservatives say because they don’t understand that’s exactly the rhetorical trap BLM has set for them in order to call them racists. Please notice I didn’t step in that trap, so don’t shove me into it.
        When it comes to “What belongs on people’s clothes while representing their employer,” BLM and KKK are the same.
        BLM’s message isn’t really “Please stop murduring us.” It’s “You white people are all a bunch of racists.”
        It’s slanderous (which is why it’s offensive), it’s obviously political at a glance, so inherently so that I don’t know how to explain it, and a lot of people don’t go for that shit and a lot of other people do (which makes it divisive).

      • @NuPNuA@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        The BLM/KKK thing is a false equivilance, but his right to say that companies have the right to decide if employees can display political iconography on their uniform and most of them won’t want it due to the hassle it will bring and also that it may indicate a corporate connection that isn’t there.

        • @Synthead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          42 years ago

          I agree with you, but at most places, one will probably get you fired, where the other would be a conversation.

  • @trias10@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    412 years ago

    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.

    • @derf82@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 years ago

      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.

    • @money_loo@1337lemmy.com
      link
      fedilink
      412 years ago

      Guys is it Political to not want to get killed by the police or just get seen at the hospital when you’re having chest pains?

      Interesting take you have there.

      • @trias10@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        122 years ago

        BLM is a brand though. The lady who founded it just bought a £1.25M house in LA’s exclusive Topanga neighbourhood for all cash.

        That doesn’t sound like some sort of grass roots, help lift people up, Mother Teresa sort of organisation to me.

        Hence yeah, people don’t like BLM. Some don’t like what it stands for, while others, like me, don’t like it because the founders used it as a massive vehicle for grifting and lining their own pockets.

        • @HorseWithNoName@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          72 years ago

          There’s a bunch of different autonomous groups, with no one “founder.” This has always been the single talking point that the fox news crowd loves to parrot to sound like a “gotcha” when they want to be racist but are too cowardly to show who they really are. If that’s not obvious by now, then idk what to tell you, except that arguing against human rights and for police brutality is not going to endear you to people.

        • @money_loo@1337lemmy.com
          link
          fedilink
          152 years ago

          The idea behind Black Lives Matter is not a brand, though. People who support the cause are simply supporting equity and progress. These fundamentals don’t change just because one person affiliated with the marketing of the idea may be questionable.

          There are multiple segments to BLM, since the fight for progress takes multiple fronts. And indeed, the head of Black Lives Matter Greater New York City, which is not affiliated with Khan-Cullors’ Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, called for “an independent investigation” to find out how the global network spends its money.

          And it turns out that the reason Patrice, the woman buying homes you’re referencing in bad faith, acquired some personal wealth from having a best selling book from back in 2018, and a television deal to produce content with Warner Bros.

          I’m sure her earning wealth through program advocacy and people reading stuff won’t change anything about how you feel about them, though.

          • @freeindv@monyet.cc
            link
            fedilink
            32 years ago

            The idea behind Black Lives Matter is not a brand, though

            It’s completely a brand. It’s founded on the false assertion that most people think that black people don’t matter and they should die. Telling black people they need to be upset and feel bad that everyone everywhere is out to get them, and tells white people they need to make amends for things they’re never done.

          • @trias10@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            62 years ago

            I agree the larger philosophy behind BLM isn’t a brand, but the slogan “BLM” is a brand.

            To me personally, BLM is kind of stupid, the correct slogan we should all be wearing is ACAB, because from everything I have seen, US police are just as happy assaulting and killing anyone who gets in their way, regardless of colour. Cops in the US just want to kill people, it’s an us versus them mentality, and I’d say it’s pretty colour blind, like those 5 Nashville black cops who tortured and killed that black motorist. And I remember seeing the Atlanta BLM protests in 2020, and there were loads of black cops horrifically beating protestors too. It’s honestly not a black problem, it’s a blue vs everyone else problem.

            And then some of the absolute worst police killings I’ve seen have been white cops killing white people, such as Daniel Shaver, Ryan Whitaker, and Officer Longman of Utah.

            Some cops are definitely racially biased, but it’s hardly Mississippi Burning anymore, even in the South. What is a problem is a general militarisation of police and complete lack of oversight or consequences for their actions.

            But make no mistake, any cop would just love to kill you to make his or her day, whether you’re white or black.

      • @freeindv@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        It’s political to insist that getting shot in response for attacking the police is just “because you’re black”.

    • dipbeneaththelasers
      link
      fedilink
      142 years ago

      I agree, but then I started thinking “why the hell do I think it’s so reasonable for a corporation to strip away the humanity of its employees” and I’m not sure where I’ve landed now.

      • @NuPNuA@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        122 years ago

        They’re not doing anything if the sort, that’s hyperbolic nonsense. When you’re paid to represent a company, you shouldn’t be displaying items that link them to a course they’re not corporately linked to. Once you leave at the end of the shift you can put all the political regalia you like back on.

        • @xtr0n@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          32 years ago

          If no one is allowed to wear any flair then that’s fair. But everyone is allowed (and possibly encouraged?) to wear pride stuff in June as part of the anyway corporate rainbow-washing. So I have to ask why it’s OK to wear “LGBTQ+ folks deserve life and civil rights” stuff but it’s not OK to wear “Black folks deserve life and civil rights” stuff? Why is stating that Black lives have value so offensive that it’s worth fighting all the way to the Supreme Court to ban it?

      • @trias10@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 years ago

        It’s not just a corporate thing, police, military, and fire brigade aren’t allowed to wear overt political badging either.

        There’s a general rule that if you work for an organisation which asks you to wear a work related uniform of some kind, you don’t get to add anything to it, political or otherwise. You don’t see bobbies with a Pink Floyd sticker on their chest.

      • @SpookyUnderwear@eviltoast.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 years ago

        “strip away the humanity”

        I’m dead. That’s got to be the greatest use of hyperbole I’ve seen in a long time. Bravo, sir. Bravo.

    • 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?

      • @trias10@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 years ago

        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.

        • dipbeneaththelasers
          link
          fedilink
          82 years ago

          @trias10

          I get that. It makes logical sense. It’s just that corporations have so much power to impose their will and it feels weird to me that we let them do that even when it comes to how a human presents themself.

          • @trias10@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            42 years ago

            I agree with you about that, but these employees have chosen to do a job where they come face to face with customers daily, and some of those customers may get offended by seeing an employee wearing a BLM badge, in red states for example. The company doesn’t want to antagonise a potential customer and lose a sale, so they’re asking that no employees wear any political markings. And honestly, I think that’s a fair request if you work in a customer-facing role.

            Notice that this ruling only applies to Whole Foods workers, not Amazon warehouse workers, who can probably wear whatever they want since they don’t deal with customers.

        • 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.”

          • @trias10@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            42 years ago

            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.

        • @HipHoboHarold@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          152 years ago

          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.

    • @NuPNuA@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      92 years ago

      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.

        • @bric@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          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

        • @spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          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.

  • Tony Smehrik
    link
    fedilink
    10
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Whole Foods is not the business it used to be. Not even close. Any semblance of what that store was when it was privately owned is gone.

        • silent_water [she/her]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          112 years ago

          publicly traded is privately owned - buying common stock doesn’t give the public, most of whom are too poor to afford said stock, meaningful control over the business. the stock owning class have interests that directly contradict those of workers (ie the vast, vast majority of us).