Amazon.comā€™s Whole Foods Market doesnā€™t want to be forced to let workers wear ā€œBlack Lives Matterā€ 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 itā€™s forced to allow BLM slogans to be worn with Whole Foods uniforms.

Amazon is the most prominent company to use the high courtā€™s June ruling that a Christian web designer was free to refuse to design sites for gay weddings, saying the case ā€œprovides a clear roadmapā€ to throw out the NLRBā€™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.

  • isthingoneventhis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    7
    Ā·
    1 year ago

    Being tired and thinking Bureau of Land Management made this very confusing at glance.

    Also fuck the courts for that BS.

    • phillaholic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      Thereā€™s a joke in an episode of the new Reno 911 where they go out on a call about BLM setting fires.

    • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      35
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      Why is it ā€œfuck the courtsā€? This whole thing is about what a worker can do while on the jobā€¦ If a company doesnā€™t want to be associated with something it should have a right to employ whatever restrictions on dress it wants. Thatā€™s kind of the point of dress codes with companies to begin with.

      • _number8_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        13
        Ā·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        dress code is also completely made up bullshit that has no reason to exist in the modern world

        why does a companyā€™s right to ā€œemploy whatever restrictions on dress it wantsā€ overrule the personā€™s innate wish to express themselves?

        • Nahvi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          1 year ago

          dress code is also completely made up bullshit that has no reason to exist in the modern world

          This is a ridiculous notion.

          There are plenty of people that would show up to work without bathing while wearing sweatpants and teddy bear slippers if they were allowed. Source: I worked in a low-end call center fresh out of school and a good quarter of the people actually did dress like this most days.

          Without a dress code a business has no grounds to address the situation.

          If I walked into a new grocery chain or restaurant and everyone was dressed in dirty house clothes the best reaction I would have is to ask someone if this was a joke day. The more likely reaction would be just turning around and walking out.

        • crab@monero.town
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          13
          Ā·
          1 year ago

          Companies can choose who works there just as people can choose who to work for. If companies donā€™t like what an employee is wearing then they can fire them, and if people donā€™t like what a company isnā€™t allowing them to wear they can quit.

          • _number8_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            5
            Ā·
            1 year ago

            but in actual practice, people are basically locked into jobs. it is not reasonable for someone to have to switch jobs over dress code and you know that; the employer shouldnā€™t just get to slowly immiserate people

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          19
          Ā·
          1 year ago

          dress code is also completely made up bullshit that has no reason to exist in the modern world

          If you say so captain.

      • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        4
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        Do workers have the right to refuse to be associated with something that the company want them to display on their dress code? For example, a corporate sponsor? If no, why do companies deserve more rights than people?

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          18
          Ā·
          1 year ago

          Do workers have the right to refuse to be associated with something that the company want them to display on their dress code?

          Yesā€¦ by leaving/quitting/etcā€¦

          • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            Ā·
            1 year ago

            So thatā€™s a no, then - you donā€™t have a right for something if you have to leave the system to exercise the right. For example you wouldnā€™t have the right of freedom of speech if I said ā€œyeah you can say whatever you want if you leave the country!ā€

            So, why do companies deserve more rights than people?

            • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              Ā·
              1 year ago

              So, why do companies deserve more rights than people?

              They donā€™tā€¦ Itā€™s their property. Just like you would have a right to ask someone to leave your property at anytime for any reason.

              • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                3
                Ā·
                1 year ago

                Okay so imagine that youā€™re on Elon Muskā€™s private jet, 36000 feet in the air, and he asks you to strip down into a thong and perform an erotic dance for him. Itā€™s his property, he has the right to tell you what to wear. If you donā€™t like it, youā€™re free to leave; of course. Do you think thatā€™s acceptable?

                • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  Ā·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yes you would have a right to leave at any time. Failure on Elonā€™s part to allow you off the craft promptly and in safe manner would literally be kidnapping or unlawful detention. Which I believe would be up to 3 years of imprisonmentā€¦ and generally a felony.

                  Also, would probably be soliciting and probably a whole slew of other illegal actions here if that situation would occur.

                  Did you think you had a gotcha there?

                  • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    Ā·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    So, if Elon puts you into a position where you have to choose between following his rules or risk to your health and safety, itā€™s kidnapping, unlawful detention, etc. but if Amazon puts you into a position where you have to choose between following their rules or risk your health and safety, thatā€™s completely acceptable?

                    Do you not realise that you completely walked back on your ā€œmy property, my rulesā€ claim?

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        If someone had a necklace with a cross on it, can Amazon ban it? Should they ban it?

        How about non-religious ear rings or other jewelry? How about a hair bun? Wedding ring?

        Thereā€™s generally some leeway given for cultural adornments. So the question is what specifically is bad about a BLM adornment?

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          1 year ago

          If someone had a necklace with a cross on it, can Amazon ban it? Should they ban it?

          Yes, but not ā€œBanā€ but make ā€œnot visibleā€. Things that cannot be banned are required religious symbols. Think Yarmulca or the Sikh turban (sorry I donā€™t know the proper name). Where the religion requires wear. The cross can simply be worn under the shirt and not be visible. Dress code is all about visibility. You wonā€™t find a dress code that mandates undergarments for example. There is of course caveats with some jobs where wearing of the item presents an actual safety riskā€¦ Eg necklack falls out of the shirt and gets caught in machinery and now thereā€™s a bloody mess all over the floor. But even with protected items like a turban, if it displayed logos the company would probably be in the right to ask you to change into a different turban that was more neutral.

          How about non-religious ear rings or other jewelry? How about a hair bun? Wedding ring?

          Yesā€¦ Iā€™ve worked in places that had such rules. A simple example would be the military. Iā€™ve not seen Wedding ring restrictionā€¦ but can think of several cases where that would be reasonable to also limit. Lots of people willingly stopped wearing their wedding bands in my motorpool after someone degloved a fingerā€¦ I have seen plenty of places that ask people to remove other piercings/jewelry and it was a non-issue.

          Thereā€™s generally some leeway given for cultural adornments. So the question is what specifically is bad about a BLM adornment?

          If theyā€™re applying the policy fairlyā€¦ which according to the court case findings they are/didā€¦ And that policy was effectively ā€œno logosā€ā€¦ Then everything youā€™ve mentioned doesnā€™t fall within the policy. I donā€™t think Iā€™ve ever seen a wedding ring with a Mountain Dew logo on it (like articles of clothing).

          Hereā€™s a rendition of the general policy per a thread from 2 years ago https://www.reddit.com/r/wholefoods/comments/nxgnje/whats_the_dress_code/

          You must wear plain tshirts (no pattern or multiple colors, only plaid) pants must be one color and in good shape (no holes) you can wear shorts in grocery and front end and produce but must wear pants in prep foods. Close toed shoes. Hats must only be whole foods logo and if u wear leggings you have to wear a shirt that is long to cover the butt. No pins on your apron and no logos or sports teams or bands.

          Similar codes published by other users at https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Whole-Foods-Market/faq/what-is-the-dress-code?quid=1bk0o1sch5n8v93m in 2020. Itā€™s a quick google search to find more references if youā€™d like.

          Nothing here would limit religious garb, rings or other jewelry, and Iā€™m sure some other section would cover hair than the one that was furnished. Requiring a bun or other hair style for longer hair makes sense for anyone dealing with food, so at face value not illogical to see. So Iā€™m not sure why youā€™re bringing all this up. Could a company require compliance with these things? Sureā€¦ If you want to be paid to work, you follow the rules. Otherwise, go find another job elsewhere. Itā€™s like trying to work for a high end upscale restaurantā€¦ then being mad that you have to wear a suit.

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            Ā·
            1 year ago

            Iā€™m bringing it up because the rules are inconsistent. A wedding ring is a cultural adornment. Itā€™s allowed except in scenarios that involves using machinery that it would be a health hazard.

            So we have many cultural adornments allowed, except this one particular one. So itā€™s not ā€œthe rules are the rulesā€ kind of scenario. There is a specific reason why the BLM masks are being singled out.

            Masks are allowed. Similar to a hair scrunchy or hair clip itā€™s something the company should prefer the employees to wear because it improves safety.

            Does having BLM on the mask make it a safety concern? Nope, it doesnā€™t. The mask improves safety having a mask that the employee likes wearing makes it more likely theyā€™ll wear it, so allowing BLM masks is encouraging better safety.

            And whatā€™s the reason? The far right has deemed a cultural item to be undesirable. Why would a political movement deem a cultural adornment often worn by a certain ethnicity to be undesirable?

            Sorry but logic just isnā€™t on your side with this one. Itā€™s discouraging a commonly accepted cultural adornment thatā€™s being done solely out of political motivations of the employer. Other cultural adornments are allowed (some are even encouraged when they improve safety) but this particular adornment is being singled out despite the fact that it improves safety. The BLM masks are only considered political speech by a subset of the population who are of a certain political persuasion.

            Itā€™s a politically motivated attack against cultural expression, ie. culture war bullshit. Am I meant to not notice that thereā€™s one political party is promoting this ā€œculture warā€ crap and pretend the actions of Amazon arenā€™t politcal while some underpaid worker wearing a BLM mask isnā€™t cultural?

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

              Iā€™m bringing it up because the rules are inconsistent.

              Not at allā€¦ Itā€™s not breaking the rule because the rule isnā€™t ā€œno cultural adornmentā€ ā€¦ Itā€™s no brands or logos.

              Why do I have to keep fucking repeating this on every damn thread?

              • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                Ā·
                1 year ago

                BLM is not trademarked (people have tried and failed though!) so itā€™s not a brand. Itā€™s three letters so it doesnā€™t qualify as a logo. If it were consistently stylized then maybe it could be considered a logo. But thereā€™s not consistency in the stylization, only thing thatā€™s consistent is itā€™s the same three letters from the alphabet in the same order.

                LOL <- do you think thatā€™s a logo too? If so then, LOL at your silly rationalization. Oh noes, someone might sue me for infringing on the ā€œLOLā€ brand/logo!

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

                  Now youā€™re assuming what the actual design of the pin and mask wereā€¦ Do you know it was just ā€œBLMā€ā€¦ and why wouldnā€™t that count as a brand/logo? Just because itā€™s not trademarked itā€™s not a logo? Thatā€™s silly and certainly not a consideration for what is and isnā€™t a logo. There are many masks and pins that are absolutely stylized. But I have no idea which these people were wearing so I wonā€™t speak to that.

                  LOL <- do you think thatā€™s a logo too?

                  LOL can be a logo. But I find myself again pointing to the rules that Whole Foods have in placeā€¦

                  You must wear plain tshirts (no pattern or multiple colors, only plaid) pants must be one color and in good shape (no holes) you can wear shorts in grocery and front end and produce but must wear pants in prep foods. Close toed shoes. Hats must only be whole foods logo and if u wear leggings you have to wear a shirt that is long to cover the butt. No pins on your apron and no logos or sports teams or bands.

                  ā€œplainā€, ā€œone colorā€, and NO pinsā€¦ These things are obvious and clear words that donā€™t leave imagination to the intention of management. Even if it was just the letters BLM put together in a neutral fontā€¦ itā€™s still a violation of the contract you would have agreed to in order to work there. If you have no intention of following the rules, then donā€™t work thereā€¦ and certainly donā€™t ā€œsurprise pikachuā€ when you get fired.

                  But even to just the point of what a logo isā€¦

                  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logo

                  2: an identifying symbol (as for use in advertising) 3: an identifying statement : motto

                  We could argue that BLM meets or doesnā€™t meet requirement for definition 2ā€¦ But it DEFINITELY meets definition 3. BLM just on itā€™s own is 1 of 2 thingsā€¦ Bureau of Land Management, or ā€œBlack Lives Matterā€ (whether the non-profit or the movement). Itā€™s definitely identifying because nobody is wearing a Bureau of Land Management mask or pin.

                  • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    Ā·
                    1 year ago

                    Jesus youā€™re down to the third definition in one dictionary. Iā€™ve seen some weak ass internet lawyering in my time but holy shit.

                    Why not just be honest about things? Youā€™ve gotten convinced by right wing political narratives about what BLM is and because of culture war politics you want to repress this cultural artifact?

                    So this is just a political faction using fear and intimidation to repress culture. Go ahead with your silly ā€œthe rules are the rulesā€ bullshit, but itā€™s obvious that many cultural adornments are considered acceptable by Amazon except this particular one because theyā€™re afraid of a violent political faction or are perhaps in agreement with that political faction. Either way itā€™s a political faction repressing culture, ie. Culture War. Itā€™s not even like anyoneā€™s subtle about their motives in all of this. Why are you trying so hard to be?

            • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              Ā·
              1 year ago

              Youā€™ve got some is/ought fallacy going on here. And itā€™s unfortunate. But Iā€™m not sure if comparing something as culturally ubiquitous as a wedding ring compares to something as divisive as BLM. Yes, itā€™s unfortunate that BLM is divisive. It ought not be. Yes, you could even say wedding rings are symbols of power and oppression, and ought be considered in the same way as BLM. But that is not the case.

              • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                Ā·
                1 year ago

                Wedding rings are symbols of power and oppression.

                I just said that. If you disagree then that means wedding rings are a divisive issue. Since itā€™s a divisive issue it should be banned.

                Youā€™re using tautological logic here. Anything thatā€™s divisive is political, anyone declaring they disagree with anything makes something divisive, therefore anything people disagree over is political. Anything political should be banned. All power is given to those who decide what is political and what isnā€™t because anything can be declared political.

                Given weā€™re in a culture where people will feign disagreement and argue in bad faith, the logical result is employers have absolute control over employees. Starting to feel really dystopian if we follow this kind of logic.

                Honestly do you really think there is no intent behind the culture war strategy of declaring anything associated with minority groups to be ā€œdivisiveā€ in an effort to have it banned? Who actually believes black lives donā€™t matter? Should anyone try to appease that sort of person?