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.

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

      There’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
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why is it “fuck the courts”? This whole thing is about what a worker can do while on the job… If a company doesn’t want to be associated with something it should have a right to employ whatever restrictions on dress it wants. That’s kind of the point of dress codes with companies to begin with.

      • _number8_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        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 company’s right to “employ whatever restrictions on dress it wants” overrule the person’s innate wish to express themselves?

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

          Companies can choose who works there just as people can choose who to work for. If companies don’t like what an employee is wearing then they can fire them, and if people don’t like what a company isn’t allowing them to wear they can quit.

          • _number8_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            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 shouldn’t just get to slowly immiserate people

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          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]
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        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
          ·
          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?

          Yes… by leaving/quitting/etc…

          • Blake [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            So that’s a no, then - you don’t have a right for something if you have to leave the system to exercise the right. For example you wouldn’t have the right of freedom of speech if I said “yeah you can say whatever you want if you leave the country!”

            So, why do companies deserve more rights than people?

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

              So, why do companies deserve more rights than people?

              They don’t… It’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]
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Okay so imagine that you’re on Elon Musk’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. It’s his property, he has the right to tell you what to wear. If you don’t like it, you’re free to leave; of course. Do you think that’s acceptable?

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

                  Yes you would have a right to leave at any time. Failure on Elon’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 imprisonment… 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]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    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, it’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, that’s completely acceptable?

                    Do you not realise that you completely walked back on your “my property, my rules” claim?

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        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?

        There’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
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          Yes, but not “Ban” but make “not visible”. Things that cannot be banned are required religious symbols. Think Yarmulca or the Sikh turban (sorry I don’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 won’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 risk… Eg necklack falls out of the shirt and gets caught in machinery and now there’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?

          Yes… I’ve worked in places that had such rules. A simple example would be the military. I’ve not seen Wedding ring restriction… 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 finger… I have seen plenty of places that ask people to remove other piercings/jewelry and it was a non-issue.

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

          If they’re applying the policy fairly… which according to the court case findings they are/did… And that policy was effectively “no logos”… Then everything you’ve mentioned doesn’t fall within the policy. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a wedding ring with a Mountain Dew logo on it (like articles of clothing).

          Here’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. It’s a quick google search to find more references if you’d like.

          Nothing here would limit religious garb, rings or other jewelry, and I’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 I’m not sure why you’re bringing all this up. Could a company require compliance with these things? Sure… If you want to be paid to work, you follow the rules. Otherwise, go find another job elsewhere. It’s like trying to work for a high end upscale restaurant… then being mad that you have to wear a suit.

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

            I’m bringing it up because the rules are inconsistent. A wedding ring is a cultural adornment. It’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 it’s not “the rules are the rules” 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 it’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 doesn’t. The mask improves safety having a mask that the employee likes wearing makes it more likely they’ll wear it, so allowing BLM masks is encouraging better safety.

            And what’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 isn’t on your side with this one. It’s discouraging a commonly accepted cultural adornment that’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.

            It’s a politically motivated attack against cultural expression, ie. culture war bullshit. Am I meant to not notice that there’s one political party is promoting this “culture war” crap and pretend the actions of Amazon aren’t politcal while some underpaid worker wearing a BLM mask isn’t cultural?

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

              I’m bringing it up because the rules are inconsistent.

              Not at all… It’s not breaking the rule because the rule isn’t “no cultural adornment” … It’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
                ·
                1 year ago

                BLM is not trademarked (people have tried and failed though!) so it’s not a brand. It’s three letters so it doesn’t qualify as a logo. If it were consistently stylized then maybe it could be considered a logo. But there’s not consistency in the stylization, only thing that’s consistent is it’s the same three letters from the alphabet in the same order.

                LOL <- do you think that’s a logo too? If so then, LOL at your silly rationalization. Oh noes, someone might sue me for infringing on the “LOL” brand/logo!

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

                  Now you’re assuming what the actual design of the pin and mask were… Do you know it was just “BLM”… and why wouldn’t that count as a brand/logo? Just because it’s not trademarked it’s not a logo? That’s silly and certainly not a consideration for what is and isn’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 won’t speak to that.

                  LOL <- do you think that’s a logo too?

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

                  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.

                  “plain”, “one color”, and NO pins… These things are obvious and clear words that don’t leave imagination to the intention of management. Even if it was just the letters BLM put together in a neutral font… it’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 don’t work there… and certainly don’t “surprise pikachu” when you get fired.

                  But even to just the point of what a logo is…

                  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 doesn’t meet requirement for definition 2… But it DEFINITELY meets definition 3. BLM just on it’s own is 1 of 2 things… Bureau of Land Management, or “Black Lives Matter” (whether the non-profit or the movement). It’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
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Jesus you’re down to the third definition in one dictionary. I’ve seen some weak ass internet lawyering in my time but holy shit.

                    Why not just be honest about things? You’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 “the rules are the rules” bullshit, but it’s obvious that many cultural adornments are considered acceptable by Amazon except this particular one because they’re afraid of a violent political faction or are perhaps in agreement with that political faction. Either way it’s a political faction repressing culture, ie. Culture War. It’s not even like anyone’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
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’ve got some is/ought fallacy going on here. And it’s unfortunate. But I’m not sure if comparing something as culturally ubiquitous as a wedding ring compares to something as divisive as BLM. Yes, it’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
                ·
                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 it’s a divisive issue it should be banned.

                You’re using tautological logic here. Anything that’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 isn’t because anything can be declared political.

                Given we’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 “divisive” in an effort to have it banned? Who actually believes black lives don’t matter? Should anyone try to appease that sort of person?