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.
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”
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.
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?
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.