Amazon.comās Whole Foods Market doesnāt want to be forced to let workers wear āBlack 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 itās forced to allow BLM slogans to be worn with Whole Foods uniforms.
Amazon is the most prominent company to use the high courtās June ruling that a Christian web designer was free to refuse to design sites for gay weddings, saying the case āprovides a clear roadmapā to throw out the NLRBās 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.
iiuc, wf is not saying that customers canāt wear BLM masks. They donāt want to show a political stance and, as a result, donāt 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, theyāre just banning BLM stuff, which will be misconstrued (notice the crossed out āmisā) as them taking a political stance against black folks.
imagine realizing this and going āthey should ban queer peopleā instead of ābanning politics is impossible because thereās no such thing as an apolitical stanceā
Youāre right. Banning politics is impossible. Thatās my point. I donāt 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 donāt matter. Whether or not this is intentional, is irrelevant.
Iāll give you an example of a workplace doing it mostly right. My old employer didnāt do many things right, but for political stances, they did. āNo graphics, logos, or lettering, unless Companyās, on shirts, jackets, pants, etc. is allowed while inside the building, whether on shift or offā When covid hit, this extended to the masks with the āetc.ā part. When George Floyd was murdered, for example, some of the employees (myself, and HR, included) wanted to wear the āI canāt breatheā masks. We werenāt 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 ātalking toā 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 itās no surprise theyāre banning BLM masks from their employees. Whole foods, I know. But wf is Amazon.
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 donāt matter. Whether or not this is intentional, is irrelevant.
This isnāt the stance thoughā¦
The policy is literally NO Logos/branding on ANYTHING. Their rules even call out wearing shirts that are ONE colorā¦ The point is to wear simple plain clothes. The issue isnāt anything related to BLM or any other political stanceā¦ Itās that the workers are violating basic dress codes.
If youāre a lifeguardā¦ and the dress uniform is a white shirt and red shorts so youāre identifiable in your job at the poolā¦ And you come wearing tie-dye sweat pants, a metallica t-shirt, and a nascar hatā¦ Iām not anti-metal or anti-nascar for telling you to change your clothing or leave.
The BLM part of this is irrelevant as thatās 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 plaintiffsā¦ or that it was applied unfairly. This court case was fucking 8 months agoā¦ 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?
On one hand, I agree with you
On the other hand, how do we live in such a fucking hellscape that āblack lives matterā 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)
