772
submitted 2 years ago by Grayox@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 years ago

Welp, just cancelled Amazon Prime. Never shopped at Whole Foods, so can't do any more there.

Kinda the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Probably should've done it a long time ago with all the union busting and general shittiness they are towards employees. But FFS if you're gonna pay people the bare minimum, treat them like cogs, at least allow them to have something they care about on their person while they're doing that shitty job.

Saying that black people are humans and their lives matter as much as any other human should be the least controversial thing ever. But a bunch of racists made it controversial and Amazon is just going along with that.

[-] blackard@beehaw.org 9 points 2 years ago

This is what made you cancel Amazon Prime in 2023? lol

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Franzia 14 points 2 years ago

Another example of a company with street cred giving it up. If employees felt safe wearing BLM masks to work that meana the company's image as is consistent, even internally.

And they just threw it away.

[-] grayman@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

It seems to me like WF is trying to avoid a bud light situation. Employees wearing BLM stuff will certainly put off a lot of people in many areas. So it's about not alienating a big portion of their customers, which would be a significant hit to sales.

Anyway, I find it odd to some extent that a business was not allowed, possibly, to limit what employees wear, especially if they interact with customers. A key tenant of sales and customer service is to make the person feel respected and to take an interest (fake if nothing else) in the customer.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] 011011@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 years ago

Another reason to avoid Whole Foods.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] derin@lemmy.beru.co 13 points 2 years ago

Time to go to Wegmans, y'all.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] NaoPb@eviltoast.org 11 points 2 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.

[-] MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago

They'd have to be uniform in its enforcement. For instance, "no pins" would be fine, but "no BLM pins, but MAGA pins are fine" wouldn't stand.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Nahvi@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

I am getting tired of being surprised that out of 77 comments not one mentions that the SCOTUS did NOT allow "Christian business owners to refuse same-sex couples." This was and is against the law. SCOTUS said they don't have to create pro-same-sex materials. It should be a straightforward and obvious conclusion that only went to SCOTUS because of the current anti-religious sentiment.

Would a liberal sign maker be required to create pro-life materials? Of course not. Should a conservative sign maker be required to make pro-choice materials? Of course not.

The law cannot force you to make materials or statements that you do not agree with.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] randon31415@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Sadly, if Republicans had their way, wearing masks at all would be a political statement.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
772 points (100.0% liked)

World News

37947 readers
144 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS