BLM Masks At Whole Foods

[Revoltingest]

Whole Foods Claims Constitutional Right to Disallow ‘Black Lives Matter’ Masks
Excerpted....
In a Dec. 17 filing with the National Labor Relations Board, Whole Foods denied the agency general counsel’s allegations that the company violated federal labor law by banning employees from wearing “Black Lives Matter” insignia and punishing staff around the country who did. The filing is a response to the labor board’s accusation that by prohibiting Black Lives Matter messages at work, the company interfered with employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act to engage “in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection.”

Whole Foods counters that it’s the one whose rights are being violated. The company’s filing, obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, accuses the labor board’s general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, of trying to unconstitutionally “compel” speech by Whole Foods in violation of its First Amendment rights. The upscale grocer also accuses her of “unlawfully infringing upon and/or diluting WFM’s protected trademarks” by trying to mandate that it allow the display of a “political message in conjunction with” its trademarked uniforms and logos.

Back to me....
This is interesting. It would extend to other political
messages in the workplace...messages that fans of
BLM might not like. Would they support those?

 

[anna.]

This is interesting. It would extend to other political
messages in the workplace...messages that fans of
BLM might not like. Would they support those?

While I support BLM, IMO there should be no political messaging on employee uniforms, and companies should be able to enforce this.

 

[Orbit]

So people prefer....racist messages? How is "Black Lives Matter" even controversial?

 

[Suave]

Whole Foods Claims Constitutional Right to Disallow ‘Black Lives Matter’ Masks
Excerpted....
In a Dec. 17 filing with the National Labor Relations Board, Whole Foods denied the agency general counsel’s allegations that the company violated federal labor law by banning employees from wearing “Black Lives Matter” insignia and punishing staff around the country who did. The filing is a response to the labor board’s accusation that by prohibiting Black Lives Matter messages at work, the company interfered with employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act to engage “in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection.”

Whole Foods counters that it’s the one whose rights are being violated. The company’s filing, obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, accuses the labor board’s general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, of trying to unconstitutionally “compel” speech by Whole Foods in violation of its First Amendment rights. The upscale grocer also accuses her of “unlawfully infringing upon and/or diluting WFM’s protected trademarks” by trying to mandate that it allow the display of a “political message in conjunction with” its trademarked uniforms and logos.

Back to me....
This is interesting. It would extend to other political
messages in the workplace...messages that fans of
BLM might not like. Would they support those?

I have no qualms with BLM masks, but I would strongly object to MAGA masks. Those cloth masks are not even effective at prevention of Omicron infections.

Effective mask!

Worthless mask!

 

[anna.]

So people prefer....racist messages? How is "Black Lives Matter" even controversial?

Then what happens when an employee wants to wear "white lives matter" insignia?

 

[Kooky]

Are we once again doing that bit where we assume that all political messages are equivalent and fundamentally interchangeable, so there is no difference between expressing tolerance and advocating ethnostates or genocide?

 

[Orbit]

Then what happens when an employee wants to wear "white lives matter" insignia?

Well, the company would have to decide if they want white supremacists representing them. The sentiment "Black Lives Matter" isn't equivalent, isn't black supremacist.

 

[anna.]

Well, the company would have to decide if they want white supremacists representing them. The sentiment "Black Lives Matter" isn't equivalent, isn't black supremacist.

I agree that BLM isn't equivalent, but legally, what will a court decide if the "white lives matter" employee decides to sue and some conservative legal group takes up the cause? Better just to have an across the board no politics policy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Back to me....
This is interesting. It would extend to other political
messages in the workplace...messages that fans of
BLM might not like. Would they support those?

I really doubt it.

 

[anna.]

Are we once again doing that bit where we assume that all political messages are equivalent and fundamentally interchangeable, so there is no difference between expressing tolerance and advocating ethnostates or genocide?

False dilemma. A company doesn't have to assume all political messages are equivalent to bar employees from wearing political messaging.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree that BLM isn't equivalent, but legally, what will a court decide if the "white lives matter" employee decides to sue and some conservative legal group takes up the cause? Better just to have an across the board no politics policy.

That really is a simple and fair solution. Leave your politics and religion at home. Maybe I'm just getting up there in years, but I was raised that you don't discuss those things outside of familiar settings anyways.

 

[The Hammer]

I was just curious as to what Whole Foods had against the Bureau of Land Management, but I guess I was misinformed on my acronyms again.

 

[Audie]

So people prefer....racist messages? How is "Black Lives Matter" even controversial?

Coz its racist

 

[Orbit]

Coz its racist

And exactly how is it "racist"?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Whole Foods Claims Constitutional Right to Disallow ‘Black Lives Matter’ Masks
Excerpted....
In a Dec. 17 filing with the National Labor Relations Board, Whole Foods denied the agency general counsel’s allegations that the company violated federal labor law by banning employees from wearing “Black Lives Matter” insignia and punishing staff around the country who did. The filing is a response to the labor board’s accusation that by prohibiting Black Lives Matter messages at work, the company interfered with employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act to engage “in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection.”

Whole Foods counters that it’s the one whose rights are being violated. The company’s filing, obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, accuses the labor board’s general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, of trying to unconstitutionally “compel” speech by Whole Foods in violation of its First Amendment rights. The upscale grocer also accuses her of “unlawfully infringing upon and/or diluting WFM’s protected trademarks” by trying to mandate that it allow the display of a “political message in conjunction with” its trademarked uniforms and logos.

Back to me....
This is interesting. It would extend to other political
messages in the workplace...messages that fans of
BLM might not like. Would they support those?

Well remember what people have said...

It's a prrtivvwwatte biissness, they can do whuuutevver they want becccsuuse the Constitution duuseent appplyyy!!!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are we once again doing that bit where we assume that all political messages are equivalent and fundamentally interchangeable, so there is no difference between expressing tolerance and advocating ethnostates or genocide?

No, it's avoiding the ugly debates in drawing the line and ensuing lawsuits to cement the policy. Just having a policy that is just simply "no" is better anyways. Things are too politicized and all it's going to do is open the gates for things that are going to cause division and discord. Such as support for groups like NARTH, Focus on the Family, or the KKK and Black Panthers. Anti-fa or Westboro Baptist Church. And because some BLM groups have black people only policies, things could get complicated in ways that supporters of wearing the mask are not going to like.

 

[epronovost]

The idea that Whole Food would have a right to dictate the clothing choice of their uniformed employees during their work hours seems sound (they are imposing uniforms after all), but the argument they are using seems to me completely ridiculous. They are business; that their employees might want to wear symbols on their person doesn't make it the companies own messaging.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is interesting. It would extend to other political
messages in the workplace...messages that fans of
BLM might not like. Would they support those?

I think Whole Foods will lose on this one: Whole Foods already allows employees to wear clothing that is offensive to many customers. Its super liberal, super democrat and kind of witchy. I go in there and feel odd, because I'm clean cut. Its so California in there.

Should Wholefoods win? No, I don't think so. Once the precedent is set, retailers in general will have to change on this. Customers like me will just have to get used to more noisome masks in stores and service stations.

And in answer to your question yes if this precedent is set we will be seeing Republican/Democrat masks in stores. Retailers will also find it yet another positive bullet point to add to their benefits list. "We allow our employees to express themselves politically (just like everyone else is and as required by recent legal precedent)."

A possible benefit to this is it may help unions which may help capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have no qualms with BLM masks, but I would strongly object to MAGA masks. Those cloth masks are not even effective at prevention of Omicron infections.

Effective mask!

Worthless mask!

The store wouldn't be able to decide
which message masks it can prohibit.

 

[Revoltingest]

I really doubt it.

Freedom of speech is for people I agree with it might seem.