BLM Masks At Whole Foods

[Brickjectivity]

Removing Confederate symbols from state property
is far far different from banning private display.
Free speech rights are all about protecting offensive
speech. It's why people can openly demonstrate
for causes like the KKK...complete with robes, hoods,
& insignias. So if it's legal speech, & government forces
business to allow one kind of speech in the workplace,
be prepared for speech you really detest.

Right now its very difficult to unionize for the reason that employees rights are proscribed in the workplace, so how can the right to unionize be practiced if free speech ends at the employment door? The government supposedly respects and recognizes the right for workers to deal as a group with an employer, but in the case of these masks that is being infringed. These examples you are giving demonstrate offensive speech rights, the same rights which would help employees to be able to unionize. Business is business, and it will continue even if employees have free speech. What compelling reason is there to stop it? None except that customers may not like it. I've already explained that if the rule is applied across the board at all businesses, then no business receives an advantage above others.

What reason, then, could employees have not to wear BLM masks? What could motivate them to act and speak in the interest of the business? Its profit sharing of course. Capitalism. Let it do its job. Don't gag the workers.

BTW, auditors are causing changes in police departments.
Not all, but many are finding that they must adjust to
permitting 1st & 4th Amendment rights of even provocateurs.
Look at how much these auditors cost government because
of cop misbehavior towards them...$10K, $45K, $295K.

They're causing changes in police departments, but how does that help employees at grocery stores and other jobs where workers have no bargaining power due to their restricted speech? When will employers be forced to start sharing profits? Never? So there is very little benefit to working for an employer who binds your free speech. That's what I'm hearing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Right now its very difficult to unionize for the reason that employees rights are proscribed in the workplace, so how can the right to unionize be practiced if free speech ends at the employment door?

Wearing BLM hats won't help them unionize.

The government supposedly respects and recognizes the right for workers to deal as a group with an employer, but in the case of these masks that is being infringed. These examples you are giving demonstrate offensive speech rights, the same rights which would help employees to be able to unionize. Business is business, and it will continue even if employees have free speech. What compelling reason is there to stop it? None except that customers may not like it. I've already explained that if the rule is applied across the board at all businesses, then no business receives an advantage above others.

What reason, then, could employees have not to wear BLM masks? What could motivate them to act and speak in the interest of the business? Its profit sharing of course. Capitalism. Let it do its job. Don't gag the workers.


They're causing changes in police departments, but how does that help employees at grocery stores and other jobs where workers have no bargaining power due to their restricted speech? When will employers be forced to start sharing profits? Never? So there is very little benefit to working for an employer who binds your free speech. That's what I'm hearing.

If employees want to share in profits,
I suggest they buy stock in the company.
But this too has nothing to do with BLM hats.

If you had a business, & employees wanted
to wear the Stars & Bars or Nazi swastikas,
would you let them?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Wearing BLM hats won't help them unionize.

Its the same set of rights. Free speech is what supports the freedoms which allows businesses to function.

If employees want to share in profits,
I suggest they buy stock in the company.
But this too has nothing to do with BLM hats.

If businesses wish employees to speak up for their business and not talk about politics they can find monetary motivations to do that without deciding for the employees what may and may not be said. They can use robots instead of people, too. Its not like the system is going to break down because somebody wore a Hillary hat, but it might break down if people can't openly express their political concerns where they are and during waking hours.

 

[Revoltingest]

Its the same set of rights. Free speech is what supports the freedoms which allows businesses to function.

The right to unionize is the same right as
exercising political speech on the job?
Nah?
I wouldn't want to be the lawyer making that
argument to a judge...not a sober one anyway.

If businesses wish employees to speak up for their business and not talk about politics they can find monetary motivations to do that without deciding for the employees what may and may not be said. They can use robots instead of people, too. Its not like the system is going to break down because somebody wore a Hillary hat, but it might break down if people can't openly express their political concerns where they are and during waking hours.

Robots are replacing employees right & left.
Robots don't pull this crap...
Trump supporter attacked at Cheesecake Factory over MAGA hat: report
Speech is not unlimited.

 

[Father Heathen]

Well remember what people have said...

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

Do you disagree with this? If you owned a business and you had an employee telling your customers to "**** off", what would you do?

 

[anna.]

Its the same set of rights. Free speech is what supports the freedoms which allows businesses to function.

The right to free speech does have some limits, you know that, right?

if people can't openly express their political concerns where they are and during waking hours.

Well, if I was in charge of hiring, I'd definitely not be hiring you. ; )

 

[Brickjectivity]

The right to unionize is the same right as
exercising political speech on the job?
Nah?
I wouldn't want to be the lawyer making that
argument to a judge...not a sober one anyway.

The right to talk about unionizing is, yes; and I'd file an amicus brief about it.

Robots are replacing employees right & left.
Robots don't pull this crap...
Trump supporter attacked at Cheesecake Factory over MAGA hat: report
Speech is not unlimited.

Exactly. If you want robots then use robots. Why hire people to behave like robots?

 

[F1fan]

Van life?

A friend keeps saying I should buy a tiny house. Well I have two hobbies, each of which has equipment that needs their own rooms, and then I need to sleep somewhere.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The right to free speech does have some limits, you know that, right?

Yes, I do; and I appreciate those limits.

Well, if I was in charge of hiring, I'd definitely not be hiring you. ; )

If I was in charge of hiring, and people could express political opinions by wearing MAGA hats that might make my job more difficult. It also might be more difficult if they started talking about organizing, which right now they cannot do. They might use that as leverage to get higher pay, causing me to miss the rate goals set for me. Part of my job as a manager would be to keep people working without paying them more than a set amount. Failing to do so could make business more expensive, raise costs.

 

[Revoltingest]

The right to talk about unionizing is, yes; and I'd file an amicus brief about it.

They can talk about unionizing.
But there is a time & a place.
And this thread is about BLM masks.
(Hats too...since they're another possibility.)

Exactly. If you want robots then use robots. Why hire people to behave like robots?

Prohibiting provocative political speech on the
job is not making them into robots. Government
itself prohibits some political speech, eg, it could
violate fair housing laws. I had to carefully train
workers what not to say (& to wear).
Some opinions had to be withheld on the job.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Prohibiting provocative political speech
on the job is not making them into robots.
Government itself prohibits some political
speech, eg, fair housing laws. I had to
carefully train workers what not to say.
Some opinions had to be withheld on the job.

Good points. I'm not tossing your points.

They can talk about unionizing.
But there is a time & a place.
And this thread is about BLM masks.
(Hats too...since they're another possibility.)

I didn't mean to derail your thread. It seemed to me like wearing BLM masks as opposed to regular coronavirus masks was a gray area and that if the court ruled against that it would be detrimental to free speech in the workplace in general. Then that was how I got sidetracked.

 

[Revoltingest]

Good points. I'm not tossing your points.


I didn't mean to derail your thread. It seemed to me like wearing BLM masks as opposed to regular coronavirus masks was a gray area and that if the court ruled against that it would be detrimental to free speech in the workplace in general. Then that was how I got sidetracked.

No worries.
If you weren't here to argue, I'd be boring
everyone even more than usual.

 

[F1fan]

Its the same set of rights. Free speech is what supports the freedoms which allows businesses to function.


If businesses wish employees to speak up for their business and not talk about politics they can find monetary motivations to do that without deciding for the employees what may and may not be said. They can use robots instead of people, too. Its not like the system is going to break down because somebody wore a Hillary hat, but it might break down if people can't openly express their political concerns where they are and during waking hours.

Well employers have rights too. If I ran a business that included Jewish customers, and a worker showed up wearing a shirt with a Nazi symbol, there's no way I'd let him represent my business. If I let him wear that shirt it would be offensive to my clients, and likely harm my business. I suggest it is very reasonable for a business to set standards of appearance when dealing with the public.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No worries.
If you weren't here to argue, I'd be boring
everyone even more than usual.

And now I've been fired by Anna, too; so that totally sux.

 

[Revoltingest]

And now I've been fired by Anna, too; so that totally sux.

RF is a dangerous place.
(Beware staff in particular.)

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well employers have rights too. If I ran a business that included Jewish customers, and a worker showed up wearing a shirt with a Nazi symbol, there's no way I'd let him represent my business. If I let him wear that shirt it would be offensive to my clients, and likely harm my business. I suggest it is very reasonable for a business to set standards of appearance when dealing with the public.

Yes. Employers have rights. This reminds me of a story about Henry Ford.

Henry Ford, the famous antisemite, spreads around the idea that people who don't shave are terrible workers. This catches on in various work places such as IBM. For many decades it becomes very difficult to get a job if you aren't clean shaven. This is true even as recently as 1990. If Henry Ford does this out of his antisemitism its an underhanded way of keeping bearded men out of a job isn't it? It has a facade of truth. Someone who shaves every morning must, yes, have a little bit of discipline to keep that up; but its not really an effective measure of discipline; and many people have no beards. Women don't, and many men don't. Its just something Henry Ford does that coincidentally hurts Jewish men looking for work. By the 1980's the rumor is so strongly believed that the US navy decides its sailors should no longer grow beards.

The myth that shaving equals discipline reaches its peak but then breaks around the year 2000. Then having some ruffage becomes the new normal. CEO's give up their Mason ties and put on turtlenecks. All is forgotten, but all has not gone unnoticed.

In the early 2000's IBM is the last holdout, the last tie wearing and clean shaving organization on the planet. That finally changes when IBM breaks. It switches its business model to open source, adopts Linux support as part of its core business model and changes its dress requirements, too.

All of that time, so many men were required to shave for no reason. No reason at all. It was all bull crap, spam salad and garbage barge. Even so the rumors remain to this day. "If you are out of a job, shave." So I shave, because I'm not Jewish.

 

[crossfire]

Capitalist solution: Allow Whole Foods vendors to provide free masks (that are within standards set by Whole Foods) to Whole Foods employees advertising their products. It would be much easier to identify employees amongst all of the customers wearing BLM masks. The highest quality masks would likely be the ones selected by the employees to wear, so make this fact known to vendors who would like to participate in this program. It should not be mandatory for employees to wear these masks--let the employees choose if they want to provide their own mask or wear a free vendor-supplied one.

 

[anna.]

And now I've been fired by Anna, too; so that totally sux.

How could I fire you if I didn't hire you? : )

 

[Revoltingest]

How could I fire you if I didn't hire you? : )

Now you must hire him.
(Just to set things right.)

Or you could hire a robot.
It's getting more popular.
San Francisco hotel replaces housekeepers with robots...

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you disagree with this? If you owned a business and you had an employee telling your customers to "**** off", what would you do?

Depends on the neighborhood. Maybe all the customers are on the same boat.

I mean how frequently does this happen?

I've see blm wear about twice and several Trump wear. Nobody really cared and shopped as always.