BLM Masks At Whole Foods

[anna.]

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

Must is such a divisive word.

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

I love how the guest gives it the middle finger

 

[Revoltingest]

I love how the guest gives it the middle finger

Robots can take such abuse in stride.
It's why they do so well on RF.

 

[anna.]

Robots can take such abuse in stride.
It's why they do so well on RF.

After years of being told to grow a thicker skin, some do.

 

[Revoltingest]

After years of being told to grow a thicker skin, some do.

 

[anna.]

Put me right off my oatmeal, that.

 

[Kooky]

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

Because refusing to support civil rights is never seen as "political messaging".

 

[Revoltingest]

Another possible political message...
American Airlines Investigates Pilot's 'Lets Go Brandon' Bag Tag

 

[anna.]

Because refusing to support civil rights is never seen as "political messaging".

It's not refusing to support civil rights, you're assigning intent when you don't know intent.

There is no legal right to political expression in the workplace, companies may bar political insignia/clothing to avoid a potential legal suit for equal time for abhorrent political messages, and to reduce potential division between employees.

 

[Sand Dancer]

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?

Unfortunately, even minor political messages can incite violence, etc. I had a Coexist sticker on my Subaru (read: liberalmobile) and we are moving to a conservative town soon, and my husband was worried that my sticker promoting people getting along no matter what religion they are could be seen as a threat to the wrong person and my car could be keyed or otherwise defaced, or that I could be harassed for it. I removed it. I don't like it, but that's just the political climate we live in.

 

[Kooky]

There is no legal right to political expression in the workplace, companies may bar political insignia/clothing to avoid a potential legal suit for equal time for abhorrent political messages, and to reduce potential division between employees.

I find that argument incoherent. If there is no right to political expression in the workplace, then there is no right to be given equal time for one's political message as anybody else.

 

[Friend of Mara]

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 am pro freedom. If there is a hate message that is a different story. But I wouldn't be apposed to someone wearing a maga mask. I see it all the damn time.

But expletives' and overtly offensive things are obviously prohibited for a reason and I don't see how this could affect those regulations.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Unfortunately, even minor political messages can incite violence, etc. I had a Coexist sticker on my Subaru (read: liberalmobile) and we are moving to a conservative town soon, and my husband was worried that my sticker promoting people getting along no matter what religion they are could be seen as a threat to the wrong person and my car could be keyed or otherwise defaced, or that I could be harassed for it. I removed it. I don't like it, but that's just the political climate we live in.

That is why I follow the rule of "stay strapped or get clapped"

 

[anna.]

I find that argument incoherent. If there is no right to political expression in the workplace, then there is no right to be given equal time for one's political message as anybody else.

Incoherent? No. There's no right to political expression in the workplace. Should an employer allow the privilege, it opens the door to the possibility that employer may be legally require to give equal time for other political messages that the one the employer approves of.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am pro freedom. If there is a hate message that is a different story. But I wouldn't be apposed to someone wearing a maga mask. I see it all the damn time.

But expletives' and overtly offensive things are obviously prohibited for a reason and I don't see how this could affect those regulations.

Hate must be allowed to be expressed too.
Otherwise government gets to brand what it
dislikes as such. Too much control over us.

It reminds me of cops' ability to brand anything
they dislike as "creating a disturbance" All they
need do is be the one disturbed....& then you're
under arrest for resisting arrest.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Hate must be allowed to be expressed too.
Otherwise government gets to brand what it
dislikes as such. Too much control over us.

Expletive's are a common example. I can't wear a shirt that says "FAQ this job". I also can't wear a mask that says "gas the Jews". For similar reasons.

For the company in question they could just adjust their dress code to having no political or unprofessional masks. Solid color or nothing. Or floral patterns ect. That would remove all problems without specifying BLM. The problem is that they specified BLM.

It reminds me of cops' ability to brand anything
they dislike as "creating a disturbance" All they
need do is be the one disturbed....& then you're
under arrest for resisting arrest.

One is an abuse of power and the other is a cloth mask.

 

[Revoltingest]

Expletive's are a common example. I can't wear a shirt that says "FAQ this job". I also can't wear a mask that says "gas the Jews". For similar reasons.

That explicitly advocates violence,
which is easily prohibited under the law.
Pure hate....not so much.

For the company in question they could just adjust their dress code to having no political or unprofessional masks. Solid color or nothing. Or floral patterns ect. That would remove all problems without specifying BLM. The problem is that they specified BLM.

Prohibiting political messages
doesn't require solid coloring.

One is an abuse of power and the other is a cloth mask.

All power can be abused. Policy should be designed
to minimize it. Overly broad criteria create opportunities
for mischief, eg, "disturbance", "hate".

 

[Friend of Mara]

Prohibiting political messages
doesn't require solid coloring.

True

All power can be abused. Policy should be designed
to minimize it. Overly broad criteria create opportunities
for mischief, eg, "disturbance", "hate".

Also true. Perhaps I am mistaken in the human kind's ability to see what is reasonable and what is not.

 

[Revoltingest]

True

Also true. Perhaps I am mistaken in the human kind's ability to see what is reasonable and what is not.

We have really bad judgment.

 

[Kooky]

Incoherent? No. There's no right to political expression in the workplace. Should an employer allow the privilege, it opens the door to the possibility that employer may be legally require to give equal time for other political messages that the one the employer approves of.

How? We just established that it's a privilege granted at the employer's whim, not a right employees have. Their employer's actions cannot grant or remove rights, because that is not a power employers have - not even in Western capitalism. Either every employee has the right to political expression at every workplace, or nobody has that right.

 

[Kooky]

Overly broad criteria create opportunities
for mischief, eg, "disturbance", "hate".

"Freedom of speech", "freedom of religion"...