this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
791 points (95.5% liked)
World News
32362 readers
276 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If someone had a necklace with a cross on it, can Amazon ban it? Should they ban it?
How about non-religious ear rings or other jewelry? How about a hair bun? Wedding ring?
There's generally some leeway given for cultural adornments. So the question is what specifically is bad about a BLM adornment?
Yes, but not "Ban" but make "not visible". Things that cannot be banned are required religious symbols. Think Yarmulca or the Sikh turban (sorry I don't know the proper name). Where the religion requires wear. The cross can simply be worn under the shirt and not be visible. Dress code is all about visibility. You won't find a dress code that mandates undergarments for example. There is of course caveats with some jobs where wearing of the item presents an actual safety risk... Eg necklack falls out of the shirt and gets caught in machinery and now there's a bloody mess all over the floor. But even with protected items like a turban, if it displayed logos the company would probably be in the right to ask you to change into a different turban that was more neutral.
Yes... I've worked in places that had such rules. A simple example would be the military. I've not seen Wedding ring restriction... but can think of several cases where that would be reasonable to also limit. Lots of people willingly stopped wearing their wedding bands in my motorpool after someone degloved a finger... I have seen plenty of places that ask people to remove other piercings/jewelry and it was a non-issue.
If they're applying the policy fairly... which according to the court case findings they are/did... And that policy was effectively "no logos"... Then everything you've mentioned doesn't fall within the policy. I don't think I've ever seen a wedding ring with a Mountain Dew logo on it (like articles of clothing).
Here's a rendition of the general policy per a thread from 2 years ago https://www.reddit.com/r/wholefoods/comments/nxgnje/whats_the_dress_code/
Similar codes published by other users at https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Whole-Foods-Market/faq/what-is-the-dress-code?quid=1bk0o1sch5n8v93m in 2020. It's a quick google search to find more references if you'd like.
Nothing here would limit religious garb, rings or other jewelry, and I'm sure some other section would cover hair than the one that was furnished. Requiring a bun or other hair style for longer hair makes sense for anyone dealing with food, so at face value not illogical to see. So I'm not sure why you're bringing all this up. Could a company require compliance with these things? Sure... If you want to be paid to work, you follow the rules. Otherwise, go find another job elsewhere. It's like trying to work for a high end upscale restaurant... then being mad that you have to wear a suit.
I'm bringing it up because the rules are inconsistent. A wedding ring is a cultural adornment. It's allowed except in scenarios that involves using machinery that it would be a health hazard.
So we have many cultural adornments allowed, except this one particular one. So it's not "the rules are the rules" kind of scenario. There is a specific reason why the BLM masks are being singled out.
Masks are allowed. Similar to a hair scrunchy or hair clip it's something the company should prefer the employees to wear because it improves safety.
Does having BLM on the mask make it a safety concern? Nope, it doesn't. The mask improves safety having a mask that the employee likes wearing makes it more likely they'll wear it, so allowing BLM masks is encouraging better safety.
And what's the reason? The far right has deemed a cultural item to be undesirable. Why would a political movement deem a cultural adornment often worn by a certain ethnicity to be undesirable?
Sorry but logic just isn't on your side with this one. It's discouraging a commonly accepted cultural adornment that's being done solely out of political motivations of the employer. Other cultural adornments are allowed (some are even encouraged when they improve safety) but this particular adornment is being singled out despite the fact that it improves safety. The BLM masks are only considered political speech by a subset of the population who are of a certain political persuasion.
It's a politically motivated attack against cultural expression, ie. culture war bullshit. Am I meant to not notice that there's one political party is promoting this "culture war" crap and pretend the actions of Amazon aren't politcal while some underpaid worker wearing a BLM mask isn't cultural?
Not at all.. It's not breaking the rule because the rule isn't "no cultural adornment" ... It's no brands or logos.
Why do I have to keep fucking repeating this on every damn thread?
BLM is not trademarked (people have tried and failed though!) so it's not a brand. It's three letters so it doesn't qualify as a logo. If it were consistently stylized then maybe it could be considered a logo. But there's not consistency in the stylization, only thing that's consistent is it's the same three letters from the alphabet in the same order.
LOL <- do you think that's a logo too? If so then, LOL at your silly rationalization. Oh noes, someone might sue me for infringing on the "LOL" brand/logo!
Now you're assuming what the actual design of the pin and mask were... Do you know it was just "BLM"... and why wouldn't that count as a brand/logo? Just because it's not trademarked it's not a logo? That's silly and certainly not a consideration for what is and isn't a logo. There are many masks and pins that are absolutely stylized. But I have no idea which these people were wearing so I won't speak to that.
LOL can be a logo. But I find myself again pointing to the rules that Whole Foods have in place...
"plain", "one color", and NO pins... These things are obvious and clear words that don't leave imagination to the intention of management. Even if it was just the letters BLM put together in a neutral font... it's still a violation of the contract you would have agreed to in order to work there. If you have no intention of following the rules, then don't work there... and certainly don't "surprise pikachu" when you get fired.
But even to just the point of what a logo is...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logo
2: an identifying symbol (as for use in advertising) 3: an identifying statement : motto
We could argue that BLM meets or doesn't meet requirement for definition 2... But it DEFINITELY meets definition 3. BLM just on it's own is 1 of 2 things... Bureau of Land Management, or "Black Lives Matter" (whether the non-profit or the movement). It's definitely identifying because nobody is wearing a Bureau of Land Management mask or pin.
Jesus you're down to the third definition in one dictionary. I've seen some weak ass internet lawyering in my time but holy shit.
Why not just be honest about things? You've gotten convinced by right wing political narratives about what BLM is and because of culture war politics you want to repress this cultural artifact?
So this is just a political faction using fear and intimidation to repress culture. Go ahead with your silly "the rules are the rules" bullshit, but it's obvious that many cultural adornments are considered acceptable by Amazon except this particular one because they're afraid of a violent political faction or are perhaps in agreement with that political faction. Either way it's a political faction repressing culture, ie. Culture War. It's not even like anyone's subtle about their motives in all of this. Why are you trying so hard to be?
If you believe that the rule is being applied unfairly, then you might want to reach out to the lawyers that took the case to court... You know since the case was readily dismissed they might want your legal insight. Maybe they'll sign you on as partner!
Or... It's as simple as it seems. The employee broke the policy... and was fired for cause after failing to remedy.
Ah yes.. the MAGA losers turned me! That must be it. Not that I know how to read policies before I start working for a company... or actively participate in my job in a meaningful way.
Sigh... I swear this was already covered... Nothing with logos/branding. Just because you find value in it doesn't make it appropriate.
The workplace isn't the place to have your "culture war". If you want to "war" at work... don't be surprised when you get fired.
Edit: The sad part about all of this... I fucking HATE Bezos/Amazon. But you're all so fucking stuck on this shit that you think I'm defending them. I'm not. I wish them to fail in the most spectacular way possible. But really? We're all up and arms about a fucking dress code? Seriously? fucking 20 years ago I was bussing tables at a steakhouse and guess what... There was a fucking dress code. This isn't something new.
You've got some is/ought fallacy going on here. And it's unfortunate. But I'm not sure if comparing something as culturally ubiquitous as a wedding ring compares to something as divisive as BLM. Yes, it's unfortunate that BLM is divisive. It ought not be. Yes, you could even say wedding rings are symbols of power and oppression, and ought be considered in the same way as BLM. But that is not the case.
Wedding rings are symbols of power and oppression.
I just said that. If you disagree then that means wedding rings are a divisive issue. Since it's a divisive issue it should be banned.
You're using tautological logic here. Anything that's divisive is political, anyone declaring they disagree with anything makes something divisive, therefore anything people disagree over is political. Anything political should be banned. All power is given to those who decide what is political and what isn't because anything can be declared political.
Given we're in a culture where people will feign disagreement and argue in bad faith, the logical result is employers have absolute control over employees. Starting to feel really dystopian if we follow this kind of logic.
Honestly do you really think there is no intent behind the culture war strategy of declaring anything associated with minority groups to be "divisive" in an effort to have it banned? Who actually believes black lives don't matter? Should anyone try to appease that sort of person?