August 15, 2022

"All told, Whole Foods terminated workers in at least six states for wearing BLM apparel, according to a complaint brought by the National Labor Relations Board...."

"NLRB officials are now prosecuting Whole Foods, seeking a change in policy and reinstatement for the workers. The company’s defense has yielded one of the stranger spectacles in contemporary US labor law. Whole Foods not only denies doing anything wrong, it’s also effectively putting BLM on trial. 'At one point, President Trump referred to Black Lives Matter itself as, quote, "a symbol of hate," and like it or not, a significant number of the former president’s supporters share his view,' company attorney Michael Ferrell said during his opening statement at the NLRB trial in Boston this spring. Yes, Ferrell said, Whole Foods believes Black lives matter, but the BLM movement is 'controversial,' its protests have been marked by looting and violence, and the company had good reason to worry that stores would become dangerous if workers were allowed to show their support on the job. If Whole Foods is forced to permit employees to wear BLM logos, Ferrell said, then why not let them wear Confederate flag masks, or go shirtless?...'It is for Whole Foods’ leadership to decide,' Ferrell said. “It is not for the hourly store team members.' That’s a point the NLRB’s top prosecutor, General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, is eager to litigate.... 'I’m not sure that all circuit court judges, or even district court judges for that matter, fully understand all the nuances of labor law,' she says. 'We try to educate them as best we can.'"

I'm not sure what "would become dangerous." Is it that workers who didn't choose to wear the slogan could be threatened? Is it that customers might go ballistic? Was Ferrell talking about physical danger or some sort of emotional "danger"? Some people might feel hated when they read the slogan "Black Lives Matter" — is that a "danger"? I'm thinking of the vogue concept that words are violence. But stepping back from that puzzling word "danger," I can see that management has to worry that some customers may sense hostility and decide to shop elsewhere. The mask itself already embodies the hostility of the deadly virus. Writing an aggressive — or merely confusing — message on the mask has a synergistic effect. 

105 comments:

Jason said...

Scratch a liberal, you'll find a fascist. Every time.

JAORE said...

Be careful what you wish for....

Michael K said...

'I’m not sure that all circuit court judges, or even district court judges for that matter, fully understand all the nuances of labor law,' she says. 'We try to educate them as best we can.'"

SHUT UP ! she explained.

MadisonMan said...

I also hope this lawsuit fails. If you don't want to work at place that muzzles you -- for very good reason!! -- then work elsewhere.
You do NOT, as a worker, get to tell your boss how to operate their business. Because the business is assuming all the risk. Workers are not.
I'm struck by how out-of-touch Washington insiders are to the rest of the country.
If I were President, various Federal Departments -- Justice, Transportation, Education (if it still existed), HHS -- would be distributed around the country.

Jeff Vader said...

As a non lawyer I struggle to understand why the NLRB is involved? Free speech at work?

Joe Smith said...

"All told, Whole Foods terminated workers in at least six states..."

I'm not a fan of BLM, but killing them seems a little harsh...

wendybar said...

Joe Smith for the win!!!

Temujin said...

Whole Foods Market seems to be guilty of calling a thing what it is. Seeing A as A. Saying the unspeakable. Standing up for the productive over the destructive.

I wonder if Ms. Abruzzo would be so inclined to follow up on lawsuits against companies who fired or threatened employees wearing a Maga hat?

John Mackey, the CEO and founder of Whole Foods Market is a known Libertarian. He is, above everything else, a believer in individual rights and free-market capitalism. If something is perceived as hurting the company, he takes the smart and obvious tack of removing it, or tamping it down. Ms. Abruzzo seems to be stating that he cannot make that judgement. That the courts can make that judgement about his business.

Employees these days seem to view the entire world as one large Union in which they, the rank and file, once hired, have a say in how it's run, a seat in the board room, and a right to made demands on it. Interestingly, not one of them was dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night and forced to work there, under threat of death. They, instead, sought out the jobs, and took them willingly, agreeing to abide by their employers rules. They apparently were lying about that last bit. Party over family. Party over company. Party over nation.

narciso said...

The banner of a terrorist group

gilbar said...

If Whole Foods is forced to permit employees to wear BLM logos, Ferrell said, then why not let them wear Confederate flag masks
..seeking a ruling that would give US workers something more like free speech"

Trump t-shirts would STILL get you fired, though; right?
i mean, RIGHT?
How about t-shirts that said: WHOLE FOODS SUX! BUY LOCAL, EAT LOCAL; BE LOCAL!
???

gilbar said...

Joe Smith said...
"All told, Whole Foods terminated workers in at least six states..."
I'm not a fan of BLM, but killing them seems a little harsh...

were they terminated with prejudice?

Wince said...

What's Abruzzo's postion on MAGA hats?

This does not even constitute "protected concerted activity" under the NLRB's definition as far as I can tell.

This is what you get when you plant a union hack in the bureaucracy.

boatbuilder said...

Ha!

I suspect that the people wearing the BLM slogans were soyboys and soygirls who no self-respecting person would perceive as threatening. But if the employees were wearing Proud Boys gear and Whole Foods fired them, would anybody at the NLRB make an issue of it?

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

Drago said...

"Is it that workers who didn't choose to wear the slogan could be threatened?"

Workers that choose not to wear the slogan will absolutely be threatened, and then identified for future harassment, intimidation, silencing and eventually, firing by woke managers.

See: University campuses.

Ceciliahere said...

Whole Foods is closing stores around the country. So, this BLM wearing mask workers gives them a reason to reduce the number of employees. People shopping in WF do not want to feel intimidated by mask wearing activists. At these prices, I should at least feel safe while having my pocket picked.

James K said...

Workers that choose not to wear the slogan will absolutely be threatened, and then identified for future harassment, intimidation, silencing and eventually, firing by woke managers.

"You must wear the ribbon! You have to wear the ribbon!!"

Since when do employers not have the right to restrict politicking at work, or what their employees wear or display? Never mind MAGA hats, what if employees showed up with swastikas or KKK paraphernalia?

lgv said...

Being able to control what your employees wear while on the job is an important thing. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want them wearing MAGA caps either. If apparel is protected speech, then I can also end up in court for banning BLM related jewelry, seeing as jewelry is also banned for safety reasons. (even though I would likely win)

rehajm said...

It’s such a strange time where unaffiliated and/or subordinate agencies ignore rules and laws they don’t like freely and openly while simultaneously inventing authority to enforce rules and laws that don’t exist…and few seem to care.

dwshelf said...

People don't go to WF to engage political conflicts.

Any more than they go to baseball games to engage political conflicts.

Breezy said...

That’s great! Let’s have all employees wear their ideologies while they work. Then they can get mad and call each other names while working, and maybe even get into some fisticuffs or worse, draw blood! Then the customer experience would be so rich, wonderful and compelling! People would not be able to stay away…. Maybe they could even enter the fray!

William said...

I think the termination of employees is a stylized form of protest by management and should be covered under freedom of speech. That said, I think efforts should be made to terminate them in the most humane way possible. Sedatives followed by fetanyl compounds. There are many humane ways of creating a happy workplace with happy team members.

Freeman Hunt said...

It's a retail job. There's a uniform.

Ficta said...

Jesus Hashimoto Christ! You don't have free speech rights on the job. Particularly if you're interacting directly with the customers. What the hell is this shit?

JK Brown said...

How do they permit BLM logo masks and not MAGA logo? Or as they say, Confederate flag mask? Or an All Lives Matter image? If they start picking and choosing then their censorship is not content neutral.

If you are a white person, perhaps wearing a pro-Tump symbol, and the employee wearing a BLM masks is involved in food preparation, such as in the deli, etc., can you be confident the employee hasn't spit in your food? After all, they've exhibited their alignment with an organization prone to violence against those who disagree.

ConradBibby said...

I could easily see where altercations could break out as a result of an employee's wearing something that says "BLM," "MAGA," or any number of other political labels. However, even short of the risk of an altercation, why shouldn't WF or any other business not be able to prohibit political displays for the simple reason that it may cause prospective customers to want to shop somewhere else?

This trend of 20-something employees' thinking that they're the ones who get to make the decisions about how the business should operate needs to stop.

William said...

This isn't self confidence. This is arrogance: "I'm not sure that all circuit court judges...fully understand the nuances of labor law. We try to educate as best we can." Does Ms. Abruzzo fully understand the nuances of such a statement? She should be terminated, but, as it works out, the circuit judge involved is probably more at risk.

PM said...

Also from the Whole Foods Employee Rules:
Headbands, "doo-rags," or hoods may not be worn.
Strike 2!

ccscientist said...

Fundamentally, if you allow employees to wear one political symbol, you must allow all symbols. Would the NLRB be suing if employees wanted to wear MAGA hats? hahaha no. Employees are representing the store and BLM symbols would be presumed by customers to align with store policy. I would not shop there if they did that. When I attend meetings with customers I can wear my company logo, and that is it. Period.

Rabel said...

"Whole Foods declined to discuss the case in detail for this story, but it said in a statement that it prohibits staff from wearing all sorts of political slogans."

Their policy prohibits all political slogans.

"Sorts of" is thrown in to brush away the principal argument in favor of WF.

Leland said...

I remember working in the grocery business. Back then, if you didn’t wear the United Way logo, then you were harassed by management until you gave up a portion of your paycheck to the “charity”. It has a chilling effect on me wanting to give a dime to the United Way even now.

Hey Skipper said...

If Whole Foods is forced to permit employees to wear BLM logos, Ferrell said, then why not let them wear Confederate flag masks, or go shirtless?...'

Back in the day, I had to go through some training prior to my squadron commander tour. Part of that was a couple days of legal training: types of punishment, when to call the JAG, etc. One session I particularly remember was covering what could be posted in my squadron. Bottom line: it was up to me. However, if I chose to allow posting an announcement for Bible study, then I better allow posting an announcement for Satanic Rituals study. Should I not adhere to viewpoint neutrality, then trouble would likely be in the offing.

Here, the NLRB is stepping all over viewpoint neutrality. No one can possibly doubt that the NLRB would be similarly energetic had WF terminated workers wearing LGB T-shirts. The only possible conclusion is that the NLRB hopes to use WF as a cat's paw to advance certain viewpoints, while ignoring the suppression of others.

Michael K said...

The new rules are that abortion is a sacrament and BLM is the new religion.

marybeth said...

By mentioning Trump supporters, it makes it seem as though they think the violence could come from there - playing into the "1/6 insurrection was the worst threat to the country ever" nonsense. As others have commented, I think the problem would come from the "silence is violence" contigent. If you aren't voicing your support in an obvious manner it must mean you are against them and you must be persuaded to show support by any means necessary.

Not that having a BLM pin would guarantee you wouldn't still be harassed. The BLM signs didn't protect businesses from being trashed and looted.

tim maguire said...

Jeff Vader said...As a non lawyer I struggle to understand why the NLRB is involved? Free speech at work?

I used to be a lawyer. Not a labor lawyer, but I went to law school, took labor law classes, passed the bar in two states and I don't have a clue what the NLRB is doing here. What is their theory of the case? From where I'm sitting, it's Ms. Abruzzo who needs to be educated.

Dan from Madison said...

It would be interesting to see what Whole Foods let people wear before BLM and I'm sure that this will come out if this makes it to litigation. If they allowed people to just wear anything like a Che t shirt or a US flag or Miller Lite t shirt, it is going to be hard to disallow a BLM shirt. However, the policy is the policy. If the policy says "up to local manager discretion" or whatever, that might be key.

As per usual in these court cases, if you don't have the file (with discovery) you don't have the file and just have to guess on the rest.

Jupiter said...

'I'm not sure what "would become dangerous."'

Well, if you were the owner or a major stockholder of Whole Foods, your uncertainty on that point would certainly be germane.

Narayanan said...

That’s great! Let’s have all employees wear their ideologies while they work.
=========
I am confused : is not WholeFoods itself an Ideology?

also how many shopping there do not support BLM?

was any of WF store attacked anytime anywhere?

Achilles said...

The point of a uniform is to remove distractions.

Distractions like politics. People want to live their lives and go to work and do their shopping without having to listen to some representative of a political terrorist organization like BLM abusing them.

But the left is intent on forcing everyone to obey their politics.

Really it is time for these shitheads to go.

Krumhorn said...

This is the same issue as football players taking a knee on field during the anthem. Nobody disputes the right of anyone to express their views...in their homes or in the public square. But using the platform or space owned by someone else as part of a commercial activity to amplify the speech is a misuse of the property rights of others.

A commercial enterprise has one goal, and that goal has nothing to do with politics.

- Krumhorn

Aggie said...

How about I take a job at MacDonalds and demand to wear a Burger King uniform? How about a F*ck Joe Biden T-shirt with a red MAGA hat? How about Whole Foods just says, 'this job is now a uniformed position' and lays out strict rules for what workers wear, all in the name of 'Safety'? Absurdist theater, nothing more. But then, there sometimes seems to be no shortage of absurdist judges, too. This is what happens when society gets so polite it becomes frightened of allowing corrective violence like a forceful slap upside the head - which works wonders at efficiently dissipating bullsh*t at its source rather than tying up society's machinery.

Howard said...

I agree with uniform rules. Plus, it turns personal political speech into ad hoc corporate commercial speech. It's bound to alienate people. Business should be a safe space devoid of politics.

Howard said...

Krummhorn: exactly except one huge difference, professional athletes are more powerful and forced ownership to compromise. You gotta love the free market. You did get one scalp Kaperdink.

Narayanan said...

A commercial enterprise has one goal, and that goal has nothing to do with politics.
==========
on that note : A commercial enterprise should have nothing to do with politics such as making PAC contributions etc.

Joe Smith said...

'I am confused : is not WholeFoods itself an Ideology?'

It has a reputation as a store for white, wealthy 'Karens,' but to be fair, they have very good deli, bakery, and butcher departments.

Yes, they're pricey, but I will go when they have a sale because a lot of it is great quality...

Ambrose said...

Bring back employment at will

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

That’s a point the NLRB’s top prosecutor, General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, is eager to litigate.... 'I’m not sure that all circuit court judges, or even district court judges for that matter, fully understand all the nuances of labor law,' she says.

Couldn't possibly be the other way around, could it?

Freder Frederson said...

But using the platform or space owned by someone else as part of a commercial activity to amplify the speech is a misuse of the property rights of others.

Yet Twitter should be forced to publish anything that any crazy person wants to post.

Do you see the contradiction?

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

BLMism like transism just goes too damn far. “Blow up your society and let us run things” is a proposition that few find reasonable or equitable.

Saint Croix said...

A basic principle of free speech is that you can't pick and choose which messages are acceptable.

You have to say to yourself, what about a confederate flag? What about a swastika? The government cannot make, in my opinion, a finding that leftist speech is fine and right-wing speech can be censored. That's actually a lot worse than allowing private censorship by corporations.

So don't tell me they are "expanding free speech" if it's just for BLM and hammer and sickle stuff. It's expanding leftist ideology and that's it.

n.n said...

Some, Select [Black] Lives Matter (SS[B]LM)?

#RoesRegrets #RuthsRemorse #KeepWomenAffordableAvailableTaxableAndYourLittleGirlsToo #Rape... RapeRapeHappensInDarkness

Baby Lives Matter (BLM)

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

It could be the start of something dangerous but I don't think it is dangerous in and of itself. It is definitely bad business to allow an racial extortion group to be represented by your employees, though. More than once I have turned away at the door of a business that had BLM posters or stickers on the door/windows. I haven't seen any lately.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Here in Arizona we're lucky to have AJ's Fine Foods. It's best described it as "Whole Foods without the Marxism". I guess it's also why we only have two Whole Foods (both in Snotsdale) and we're the 10th largest metro area in the country.

Buckwheathikes said...

OK. I just won't shop at Whole Foods then.

"THAT'S VIOLENCE!" - NLRB

We need to cease humoring these mentally ill people. No, I don't mean Whole Foods workers or management. I mean the Federal Government.

The Federal Government is clearly not taking its meds and we may need to force it to.

Kevin said...

Liberals: Twitter can decide which opinions expressed on its platform to ban.

Also Liberals: Whole Foods can’t decide which opinions expressed in its stores to ban.

Buckwheathikes said...

"Any more than they go to baseball games to engage political conflicts."

Congressional baseball game shooter James Hodgekinson would beg to differ with you, sir.

Lem Ozuna from the Braves said...

"synergistic"

I'm sensing the emergence of a theme today.

Lem Ozuna from the Braves said...

People the wrong/unpopular political message on masks have been asked to deplane, without appeal. Seems to me Whole Foods is acting concordantly with airlines.

I could be wrong.

hombre said...

If only Democrat Deep State Turds were not completely, predictably supportive of Marxist causes. Normal people might regain some trust in their government.

hombre said...

If only Democrat Deep State Turds were not completely, predictably supportive of Marxist causes. Normal people might regain some trust in their government.

hawkeyedjb said...

"BLM signs didn't protect businesses from being trashed and looted."

I was recently in Burlington VT, where every - and I do mean every - business on the downtown plaza had a BLM sign or some nearby variant in its window. It may very well be that every business owner agrees in the goodness of the BLM movement. An alternative explanation is that the tolerant people would wreck their store and put them out of business if they didn't get with the program, since that's how they show their tolerance.

Since Burlington is one of the most lily-white cities in America, it seems like useless preening anyway. But enforced conformity is better than nothing.

Scotty, beam me up... said...

The 1st Amendment protects speech against government interference (well, to a point - you can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater, for example). The feds, in this case NRLB, can’t force WF to allow employees to wear BLM clothing or accoutrements if WF doesn’t allow political clothing / accoutrements in general as that violates WF’s free speech of being publicly politically neutral. But with Obama and now Biden appointing activist judges who rule what they want the Constitution to say when in reality it has explicit rights and restrictions that they don’t agree with, all bets are off. The Regressives (TM) want the proletariat to tell the employers how to run their businesses as well as set ever changing workplace rules, not matter how much money it costs the business. And if those businesses happen to somehow still make a profit, well DAMN!, they aren’t being taxed enough and the IRS needs to tax them even more…

n.n said...

SS[B]LM has predictably, inevitably negative appeal to people... persons who do not dwell in the detritus of diversity [dogma] past, present, and progressive.

Baby Lives Matter (BLM)

HoodlumDoodlum said...

You can't just wear a message of your own choosing, contrary to your employer's policy, while on the clock?
What is this country coming to?!

Christopher B said...

Hmmm, just a SWAG (as a non-lawyer so more than the usual SWAG) but I guess the NLRB lawyer maybe trying to make some claim that WF has banned 'political slogans' but 'BLM' is not a 'political slogan' because it isn't directly related a candidate or party. I'm guessing WF might have a problem (per Skipper above) if they are allowing things like rainbows, pink ribbons, and other types of sloganeering that isn't explicitly political.

dawn remade said...

From the article:

The question at hand is whether support for BLM is relevant to employees’ “mutual aid or protection.” Abruzzo says yes. Her position is that workers’ rights to speak freely with one another trump concerns that some might claim the Confederate flag or toplessness as relevant to their employment. She rolls her eyes at Whole Foods’ suggestion that BLM is too controversial to be allowed on its employees’ masks. “That’s like saying, back in the ’50s, ‘We have to keep Black people in the backroom because our customers don’t want a Black person,’ ” she says in an interview. “I don’t find that to be particularly persuasive.”

Wow. That is quite the quote from NLRB’s top prosecutor Jennifer Abruzzo!

As other commentators have already pointed out, I think All Lives Matter or MAGA would be the closest counterpoints for divisively perceived slogans.

n.n said...

She rolls her eyes at Whole Foods’ suggestion that BLM is too controversial to be allowed on its employees’ masks. “That’s like saying, back in the ’50s, ‘We have to keep Black people in the backroom because our customers don’t want a Black person,’ ” she says in an interview. “I don’t find that to be particularly persuasive.”

Baby Lives Matter (BLM). It covers women, men, girls, boys, and the whole menagerie of human life. Look in the mirror. Run with it.

Christopher B said...

Freder Frederson said...
(krumhorn)But using the platform or space owned by someone else as part of a commercial activity to amplify the speech is a misuse of the property rights of others.

Yet Twitter should be forced to publish anything that any crazy person wants to post.

Do you see the contradiction?


So you do realize that you are admitting you want Twitter to be able to exercise editorial control (publish) over all the posts that they don't block, rather than a viewpoint neutral rejection of illegal material. Therefore, as a publisher, they should be liable for their approval of any libelous or inflammatory statements made by any of their users.

Sounds good to me.

n.n said...

A back... black hole... whore? h/t NAACP

Who will be first to raise the pride banner: a parade of lions, lionesses, and their [unPlanned] cubs playing in gay revelry? And dispense with the rainbow of divisive disposition?

Diversity, Inequity, and Exclusion (DIE) is a forward-looking, inverted policy of trans/humanism.

Baby Lives Matter (BLM)

The Vault Dweller said...

I would be irritated if a public school was limiting what types of non-vulgar masks students could wear, but it seems like common sense that an employer has an important interest in preventing employees from wearing controversial or provocative clothing while on the job. I imagine most employers want the same tone you'd expect at Thanksgiving Dinner with the extended family. You are free to discuss and wear what you like so long as it isn't like likely to cause an argument. So there is no politics, no religion and certain sports teams are disallowed on game days.

Jersey Fled said...

Our company allowed only our company logo, slogans and tag lines, and brand names from the companies that manufactured the clothing, i.e. Nike, Adidas etc.

Problem solved.

Larvell said...

The Abruzzo puff piece just casually talks about "the freshly radicalized Supreme Court." Pure objective journalism there, boys.

dawn remade said...

Christopher B said...

I guess the NLRB lawyer maybe trying to make some claim that WF has banned 'political slogans' but 'BLM' is not a 'political slogan' because it isn't directly related a candidate or party.

That does seem like her POV, since she compares the organization to a someone's skin color. I personally don't find it compelling, but if someone hasn't been following the news the last few years and was going off just the words of the slogan itself (without knowing the aims of the organization) I could see it. I think in that case that person would find All Lives Matter to be similarly non-political though, and I have doubts that the people wearing the BLM merch would agree at all.

Michael K said...


Blogger Howard said...

Krummhorn: exactly except one huge difference, professional athletes are more powerful and forced ownership to compromise. You gotta love the free market. You did get one scalp Kaperdink.


Fair point but the NFL has lost fans and Disney is learning how popular grooming is with parents. Kapernick found out he couldn't play football so he went all in on another career. It worked for Obama.

robother said...

Democrat NLRB brief: "It's different when WE do it. [reasons TC]

MadisonMan said...

I just think of BLM as meaning Buying Luxurious Mansions. Because that's what its leaders do, isn't it?

Richard Dillman said...

Let’s see. What does BLM stand for: build large mansions, buy large mansions? Anyone who is paying attention knows that the bulk of their
donated money was used to buy large, ostentatious mansions for their head grifters to inhabit. This was such an embarrassment to the dems that Clinton apparatchiks had to assume control of their finances. Wearing BLM clothing to work may also suggest that Whole Foods supports grift and ponzi schemes.

GrapeApe said...

Businesses have every right and reason to say what is and is not an acceptable way of dress. I worked retail apparel most of my life. Better believe me I couldn’t work in shorts.

Maynard said...

esus Hashimoto Christ! You don't have free speech rights on the job. Particularly if you're interacting directly with the customers. What the hell is this shit?

The word you may be looking for is "Neo-Marxism".

The NLRB is seeking to create a workers paradise where people can say, do and wear whatever they want. Of course, the only limits will be placed on those who do not conform to the Party line.

Buckwheathikes said...

What people are going to find out the hard way is that if you make yourself too much of a nuisance, then businesses will just close down in your areas and go elsewhere. The federal government and NLRB cannot force businesses to open in your area.

Ask Starbucks and it's Democrat CEO.

This is why you have food deserts.

So, fuck around. Find out.

Achilles said...

Buckwheathikes said...

What people are going to find out the hard way is that if you make yourself too much of a nuisance, then businesses will just close down in your areas and go elsewhere. The federal government and NLRB cannot force businesses to open in your area.

Ask Starbucks and it's Democrat CEO.

This is why you have food deserts.

So, fuck around. Find out.


You are saying this as if their not trying to shut down non-compliant businesses.

Their goal is to make it so that the only supermarkets in existence:

1. Toe the State Line.
2. Funnel Contributions and Profits to State Cronies and politicians.

Just like every other Socialist Regime. They say stuff about distributing wealth. But they never get past the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They never actually let the Proletariat run anything.

The first wave of killing is to seize power from the people that were in control.

The second wave of killing is to keep the Proletariat down.

Lucien said...

Eugene Volokh has posted an interesting series of pieces about employer rights to curtail employee speech, referring to an old law review article of his. (“Volokh Conspiracy”)

Krumhorn said...

Yet Twitter should be forced to publish anything that any crazy person wants to post.

Do you see the contradiction?


Not sure it's much of a contradiction at all. Twitter sells speech, not spinach. If they are not viewpoint neutral, then they should be subject to the legal risks as publishers. Or subject to regulation as a public utility.

- Krumhorn

Gretchen said...

Political statement at work are inappropriate. BLM really has nothing to do with saving black lives. They are a political group. I wouldn't disagree with firing workers who wore MAGA pins, or Right to Life Pins or LBGT pins. None of those political movements have anything to do with Whole Foods business.

BUMBLE BEE said...

WF? How about a WHITE FOODS mask?

bobby said...

If I walk into a business and encounter an employee wearing a BLM shirt or hat, that business gets none of my money.

Cappy said...

Lawn chair, six pack and Orville Redenbacher deployed.

Drago said...

Field Marshall Freder: "Yet Twitter should be forced to publish anything that any crazy person wants to post.

Do you see the contradiction?"

There is no contradiction. Twitter operates under legal protections not afforded to publishers.

Twitter, however, chooses to act as a publisher and curater of content, thus violating its legal protections.

There is now significant evidence Twitter allows New Soviet Democraticals to exert undue influence in the publishing decisions, which is why conservatives are the primary targets, without adequate explanation, for banishment from the platform.

All of which you already know but will still lie about.

Here's a sampling of "crazy" things twitter has disallowed in the recent past:
- The Wuhan flu most likely originated from the Wuhan Virology Lab where gain of function testing was conducted
- Hunter Biden's laptop was certainly not russian disinformation (interestingly, Freder was a major purveyor of that lie at Althouse blog as well)

There are hundreds of examples just like that.

What's the difference between something Twitter and Field Marshall Freder call "crazy" and Truth?

6 to 12 months.

It took the lefty morons 4 years to admit Hillary paid for and directed the creation of the Hillary Hoax Dossier.

Also interestingly, resident Althouse lefty dolts like Inga STILL believe the hoax dossier was "mostly verified".

Drago said...

Michael K: "Kapernick found out he couldn't play football so he went all in on another career"

Correct. Kaepernick was performing horribly and no team wanted to deal with his nonsense particularly at the salary Kaepernick was demanding.

If Kaepernick had been willing to accept a backups salary at the time of his "troubles", a number of teams would have taken him aboard. But Kaepernick demanded a high starter's salary and nobody was going to fall for his woke nonsense at that price point.

Kaepernick later on was provided his own special workout with reps from almost every NFL team and what did our wokester do? He didn't show up. At all.

Even Stephen A Smith had enough of his antics then.

It goes without saying the only people who think "the man" did Kaepernick in are moron white liberals.....like Howard.

Tom said...

Imagine a liberal Karen meets Cov Cath Kid at checkout in his MAGA hat at Whole Foods. If you can imagine danger in that situation, simply flip a few characters and add a BLM hat.

Chris said...

Trumpers don't shop at Whole Foods, they go to Walmart. But it's good to know the federal government will prosecute a private company in order to defend a political movement the government favors.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

JK Brown said...
If they start picking and choosing then their censorship is not content neutral.

They are a business, not the government. They are allowed to not be content neutral. It is their right to allow, prohibit, or require BLM masks or MAGA hats.

Michael K said...

The guys I used to sail with referred to Whole Foods as "Whole Paycheck." We have one about a mile away. I only go in there for Sushi but the customers all look like DNC workers. In Tucson, even in the suburbs, you can ID Democrats because they are wearing masks.

Drago said...

bobby: "If I walk into a business and encounter an employee wearing a BLM shirt or hat, that business gets none of my money."

Unless you get robbed. An exponentially higher probability if BLM is around.

effinayright said...

bentoak said...
Trumpers don't shop at Whole Foods, they go to Walmart.
*****************

Odd....I'm a Trumper, and I'm going to my local Whole Foods tomorrow to pick up some andouille for a killer recipe I'm putting together for a dinner engagement with a black conservative judge and our respective wives.

Walmart was fresh out of it.

(the men are doing all the cooking, btw)

So much for stereotypes.

The Godfather said...

"NLRB’s top prosecutor, General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, is eager to litigate.... 'I’m not sure that all circuit court judges, or even district court judges for that matter, fully understand all the nuances of labor law,' she says. 'We try to educate them as best we can.'" Oh wonderful. I'm sure Whole Food's counsel will figure out a way to get this arrogant statement before the judges who will decide this case (if it's actually filed). Federal judges, at the District Court and Circuit level are generally -- shall I say "proud"? They are appointed for life. Their working day begins when they walk into the courtroom and everyone has to shut up and stand. And Ms. Miami Law School is going to "educate" them? (I'm not knocking Miami, a good school. I've watched federal trial court and appellate judges eviserate graduates of the best law schools in the country.)

Dr Weevil said...

bentoak (7:34pm):
I shop at Whole Foods now and then, when there's one nearby, because I like exotic cheeses, and they do have some that Wegman's doesn't (and vice versa). There's no WF within 100 miles now, so I drive 40 miles across a mountain range to get to Wegman's and a smaller store (Foods of All Nations) that have decent cheese selections. (Favorites: Danish Tilsit and some gooey French ones that come in little bowls so they won't run all over the plate at room temperature.) Both stores also have Dry Sack (the best of sherries), good baklava, blue potato chips, and some other foods and drinks I can't get in my small town.

In short, take your Trumpers-only-shop-at-Walmart bigotry and stick it up your ass.

Narayanan said...

If Kaepernick had been willing to accept a backups salary at the time of his "troubles", a number of teams would have taken him aboard. But Kaepernick demanded a high starter's salary and nobody was going to fall for his woke nonsense at that price point.
=========
why not add performance-penalty clause/codicil?
does NFL not allow or some other rules?

wendybar said...

bentoak said...
Trumpers don't shop at Whole Foods, they go to Walmart. But it's good to know the federal government will prosecute a private company in order to defend a political movement the government favors.

Peter Strozk is that YOU?? Talk about an elite asshole. You sound exactly LIKE the elite lying asshole who is now spewing his elite wisdom on how great the FBI is..

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/07/peter-strzok-grilled-on-how-he-can-smell-trump-supporters-at-a-walmart-video/

gadfly said...

Beyond labor law, which generally permits employers to prescribe permittable work attire, there is the very simple fact that no unions have successfully achieved contract status at any Whole Foods store.

So if Bezos didn't own them, nary a word would appear in the news. America is anti-union.

gadfly said...

Narayanan said...
If Kaepernick had been willing to accept a backups salary at the time of his "troubles", a number of teams would have taken him aboard. But Kaepernick demanded a high starter's salary and nobody was going to fall for his woke nonsense at that price point.

Not so. Kaepernick never was that good and he hasn't played football for years because of his "take a knee" fame.

Meanwhile he has been getting about $3 million per year from Nike since 2011 for sitting on his butt. Why would he really want to play football?

Dude1394 said...

I feel extremely threatened when I see anything/anyone with a BLM logo on it. It stands for Burn Loot Murder for a reason. Seeing them accost innocent people in cafes and on the streets doesn't really make me feel comfortable getting a turkey sandwich from them.

Dude1394 said...

Wendybar "trumpers don't shop at whole foods" is ridiculous. Whole foods produce compared to walmart is ridiculously better.
Silly.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

I'm not sure what "would become dangerous." Is it that workers who didn't choose to wear the slogan could be threatened?

Given the destruction and violence of the BLm movement, that's a clear threat

Is it that customers might go ballistic?
Or customers might say something disparaging about BLM, like calling it "Burn Loot and Murder", and the thug wearing the BLM mask then attack them.

Whole Foods is a business that does not want to let shitty employees hijack the business to advance their personal political agenda

And that have a fundamental right to NOT have their property stolen / appropriated by the employees that way.

Want to talk politics? Do it on your own time

n.n said...

a BLM logo on it. It stands for Burn Loot Murder

In the worst case, it stands for Baby Lives Matter a.k.a. Granny Lives Matter a.k.a. All Lives Matter, which is a burden h/t Obama for human rites and clinical cannibalism and an obstacle to sustainable diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism), respectively, and diverse for-profit non-profits. Back... black hole... whore h/t NAACP

walter said...

Don't wear the useless masks.
FIFY