First Amendment

Whole Foods Fight Over Black Lives Matter Masks Pits National Labor Relations Board Against Free Speech

Should Whole Foods be allowed to stop staff from wearing Black Lives Matter masks on the job?


Are employee dress codes illegal? That's the implication in a consolidated complaint filed against Whole Foods Market by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The NLRB argues that it's illegal for Whole Foods to say that grocery store staff can't wear Black Lives Matter (BLM) paraphernalia at work.

To force Whole Foods to let staff wear BLM gear would be "to compel employer speech," the company counters. And that, it says, violates the First Amendment.

As it stands, Whole Foods' corporate policy forbids employees from wearing any symbols, slogans, flags, messages, logos, or advertising while working. In 2020, supervisors at various Whole Foods locations allegedly enforced this policy against employees wearing BLM gear. Staff wearing BLM masks and pins were allegedly asked to remove them, sent home for refusing to remove them, or otherwise disciplined for refusing to take them off.

The NLRB says that wearing BLM messages at work counts as "raising concerns about working conditions" and accuses Whole Foods of having and enforcing an appearance rule "to restrict employees from engaging in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection." Whole Foods "has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed" by the National Labor Relations Act, it says—and that, it declares, amounts to unfair labor practices.

Whole Foods "denies each and every allegation contained in the Complaint," the company wrote in response, asking that the complaint be dismissed entirely.

Whole Foods argues that "employees do not have a protected right…to display the phrase 'Black Lives Matter' or 'BLM' in the workplace," and that the NLRB's complaint represents an effort to expand the protections of the National Labor Relations Act "beyond current NLRB and judicial interpretation."

Under current interpretations of the statute, nothing the BLM-promoting Whole Foods staffers did would qualify as protected activities, the company argues. Nor would Whole Foods' actions here qualify as illegally interfering with protected workplace activities.

The company "maintains a neutral dress code that is lawful under extant Board law," it adds, and "all discipline issued to employees was solely for violations of [this] neutral dress code." Such actions "were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory factors."

In a statement last month, NLRB Regional Director for San Francisco Jill Coffman claimed this case is about "issues of racial harassment and discrimination [that] are central to employees' working conditions."

But "the phrases 'Black Lives Matter,' 'BLM,' the 'Black Lives Matter movement,' and/or '' are not objectively understood to relate to workplace issues," the company argues.  Rather, "employees' wearing of 'Black Lives Matter' and/or 'BLM' in Whole Foods Market brand stores was an exercise in political and/or social justice speech through which [they] sought to support societal changes outside the workplace and…without a nexus to any term or condition of employment at Whole Foods Market brand stores."

Requiring Whole Foods to allow BLM messaging as part of employee uniforms would compel speech and be unconstitutional, the company argues. If the NLRB gets its way, it adds, that would force Whole Foods to act in a discriminatory manner by requiring that the company favor "certain expressions of political speech over others in its retail grocery stores." (Alternately, it could allow any type of political messaging, but something tells me supporters of the staff wearing BLM gear wouldn't be so happy to buy groceries from a guy in a MAGA mask…)

Whole Foods also asserts that no employees were fired over this matter but that they voluntarily resigned rather than comply with the dress code.

A hearing with an administrative law judge of the NLRB is scheduled for March 1.

Last year, a federal judge dismissed most of a class-action lawsuit over Whole Foods stores disallowing BLM gear at work. Plaintiffs in the civil case accused Whole Foods supervisors of selectively enforcing the policy and of illegal discrimination and retaliation. Even if the claims about unequal enforcement are true, Whole Foods is still not breaking the law, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled. "There is no right to free speech in a private workplace," she said, and it's legal for a company to choose which messages or logos its staff can endorse while at work.

"At worst, they were selectively enforcing a dress code to suppress certain speech in the workplace," wrote Burroughs in her decision. "However unappealing that might be," she continued, "it is not conduct made unlawful" by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law "prohibits discrimination against a person because of race. It does not protect one's right to associate with a given social cause, even a race-related one, in the workplace."

The Whole Foods/BLM debate "highlights an increasingly incomprehensible position on corporate speech for many on the left," law professor Jonathan Turley recently suggested. Many progressives have argued that social media platforms, web hosting companies, and other internet entities should be allowed (and encouraged) to ban various types of legal speech—coronavirus misinformation, say, or false claims of election fraud. Under this rubric, Whole Foods should also be allowed to tell employees what messages not to wear at work.

To the extent that conservatives agree that Whole Foods shouldn't be forced to allow BLM attire as part of its uniforms, the case also highlights hypocrisy on the right, where many have argued that social media companies should be forced to host political content that they find objectionable.

Perhaps the takeaway here is that allowing the government to compel companies to host any type of political speech is a slippery slope. Letting companies decide what kinds of speech they'll allow on their premises and platforms isn't only the constitutional thing to do. It's the best way to ensure that each side will get its way sometimes, and that consumers can avoid being constantly bombarded with political messages at every turn.

NEXT: The Tennessee Supreme Court Could Decide the Fate of Nashville's Home Recording Studios

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wait, so now private companies censoring people is wrong now?

    1. No! It was wrong when they were censoring sex workers too.

    2. On the BLM movement....somehow the national BLM non-profit can't quite figure out where the $60M in corporate donations went. Grifters.

      And sorry ENB but Whole Foods is regulating what it's employees can ware. Big Tech which operates essentially a digital bulletin board is discriminating against its customers as it is denying service to some based on political opinion. A fundamental difference.

      1. "A fundamental difference."

        Agreed, it's a huge stretch to try and draw a comparison between those two issues.

    3. Companies have a right and responsibility to set policy on employee behavior. No one is forcing an employee to accept the policy.

  2. Whole Foods Fight Over Black Lives Matter Masks Pits National Labor Relations Board Against Free Speech


    1. Should Whole Foods be allowed to stop staff from wearing Black Lives Matter masks on the job?

      Sorry, I mean, hell yes. Just as they should not allow employees to wear MAGA hats or "Let's go Brandon" tee-shirts. This isn't hard.

      1. I expect the NRLB will not defend those types of employee speech. They are consistent, just not principled.

        1. NLRB is neither consistent or principled. Their decisions swing depending on the party in power and they aren't beholden to past precedent.

          Abolish the NLRB!

        2. The point is to be arbitrary. Where's the power if people know what to expect?

      2. Yes.
        Even if they were just forbidding BLM gear, it would be their right. But since they have a consistent policy against any kind of political advocacy, it's both in their rights and very reasonable, I'd say.
        Who are these assholes who think work is the place for political advocacy?

        1. Soy boys from Portland

          1. And what the fuck is wrong with employers who tolerate that shit? Even if they broadly agree with the political goals, it's just not a recipe for a well functioning workplace.

            1. One of the larger grocers here in St. Louis got around this: while not allowing BLM or Antifa or MAGA or other jingoistic sloganeering on worker's apparel, they came up with their own branded shirts and masks that their employees could wear during their shift.

              These shirts had similar-ish verbiage on them to relay the sentiments, but word-smithed in a much less controversial way.

      3. It shows how blind or dishonest ENB and Reason are. Conservatives are fine with and understand that they aren't going to be permitted to wear "let's go Brandon" or MAGA apparel at most customer facing jobs. Likewise, I wouldn't wear anything to work with the Gadsden flag on it or "all lives matter" (for a more direct comparison.) So long as the policy is evenly applied then it is acceptable on some level. If the principle of it is unacceptable then you'll find conservatives on board with opposing it. The problem remains that our institutions are not being even-handed. They actively silence and ban conservative speech while promoting leftist speech. It doesn't even have to be explicitly political as this divide also exists on cultural topics within our major institutions. I don't like Whole Foods, but I have no problem with them enforcing an unbiased uniform policy. Will the NLRB do this for an employee wearing a MAGA mask?
        ENB has no clue what conservatives say, think, and feel about anything. If she does and yet continues to print this garbage then she is evil and a despicable liar.

        1. I don't cede the Gadsden flag. And I ridicule anyone who objects

        2. ENG is like that woman running fundraising for the national LP..not very libertarian but can't get a gig at Salon or Slate or the Atlantic or Wapo so they take Reason and pretend they are libertarians. Her article on how her woke life was affected during covid when she moved to the big city focused on not being able to hang out at some dive and smoke and drink. total Karen

        3. "They actively silence and ban conservative speech while promoting leftist speech. It doesn't even have to be explicitly political as this divide also exists on cultural topics within our major institutions. "

          The term coined to cover that is Mood Affiliation. Similar to partisanship but doesn't have to be political.

      4. Amen and your right its not hard to understand!

    2. The NLRB has demonstrated it's war on liberty.

  3. To the extent that conservatives agree that Whole Foods shouldn't be forced to allow BLM attire as part of its uniforms, the case also highlights hypocrisy on the right, where many have argued that social media companies should be forced to host political content that they find objectionable.

    While there ARE conservatives who have argued this, it's not the uniform argument you make it out to be. Many conservatives have argued that Silicon Valley has censored conservatives unfairly (which they have) but have not suggested that there should be some government oversight into the matter. Also, there are many on the right who believe that civil actions through the interpretation of rights under the Terms of Service agreements could be one avenue. Others have suggested that there might me some FTC type actions when the silicon valley corps all act in unison to ban a particular creator (market collusion) or when they're acting at the behest of government actors, such as Congress or other state and local entities (which has also happened).

    For instance, if Whole foods had banned their employees from wearing BLM buttons because they got a series of "threatening" memos from the Biden DOJ, then I'd be a little more circumspect.

    1. If Whole Foods banned customers from wearing MAGA hats into the store, that might be comparable to what's happening on social media. The users aren't employees of social media, they're the customers.

      1. That is also a good point. There is a relatively bright line between employee policy and banning the public from your store. Which Whole Foods also had a right to do... within some limits.

        1. Actually it's still not quite comparable. I'm on board with Whole Foods refusing service to any individual for any particular reason they want.

          But social media is unique in that the users are both their customers AND their product. The whole point of social media is the ability to engage with the other people who are on it. So if it's not in their terms of service that certain viewpoints aren't allowed to be expressed on their platform, they're potentially guilty of breaking the contract with their customer/product provider, and of false advertising.

          Now I'll admit both of those can be tenuous as legal arguments, but it's the practical truth, and why they're pretending to be viewpoint-neutral. It's bad business to tell half of your potential customer base and half of your suppliers that they don't value you.

          1. The social media thing is significantly less obvious than a dress code in a grocery store. I think you've articulated a lot of that.

            In this Whole Foods case, though, it's blatantly obvious that a contractual agreement between Whole Foods and an employee includes a dress code. This has always been the way with employment contracts, and I can't imagine Whole Foods (or any other chain grocer) does not have that in their employee handbook.

            It's generally expected that you can instruct employees not to proselytize just about any deeply held and divisive opinions to customers, as well. Honestly, promoting something like BLM is a gamble considering it alienates a large portion of your customer base, just as I wouldn't want my employees greeting everyone with Fuck Joe Biden. Whether or not I agree with every potential customer's point of view, I might really want them to spend their money at my store. And if I position myself to cater to people with a certain view... well, that's MY choice as the business owner.

            Social media is different, as you said. And, regardless of what users might think, their "job" with social media is to sell advertising AND to be advertised to. It's new territory, especially since the googles and the face books have siloed the internet so they seem like the public forum. Whatever, if someone is mean to you or makes you feel unfairly treated, it's common to complain. Doesn't mean all conservatives are disingenuous because they think some people were treated unfairly and say so, regardless of the first amendment/private company tangle.

            Reason has to complain that the right is wrong in every article, though. It's the editorial standard, even when differences like this are cut and dry.

          2. I would add that in addition to the business-business case, there's an inherent physical-business case to the issue as well. Whole Foods absolutely can and in some cases *should* require their employees to wear masks, hair nets, plastic goves, aprons, wash their hands, wear steel toes, etc. There's no analogous reason for social media to ban people from posting "The election was stolen!" except to specifically void the premise of the good faith protection the providers themselves enjoy.

            That is, they require employees to wear masks and wash hands so that other employees or customers don't get food poisoning or the coof, but Twitter isn't banning doctors from discussing alternative COVID therapies because they're afraid their customers are going to catch COVID from an online discussion. They're banning doctors from discussing alternative COVID therapies because they want to hold those doctors responsible for the actions of others. It would be like Whole Foods trying to ban fat people from eating their pastries in public because they thought other people might get the idea to develop diabetes.

          3. Also, since we've done a thorough job parsing Whole Foods v. Social Media (more thorough than ENB's ham-fisting anyway), now might be a good time to reflect on the obvious and clear distinctions that many love-hate S230 fence-sitters like to gloss over when comparing S230 to the PLAA, which actually does protect both free association (along pretty much the same lines Whole Foods is 'protected')and gun ownership and with which the government is actually charged with protecting. As opposed to protecting censorship, which the government and specifically Congress, is forbidden from doing.

      2. Actually they're not, the users of social media are the products. A better comparison would be Whole Foods banning their food suppliers from writing "MAGA" on the outside of a watermelon.

        That said, the larger point that telling employees not to wear political slogans isn't actually anything like what's happening on social media is certainly true.

        1. Almost right. The users of social media are in fact the producers of the content, and as such, should be paid a living wage.

          1. If YouTube demonetizes someone and the person continues to post content, then isn't YouTube maximizing profits like a sweat shop. While the content producer is freely continuing to provide content, YouTube is exploiting the situation. Bear in mind that the situation is one where YouTube has a conflict of interest. Such as driving down the expense of content at the expense of the content producer.

            Either way YouTube seems to win ( at least in the short term) if the content provide continues to post content on YouTube. A better choice would be to post their content on an alternative platform. Then use YouTube to direct their traffic to the alternative platform.

      3. It would be more like them putting blm or maga stuff on the groceries. With social media, you are the product not the customer

    2. but have not suggested that there should be some government oversight into the matter.

      EARN IT Act? Created a 19 person commission to review whether a company earned Sect 230 protections...all for the children of course.

    3. In reality conservatives merely want to remove excess granted liability protections for companies that violate free speech. The whole foods story has nothing to do with government benefits given to the company for acting as a neutral arbiter.

      ENB is too stupid to understand the difference.

      1. Stupid only goes so far with her, I'm inclined to go with mostly evil.

        1. Benevolent evil. The worst kind. The kind of evil that's trying really, really hard to convince you it doesn't exist.

    4. ^EXACTLY; And most conservatives who aren't hacks acknowledge the meaning of property rights. If you purchased it; it is yours not the Nazi-Regime's. If said owner doesn't want BLM attire on their employees they have EVERY RIGHT to demand it. The Employees nor Nazi-Wanna B's did not found whole foods corp. If they object they can go build their own. (bringing in a whole other subject of how the Nazi-Regime has monopolized USA business).

    5. I think it's more the hypocrisy on social media. Social media says we are neutral - but they aren't. They say their "fact checkers" but only go after conservatives. Or that hate speech is for only something that conservatives say but it's ok for terrorists or the New York Times (Aren't they the same) Like you stated a lot believe they violate the Terms of Service.

      As for clothing, I know at my job I have a dress code. In fact most places have a dress code. I don't see why this is any different.

    6. Who, what people are you identifying as "...the right..."? I feel that there may be many who wish social media censorship, but why, just don't use it. Forcing others to do our bidding by means of government force is, IMO wrong, immoral and irrational. Those who engage in social media need we wary of it's dangers, but censorship is theft of freedom of speech and an assault.

  4. If wearing a BLM shirt means the employee is trying to get better working conditions, what isn't? If these are the kind of battles federal agencies are involved in, they need to be disbanded. Their work is done if this is important enough to take to court.

  5. Whole Foods is in the grocery business. Facebook and Twitter are in the speech business. They can censor what they like but have no business having government protection when they do.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

    1. Really what Facebook and Twitter have done is grossly misrepresent their businesses to millions of stakeholders.

    2. Facebook and Twitter are in the advertising business. They crowd source content to attract viewers of the advertisements. Some of that content resembles speech and they are free to exercise editorial controls over that content. As long as the government doesn’t pass laws which influence those editorial decisions or somehow subsidize the companies so that they become a public forum, there isn’t really a First Amendment problem.

    3. The First Amendment is clear about Congress not making law on private matters as religion and speech, and by extension other private matters like marriage, divorce, contraception, abortion, education and healthcare. Congess has no business in one's home.

  6. It'll be interesting to watch the fifty-centers suddenly argue that personal free speech trumps Muh Private Company diktats when it comes to BLM.
    Or maybe they'll just ignore this article altogether.

  7. Okay, several major problems for ENB here.

    1) Yes, employers can dictate that their employees avoid exercising their free speech while acting as public-facing representatives of the corporation. When you're an agent of the employer, you are no longer exercising your personal free speech rights as an individual.
    2) This is separate from social media banning its CUSTOMERS from expressing certain political opinions when they aren't wearing the company logo or acting as representatives of the company.
    3) Social media companies should still be allow to ban whoever they like as long as they're abiding by their Terms of Service. That is a contract because the users are the product on social media-the whole point of social media is that you want to interact with the userbase, so the Terms of Service are a contract-Twitter et al is getting the benefit of that user's engagement, while the user is getting access and potentially monetary value from the platform. If Twitter outright states it's going to ban conservative voices in its Terms of Service, that is completely tenable. What is not tenable is implicitly making a space for only Right Opinions without clearly stating what those opinions are.

    The comparison to social media is completely off base. Employees who are at the workplace and wearing the employer's logo are representatives of the employer, and can't engage in political speech the Employer doesn't like. If an employee wants to wear a "Taxation is Theft" ballcap or "Abortion is Murder" t-shirts, the employer can censor that also. They can engage in political speech when they aren't acting as representatives of the brand.

    1. It is also weird that expecting government k-12 teachers to adhere to the public approved curriculum and not espouse race conscious theories is against teacher's free speech.

      Our media and government have got some very strange notions of what constitutes free speech.

      1. As does ENB. I'm at the point where I need to see evidence that she's libertarian. She seems more like a progressive who plays a libertarian on tv.

        1. Can't agree more. Well, maybe I'd replace "seems" with "is".

        2. I think she's genuinely inclined toward libertarianism. But exists too much in the media elite sphere of existence where these things are not to be talked about. And doesn't seem to go too deep on these issues.

          1. "And doesn't seem to go too deep on those issues" makes it seem like it's a choice. Like there are libertarian issues she does go deep on.

            I think she's genuinely inclined towards libertarianism the way my dog is inclined towards table food. Even if you spent 20 yrs. of hard training to get her to cook beef into a burger and deep fry potatoes without burning the house down, relatively simple concepts like rare vs. well done and spiral cut vs. julienne would still be completely lost on her.

  8. "forbids employees from wearing any symbols, slogans, flags, messages, logos, or advertising while working"

    What about pieces of flair?

    1. Tchotchkes is probably OK with BLM buttons.

      1. I prefer Flingers.

    2. well, 15 is the minuimum

  9. the case also highlights hypocrisy on the right, where many have argued that social media companies should be forced to host political content that they find objectionable.

    Okay. But how about those arguing that a certain class of businesses shouldn't be afforded a legal privilege denied their brick-and-mortar competitors? The conservative complaint, as I understand it, is that the social media giants are afforded common carrier protections with regard to IP and libel while not being subject to common carrier requirements. I'd agree that the better answer, from a libertarian standpoint, is to get rid of their common carrier protections. But, few of social media's defenders seem to be arguing that.

  10. Companies can't have uniform and conduct rules for their employees? I don't think anyone is having this conversation if an employee wanted to wear a swastika. Your speech is limited as an employee when you're on the job. Most businesses tell employees not to engage in religious or political conversations on the job.
    I might have some sympathy BLM masked employee if another mask wasn't offered (especially if they are still stupidly enforcing mask policies)

    1. Going in wearing a swastika would be an interesting experiment.

      1. Rob Misek, call your office!

        1. We’re sorry, the party you are calling is currently marching in Skokie….

  11. Like any progressive motte and bailey argument, the NLRB chooses to conflate meanings to exert political power for their benefactors. BLM is about police abuse, not generic treatment of black Americans. This is why they don't give a shit about inner-city problems other than police and why they find "All Lives Matter" particularly infuriating rather than a tautology that includes them. But the NLRB is using the plain definitions of the 3 words to allow specific political messaging in the workplace.

  12. I wonder which political hack pushed the NLRB into filing this suit. They're gonna get smacked hard in court.

    1. Yes, but in bureaucracyland, the process is the punishment.

  13. Seems like conservatives are pretty consistent in desires. Either ban it all or ban nothing. If you ban everything but your speech, then you are only liable for your speech. If you ban no speech, you are only liable for your speech. If you ban only certain speech you are liable for the speech you deemed acceptable.

  14. Hard to believe a libertarian blog would even ask a question like that.

    Private Company


  15. Making an analogy with the situation in social media is just plain stupid and shows that this author hasn't read the nuanced arguments regarding social media and censorship. As for Whole Foods, the fact that these people instituted the practice of wearing articles that clearly went counter to the rules of the corporation, which they knew to be the case, then voluntarily resigned rather than comply with the dress code, smells a little like a setup.

  16. That this is even an issue is a good argument for why government shouldn't be prohibiting private employers from stopping employees from "engaging in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection" while on the job.

  17. Bullshit

    I don't care if it's BLM or "Socialism has no place here", you're getting paid by a private party, in a space that they provide, so you can follow their rules or get out.

    Same applies to vaccine mandates by private employers: while you're on their dime, representing them, you follow the party line.

    But then, I'm a dinosaur.

    1. Absolutely correct position and the same goes for me. I work to provide services to my employer and customers, not to discuss politics, religion, or philosophy. I save that for off-time, lunch breaks, and coffee breaks and even in the latter two cases, solely with my smartphone.

      When customers attempt to engage me in politics or religion, I remind them that I haven't voted since 2004 and don't regret it and, to quote Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason: "My mind is it's own church." (Mi capeza es mi iglesia." en Español.) Usually, this gets them off my back.

      When people in the store attempt to distribute literature of any kind, I also remind them of store policy requiring manager consent before doing so. This is a retail business, not Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, London and I do my part to keep it that way.

      I'm all for free speech, but only if it is compatible with other individual rights as well.

  18. "also you have to wear tiny orange shorts and white tank tops ..."

  19. "MAGA", "Let's Go Brandon", "1984 Is Not An Instruction Manual", "Show Me Your Tits", and other such slogans are political messages and therefore can be banned. "BLM" is not a political message any more than "Fuck Donald Trump", "Republicans Are Nazis", "ACAB", or "Kill Whitey" is a political message. The NLRB has spoken. Now shut up and sit down or we'll shoot you in the face, maggot.

    1. Is "FYTW" a political message?

  20. Should we be more concerned about speech suppression by a grocery store and or by a media platform (like YouTube)? Hmmm...

  21. Oh, and fuck Joe Biden.

  22. policy forbids employees from wearing any symbols, slogans, flags, messages, logos, or advertising while working.

    Employees are representatives of their employer whilst on duty at the place of business. Much as I desppise Whole Foods as an institution, even more so since Jeffie made the move to buy the whole outfit, I must stand for their RIGHT as employers to establish a neutral dress code. Considering the general crowd that frequent that establishment, consider the "scene" that could erupt should an employee show up wearing a big MAGA hat, or a "Go Kyle" TeeShirt. "Some" customers would react strongly to that. In some places, "some" customers would react just as strongly to the BLM masks.

    WHole Foods are correct in demanding a neutral dress code.

    Maybe I should have showed up (I would be able to grit my te eth and do it, for this cause othegrise I stay clear of those places) wearing a bright red MAGA had, and a Tee Shirt with large red letterss on a blue background prociaming "FREE KYLE RITTNHOUSE" just to see how long it would take for one of the BLM maskers to "go off" on me. Since the policy breakers actually QUIT over the policy I rather suspect few would have remained "neutral" wearing those mug nappies proclaming their lyalty to that communist cause....... the "scene" ensuing would be solid grounds for WHole Foods to stand strong on their policy of neutral dress for all employees.

  23. Very simple solution here. Provide the employees with free Whole Foods uniform masks and require that they be worn. Have masks printed up that say something like "Shop at Whole Foods", or "Whole Foods Taste Great" and make them part of the dress code.

  24. With Whole Foods on this one. Employee attire on the job is a reflection on the company and can affect their business.

  25. Black Live Matter is a hate group engaged in hate speech but it's allowed because they are the supposed oppressed minority so they get a pass. That's BS!

    BLM = Hate Group + Hate Speech

      1. Your diapers. The hospice workers need to change you again.

  26. As soon as Jo said sth nice abt BLM, every national socialist media channel that invites schaisstposting by Trumpanzee sockpuppets was flooded with millions of identical messages proclaiming Jo a murdering commie bolshie 5th columnist. Only after the illiterate anarchist dragged her vote count to dead last did they let up. When Rittenhouse said the same thing, millions of looter redneck sockpuppets were stricken dumb... just not the ones who come here as human skunks.

    1. So you acknowledge your pungent body odor? Good. Next step is having the nurses bathe you. Your dementia probably leaves you confused about these things.

  27. Where the F did a National Labor Relations Board come from?
    Nazi's just keep Nazifying everything and look where it's gotten us.

    1. From FDR, who had a mutual admiration thing going with Mussol8ni.

      And in this particular instance, BLM probably called in NLRB, as an attempt to use government power to enable their shakedown of Whole Fooda.

  28. Is that a BLM mask inside the Klan hood under your burqa, or are you happy to see me boycott Whole Foods?

    1. That's a lot of layers of clothing. Anybody would suffocate from that much devotiion to multiple levels of dogma, bigotry, and lunacy.

      1. Sure, but their lives wouldn't matter

  29. Employer contractual requirement accepted by employee: it should end there.

    Next thing you know, employers like Reason or Salon or Huffington Post could not require their writers to stick to a specific political philosophy in their articles. (I'm pretty sure Reason has no requirement that its writers stick to any specific political philosophy. Very, um, liberal of them.)

  30. Whole Food's duty to their shareholders is to avoid antagonizing their potential customers by letting snotty little lefturd twats practice their guilt-peddling on the job.


    1. Their customers are snotty little leftturd twats.

  31. This reminds me of the superficial understanding Hugh Downs had of libertarianism that caused him to remark that employers' discrimination against employees who smoked off the job was a libertarian view in conflict with itself. To his mind, it was about the ostensibly equal and zero-based freedom of employees to smoke without penalty and of employers to deny employment. Such a misunderstanding is based on the idea that a job is a thing you "have" and that therefore taking it away is depriving you of something that's yours.

    That the NLRB gets involved in something like this is an indication of the "labor peace" that was bought a century or more ago in the US and countries around the world that was not based on individual liberty but on the threat of violence against employers.

  32. The company’s policy as cited is very fair and makes common sense. They are not singling out any political view but rather all of them equally. Nothing is stopping employees from wearing BLM masks, pins, or t-shirts on their own time. The company is smart. Any politically charged display is guaranteed to offend half of your potential customers.

  33. From a libertarian point of view, forcing Whole Foods to do this is wrong.

    From a practical point of view,I say: serves them right.

    1. yes; fleas from laying with dogs and all that.

  34. '....(hypocritical).....that social media companies should be forced to host political content that they find objectionable...' Not even close and plain stupid. Whole foods doesn't allow 'comments' period, end of story. IF, they allowed comments and then allowed someone to wear MAGA, but not BLM, then you would have a valid case against Whole Foods. IF an interstate business invites comments, but then permits some not all protected free speech then they should be taken down the same way we would take down an interstate (actually local) restaurant for not allowing blacks to dine there.

    1. the same way we would take down an interstate (actually local) restaurant for not allowing blacks to dine there.

      I would never think to 'take down' any business for choosing its own clientele. How would you justify forcing individuals to serve people they do not want to?

  35. That’s like asking “Should a company prevent an employee from wearing a swatika mask?”

  36. People assume employee behavior represent the attitude of the employer, especially if a behavior persists. As long as employees are not known as representing their employer off duty, the employee should be free to give voice to their feelings. None the less, If I where to know a employee continued to represent a certain philosophy, I would assume the employer may condone it as well.

  37. Pseudouridine
    An isomer of the nucleoside uridine found in all species and in many classes of RNA except mRNA. It is formed by enzymes called synthases,

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.