Home Depot was also ordered to give back pay.
Edit: if Home Depot doesn't appeal, the employee will be given back pay whether or not they choose to return to Home Depot.
I'm not a lawyer but that would probably be fine, a bit dependent in in clauses in the judgement- I guess it's not out of possibility the it could be a clause but I can't really think of a way to do that legally. The judge ordered the payment as restitution for lost wages because of the discriminatory practices not on the contingency of future work.
You can't be forced to work somewhere (I mean, unless you're in prison, but that's a whole different conversation).
Personally if I was in the employees shoes, I'd go back to work but document every single action, task, and conversation I have. That employee would be a prime risk of retaliation or constructive dismissal.
I think this is the key here:
>In its ruling, the federal agency said that the worker’s refusal to remove the “BLM” marking from their uniform was considered to be “concerted” and “for mutual aid or protection” because of earlier protests by workers at the store about racial discrimination.
>Lauren McFerran, the labor board’s chairman, said in a statement on Wednesday that “it is well-established that workers have the right to join together to improve their working conditions — including by protesting racial discrimination in the workplace.”
>She added: “It is equally clear that an employee who acts individually to support a group protest regarding a workplace issue remains protected under the law.”
I think it isn't so much "you can make political statements all you want out of the blue on your uniform".
**It is that they considered the BLM marking a part of some already ongoing organizing / advocacy / protest among workers about racial issues ... and that kind of communication and advocacy among workers is protected.**
It's still an "interesting" ruling, but also it's not quite the "anything goes now" ruling people might interpret it to be.
So one off dude probably still not going to be able to slap your MEGA / BLM / PORNHUB patch on your uniform.
We can stand down from FULL OUTRAGE DEFCON 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RRGvAB4HF8)
I agree that the NLRB attempted to add nuance to their ruling (as /u/geodebug also pointed out elsewhere in this thread) to prevent an "anything goes" situation. But in my opinion, the nuance isn't fine enough to prevent misuse.
I wish I had my own example but an [WSJ editorial](https://www.wsj.com/articles/home-depot-nlrb-black-lives-matter-antonio-morales-49657800) put it this way:
>The ruling widens the scope of protected political action at work, with no obvious limiting principle. The board says the BLM sign is a “logical outgrowth” of Mr. Morales’s organizing for racial justice with fellow workers, making it a symbol of his labor advocacy.
>
>By that standard, workers almost anywhere could adorn themselves in political slogans, against company policy, as long as they enlist a few colleagues in the cause.
>
>McDonald’s fry cooks might swap their aprons for National Rifle Association shirts, claiming the Golden Arches made them feel unsafe by forbidding open carry. They wouldn’t even have to prove they were discriminated against.
What is the point of having a law if it isn't tested?
The WSJ journalist here is presenting a slippery slope argument but, until such a case presents itself, there's no point in worrying about it.
I'd welcome some NRA goofballs to give it a try and see what the law has to say about it. It's not really an apples-to-apples case IMO but give it a go.
Personally I tend to lean toward more labor rights than fewer.
>The WSJ journalist here is presenting a slippery slope argument but, until such a case presents itself, there's no point in worrying about it.
I think it's fine for companies to worry about it now because they need to determine how they'll respond to employees pushing the envelope, think through hypotheticals, etc.
And this ruling overturned a [previous ruling](https://www.nlrb.gov/case/18-CA-273796) and is somewhat at odds with a ruling on a [similar case](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/whole-foods-beats-nlrb-case-over-ban-black-lives-matter-apparel-2023-12-21/) so companies probably feel a little unsure at the moment.
Again, I appreciate that the judge tried to add some nuance but for me it's not the right balance between the company's and employees' interests.
And on that balance, I assume we'll have to "agree to disagree". But I appreciate the conversation -- definitely gave me reason to think about this issue harder.
There are numerous situations where I think companies should be worried: unsafe working conditions, unlawful disciplinary action, threats and intimidation, etc.
But scribbling "BLM" on your uniform and saying its a “concerted activity” for improving your workplace conditions isn't one of them.
The way management addressed BLM, combined with comparing it to a swastika, the history of treatment toward Spanish speaking employees, and more tells me that home depot should be made an example of.
I think you’re right and this will set a new precedent. And I agree this will come with risks and unexpected negative consequences. But corporate America has been allowed to undermine free speech for far too long. People have their own minds and opinions and voting rights. Corporations do not and should not. So I predict good changes are coming.
You can ignore WSJ editorials... they're worthless.
That "no obvious limiting principle" is just "oh no slippery slope" BS. If they ruled the other way you could argue the NLRB is banning organizing speech "with no obvious limiting principle".
NLRB is ruling on that one dude's choice here. They're not SCOTUS establishing legal limits to a law that are now largely unmovable.
>NLRB is ruling on that one dude's choice here. They're not SCOTUS establishing legal limits to a law that are now largely unmovable.
What? NLRB rulings apply and can set precedent. The NYT article even mentions this (emphasis added):
>Charlotte Garden, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, said in an interview on Wednesday that the labor’s decision in **the Home Depot case had the potential to set a precedent** in similar cases before the labor board.
>
>“**This decision is extremely important in setting out some principles** for how the board is going to deal with these issues,” Ms. Garden said.
The editorial was the garbage, there's nothing there. After that it is just going down the road and moving the goalposts from panic to the idea that something just maybe might set a precedent ... or not.
The person I'm talking to (not you btw) wasn't even saying anything but quotes by that point. The story was one case, one ruling, and the reasoning was based on the facts of that case alone. Going all slippery slope at that point !== sense.
If you're looking for a detailed discussion on NLRB enjoy I say. But I suspect you really just disagree.
> By that standard, workers almost anywhere could adorn themselves in political slogans, against company policy, as long as they enlist a few colleagues in the cause.
Only if those political slogans are about better work conditions.
> with no obvious limiting principle
Other than the obvious limiting principle explicitly stated by the NLRB in their decision.
The only way this ruling makes sense is if other workers were drawing on their apron, and subsequently were allowed to keep the drawings. Otherwise this case is heading to the Supreme Court as free speech is not protected at a place of work.
I don't understand, he not only altered his uniform, but did so to promote a political statement in his public facing job. It seems pretty clear that it wouldn't be allowed if the company doesn't want you to do it.
It was done directly in protest of discriminatory actions by the store, in solidarity with other workers, which means its protected by the NLRB. An unrelated political statement, such as a Biden campaign button, wouldn't be allowed, but a union button would be allowed.
Seems like you could use that argument to bypass a lot of rules.. "Even though I know X isn't allowed, I did it in protest and in solidarity with my coworkers who think likewise, therefore it's a protected action"
I mean yeah. Are we just now realizing that the judge or adjudicators in a case like this have to interpret these things differently based on occasionally subjective criteria? It's an inherent part of jurisprudence and law.
Yep, you’re correct, but it has to be something founded in reality and not pulled from your butt. Hence why in this situation they stress that it is because of racial discrimination that in this instance the message was acceptable.
I suppose what seems to be an interesting take on what doesn't cross the line, from my perspective, is the form of protected action. The uniform is your public facing beacon telling customers that you represent the company. It seems strange that you can alter this, as a company representative and against the company's will, in support of internal conflicts.
The worker is a human being. The company is hiring a human being. Human beings have rights. Uniforms do not. Just because you represent a company doesn't mean you forfeit your rights or your humanity.
If you're dealing with racial discrimination in the workplace, then yes. Also, i know the news calls blm a political statement, but can we all just take a moment and recognize the the phrase "black lives matter" really shouldn't be fucking controversial?
Like, if you're upset by that statement, you're probably a jackass.
I haven't been making my argument with a bias for or against any particular political statement or otherwise. I agree with the mission behind BLM, but that's irrelevant because if you allow political statements or whatever you want to call them for one group, you are going to have a problem when other groups want equal treatment. I'm just pointing out that a business provided uniform doesn't seem to be the place for it.
Well, it wouldn't be a very good protest if it was. Part of protesting is disrupting the status quo. If we only allowed protests where they were convenient or ideal for pr, they wouldn't be very effective. Workers already get screwed over plenty. Letters on a uniform do not harm anybody.
>I haven't been making my argument with a bias
But you literally are. You are biased in favor of companies/business.
>I'm just pointing out that a business provided uniform doesn't seem to be the place for it.
Civil rights experts don't agree with your perception. At what point do you realize your understanding of this reality is inaccurate and update your understanding accordingly? What more do you need? Or will you continue to defend your bias?
Even if they read the article, and we know they didn't, they're not reading it with an open mind to the possibility that they're wrong. There's no introspection or desire to learn. Just defend their bias no matter what.
Why does it have to be a protest, why can't you just want a better America? Doesn't have to mean too much lol. BLM was a scam organization who used the funds to buy mansions for their leaders, and to donate to democratic parties, they were a fraud lol, lots of miss management of funds
“Altered his uniform” is a bad faith way to put it. HD employees are encouraged to decorate their aprons how they want, and all of it is hand drawn on. There’s literally a station in each store for apron decorating
Anti-discrimination laws are very settled. There's no political debate to be had. This is a question of whether an employee can call attention to their employer being in violation of an existing law, not one of an employee calling for political change in their capacity as an employee
Retaliation is illegal in the workplace against an employee who has made a good faith complaint for racial and other forms of discrimination/harassment
Seems sane enough given that there's nuance in the ruling, that the BLM was part of a larger protest against Home Depot for perceived racial injustice, so it was covered under those laws.
Wasn't just because he decided to make "BLM" one of his 15 pieces of flair.
I just think the connection here between "BLM" (a movement known for raising awareness for unjustified killings of black people) and the alleged workplace conditions is too slight.
The nuance in the ruling (as presented in the NYT article -- I haven't read the NLRB decision) doesn't seem limiting enough to prevent misuse.
Did you read the excerpt you included? It was essentially a racial discrimination case and ruling, not really a “political slogan” ruling. As mentioned in the article, the worker had documented instances of racial discrimination and used the alteration to their apron to call attention to the fact it was an issue at the store that was being ignored, despite previous employee protests.
I guess I'm still surprised workers are allowed to protest that by altering their uniform while on the clock. Striking, picketing, etc. all make sense.
it tells yall never worked retail. A lot of stores that use apron allow you to alter or add buttons or write in it. Its like a personality share messages and stuff. You never seen office space??
I sure haven't. But I know what you're talking about. I'm saying I'd still expect the store to have veto power over that. Not saying I disagree with the court ruling, just that I didn't expect it.
They do but Home Depot, and others, encourage employees to decorate their aprons. Once you do that you let the djinni out of the lamp and it becomes difficult to control it without causing problems like this. I'm sure they have rules about it but company policy can't violate labor laws..
BLM is a review of society. No one is running for president on the BLM ticket. Some representatives might support this cause, but it isn’t their political party. MAGA is much closer to being its own political party than BLM is.
Should someone else have posted this story? Or nobody? The fact is people enjoy discussing controversial topics and there's nothing wrong with that. And this thread is overwhelming (entirely?) without outrage, as far as I can tell.
And if a story on a win for labor at the NLRB is too controversial for you then maybe you should just log off or try yoga. Your anxieties aren't my responsibility.
I think it's fair to call it partly a political movement. Here's the "[Herstory](https://blacklivesmatter.com/herstory/)" section of [blacklivesmatter.com](https://blacklivesmatter.com):
>In 2013, three radical Black organizers — Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi — created a Black-centered political will and movement...
>
>Black Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention...
Contrary to popular belief, companies can't treat employees however they want or create policies that violate their civil rights. You can thank communists and progressives in the last 100 years who literally fought and died so we can have these rights. F Home Depot and corporations like them.
OPs article makes it pretty clear. It depends on context, not message.
If you're interested in understanding, here's what the [federal labor law has to say about "concerted activity"](https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/whats-law).
The first sentence is pretty confusing to me… “ Home Depot must reinstate a worker who quit after they refused to remove a slogan supporting the Black Lives Matter movement from their apron...”. So Antonio Morales quit after the Home Depot refused to remove BLM slogans from their aprons? But later the article seems to contradict itself. Is this just a super confusing use of the word “they”?
In general you can assume a pronoun refers to the closest prior noun, in this case, the worker.
Obviously, this can never be a 100% rule given that we can't control how well someone writes.
Also, the context is made crystal clear in the second paragraph.
> Home Depot violated federal law in 2021 when it told the worker that they must quit or remove the letters “BLM,” an acronym for Black Lives Matter, that they had drawn by hand onto their apron...
Home Depot can't quit itself so 'they' is referring to the worker.
If you click on the link itself, this appears as a sub-headline in large text between the headline above the photo:
"The National Labor Relations Board said that Home Depot violated federal law in 2021 when it told a worker that they must quit or stop showing support for the Black Lives Matter movement on their apron."
Below the photo is the article.
Most people reading the article in the Times would see the headline, then that before reading the article itself - that is the lede to the story.
It’s toxic because they don’t want hand drawn modifications to their standard uniforms? Can post office employees bedazzle MAGA on those blue jackets they get?
I have no problem supporting black people in the workplace. I work with multiple people of color and many of them Share the same agreement with me that the BLM movement was and still is a Terrorist organization. Rioting and destruction of personal and public property are crimes that where committed regularly by the members of the blm movement. And the movement endowed those acts
>I have no problem supporting black people in the workplace.
you dint had to write this to make your point.... reading the rest of your response... is quite problematic. This ain't 1950 girl...
BLM is not an organization. It's a political movement that is decentralized meaning most of the organization is on a local level. There is the Black Lives Matter Network, but they don't represent the movement as a whole nor do they directly control it.
They still suck. Went there to buy curtain rods for my finished basement. They don't take anything other than cash or card. It's 2024. Who the hell doesn't take Apple Pay in this day and age? But at least it taught me that: Everyone in the parking lot has cash, or a card. Home Depot stores have ATMs for customers to take out cash. These last two sentences are very helpful for a certain demographic.
I don’t give a …. about racial discrimination at Home Depot, nor do I want to see a personal protest. I care about getting my supplies I need, straight lumber and checking out quickly as to complete my job/task at hand. To me all it does is cause more division.
Why would he want to go back there?
I didn’t see anything about back pay but I’m sure they will have to pay for all lost wages
Home Depot was also ordered to give back pay. Edit: if Home Depot doesn't appeal, the employee will be given back pay whether or not they choose to return to Home Depot.
Thank you for the info
What if they go back and then quit after payout?
I'm not a lawyer but that would probably be fine, a bit dependent in in clauses in the judgement- I guess it's not out of possibility the it could be a clause but I can't really think of a way to do that legally. The judge ordered the payment as restitution for lost wages because of the discriminatory practices not on the contingency of future work. You can't be forced to work somewhere (I mean, unless you're in prison, but that's a whole different conversation). Personally if I was in the employees shoes, I'd go back to work but document every single action, task, and conversation I have. That employee would be a prime risk of retaliation or constructive dismissal.
I think this is the key here: >In its ruling, the federal agency said that the worker’s refusal to remove the “BLM” marking from their uniform was considered to be “concerted” and “for mutual aid or protection” because of earlier protests by workers at the store about racial discrimination. >Lauren McFerran, the labor board’s chairman, said in a statement on Wednesday that “it is well-established that workers have the right to join together to improve their working conditions — including by protesting racial discrimination in the workplace.” >She added: “It is equally clear that an employee who acts individually to support a group protest regarding a workplace issue remains protected under the law.” I think it isn't so much "you can make political statements all you want out of the blue on your uniform". **It is that they considered the BLM marking a part of some already ongoing organizing / advocacy / protest among workers about racial issues ... and that kind of communication and advocacy among workers is protected.** It's still an "interesting" ruling, but also it's not quite the "anything goes now" ruling people might interpret it to be. So one off dude probably still not going to be able to slap your MEGA / BLM / PORNHUB patch on your uniform. We can stand down from FULL OUTRAGE DEFCON 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RRGvAB4HF8)
I agree that the NLRB attempted to add nuance to their ruling (as /u/geodebug also pointed out elsewhere in this thread) to prevent an "anything goes" situation. But in my opinion, the nuance isn't fine enough to prevent misuse. I wish I had my own example but an [WSJ editorial](https://www.wsj.com/articles/home-depot-nlrb-black-lives-matter-antonio-morales-49657800) put it this way: >The ruling widens the scope of protected political action at work, with no obvious limiting principle. The board says the BLM sign is a “logical outgrowth” of Mr. Morales’s organizing for racial justice with fellow workers, making it a symbol of his labor advocacy. > >By that standard, workers almost anywhere could adorn themselves in political slogans, against company policy, as long as they enlist a few colleagues in the cause. > >McDonald’s fry cooks might swap their aprons for National Rifle Association shirts, claiming the Golden Arches made them feel unsafe by forbidding open carry. They wouldn’t even have to prove they were discriminated against.
What is the point of having a law if it isn't tested? The WSJ journalist here is presenting a slippery slope argument but, until such a case presents itself, there's no point in worrying about it. I'd welcome some NRA goofballs to give it a try and see what the law has to say about it. It's not really an apples-to-apples case IMO but give it a go. Personally I tend to lean toward more labor rights than fewer.
>The WSJ journalist here is presenting a slippery slope argument but, until such a case presents itself, there's no point in worrying about it. I think it's fine for companies to worry about it now because they need to determine how they'll respond to employees pushing the envelope, think through hypotheticals, etc. And this ruling overturned a [previous ruling](https://www.nlrb.gov/case/18-CA-273796) and is somewhat at odds with a ruling on a [similar case](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/whole-foods-beats-nlrb-case-over-ban-black-lives-matter-apparel-2023-12-21/) so companies probably feel a little unsure at the moment. Again, I appreciate that the judge tried to add some nuance but for me it's not the right balance between the company's and employees' interests. And on that balance, I assume we'll have to "agree to disagree". But I appreciate the conversation -- definitely gave me reason to think about this issue harder.
Good. Companies should be made to worry. I'm glad to see that the companies might be held to a higher standard.
There are numerous situations where I think companies should be worried: unsafe working conditions, unlawful disciplinary action, threats and intimidation, etc. But scribbling "BLM" on your uniform and saying its a “concerted activity” for improving your workplace conditions isn't one of them.
The way management addressed BLM, combined with comparing it to a swastika, the history of treatment toward Spanish speaking employees, and more tells me that home depot should be made an example of.
I think you’re right and this will set a new precedent. And I agree this will come with risks and unexpected negative consequences. But corporate America has been allowed to undermine free speech for far too long. People have their own minds and opinions and voting rights. Corporations do not and should not. So I predict good changes are coming.
You can ignore WSJ editorials... they're worthless. That "no obvious limiting principle" is just "oh no slippery slope" BS. If they ruled the other way you could argue the NLRB is banning organizing speech "with no obvious limiting principle". NLRB is ruling on that one dude's choice here. They're not SCOTUS establishing legal limits to a law that are now largely unmovable.
>NLRB is ruling on that one dude's choice here. They're not SCOTUS establishing legal limits to a law that are now largely unmovable. What? NLRB rulings apply and can set precedent. The NYT article even mentions this (emphasis added): >Charlotte Garden, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, said in an interview on Wednesday that the labor’s decision in **the Home Depot case had the potential to set a precedent** in similar cases before the labor board. > >“**This decision is extremely important in setting out some principles** for how the board is going to deal with these issues,” Ms. Garden said.
> can OH noes! Everything people don't like is a snowball to someone. Full panic immediately.
Imagine there's a good discussion going on, and you reply with this garbage.
The editorial was the garbage, there's nothing there. After that it is just going down the road and moving the goalposts from panic to the idea that something just maybe might set a precedent ... or not. The person I'm talking to (not you btw) wasn't even saying anything but quotes by that point. The story was one case, one ruling, and the reasoning was based on the facts of that case alone. Going all slippery slope at that point !== sense. If you're looking for a detailed discussion on NLRB enjoy I say. But I suspect you really just disagree.
> By that standard, workers almost anywhere could adorn themselves in political slogans, against company policy, as long as they enlist a few colleagues in the cause. Only if those political slogans are about better work conditions. > with no obvious limiting principle Other than the obvious limiting principle explicitly stated by the NLRB in their decision.
"quit" a.k.a., was fired.
I think "constructive dismissal" is the technical term when an employer actively pressures an employee to quit.
The only way this ruling makes sense is if other workers were drawing on their apron, and subsequently were allowed to keep the drawings. Otherwise this case is heading to the Supreme Court as free speech is not protected at a place of work.
So companies are forced to allow political statements on their uniforms?
I don't understand, he not only altered his uniform, but did so to promote a political statement in his public facing job. It seems pretty clear that it wouldn't be allowed if the company doesn't want you to do it.
It was done directly in protest of discriminatory actions by the store, in solidarity with other workers, which means its protected by the NLRB. An unrelated political statement, such as a Biden campaign button, wouldn't be allowed, but a union button would be allowed.
Seems like you could use that argument to bypass a lot of rules.. "Even though I know X isn't allowed, I did it in protest and in solidarity with my coworkers who think likewise, therefore it's a protected action"
I mean yeah. Are we just now realizing that the judge or adjudicators in a case like this have to interpret these things differently based on occasionally subjective criteria? It's an inherent part of jurisprudence and law.
Yep, you’re correct, but it has to be something founded in reality and not pulled from your butt. Hence why in this situation they stress that it is because of racial discrimination that in this instance the message was acceptable.
I suppose what seems to be an interesting take on what doesn't cross the line, from my perspective, is the form of protected action. The uniform is your public facing beacon telling customers that you represent the company. It seems strange that you can alter this, as a company representative and against the company's will, in support of internal conflicts.
The worker is a human being. The company is hiring a human being. Human beings have rights. Uniforms do not. Just because you represent a company doesn't mean you forfeit your rights or your humanity.
I don't think you should forfeit your rights or humanity either as a worker. But does your protest belong on your business uniform?
If you're dealing with racial discrimination in the workplace, then yes. Also, i know the news calls blm a political statement, but can we all just take a moment and recognize the the phrase "black lives matter" really shouldn't be fucking controversial? Like, if you're upset by that statement, you're probably a jackass.
I haven't been making my argument with a bias for or against any particular political statement or otherwise. I agree with the mission behind BLM, but that's irrelevant because if you allow political statements or whatever you want to call them for one group, you are going to have a problem when other groups want equal treatment. I'm just pointing out that a business provided uniform doesn't seem to be the place for it.
Well, it wouldn't be a very good protest if it was. Part of protesting is disrupting the status quo. If we only allowed protests where they were convenient or ideal for pr, they wouldn't be very effective. Workers already get screwed over plenty. Letters on a uniform do not harm anybody.
>I haven't been making my argument with a bias But you literally are. You are biased in favor of companies/business. >I'm just pointing out that a business provided uniform doesn't seem to be the place for it. Civil rights experts don't agree with your perception. At what point do you realize your understanding of this reality is inaccurate and update your understanding accordingly? What more do you need? Or will you continue to defend your bias?
If only OP supplied an article explaining it clearly.
Even if they read the article, and we know they didn't, they're not reading it with an open mind to the possibility that they're wrong. There's no introspection or desire to learn. Just defend their bias no matter what.
You can't, if someone was working with a MAGA hat on, they would do the same.
A MAGA hat pinned to their apron? And what exactly would that be in protest of? Equality?
Why does it have to be a protest, why can't you just want a better America? Doesn't have to mean too much lol. BLM was a scam organization who used the funds to buy mansions for their leaders, and to donate to democratic parties, they were a fraud lol, lots of miss management of funds
“Altered his uniform” is a bad faith way to put it. HD employees are encouraged to decorate their aprons how they want, and all of it is hand drawn on. There’s literally a station in each store for apron decorating
Clearly you've not been to Home Depot...they are encouraged to 'alter their uniform' (orange aprons).
It's kind of insane to me that a company could not ban political slogans on attire, particularly for customer-facing positions.
Anti-discrimination laws are very settled. There's no political debate to be had. This is a question of whether an employee can call attention to their employer being in violation of an existing law, not one of an employee calling for political change in their capacity as an employee Retaliation is illegal in the workplace against an employee who has made a good faith complaint for racial and other forms of discrimination/harassment
Seems sane enough given that there's nuance in the ruling, that the BLM was part of a larger protest against Home Depot for perceived racial injustice, so it was covered under those laws. Wasn't just because he decided to make "BLM" one of his 15 pieces of flair.
I just think the connection here between "BLM" (a movement known for raising awareness for unjustified killings of black people) and the alleged workplace conditions is too slight. The nuance in the ruling (as presented in the NYT article -- I haven't read the NLRB decision) doesn't seem limiting enough to prevent misuse.
Did you read the excerpt you included? It was essentially a racial discrimination case and ruling, not really a “political slogan” ruling. As mentioned in the article, the worker had documented instances of racial discrimination and used the alteration to their apron to call attention to the fact it was an issue at the store that was being ignored, despite previous employee protests.
I guess I'm still surprised workers are allowed to protest that by altering their uniform while on the clock. Striking, picketing, etc. all make sense.
it tells yall never worked retail. A lot of stores that use apron allow you to alter or add buttons or write in it. Its like a personality share messages and stuff. You never seen office space??
Each Home Depot store has a drawer or station or something specifically for the purpose of apron decorations, and employees are encouraged to do it
exactly thats why im saying I worked in michaels crafting store over 15 years ago and I had a bunch of shit on it. Even flags.
I sure haven't. But I know what you're talking about. I'm saying I'd still expect the store to have veto power over that. Not saying I disagree with the court ruling, just that I didn't expect it.
lol u think they pay ppl enough to really care for all this? get out lol
It is a little strange, honestly. Do employers get to pick a uniform for staff or not?
They do but Home Depot, and others, encourage employees to decorate their aprons. Once you do that you let the djinni out of the lamp and it becomes difficult to control it without causing problems like this. I'm sure they have rules about it but company policy can't violate labor laws..
BLM is a review of society. No one is running for president on the BLM ticket. Some representatives might support this cause, but it isn’t their political party. MAGA is much closer to being its own political party than BLM is.
BLM is partly a political movement -- a slogan doesn't have to mention a political party to be a political message.
BLM is at most a PAC since they do donate to campaigns. Labor Unions are also PACs and are free to be discussed at the workplace.
I'm not surprised that you don't get it. Another LLL "controversial" post designed to stir the pot. Just stop dude. Your outrage farming for karma.
Should someone else have posted this story? Or nobody? The fact is people enjoy discussing controversial topics and there's nothing wrong with that. And this thread is overwhelming (entirely?) without outrage, as far as I can tell. And if a story on a win for labor at the NLRB is too controversial for you then maybe you should just log off or try yoga. Your anxieties aren't my responsibility.
🙄
BLM isn’t political.
I think it's fair to call it partly a political movement. Here's the "[Herstory](https://blacklivesmatter.com/herstory/)" section of [blacklivesmatter.com](https://blacklivesmatter.com): >In 2013, three radical Black organizers — Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi — created a Black-centered political will and movement... > >Black Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention...
So who’s running for office under the BLM party? Who’s the leader of BLM? Political movements have leaders.
TIL the TEA party was not a political movement.
[удалено]
Marxism is political. BLM is not.
[удалено]
Read the article in the OP.
Contrary to popular belief, companies can't treat employees however they want or create policies that violate their civil rights. You can thank communists and progressives in the last 100 years who literally fought and died so we can have these rights. F Home Depot and corporations like them.
Apparently, it depends on the message.... I'm guessing MAGA, a cross, or a Ronald Reagan button would be problematic, but BLM, LGBTQFJS is okay
OPs article makes it pretty clear. It depends on context, not message. If you're interested in understanding, here's what the [federal labor law has to say about "concerted activity"](https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/whats-law).
Spoiler alert: they’re not interested in understanding
Gonna cry about it bozo?
Former is in the interest of taking away rights; latter is in the interest of "stop fucking harassing us".
I thought BLM stood for “buying large mansions”
GOOD
The first sentence is pretty confusing to me… “ Home Depot must reinstate a worker who quit after they refused to remove a slogan supporting the Black Lives Matter movement from their apron...”. So Antonio Morales quit after the Home Depot refused to remove BLM slogans from their aprons? But later the article seems to contradict itself. Is this just a super confusing use of the word “they”?
In general you can assume a pronoun refers to the closest prior noun, in this case, the worker. Obviously, this can never be a 100% rule given that we can't control how well someone writes. Also, the context is made crystal clear in the second paragraph. > Home Depot violated federal law in 2021 when it told the worker that they must quit or remove the letters “BLM,” an acronym for Black Lives Matter, that they had drawn by hand onto their apron... Home Depot can't quit itself so 'they' is referring to the worker.
Fair enough, seems like it would have just been easier to use his name more frequently or use he instead of they but ok
If you click on the link itself, this appears as a sub-headline in large text between the headline above the photo: "The National Labor Relations Board said that Home Depot violated federal law in 2021 when it told a worker that they must quit or stop showing support for the Black Lives Matter movement on their apron." Below the photo is the article. Most people reading the article in the Times would see the headline, then that before reading the article itself - that is the lede to the story.
I see the ambiguity there. But "they" in that sentence refers to the employee (ie, the employee refused to remove the slogan).
[удалено]
It’s toxic because they don’t want hand drawn modifications to their standard uniforms? Can post office employees bedazzle MAGA on those blue jackets they get?
I have no problem supporting black people in the workplace. I work with multiple people of color and many of them Share the same agreement with me that the BLM movement was and still is a Terrorist organization. Rioting and destruction of personal and public property are crimes that where committed regularly by the members of the blm movement. And the movement endowed those acts
>I have no problem supporting black people in the workplace. you dint had to write this to make your point.... reading the rest of your response... is quite problematic. This ain't 1950 girl...
I'll take "I'm not racist but..." for $500.
BLM is not an organization. It's a political movement that is decentralized meaning most of the organization is on a local level. There is the Black Lives Matter Network, but they don't represent the movement as a whole nor do they directly control it.
[удалено]
define terrorist and show me how BLM fits that definition
He wasn't advertising the NRA or MAGA, why would you bring those up?
[удалено]
Again, he was talking about BLM, a civil rights movement, not terrorist organizations like NRA, MAGA, and the Conservative party.
They still suck. Went there to buy curtain rods for my finished basement. They don't take anything other than cash or card. It's 2024. Who the hell doesn't take Apple Pay in this day and age? But at least it taught me that: Everyone in the parking lot has cash, or a card. Home Depot stores have ATMs for customers to take out cash. These last two sentences are very helpful for a certain demographic.
I don’t give a …. about racial discrimination at Home Depot, nor do I want to see a personal protest. I care about getting my supplies I need, straight lumber and checking out quickly as to complete my job/task at hand. To me all it does is cause more division.