4 ms·

> According to the article, it was one Canadian employee told by one Canadian supervisor that this was a no-go. There was no "Poppies is bad!" memo from Austin

> According to the article, it was one Canadian employee told by one Canadian supervisor that this was a no-go. There was no "Poppies is bad!" memo from Austin or Seattle. It was how a single Canadian manager chose to interpret the dress code. This is egregious cherry-picking from the article. While one sentence says "An employee of the Whole Foods in Ottawa says", the previous paragraph says "U.S.-based Whole Foods Market says poppies aren't allowed [...] which affects employees at its 14 locations across Canada", and the one before that (the first in the article) says "a national grocery store chain has banned its employees from wearing the symbol of remembrance". Later, the article says "A poppy does not comply with that policy, the company confirmed", referring to Whole Foods, not any specific location. The sentence that you're quoting, read with any context whatsoever, is clearly anecdotal evidence provided to support the claim that Whole Foods both has a policy against wearing poppies, and is enforcing that policy in at least one store. > Further along in the article it shows the problem is provincial law I don't know what the hell you're going on about here. "would not be protected" is vastly different from "is not permitted". This sentence merely clarifies that Whole Foods' action is not explicitly illegal, not that it is required under any law.

DharmaPolice 6y ago
Even after reading this story twice and the follow up article (where Whole Foods "backed down") I'm still not clear what has happened in this case. Great journalism. This article quotes the employee directly but the companies statements are noticeably not direct quotes. The bit you mentioned "A poppy does not comply with that policy, the company confirmed" is not given any context. Confirmed to who? When? The original employee? Did CBC ask them to comment? Who did they speak to? In the follow-up article [0] which is framed as "Whole Foods reverse their ban" they do actually have a quote from a spokesperson who says "Our intention was never to single out the poppy or to suggest a lack of support for Remembrance Day". So if they didn't single out Poppies was this just a blanket ban on all "cause/political" adjustments to uniform that Poppies were included in (because a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of simple minds)? Or did they send out an email to all staff saying "Don't wear a Poppy because we hate our nation's war dead and their sacrifice" but thanks to the righteous fury of the Canadian people and Christians in general they've been defeated. Or more likely some awkward position in the middle? The context really matters. Clearly this is a non-story either way but it's a classic example of events being given without sufficient context and intended to generate outrage (4k comments and counting on the news site). Later people will remember that time when Whole Foods banned Poppies and it took a massive campaign to get them to change their mind...11 hours later. Big companies do sometimes double down on seemingly unpopular policies in these kinds of cases (British Airways were sued and lost in the European Court of Human Rights because they penalised a Christian woman who refused to cover up religious jewellery [1]) but that's the exception. Mostly the policy (if it ever existed) is quietly amended or reinterpreted. 0 - https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/whole-foods-poppies-allowed-1.5793069 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/whole-foods-poppies-al... 1 - https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/37.html https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/37.html

DharmaPolice 6y ago

Even after reading this story twice and the follow up article (where Whole Foods "backed down") I'm still not clear what has happened in this case. Great journalism. This article quotes the employee directly but the companies statements are noticeably not direct quotes. The bit you mentioned "A poppy does not comply with that policy, the company confirmed" is not given any context. Confirmed to who? When? The original employee? Did CBC ask them to comment? Who did they speak to? In the follow-up article [0] which is framed as "Whole Foods reverse their ban" they do actually have a quote from a spokesperson who says "Our intention was never to single out the poppy or to suggest a lack of support for Remembrance Day". So if they didn't single out Poppies was this just a blanket ban on all "cause/political" adjustments to uniform that Poppies were included in (because a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of simple minds)? Or did they send out an email to all staff saying "Don't wear a Poppy because we hate our nation's war dead and their sacrifice" but thanks to the righteous fury of the Canadian people and Christians in general they've been defeated. Or more likely some awkward position in the middle? The context really matters. Clearly this is a non-story either way but it's a classic example of events being given without sufficient context and intended to generate outrage (4k comments and counting on the news site). Later people will remember that time when Whole Foods banned Poppies and it took a massive campaign to get them to change their mind...11 hours later. Big companies do sometimes double down on seemingly unpopular policies in these kinds of cases (British Airways were sued and lost in the European Court of Human Rights because they penalised a Christian woman who refused to cover up religious jewellery [1]) but that's the exception. Mostly the policy (if it ever existed) is quietly amended or reinterpreted. 0 - https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/whole-foods-poppies-allowed-1.5793069 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/whole-foods-poppies-al... 1 - https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/37.html https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/37.html