Private organization is private, and its members are entitled to their opinions, wrong or right, just or unjust, love or hate, etc. If I were a member and had a problem with it, I have the option of leaving. I have the option of buying or not buying Nike personally, and if my boss said I can’t wear Nike to work and I cared, well, we’d have a conversation. If the conversation didn’t go the way I would prefer and it was highly important to me to wear Nike to work, I would look for a different job with an employer whose values more closely match mine and who would allow me to wear Nike.
As an employee, I can impose restrictions upon my employer too, and my employer has the right to decline, in which case, we part ways. This isn’t particularly complicated – unless you consider a job a human right and the boss a dispenser of an entitlement to that right, I suppose.
Oh, don’t get me wrong. I agree with you, I just wonder how far this goes. I mean, do we really want to live in a society where our employers get to dictate what we wear? Will it stop with just telling us what we can wear?
Of course, you can leave if you disagree, but, imagine a world where all employers start restricting what people can wear or other things they do to the point that every employer has such restrictions based on political affiliation?
What if a company like Amazon required companies that want to sell in their marketplaces to conform to certain types of behavior. I’m just saying, where does this end? Do you think that people would share your opinion if Amazon started requiring liberal policies in it’s workplace?
Sometimes the jobs Amazon provides in certain towns are the only jobs around. And if this continues, there are going to be lots of places where employees would be forced to conform to certain behaviors because they either confirm or become unemployed because there are no other jobs.
Now, You might accuse me of being overly dramatic, but I’m not so sure given the way US politics is shaping up.
I for one would really just like to see companies stay out of politics, including the boycotting of shows on FOX (Bill O’ for instance). I just think that leads down a rabbit hole where we all lose as a society…
I think all of this bickering about anthems and Nike products is adult drama that people outside the US are viewing like an episode of Jersey Shore but at a national level.
I think this situation could become untenable and make our nation less productive and more divisive.
But that’s just my .02
Lots of employers have “dictated” what their employees can wear on the job and it’s been that way for decades. Try walking a beat as a police officer wearing a pink shirt and striped trousers. Try being an attorney and show up in court in shorts and flip-flops. I know of a woman who got fired because she showed up for a business appointment with Nelson Bunker Hunt wearing cut-off jeans, flip-flops, no bra and a stained T-shirt!
Sure, but those restrictions are generally based on job requirements or customer expectations, I don’t take issue with that. The banning of Nike apparel is firmly grounded in ideology. All of your examples are practical reasons for requiring certain apparel…
My point is, do we really want companies dictating what we wear, not based on appearance or function, but on brand because of that brand (Nike or Fox) has an opinion we don’t like? Of course, there are extremes that might lend themselves to exceptions, but it seems to me this is racing to the bottom in a race that hurts everyone.
You really can’t see how this could end up being a game where no one wins?
Private companies can dictate what their employees can and cannot wear on the job, CSB. Don’t like it? Fine! Don’t do business with those companies. Nike apparel ALL has that “swoosh” on them. By prohibiting employees to “advertise” for Nike, companies are well within their rights. Do you think employees at Puma are permitted to show up for work in Nike shoes?
Then they most likely won’t keep their best personell, and those remaining will be unhappy. They will lose productivity, efficiency, and profitability. Then they will get bailed out by the government…
Who cares whether or not Nike workers in Taiwan or Ho Chi Minh City are “happy?” What has Amazon to do with anything?
EXACTLY! I 100% agree. This will happen on all sides, but let’s not act like the economics of a situation forces people to act 100% rationally. Yes, it generally pushes people in the right direction, but those changes are slow and in the meantime, the things you say might happen.
LOL…You are a peice of work.
Nike employs 12k people in one plant in Oregon alone. They have retail outlets that employ people all over the US…
If you were a producer who relied on Amazon to get your products to market and Amazon said that you had to conform to certain political standards in order to use their marketplace, who do you think would confirm, Amazon or the small business that relies on Amazon to stay in business?
The idea that that small business can all take their business elsewhere in many cases is BS. Many businesses exist solely because Amazon’s model makes it possible.
So I ask, How are you going to feel about this issue when Amazon starts creating requirements of its employees and it’s marketplace sellers that they conform to some liberal policy you ideologically disagree with?
You really can’t see how this would result in exactly what Q says? And all for what, so we can force political decisions via company leverage over there workers?
BS. Amazon has been doing that for the past 2 years. How’s their business doing?
Amazon tells what brands of clothing people can (or can’t) wear to work?
You’re being unrealistic; employers are not becoming larger or more homogeneous, but more dispersed. Stories of Amazon being “the only one” will falter more and more overtime.
An employer has already required its employees to be “chipped”, and if people agree to that, so what?
You don’t have to work there if you don’t want to.
In Mom’s last job (she’s Susanna, here on RO), her employer asked her not to wear religious-themed T-shirts on Casual Friday. That’s based on ideology. That’s a bad reason, but the employer’s right. Banning the wearing of Nike for their crap ideology is a good reason.
How far it goes is how far people are willing to let it go. Unfortunately, a lot of labor regulation puts power squarely in the hands of employers, some of it that is even intended to empower the employees.
Just to note, employers “dictate” a lot of things that aren’t even political about how employees dress and present themselves.
But they don’t. This is very similar to the discussion we’re having about state regulation of social media (a conservative argument!) in another thread.
I am often surprised by how much employees allow their employers to dictate day to day. I hear stories, but I understand why. Minimum wage, for example, creates labor surpluses that put the employers in the driver’s seat – to one degree or another. The further you get from that level of employment, the more power the employee has. When the employer can literally pick anyone from such a large pool at the lower end of the wage scale, the employer can dictate a lot of terms that I would never tolerate. For example, you must turn off your cell phone and put it in your locker.
It’s already happening, Businesses are pressured not to do business with the gun industry. A real free market solution exists. And like a bank that refuses to do business with gays, blacks and whites – Asans and Latinos only – will forego profit. Then there’s the social media lunacy. Those SJWs are censoring speech they hate. A new YouTube can and will provide a platform should this continue.
Really? There are towns where Amazon is the only employer? Sometimes the only jobs in certain towns are logging. That didn’t stop ecoweenies from shutting it down in the Northwest 30 years ago, but that’s probably beside the point. We don’t live in a communist society where folks are commanded to live in the same town. They can shop for jobs elsewhere and move.
Right now, the most common examples I see of this are on the left. This nation once supported a partisan system of journalism. Each town had two papers, one for each party. Until the 20th century, they were all profitable.
This organization’s response to Nike is just one of the ways we deal with powerful companies – like Nike! It’ll be sad and stupid on the part of many to do business based on partisanship, but that just opens up economic opportunity for those who are willing to do business, including employers and employees, with anyone who has cash.
I agree – although I don’t care what people around the world think. They’re not that impressive either. People are people, and they act like people.
Nah. Relax. It’ll be OK. People are people, and people will trade. When we’re down at the store, whatever store, almost none of us actually ask anyone about their political values. They just trade. The vast majority of America isn’t doing this kind of thing. It’s not really very profitable for most businesses.
Let’s not pretend any of us know what is rational from one person to the next. We the people cannot agree on some very basic concepts. The fact we have so many different values and competing interests is the argument for economic liberty. For some people, self-destruction is “rational.” The idea of the rational economic agent isn’t really about intelligence or wisdom.
Why does it seem that the blanket assumption here is that Farm Bureau acted on idealogical motivations? Couldn’t it simply be that they are trying to avoid offending a large segment of their customer base? Even a small percentage of lost sales can hurt big. What kind of margins are they working with? Apparently it’s a pretty big deal to a large chunk of the more conservatively inclined populace, and Texas is pretty deep red…
Because it is. Just as Nordstrom not carrying Ivanka Trump’s clothing line was arguably also ideological. I say arguably because they claimed they did it because of slow sales. If sales were slow, then I’d say their choice was justified, if not, ideological.
You said it yourself. If they created the rule because their customers would get offended…Offended on what grounds? Because of a commercial featuring a dude who took a knee.
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not claiming that the TFB is special in this regard, however, it is one of the more blatant examples.
Agreed. But let’s be honest, delivering a religious message on a tee-shirt and wearing a brand isn’t exactly apples-to-apples comparison.