________________________________________________________________________________
Link to policy reversal
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/whole-foods-poppies-al...
I was going to say that's it's weird hill to die on.
This store policy is jarring because it is responding to a condition we do not usually explicitly recognise. It is a policy to prevent conflict in places with low levels of societal trust and high levels of political polarization, it has spread to a location where social trust is healthier, and in doing so has exposed in a strange symbolic way the consequences of low societal trust.
Do I even need to say it? 2020 has laid bare this trust is very uneven in its distribution.
I think that different levels of societal trust has had a large impact on the progression of the covid pandemic in different parts of different anglophone countries. I'm singling out anglophone countries, because I believe the levels of individual freedoms we enjoy mean that despite official mandates, our compliance with preventative measures was essentially an individual choice that reflected our faith in our fellow citizens, and the sincerity (though I would not go so far as to say competence) of our governments.
In Australia remembrance of past wars has been politicized, but I can still see a person wearing a poppy and see it as a sincere act. It hasn't yet become a symbol of partisan affiliation.
We still describe our preference for a political party with a layer of indirection as:
I vote for X,
rather than
I am X
I hope this lasts.
EDIT: /u/reaperducer reads the article - pops conjecture bubble
US is a high trust society.
We seem determined to piss it away, but none the less.
It hardly makes sense to speak of the US as a monolith in this respect. In some parts of the US, people don't lock their front doors during the day and unattended vegetable stands have money jars for honor-system payment. In other parts, they put bars on all their windows like prison cells and lock bicycles to anything bolted to the ground.
I have lived in both the US and Australia, and for all the flaws love both countries. On an international scale all the anglophone countries are extraordinarily high in their levels of mass social trust and respect for human rights.
I fear that social trust is declining in all these countries because we do not recognise how special the conditions within we live under are, and as a result are not working hard enough to maintain it. I believe the consequences are visible earlier in a nation of 300 million than they are in a nation of 20 million. I am optimistic, more by disposition than through evidence, that this is something we will fix.
You and I clearly live in a different US.
No, we just have a different idea of how low trust can go.
I spend ~0 time considering the quality or contents of the goods I purchase at my local grocer. There's some produce I avoid, but they aren't hiding the quality of what is sitting out.
What do you do if you aren't sure what is in a box?
edit: my local grocer is a bad example really. But I spend 0 time worrying about the quality of goods in pretty much any retail store...
In my local American grocery store, I inspect all bread for mold, all cartons of eggs for breaks or spoilage, fruit for rotten abscesses. I avoid Walmart because they get special low quality SKUs, Amazon because they comingle counterfeit products, and eBay because people will send you boxes full of rocks instead of whatever you thought you bought.
I mean. I see their point.
I wear a poppy; I like seeing poppies; I definitely think it's something we should all be darn tootin' grateful for. It's a cultural event in Canada and embraced by virtually the entire population. You can get them everywhere you go and generally you can wear them everywhere you go. You certainly see them everywhere you go :).
But - I also have seen tons of businesses squeezed between rock and a hard place and PR and legislation and human rights and lawsuits and boycotts, because you genuinely cannot please everybody, and today it's easier than ever to find X number of people across the continent who are bothered by any given thing and give endless headache to the poor store manager who just wants to run a store. Sometimes it's just easier/safer to force the lowest common denominator and get with your business... except when it's not.
Problem is - anybody who starts a sentence with "It just makes sense that..." or "Everybody agrees that..." or "This is different because..." is empathically wrong. There empirically are people who think Poppies are political statement, there empirically are people who think their own statement is just as equal or more, and there are people who will claim, with fair amount of logic, that now we have government sponsoring / legislating one cause while forbidding others.
etc etc etc.
Reason #138492 I'm not running a public store/business these days.
What's the political statement made by wearing a poppy? Did Whole Foods make a political statement when they enacted the poppy ban?
>>What's the political statement made by wearing a poppy?
I haven't the foggiest.
But it's a fund-raising campaign run by a non-governmental entity. _I_ don't think it's political or controversial. But most non-governmental fund-raising campaigns will _also_ claim they are non-controversial and non-political, so why can't _they_ get a uniform-code exception supported by provincial and federal prime minister?
>>Did Whole Foods make a political statement when they enacted the poppy ban?
I think Whole Foods have a uniform policy that says "wear no insignia other than these things", and as such it's as a-political as things can get these days.
In principle, making an exception for this one cause is formally the political statement.
As I said, I think it's a case of damned if you do damned if you don't. I happen to agree with this particular cause and am glad it's receiving support, but I don't necessarily know what objective differentiator we can write down, agree and use that would fit the poppy campaign but not million others.
> But it's a fund-raising campaign run by a non-governmental entity.
No a poppy is not inherently part of a any fund-raising.
It's a symbol of remembrance.
You can buy poppies from anywhere, or make your own, and still be using it to remember.
The Royal Canadian Legion trademarks the poppy symbol in Canada and uses it for its own fundraising.
You can't therefore buy remembrance poppies from anywhere - they pursue people who sell them and describe them as 'fraudulent', e.g.
https://inews.co.uk/news/consumer/remembrance-day-2020-fake-...
This is incorrect. The poppy is actually trademarked in Canada:
https://www.legion.ca/remembrance/the-poppy/the-poppy-tradem...
That doesn't stop people making their own, or wearing an old one.
That is actually not correct.
It's been specifically trademarked to Royal Legion of Canada, and basically all the donation boxes you see in stores etc are from Royal Legion.
Again, nothing wrong with that, I support them, absolutely positively vast majority of Canadians do! But we also don't need to pretend it's not something that it legally and practically is.
Are they going to cull the quarters with poppies on them?
Not related to this particular set of countries, but the wearing of a poppy is very very political for those from Northern Ireland:
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/...
It's not political. It's done to remember those who died in combat.
Many people have a relative or loved one who died in combat.
I would argue that focusing solely on the nobility of those who died in combat while ignoring what led to them being forced into combat in the first place, is political.
I think the poppy, and Remembrance Day in general, spends far too little time examining _why_ these people were sent to die.
Sounds like you're saying it's political for being insufficiently political.
I’m not about to wade into Canadian culture because I know just enough to be very wrong so I hope it’s fine to use a US parallel.
If Memorial Day was “celebrate the individual personal lives and accomplishments of all these people who died at war” then it’s apolitical. But that isn’t really how it goes unfortunately — I wish it did. Instead it’s about celebrating and glorifying our troops and our military which is _super_ political.
_Instead it’s about celebrating and glorifying our troops and our military which is super political._
How is it political - what party do you think it supports?
> _How is it political - what party do you think it supports?_
Partisan != political. (Though everything is in my opinion political.)
I think the general cultural consensus is WWI is the fault of Europe's leaders, particularly but not completely that of Germany. And was characterized by a callous disregard for soldiers lives on all sides.
That's not the impression I get from the Canadian Remembrance day posts I see on Facebook ever year.
Without fail, all of them describe WWI as a stalwart selfless sacrifice for freedom and the motherland. Then I ask 'exactly what freedoms were at risk', and the authors of those posts start hemming and hawing and tut-tutting.
I wouldn't go as far as to claim that wearing a poppy is a statement for any of the possible interpretations of Remembrance day in _particular_, though.
Perhaps in Canada, but James McLean may feel differently about the poppy being political.
https://deadspin.com/james-mccleans-refusal-to-wear-the-popp...
War is the continuation of politics by other means.
- Carl von Clausewitz
It is political. It glorifies war and being the aggressor in war. I my country, it's mainly used to represent the time we tried to invade what is now Turkey and killed a bunch of the locals defending their territory. Anti-war people don't like it.
> It glorifies war and being the aggressor in war.
How were Canadians aggressors in WW1 and WW2?
I think you're ignorant.
I think lopmotr is from my country, and here people have attempted to politicise the poppy in exactly this way, transforming the meaning from a remembrance of the stupidity of war to a glorification. In small numbers Canadians were present at Gallipoli, the battle at the centre of the politicisation to which I believe lopmotr is correctly referrring
_It glorifies war._
So putting a photo of my dead wife on my desk at work glorifies car crashes? Got it.
That analogy doesn't map by my logic. It would be more like putting up a plaque that says, "I'm proud of my brother for engaging in risk taking behavior until it caused him to crash his car and die."
Also, victims of car crashes aren't generally used in national pageantry aimed at causing more car crashes.
> It would be more like putting up a plaque that says, "I'm proud of my brother for engaging in risk taking behavior until it caused him to crash his car and die."
Are you comparing people fighting desperately for national survival, some of whom were conscripts and had no choice, to 'engaging in risk taking behavior' such as driving your car irresponsibly?
Conscripts no. Volunteers sort of. People in WWII less so than WWI less so than most recent conflicts.
But this is exactly my problem with veterans rarara. It's totallizing where we should have razor sharp nuance.
> we should have razor sharp nuance
How about on this day we just say 'it's sad anyone had to die, no matter which side they were on or how they ended up in that situation'? That's what a poppy is.
That begs the question that people "had" to die. That is exactly my problem.
I don't think that's what 'had' means in this context if you read it more charitably.
You can rephrase as 'it's sad anyone died, no matter which side they were on or how they ended up in that situation' if you find it confusing otherwise.
This context is very weird. I don't really have a problem with this tradition. But I do see how it can be political. In the U.S. there is memorial day and veterans day and they are very political.
My main issue is I do not get the analogy. Those two things are very different to me.
I am sorry for your loss
That's not at all what the poppy campaign or the Canadian Legion is all about.
I believe lompotor is from Australia, and is referring in particular to the landing at Gallipoli, in which the British empire was attempting to land in what is now Turkey with support of forces from Commonwealth countries, this certainly included people from Newfoundland. Over the last 25 years, conservative politicians in Australia have have politicised the remembrance of this battle.
Ask these folks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector#Canada
Yeah, I'm basically in agreement. I don't care if people wear them because I don't mind people expressing their opinions which disagree with mine. But I see the veins of martialism spread throughout western society. They are taken for granted because they are the status quo. They had a profound effect on me as a kid to see war as noble and worthwhile.
If one may wear a pin to honor war dead, may one wear a pin for those that refused to fight?
I don't think conscientious objectors are opposed to support services for veterans and the families of veterans.
This one is against the glorification of war though. I do actually support helping any person for humanitarian reasons though.
It was an attempt to paint those who were killed in WWI (on the British side only) as not pointlessly and deliberately slaughtered, or at lest it seems so to me.
From the article:
"I was basically told … if they allowed this one particular cause, then it would open up the door so that they would have to allow or consider allowing other causes," said the employee.
Oh boy. Someone high up in the WF foodchain didn't do their homework before deciding this policy. Wearing poppies in Canada is a big deal. Fun fact, Canada used to celebrate Thanksgiving the same date as America, but they pulled it 6 weeks forward so it wouldn't crowd the mourning period around Remembrance Day (Nov 11). That's just how serious Canada is about this particular holiday. Although an old hockey commentator got fired last year for ranting about how immigrants don't wear enough poppies, there's widespread support from every section of Canada about wearing poppies and in general paying some respect to the war effort around Remembrance Day. Outside of Don Cherry's rants though, people rarely make a political statement about it. It's just one of those things you do.
I just listened to an interview with WF's CEO on Freakonomics, [1], where the CEO talks about the general policy of not adorning uniforms. Apparently this comes from Amazon. Prior to the acquisition, WF employees were allowed/encouraged to express themselves through their attire.
So while this is being pitched as 'WF won't allow employees to do X', it may be more accurate to say 'Amazon won't allow WF employees to do X'.
1:
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/john-mackey/
"15 pieces of flair is the minimum. Are you just going to do the minimum?" -
Sorry, off topic but when there's a remote chance to slip in an Office Space reference I am obligated to do so.
There is a lot of strange stuff around badges in US industrial relations its probably partially an anti union thing.
Bet Amazon is hoping that the Daily Mail or a UK MP doesn't pick this up - not going to help with lobbying against the revenue tax that.
This was a direct result of Whole Foods banning pro-Black Lives Matter pins and buttons.
Many of those who are complaining about freedom of speech now were pretty quiet when the policy first rolled out.
They’ve already redacted this policy
Reversed in no time at all.
This sort of thing often happens when American companies operate outside of America and forget that cultural differences can be pretty significant.
The very idea of banning a Canadian from wearing a poppy during November is, to my Canadian-culturally-raised-brain, an insane thought. Doug Ford said he would pass a law that made banning them illegal and honestly I suspect he'd get unanimous support from his legislature, most of whom loathe him.
You can't just apply American norms everywhere.
_when American companies operate outside of America_
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.
In other words, if it wasn't for the internet outrage industry, this would be much ado about nothing.
Further along in the article it shows the problem is provincial law, not the policy of an American company:
_Wearing a poppy could be considered a display of a political belief, according to employment lawyer Alex Lucifero with the firm Samfiru Tumarkin, and thus, would not be protected under the Human Rights Code in Ontario._
>Further along in the article it shows the problem is provincial law, not the policy of an American company:
That is, as I read it, merely saying that the provincial law _allows_ them to ban wearing it not that it _requires_ them to ban it. So the issue is very much with the company and not with the law unless you're saying that we're only allowed to complain about things that are illegal?
> 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.
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-al...
1 -
https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/37.html
Lucifero: seems a little too on the nose for an attorney's surname. :)
As someone who grew up in Canada too you're right. Example of an American company not "reading the room". Wearing a poppy in November is as Canadian as buying a double double at a drive through in Tim Hortons on your way to work.
Whole Foods need to learn that the American version of "flair" on uniforms is not the same as wearing a poppy in Canada or UK etc.
In fact I didn't realize until recently that this was a Canadian thing and that Americans _don't_ wear a poppy.
I found out that some get very touchy when you don't know what it represents. I was doing a joint training exercise that included brits and canadians, and one day they started wearing poppy pins. We asked them why they were wearing flower pins on their uniforms, and they reacted like we'd shit on a war memorial.
It's not just Canadian. I've seen and worn poppies in the US. But I don't think it's as well known or as big of a deal.
It’s very far from being an American norm to ban people from wearing signs of support for the military or veterans. Liberal causes will often get you harassed, but this is the country that invented yellow ribbon bumper stickers.
Confused why this is news now. Did Whole Foods just enter Canada in the last year or something?
Don Cherry gonna be mental
...and there goes Whole Foods from my possible destinations.
strategically WH made an amateur error by starting from a most innocent/popular symbol. As we know one should start from the edges - ban symbols "offensive to others" and list as examples and start enforcing from the ones which most people would agree about - swastikas, Mohammed cartoons, ..., and with time work your way toward other more popular symbols until you reach the goal state of totally politically sterile workplace.
I think it's the other way round. I think their standard policy is that basically everything is banned that could be seen as a political statement, so no maga hats or pride rainbows. So this was less a case of banning the poppy, as saying that they wouldn't make an exception.
I don't know if the poppy is a thing in the US so this might have been a case of US head office not understanding that to the vast majority of people the poppy is not a political statement.
There is some limited use of poppies in America, but I expect most Americans are unfamiliar with it. It's primarily a Commonwealth thing.
>no maga hats or pride rainbows
i think that is our common loss. I mean after probable initial period of discomfort for some, it would be of great benefit to everybody to naturally get used to our differences and to see that say a maga wearer can be a great guy and coworker what you can talk with and not some stupid redneck from backwoods, and pride wearer is also a normal person like you, not just some perverted servant of Satan. It is kind of socialization in puppy training, and it looks like our polarized society is in great need of such socialization.
In Canada, this is a big deal.
You could argue that Canada's participation (and bloody losses) in WW1 and WW2 unified Canada into a nation, beyond the welfare subsidies that made confederation.
Britain very heavily relied on its colonies during those wars, even more than is commonly known. Besides personnel, Canada built several airstrips to train pilots from multiple countries.
I wish Whole Foods would respect American culture too and reverse their ban on firearm carry.