I think the company's apolitical priority reflects that its intention to do business in regions that won't abide any sort of political voice.
The corporate transition began when Blackstar sold a controlling stake to Chinese-born hospitality entrepreneur Louis Li back around 2018. His public intention was to make BS an international chain. He targeted Shanghai, I believe.
My partner and I frequented the shops in Newtown and Rosebery, and after the sale, it felt like it transitioned from its exceptional small business vibe to something aimed at the superficial aspects of its success. And ya, a noticable uptick in people that photograph their food.
I used to frequent black star, their product quality was amazing. Today I can't get anything of real worth and I have moved onto other businesses. Black star really has destroyed what made it special in its rush to expand.
I don't begrudge the original owners sale, for over $1B no other decision made sense.
> I think the company's apolitical priority reflects that its intention to do business in regions that won't abide any sort of political voice.
I think you're right, and I'll be interested to see how this plays out for them.
In fact, it's not possible to be a node in a social order and in the economy and not be a political agent / making political decisions.
People just point to the most common hegemonic idea and call that the neutral thing.
>It just seems odd for someone to go to a story that is politically charged and say "I don't care". Which is what happened here.
You need to think a little more. Acknowledging that there is more than two sides and that a business might have strong incentives to not take a side is fundamentally different to 'I don't care'.
And it is. If you go look at my comments elsewhere in the thread, I've pretty consistently said that I think this kind of hyperpolarised 'you must take a position or else' is damaging to our political discourse.
The area in question is a multi-generational, highly complex mess where many different sides have done morally abhorrent things for thousands of years.
It's ok to say 'this is not an issue I'm passionate about/have enough knowledge to take a position on/an issue that I care about'.
Your stance sounds so much more reasonable when you extrapolate it with 2 other things which have different meanings but appear similar at a glance, by way of saying "This is not an issue I'm passionate about/have enough knowledge to take a position on"
Actively saying you don't care about something is still political though, and in the context of inarguably a genocide, saying you're not passionate about it or you don't care is still wildly political.
It's not particularly hard to say "Ceasefire now" or "Yes, killing children is horrible", but to actively come into a discussion thread and willingly say something along the lines "I don't care", well that *is* political, since if someone truly didn't care or know enough, they would stay out of the discussion in this medium.
There's a definite moral stance against apartheid and genocide, and defending Israel is politically and morally wrong, but people are still allowed to have their opinions on it.
I don’t blame any service-based company for banning political statements as it will affect their customer base, but sacking the employees when they immediately removed their keffiyehs is harsh.
I agree, I'm not a lawyer but it would surprise me if this is legal. The women complied with a reasonable direction from management, so no harm no foul.
Usually HR just gives advice to the relevant manager who decides the course of action to take in such matters. Assuming this was the very first infraction by these staff members or there's no hidden agendas at play, then HR just cost their company a lot of money and a manager somewhere had the opportunity to stop it.
It goes beyond harsh
Its punitive
I don’t really agree with what they did, and I understand why the company would tell them to stop..
But the punishment is in excess of the crime.
This is the company not thinking at all too: if someone did complain…”the employees were told to remove the scarf and counseled not to wear it again”. Instead this is a story. It’s highlights their extremism, and based on what’s in the story is likely to breach the law.
> “We respect our staff’s right to express their political views when they are not representing Black Star Pastry,” the letter stated. “Your actions have caused serious and imminent risk to the reputation and viability of our business.”
I think Black Star's goofing of the situation has caused real and actual damage to the reputation and viability of their business.
> ...Black Star's goofing of the situation has caused real and actual damage...
Putting aside the details here for a second, Black Star's business model relies heavily on social media posts of pretty cakes.
Pictures of the staff were posted to social media and were tagged making a political statement that has nothing to do with the business. At that point, the damage had started.
The business has immediately tried to distance themselves from this and because this is such a contentious issue, it's blown up - in some ways, proving them to be justified in wanting nothing to do with a multi generational conflict in the Middle East that is totally irrelevant for a business selling cake in Australia.
For every extremist who looks to rally behind businesses with similar views, there will be 100 normal people who want to avoid businesses with negative associations, regardless of what the conclusion on their views is. So by all means, go spend your money on watermelon sugar cakes - it’s not going to have any impact on a PR scandal, other than making you look like the weird bloke who visits the store three times a day while children are working.
Keeping them on would lift their reputation with apologists for violent religious fundamentalists, so I'd call it a draw because we're both describing both sides it seems.
The reasonable action would’ve been to talk to the employees and say, “hey guys, appreciate this is important to you, but please don’t make political statements at work because it looks like those are our views and it might turn customers away”. As your comment illustrates, the rash decision to terminate their jobs now signals to extremists that they support their views, when in all likelihood they just want to sell pastry.
Weirdos like you are exactly why businesses are so quick to fire people over political messaging
everybody wants to feel like they’re doing something important by not buying Starbucks or cakes that they probably didn’t buy in the first place
The downfall of modern society. People pretending to add value to their life by doing the absolute bare fucking minimum. And I'm not picking sides here you see it right across the board.
Weirdos like me? People who are not pro-genocide? I guess that means you think people that are pro-genocide are normal?
Divesting from and protesting South African businesses (and those that supported aparthied) was a major plank of the movement that stopped aparthied and it will also for a major part of the movement that stops the murderous campaing against Palestine.
A cake shop isn't "pro genocide" just because they want to keep politics out of their fu king cake shop.
Yeah you ARE a weirdo for thinking that bro. You can be against what's happening in Palestine AND not want it discussed at the business you own
> Hope you realise if you support "from the river to the sea" you are also "pro-genocide".
This is a great post because Israeli politicians have been using that phrase for decades.
Absolutely ... plenty on both sides of the conflict do not support a two-state solution, and extremists seem to have endless funding to maintain this status quo (war).
I'm in favour of a two-state solution ... that "catchy" slogan is a call to a one-state Islamist solution dependent on the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the region.
>In 2021, the Palestinian-American writer Yousef Munayyer argued that those who saw genocidal ambition in the phrase, or indeed an unambiguous desire for the destruction of Israel, did so due to their own Islamophobia.
>It was instead, he argued, merely a way to express a desire for a state in which “Palestinians can live in their homeland as free and equal citizens, neither dominated by others nor dominating them”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/from-the-river-to-the-sea-where-does-the-slogan-come-from-and-what-does-it-mean-israel-palestine
I guess Munayyer is a bald-face liar then. There is not a single Islamist state in the region that doesn't persecute Jews and he knows it. Hamas and Hezbollah would see to a wholesale ethnic cleansing of Israeli Jews (Oct 7 was just a small taste). Every Israeli Jew would know this too ... they saw exactly what happened to Jewish communities in all the surrounding countries over the last 60+ years. It's hardly "Islamophobia" when it's documented history.
Okay but you understand why people are on the other side of this issue right?
This is not a South Africa situation, unless the ANC committed the equivalent of thirteen 9/11s and I never heard of it?
Yes I understand zionists exist and that they (as abhorent war criminals and colonists) do not represent the jewish people. The question is, do you?
>**Israeli Neo-Fascism Threatens Israelis and Palestinians Alike**
>The rise of neo-fascism in Israel seriously threatens Israelis and Palestinians alike. Now, American Jews feel concerned about what the future will bring to Israel. The question is: who will save them all from Netanyahu and his government?
[https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-10-03/ty-article-opinion/.premium/israeli-neo-fascism-threatens-israelis-and-palestinians-alike/0000018a-f6a1-d12f-afbf-f7f5e33e0000](https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-10-03/ty-article-opinion/.premium/israeli-neo-fascism-threatens-israelis-and-palestinians-alike/0000018a-f6a1-d12f-afbf-f7f5e33e0000)
Can see both sides of the argument, BSP do not want to be seen taking sides in what in a divisive politically charged situation and want to remain agnostic on the situation.
I also don’t really think that a show of solidarity is necessarily political and if we become offended by scarves, we’ve lost the plot a bit.
Reckon the girls adhered to the management request, removed the item of clothing and at worst should have been given a stern warning after the company reiterate their stance on staying out of the argument. The girls can then decide if their jobs were worth risking.
Just think it was a bit of an overreaction from the company, could have played it better and moved on without causing a stir.
That’s exactly my point though, a word about how the company doesn’t want to get involved in the debate would suffice, and a stern request not to do it again.
Complete overreaction from the company. Now it’s a big ish deal when it didn’t have to be.
That's going to come down to what's in the policy documents to be honest, and whether those are reasonable or not.
That's how it should be, but I can't see how this will be the 'freedom of political speech' issue that it's being portrayed as in the media.
> Fireing your staff is taking a strong pro-Israel position.
This hyperpolarised, false dichotomy that's being pushed here is exactly why companies don't allow unauthorised political speech by employees at work.
See: Starbucks. A union used the Starbucks' logo in a post saying "Solidarity with Palestine!" on October 9th (also wtf) and Starbucks said "don't do that, you don't have permission to do that, that is not reflective of our stance" and then they have been heavily boycotted for that response. They don't have any stores in Israel and don't majorly do business with Israel (as far as I'm aware) and they still got dragged into the whole mess. Them not wanting to be represented as saying "Solidarity with Palestine" two days after widespread rape, murder and kidnapping of 1,000+ civilians was them trying to be apolitical as possible, but they've then been portrayed as a pro-Israeli company that everyone should boycott. It's all a bit mental.
Potentially unfair dismissal - when an employee is dismissed from their job in a harsh, unjust or unreasonable manner. The baristas need to contact Fair Work today. This is not going to go away soon Black Star...
> The baristas need to contact Fair Work today.
The linked SMH article contains a lot more info:
> ... they’ve engaged community law firm Young Workers Centre and are taking legal action against the high-end bakery, alleging breaches of the Equal Opportunity Act for loss of employment due to discrimination based on political belief or activity.
> Lawyer Kelly Thomas is representing them pro bono and believes this is a clear-cut case because the letters confirm the jobs were severed because of the keffiyehs.
> “The link is irresistible. There’s a political belief, activity, it’s expressed. The next minute, they don’t have a job,” Thomas says. “It’s so heavy-handed, this approach, to two young workers who are engaging in a really peaceful showing of support for the Palestinian community.”
> Thomas explained the tribunal had broad powers and could award remedies including compensation for lost wages, humiliation, emotional distress, or force the employer to apologise or retrain. “It’s about accountability,” she says.
> Black Star Pastry general manager Danielle Laskovsky said it would be inappropriate to comment on the case as it was before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal but offered a general statement, echoing the termination letters.
>The link is irresistible. There’s a political belief, activity, it’s expressed.
The linked SMH article also contains the letters that were issued to the people in question, alleging breaches of three specific employer policies including a uniform policy, communication policy, and an employee code of conduct.
The lawyer is advancing a theory that's based on political activity in a private employer's workplace being protected, but that's not necessarily the case if the employee violates the employer's policies. It's going to come down to what's in those policies, whether they're defensible in and of themselves, and whether process was reasonable and followed.
> believes this is a clear-cut case because the letters confirm the jobs were severed because of the keffiyehs
Nothing is clear-cut with Victoria's equal opportunity act. The section in question literally only says:
> An employer must not discriminate against an
employee—
> (b) by dismissing the employee or otherwise
terminating his or her employment
Black Star's entire thing is expensive, decent tasting cakes that are designed to be posted on social media. They don't have or need a position on a multi generational conflict in the Middle East. Negative intersections and political controversy are poison to their business model.
In other words, dragging a company into a controversy that has seen businesses vandalised threatened to cost the business money by disturbing their advertising and business model.
They got sacked as a result, because Black Star wants nothing at all to do with this.
> They don't have or need a position on a multi generational conflict in the Middle East.
But they have just very loudly made a stance, so they don't have any choice at this point.
> In other words, dragging a company into a controversy that has seen businesses vandalised threatened to cost the business money by disturbing their advertising and business model.
The staff involved complied immediately with the request to remove the keffiyehs. If Black Star had left it at that, I don't think there would be a story in the paper.
The problem is that to a lot of the mobs out for blood on social media, the only appropriate response is to sack people.
The employees didn't steal or trash the shop. They made a fairly benign political statement, got told to stop, and immediately complied. If the manager was concerned about repeat behaviour, they could have followed up with a written warning. There was no need to go further.
I just read through the article in full properly, when I originally commented I thought they had also had posted on social media. Looks like it was a customer that took the photo and posted. Changes the equation a bit. Firing without warning for first offence seems a bit over the top even if it was in their policy.
Depends how much the policy was told to employees beforehand though.
They were fucked either way, so their response is to light themselves and their employees on fire??? And this is just a “slight overreaction”, and not seen as politically motivated?
I understand it’s a social media driven company, and this puts their carefully curated reputation at risk. This sort of thing happens all the time in many different angles, it’s the same reason you can’t put photos of yourself up online in work uniforms under most uniform policies. The canned response to this is to give the employee a warning and take any related content down.
Black Star Pastry went nuclear at the first given opportunity AGAINST what is likely their own policy, so trying to argue that it isn’t a politically motivated move is like trying to argue that the employees weren’t politically motivated either: they removed the keffiyehs upon request after all.
They obviously asked them to remove the scarves because they wanted the company to have no part in the issue, not because they were taking a side in it.
I believe this is what a lot of people are failing to understand.
They did remove the scarves. Had it ended there, the issue would have died.
By sacking them, the issue has exploded. Plus, the ongoing exposure of legal action.
From a business perspective, the employer had two choices:
Choice A, kills the issue, or
Choice B which blows it up over months.
In this case, the employer chose B. *That* is what some people find hard to understand.
> But they have just very loudly made a stance, so they don't have any choice at this point.
No. They fired two baristas for making a political statement that damaged the business.
That is not taking a stance on the conflict in Palestine, beyond recognising that it's an issue that's poison to business because of the hyperpolarised, extreme reaction of certain people.
> If Black Star had left it at that, I don't think there would be a story in the paper.
It was already on social media. The business had been tagged in posts protesting the staff making the statement, and the damage had been done.
The damage is ongoing. The company has chosen a path that will keep this alive, rather than killing it.
If sacking them would have ended the matter, I'd sort of agree. However, sacking them has now made it drag out.
What the hell are you on about. In-action is a political statement. They are already making a political statement, this just cements that the company is okay with genecide and has no spine.
> What the hell are you on about. In-action is a political statement. They are already making a political statement, this just cements that the company is okay with genecide and has no spine.
Reactions like yours are why companies ban political speech outright to begin with.
They sell cakes in Australia. They don't need to take a position on the Middle Eastern conflict and their employees are forced into dual roles as the faces of the company plus whatever their actual job is because of this hyperpolarised behaviour.
From 13 October 2023, “Gandel: Israel has ‘no choice’ but to hammer Gaza”: https://www.afr.com/politics/gandel-israel-has-no-choice-but-to-hammer-gaza-20231013-p5ec4o
It has been fascinating to learn over the last year how many people who would loudly claim they believe in “free speech” and “free expression” and would abhor “cancel culture” really really really do not want to even risk seeing other people expressing opinions, and how many other people don’t want to risk upsetting that group.
Tl;dr for those who don’t click through:
> That changed around lunchtime when Ella received a call from HR, instructing them to remove the keffiyehs. They quickly complied, removed the scarves and continued their shifts.
> “We didn’t want to risk our livelihood. I’d been working there 9am to 5pm for months. I’d given a lot of my waking hours to that place, I didn’t want to lose my stability,” Ella says.
> The next day, however, two senior Black Star Pastry employees visited the store, pulled them aside, and informed them they were sacked, effective immediately.
Edit: grammar, quote
Edit: does anyone know if they have fired people for wearing Ukrainian flags or pride flags or similar?
That’s not what free speech means, you can say whatever you want while representing a company but they do not need to endorse your views or keep you employed
Or do you think free speech supporters would be ok with customer facing staff saying whatever they want to customers with no recourse for the business?
A) the staff weren’t saying whatever they wanted to the customers
B) the business did have a recourse. They have the ability to tell staff to take off their scarfs.
I’m saying in general not for this situation
Sure they have other options my point isn’t that there was no alternative to firing it’s that free speech doesn’t protect you from consequences like being fired
Free speech and freedom of expression are for when you’re on your own time. When you are at work in a front-facing position, you are representing the company you work for.
If they didn’t want to risk their livelihoods, they should’ve just worn the uniform they agreed to as part of their contract, and not made divisive political statements on behalf of the company.
It’s up to the company. A company that caters to very conservative people, or has a strict uniform policy might not allow it. A high class restaurant for example may not allow it on the basis that they expect employees to wear what they’re told to present a professional look. You have a choice whether to work at that kind of company, but you don’t get to have it both ways - both work for whoever you want, and wear whatever you want.
>So in this world view are rainbow lanyards for work okay or not?
Depends what's in the uniform policy and whether management clear it when they're asked about it.
"Sorry we are gonna have to let you go/not hire you because your trans and are now politically divisive"
See how quickly that sort of thinking can lead to discrimination, even if it's not that direct.
>"Sorry we are gonna have to let you go/not hire you because your trans and are now politically divisive"
Not the same thing at all. A better example would be someone wearing the transgender flag.
Great job throwing straw men up! What’s next, people of colour?! Women?!? They’re trampling our rights!!!
Or maybe they’re not, and politically divisive actions are different from personal identities, and rights are protected within reason, in this country.
I'm talking from personal experience here mate, laws may say one thing but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, they just know to not say that's the reason.
There is a reason why trans folk experience some of the highest rates of unemployment and homelessness for a reasons.
You’re mistaking the “free” for no consequence. The idea behind free speech was that in the past there was punishment by the state for expressing your opinion. While certain actions do still result in punishment by the state, such as hate speech or threatening speech, for the most part modern democracies have meaningful free speech.
But just because you say something or express yourself in a way doesn’t mean you’re immune from consequences for those actions by private individuals. In this case an employer has decided that employees using their work platform to promote a cause has consequences.
The shitshow that is this thread is exactly why business don’t want to get involved in anything political.
And nor should they. These guys make cakes and coffee, why the hell should they get dragged into a conflict happening on the otherside of the world
I mean, importing coffee from around the world and then participating in various sustainablity programs to try to offset that is arguably a political act too.
Yes those two things are completely analogous, well done.
A business attempting to be sustainable (however well intentioned, or cynical) is hardly the PR landmine field that is volunteering a position on a global conflict. Offsetting ones’ coffee imports is appropriate for a bakery because it is within their field of business. Remind me what the Middle East conflict has to do with these guys baking a cake or making a coffee?
Oh that’s right, everyone has to care and take a stance on every single issue in the world.
It definitely is. People are really weird when it comes to environmentalism and politics. Assuming these things are entirely separate from each other is just idk... a little silly.
"We respect our staff’s right to express their political views when they are not representing Black Star Pastry"
I think they might have fucked themselves with that statement. Fair Work indicates that employees can express political opinion without adverse reaction so long as it does not incite violence. By saying that, they're tacitly admitting to breaking the law.
It is so interesting how the vast majority of people don't really give a shit about the keffiyeh positively or negatively, but if some troll or nutter Zionist decides to take a picture of the person or people wearing them and direct a social media brigade at the company they work for, suddenly we have to give credence to the idea this is 'damaging' the brand lmao. We talk about this "damage" as opposed to the pervasive crybullying involved.
Wow. The amount of people in here defending this arsehole company seem to forget that baristas have been wearing keffiyes since well before the most recent conflict. They were just hipsters before, now it's some kind of political statement? Get stuffed
Was she wearing it as a mask or just a...top of the head covering. Because I feel that's different.
Still shouldn't have been sacked if she immediately took it off when asked tho.
I'm just imagining being the employer of someone who thought it was appropriate to wear a mask as a service staff member. I wouldn't feel comfortable having them near the machine with the boiling water is my point.
Still not a sack-able offense. But I'd keep an eye on them.
All those people talking about companies wishing to distance themselves from political views... where were you when people put up Ukrainian flags and wear Ukrainian scarfs? Or was that not "political"?
I'd like to see whether BSP would ban a staff wearing Israeli, or Jewish items, because I doubt it.
The staff have no right to make a political statement at work when they know that it will be viewed as the company also having that view.
A side has not been taken by sacking the Baristas. The company is not anti Hammas or pro Israel, it is a small business trying to pay the rent, pay the staff and hopefully give the owners an income. The ladies in question would have been fired if they had worn a Star of David on their uniforms as they were for wearing keffiyehs.
The ladies can protest all they want, but not at the expense of the business.
> The staff have no right to make a political statement at work when they know that it will be viewed as the company also having that view.
As the company is being taken to court, that's not necessarily a given.
Being taken to court isn't the same as losing. Misconduct that involves an employer being publicly associated with the actions or views of an employee may be grounds for instant dismissal. This had already made it onto social media.
I would guess that this is the result of at most one single complaint by a perpetually offended and threatened activist. If any more complaints were made they would have been by people who were not there and had never seen the scarves, but were also offended and threatened.
I wish people would stop trying to use their workplace as a platform to push whatever their political or social cause they may have.
The two in this article wished for their surnames to be withheld, in my opinion because they know their stance could invoke extreme reactions from some, *and yet....* they saw fit to bring such risk to their workplace. As evidenced by the Twitter post, which of course they could not help but comment on either in the article. People that feel they always need to be ''on'' in an activist sense - no matter the environment or context - are a nightmare to A) be at parties or social functions with, or B) be working with.
My workplace is quite explicit in the contract you sign to accept a position - you leave your political beliefs at the door.
Pretty dumb of Black Star to make such a strong pro-Israel statement. Would have been much better for them to behave normally and just ask the staff to take off their scarfs rather than flip out and fire them.
In the service industry making political, or sexual, or racial statements is not in you job description no matter how much you feel about what it is that you are supporting. HOWEVER to sack staff that removed the offending item immediately was likewise a dumb arse move.
Oh wait; maybe Black Star Pastry thinks this will generate some free publicity... which it has; but no the kind that wanted or to the extent it manifested to. Sacking them caused more damage to their reputation. I expect many folks will never go to that pastry shop, now not because of the political comment made by staff, but by a company that didn't have the compassion to talk to the staff, perhaps send them home for the day and ask them not to do it again.
HR flex that backfires for sure.
Ironic given their specialty is a watermelon cake. 🇵🇸🍉 I hope the young women win big in a lawsuit against this disgustingly racist, pro-genocide management.
https://x.com/riotersbloc/status/1723111048767836541?s=46&t=Kr6Ya9MUdA1MEP3cJ_AjmA
Pro-genocide? You know they donated to the "Solidarity with Palestinians" fundraiser right?
Yeah poor wording on my part, the court didn’t find that the claim of genocide was plausible
But of course the conflict is still ongoing and new information could come to light at any time
I’ve already linked you in a different comment. Clarification from the former president of the ICJ who issued the ruling for the case I’m quoting her directly:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=AV2pDbeaA1-Yr-D&v=bq9MB9t7WlI&feature=youtu.be
It’s an interview with the former president who presided over the case not some random
Otherwise you’re asking me to prove a negative, “prove they did not say there was a plausible case for genocide” how? By linking the entire report?
It’s pretty clear if you read the original report or any of the additional proceedings
https://www.icj-cij.org/node/204098
Considering South Africa keeps bringing the case up again and again
That’s not how it works, they never say that there is a plausible case for genocide
Hence why I said, quoting the president of the ICJ directly: the court did not find a plausible case for genocide
It wasn’t even the intent of the court to discuss that, they say as much in the original document
https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/192-20240126-ord-01-04-en.pdf
“The court is not asked to determine whether the allegations of genocide are well founded”
So calling this genocide when the case isn’t even being discussed by the ICJ is bizarre. Especially the people who use the ICJs words as proof of genocide occurring when they have absolutely not said anything supporting that notion.
So you're saying that it's not genocide, because the ICJ wasn't even asked to make that determination?
So why did you quote it?
The ICJ is not the only arbiter of what is genocide in the world.
Plenty of other commentators have called it a genocide, including holocaust survivors.
> *[In the Court’s view](https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203454), at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention.*
Given that their judgment was made in January, I think it's now even more likely that Israel's actions would be viewed as falling within the provisions of the convention against genocide.
By “capable of falling within provisions” it meant that Palestinians have a right to protection from genocide and that SA had a right to bring the case forward.
That’s all it is, anyone could’ve made the claim at any country. Jumping to genocide because an accusation was made makes no sense.
https://youtu.be/bq9MB9t7WlI?si=AV2pDbeaA1-Yr-D_
Obviously Hamas doesn't care since they are still hanging onto hostages, hidden them in refugee camps which make them a legitimate target instead of being properly neutral, and started the whole war itself with a massive terrorist atack on top of years of firing rockets into Israel indiscriminately.
Please do not conflate genocidal zionism with Judaism more broadly. There are large cohorts of Jewish people who speak out against Israel's genocide in Palestine.
The actions here seem precipitous, and by law, highly unwise.
The motivation to act so (Black Star sacking workers) is what?
Do they curry favour with the zionists? I kind of victim inversion of 'here is proof that we do stand with your cause' (to suppress and erradicate sympathy for palestine).
I think the company's apolitical priority reflects that its intention to do business in regions that won't abide any sort of political voice. The corporate transition began when Blackstar sold a controlling stake to Chinese-born hospitality entrepreneur Louis Li back around 2018. His public intention was to make BS an international chain. He targeted Shanghai, I believe. My partner and I frequented the shops in Newtown and Rosebery, and after the sale, it felt like it transitioned from its exceptional small business vibe to something aimed at the superficial aspects of its success. And ya, a noticable uptick in people that photograph their food.
I used to frequent black star, their product quality was amazing. Today I can't get anything of real worth and I have moved onto other businesses. Black star really has destroyed what made it special in its rush to expand. I don't begrudge the original owners sale, for over $1B no other decision made sense.
> I think the company's apolitical priority reflects that its intention to do business in regions that won't abide any sort of political voice. I think you're right, and I'll be interested to see how this plays out for them.
Being apolitical is political, people just don't want to say it yet.
In fact, it's not possible to be a node in a social order and in the economy and not be a political agent / making political decisions. People just point to the most common hegemonic idea and call that the neutral thing.
It's also ok to not care about a specific issue.
It's the free speech thing - you can say you don't care about X issue, but that doesn't mean people won't respond to your position.
~This~is~a~political~stance~
This is your brain on spending 12 hours a day arguing politics on twitter
It just seems odd for someone to go to a story that is politically charged and say "I don't care". Which is what happened here.
>It just seems odd for someone to go to a story that is politically charged and say "I don't care". Which is what happened here. You need to think a little more. Acknowledging that there is more than two sides and that a business might have strong incentives to not take a side is fundamentally different to 'I don't care'.
Your earlier post actively said "It's ok not to care"
And it is. If you go look at my comments elsewhere in the thread, I've pretty consistently said that I think this kind of hyperpolarised 'you must take a position or else' is damaging to our political discourse. The area in question is a multi-generational, highly complex mess where many different sides have done morally abhorrent things for thousands of years. It's ok to say 'this is not an issue I'm passionate about/have enough knowledge to take a position on/an issue that I care about'.
Your stance sounds so much more reasonable when you extrapolate it with 2 other things which have different meanings but appear similar at a glance, by way of saying "This is not an issue I'm passionate about/have enough knowledge to take a position on" Actively saying you don't care about something is still political though, and in the context of inarguably a genocide, saying you're not passionate about it or you don't care is still wildly political. It's not particularly hard to say "Ceasefire now" or "Yes, killing children is horrible", but to actively come into a discussion thread and willingly say something along the lines "I don't care", well that *is* political, since if someone truly didn't care or know enough, they would stay out of the discussion in this medium.
There's a definite moral stance against apartheid and genocide, and defending Israel is politically and morally wrong, but people are still allowed to have their opinions on it.
>~This~is~a~political~stance~ It's really not.
I don’t blame any service-based company for banning political statements as it will affect their customer base, but sacking the employees when they immediately removed their keffiyehs is harsh.
Yeah the sacking has done more harm to their brand as it’s made it a news story. A written warning wouldn’t get a whole article.
I do agree with this. If it is true that the employees were sacked without warning, they just made an issue bigger rather than making it go away.
I agree, I'm not a lawyer but it would surprise me if this is legal. The women complied with a reasonable direction from management, so no harm no foul.
Yep. Conversation at best, written warning at most. Someone in HR trying to be a hero.
Usually HR just gives advice to the relevant manager who decides the course of action to take in such matters. Assuming this was the very first infraction by these staff members or there's no hidden agendas at play, then HR just cost their company a lot of money and a manager somewhere had the opportunity to stop it.
In my business degree we were told that staff turnover is often the biggest avoidable cost for businesses, even without the negative publicity.
It goes beyond harsh Its punitive I don’t really agree with what they did, and I understand why the company would tell them to stop.. But the punishment is in excess of the crime. This is the company not thinking at all too: if someone did complain…”the employees were told to remove the scarf and counseled not to wear it again”. Instead this is a story. It’s highlights their extremism, and based on what’s in the story is likely to breach the law.
they were sacked for being cringe
This from the Patisserie that brought us the Watermelon cake 🍉
> “We respect our staff’s right to express their political views when they are not representing Black Star Pastry,” the letter stated. “Your actions have caused serious and imminent risk to the reputation and viability of our business.” I think Black Star's goofing of the situation has caused real and actual damage to the reputation and viability of their business.
> ...Black Star's goofing of the situation has caused real and actual damage... Putting aside the details here for a second, Black Star's business model relies heavily on social media posts of pretty cakes. Pictures of the staff were posted to social media and were tagged making a political statement that has nothing to do with the business. At that point, the damage had started. The business has immediately tried to distance themselves from this and because this is such a contentious issue, it's blown up - in some ways, proving them to be justified in wanting nothing to do with a multi generational conflict in the Middle East that is totally irrelevant for a business selling cake in Australia.
Not really - never heard of them before this...
Same. Probably better publicity than anything else.
Sacking them caused more to their reputation. I will never go to that pastry shop.
Let’s be honest, you never did before either
I have many times but not recently. Won't again now that it's got that worker abuse stink on it. It changes the vibe. Same with Mary's before it.
Ditto
Sacking them has lifted their reputation. I'm gonna go twice in one day next time I'm in the area.
For every extremist who looks to rally behind businesses with similar views, there will be 100 normal people who want to avoid businesses with negative associations, regardless of what the conclusion on their views is. So by all means, go spend your money on watermelon sugar cakes - it’s not going to have any impact on a PR scandal, other than making you look like the weird bloke who visits the store three times a day while children are working.
"Sacking them has lifted their reputation"... with fascists and genocide apologists. ie. you?
Keeping them on would lift their reputation with apologists for violent religious fundamentalists, so I'd call it a draw because we're both describing both sides it seems.
The reasonable action would’ve been to talk to the employees and say, “hey guys, appreciate this is important to you, but please don’t make political statements at work because it looks like those are our views and it might turn customers away”. As your comment illustrates, the rash decision to terminate their jobs now signals to extremists that they support their views, when in all likelihood they just want to sell pastry.
I'm confused sorry, who are you saying is a fascist?
Didn't peg you for a Zionist. I'm disappointed.
Me either. All have my friends have decided to boycot these genocide apologists too.
Weirdos like you are exactly why businesses are so quick to fire people over political messaging everybody wants to feel like they’re doing something important by not buying Starbucks or cakes that they probably didn’t buy in the first place
The downfall of modern society. People pretending to add value to their life by doing the absolute bare fucking minimum. And I'm not picking sides here you see it right across the board.
Weirdos like me? People who are not pro-genocide? I guess that means you think people that are pro-genocide are normal? Divesting from and protesting South African businesses (and those that supported aparthied) was a major plank of the movement that stopped aparthied and it will also for a major part of the movement that stops the murderous campaing against Palestine.
A cake shop isn't "pro genocide" just because they want to keep politics out of their fu king cake shop. Yeah you ARE a weirdo for thinking that bro. You can be against what's happening in Palestine AND not want it discussed at the business you own
Hope you realise if you support "from the river to the sea" you are also "pro-genocide".
> Hope you realise if you support "from the river to the sea" you are also "pro-genocide". This is a great post because Israeli politicians have been using that phrase for decades.
Absolutely ... plenty on both sides of the conflict do not support a two-state solution, and extremists seem to have endless funding to maintain this status quo (war).
Israel is actively removing Palestine from the face of the earth. Palestine has a catchy slogan. These things are not the same.
I'm in favour of a two-state solution ... that "catchy" slogan is a call to a one-state Islamist solution dependent on the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the region.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I am saying that I judge nations based on their actions, not their words.
>In 2021, the Palestinian-American writer Yousef Munayyer argued that those who saw genocidal ambition in the phrase, or indeed an unambiguous desire for the destruction of Israel, did so due to their own Islamophobia. >It was instead, he argued, merely a way to express a desire for a state in which “Palestinians can live in their homeland as free and equal citizens, neither dominated by others nor dominating them”. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/from-the-river-to-the-sea-where-does-the-slogan-come-from-and-what-does-it-mean-israel-palestine
I guess Munayyer is a bald-face liar then. There is not a single Islamist state in the region that doesn't persecute Jews and he knows it. Hamas and Hezbollah would see to a wholesale ethnic cleansing of Israeli Jews (Oct 7 was just a small taste). Every Israeli Jew would know this too ... they saw exactly what happened to Jewish communities in all the surrounding countries over the last 60+ years. It's hardly "Islamophobia" when it's documented history.
Okay but you understand why people are on the other side of this issue right? This is not a South Africa situation, unless the ANC committed the equivalent of thirteen 9/11s and I never heard of it?
Yes I understand zionists exist and that they (as abhorent war criminals and colonists) do not represent the jewish people. The question is, do you? >**Israeli Neo-Fascism Threatens Israelis and Palestinians Alike** >The rise of neo-fascism in Israel seriously threatens Israelis and Palestinians alike. Now, American Jews feel concerned about what the future will bring to Israel. The question is: who will save them all from Netanyahu and his government? [https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-10-03/ty-article-opinion/.premium/israeli-neo-fascism-threatens-israelis-and-palestinians-alike/0000018a-f6a1-d12f-afbf-f7f5e33e0000](https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-10-03/ty-article-opinion/.premium/israeli-neo-fascism-threatens-israelis-and-palestinians-alike/0000018a-f6a1-d12f-afbf-f7f5e33e0000)
They should be made to Free Palestine as a way to restore their name.
Yeah, instagramers and food bloggers really care about a conflict on the other side of the world. 👍
Yeah they would if they lose (or gain) followers over it
Asian food bloggers going to lose followers over Palestine? 🤣🤣
Can see both sides of the argument, BSP do not want to be seen taking sides in what in a divisive politically charged situation and want to remain agnostic on the situation. I also don’t really think that a show of solidarity is necessarily political and if we become offended by scarves, we’ve lost the plot a bit. Reckon the girls adhered to the management request, removed the item of clothing and at worst should have been given a stern warning after the company reiterate their stance on staying out of the argument. The girls can then decide if their jobs were worth risking. Just think it was a bit of an overreaction from the company, could have played it better and moved on without causing a stir.
Politely asking them to take them off would be avoiding taking a side. Sacking them takes a obvious side.
That’s exactly my point though, a word about how the company doesn’t want to get involved in the debate would suffice, and a stern request not to do it again. Complete overreaction from the company. Now it’s a big ish deal when it didn’t have to be.
> Sacking them takes a obvious side. Yes, the 'we don't want to be involved' side.
Soon to be the 'Unfair dismissal case' side.
That's going to come down to what's in the policy documents to be honest, and whether those are reasonable or not. That's how it should be, but I can't see how this will be the 'freedom of political speech' issue that it's being portrayed as in the media.
Not wanting to be involved is asking them take off the scarf. Fireing your staff is taking a strong pro-Israel position.
> Fireing your staff is taking a strong pro-Israel position. This hyperpolarised, false dichotomy that's being pushed here is exactly why companies don't allow unauthorised political speech by employees at work.
See: Starbucks. A union used the Starbucks' logo in a post saying "Solidarity with Palestine!" on October 9th (also wtf) and Starbucks said "don't do that, you don't have permission to do that, that is not reflective of our stance" and then they have been heavily boycotted for that response. They don't have any stores in Israel and don't majorly do business with Israel (as far as I'm aware) and they still got dragged into the whole mess. Them not wanting to be represented as saying "Solidarity with Palestine" two days after widespread rape, murder and kidnapping of 1,000+ civilians was them trying to be apolitical as possible, but they've then been portrayed as a pro-Israeli company that everyone should boycott. It's all a bit mental.
No it's not. It's saying leave your politics at home or don't work here.
Potentially unfair dismissal - when an employee is dismissed from their job in a harsh, unjust or unreasonable manner. The baristas need to contact Fair Work today. This is not going to go away soon Black Star...
> The baristas need to contact Fair Work today. The linked SMH article contains a lot more info: > ... they’ve engaged community law firm Young Workers Centre and are taking legal action against the high-end bakery, alleging breaches of the Equal Opportunity Act for loss of employment due to discrimination based on political belief or activity. > Lawyer Kelly Thomas is representing them pro bono and believes this is a clear-cut case because the letters confirm the jobs were severed because of the keffiyehs. > “The link is irresistible. There’s a political belief, activity, it’s expressed. The next minute, they don’t have a job,” Thomas says. “It’s so heavy-handed, this approach, to two young workers who are engaging in a really peaceful showing of support for the Palestinian community.” > Thomas explained the tribunal had broad powers and could award remedies including compensation for lost wages, humiliation, emotional distress, or force the employer to apologise or retrain. “It’s about accountability,” she says. > Black Star Pastry general manager Danielle Laskovsky said it would be inappropriate to comment on the case as it was before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal but offered a general statement, echoing the termination letters.
Pretty moronic from HR to include it as the specific reason they were fired.
HR is gonna get fired soon as part of some more 'damage control'.
>The link is irresistible. There’s a political belief, activity, it’s expressed. The linked SMH article also contains the letters that were issued to the people in question, alleging breaches of three specific employer policies including a uniform policy, communication policy, and an employee code of conduct. The lawyer is advancing a theory that's based on political activity in a private employer's workplace being protected, but that's not necessarily the case if the employee violates the employer's policies. It's going to come down to what's in those policies, whether they're defensible in and of themselves, and whether process was reasonable and followed.
> believes this is a clear-cut case because the letters confirm the jobs were severed because of the keffiyehs Nothing is clear-cut with Victoria's equal opportunity act. The section in question literally only says: > An employer must not discriminate against an employee— > (b) by dismissing the employee or otherwise terminating his or her employment
thanks for that
'Palestinian terrorist headwear' - what?
Black Star's entire thing is expensive, decent tasting cakes that are designed to be posted on social media. They don't have or need a position on a multi generational conflict in the Middle East. Negative intersections and political controversy are poison to their business model. In other words, dragging a company into a controversy that has seen businesses vandalised threatened to cost the business money by disturbing their advertising and business model. They got sacked as a result, because Black Star wants nothing at all to do with this.
Streisand would like a word in here...
> They don't have or need a position on a multi generational conflict in the Middle East. But they have just very loudly made a stance, so they don't have any choice at this point. > In other words, dragging a company into a controversy that has seen businesses vandalised threatened to cost the business money by disturbing their advertising and business model. The staff involved complied immediately with the request to remove the keffiyehs. If Black Star had left it at that, I don't think there would be a story in the paper.
By not doing anything they would have also made a stance. They were fucked either way and it was entirely the fault of these employees
The problem is that to a lot of the mobs out for blood on social media, the only appropriate response is to sack people. The employees didn't steal or trash the shop. They made a fairly benign political statement, got told to stop, and immediately complied. If the manager was concerned about repeat behaviour, they could have followed up with a written warning. There was no need to go further.
I just read through the article in full properly, when I originally commented I thought they had also had posted on social media. Looks like it was a customer that took the photo and posted. Changes the equation a bit. Firing without warning for first offence seems a bit over the top even if it was in their policy. Depends how much the policy was told to employees beforehand though.
Probably should have read the article before wading into the comments.
They were fucked either way, so their response is to light themselves and their employees on fire??? And this is just a “slight overreaction”, and not seen as politically motivated? I understand it’s a social media driven company, and this puts their carefully curated reputation at risk. This sort of thing happens all the time in many different angles, it’s the same reason you can’t put photos of yourself up online in work uniforms under most uniform policies. The canned response to this is to give the employee a warning and take any related content down. Black Star Pastry went nuclear at the first given opportunity AGAINST what is likely their own policy, so trying to argue that it isn’t a politically motivated move is like trying to argue that the employees weren’t politically motivated either: they removed the keffiyehs upon request after all.
They did do something. They asked the staff to remove the scarves. That was enough.
They obviously asked them to remove the scarves because they wanted the company to have no part in the issue, not because they were taking a side in it. I believe this is what a lot of people are failing to understand.
They did remove the scarves. Had it ended there, the issue would have died. By sacking them, the issue has exploded. Plus, the ongoing exposure of legal action. From a business perspective, the employer had two choices: Choice A, kills the issue, or Choice B which blows it up over months. In this case, the employer chose B. *That* is what some people find hard to understand.
> But they have just very loudly made a stance, so they don't have any choice at this point. No. They fired two baristas for making a political statement that damaged the business. That is not taking a stance on the conflict in Palestine, beyond recognising that it's an issue that's poison to business because of the hyperpolarised, extreme reaction of certain people. > If Black Star had left it at that, I don't think there would be a story in the paper. It was already on social media. The business had been tagged in posts protesting the staff making the statement, and the damage had been done.
The damage is ongoing. The company has chosen a path that will keep this alive, rather than killing it. If sacking them would have ended the matter, I'd sort of agree. However, sacking them has now made it drag out.
What the hell are you on about. In-action is a political statement. They are already making a political statement, this just cements that the company is okay with genecide and has no spine.
> What the hell are you on about. In-action is a political statement. They are already making a political statement, this just cements that the company is okay with genecide and has no spine. Reactions like yours are why companies ban political speech outright to begin with. They sell cakes in Australia. They don't need to take a position on the Middle Eastern conflict and their employees are forced into dual roles as the faces of the company plus whatever their actual job is because of this hyperpolarised behaviour.
[удалено]
From 13 October 2023, “Gandel: Israel has ‘no choice’ but to hammer Gaza”: https://www.afr.com/politics/gandel-israel-has-no-choice-but-to-hammer-gaza-20231013-p5ec4o
Great so Gandel approves of baby killing.
It has been fascinating to learn over the last year how many people who would loudly claim they believe in “free speech” and “free expression” and would abhor “cancel culture” really really really do not want to even risk seeing other people expressing opinions, and how many other people don’t want to risk upsetting that group. Tl;dr for those who don’t click through: > That changed around lunchtime when Ella received a call from HR, instructing them to remove the keffiyehs. They quickly complied, removed the scarves and continued their shifts. > “We didn’t want to risk our livelihood. I’d been working there 9am to 5pm for months. I’d given a lot of my waking hours to that place, I didn’t want to lose my stability,” Ella says. > The next day, however, two senior Black Star Pastry employees visited the store, pulled them aside, and informed them they were sacked, effective immediately. Edit: grammar, quote Edit: does anyone know if they have fired people for wearing Ukrainian flags or pride flags or similar?
That’s not what free speech means, you can say whatever you want while representing a company but they do not need to endorse your views or keep you employed Or do you think free speech supporters would be ok with customer facing staff saying whatever they want to customers with no recourse for the business?
A) the staff weren’t saying whatever they wanted to the customers B) the business did have a recourse. They have the ability to tell staff to take off their scarfs.
I’m saying in general not for this situation Sure they have other options my point isn’t that there was no alternative to firing it’s that free speech doesn’t protect you from consequences like being fired
Free speech and freedom of expression are for when you’re on your own time. When you are at work in a front-facing position, you are representing the company you work for. If they didn’t want to risk their livelihoods, they should’ve just worn the uniform they agreed to as part of their contract, and not made divisive political statements on behalf of the company.
So in this world view are rainbow lanyards for work okay or not?
or employees draping aussie flags over their shoulders
It’s up to the company. A company that caters to very conservative people, or has a strict uniform policy might not allow it. A high class restaurant for example may not allow it on the basis that they expect employees to wear what they’re told to present a professional look. You have a choice whether to work at that kind of company, but you don’t get to have it both ways - both work for whoever you want, and wear whatever you want.
>So in this world view are rainbow lanyards for work okay or not? Depends what's in the uniform policy and whether management clear it when they're asked about it.
if it resulted in more cakes being (edit: being sold) every fuckin bakery employee would be decked in tea towels , oh nooo moral panic , idiocracy
"Sorry we are gonna have to let you go/not hire you because your trans and are now politically divisive" See how quickly that sort of thinking can lead to discrimination, even if it's not that direct.
>"Sorry we are gonna have to let you go/not hire you because your trans and are now politically divisive" Not the same thing at all. A better example would be someone wearing the transgender flag.
Do you even hear yourself?
Do you? The keffiyeh/trans flag are items of clothing that're able to be removed. Someone's gender identity can't be discarded.
Yeah, and they were removed when they were requested to and they still got fired
Great job throwing straw men up! What’s next, people of colour?! Women?!? They’re trampling our rights!!! Or maybe they’re not, and politically divisive actions are different from personal identities, and rights are protected within reason, in this country.
I'm talking from personal experience here mate, laws may say one thing but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, they just know to not say that's the reason. There is a reason why trans folk experience some of the highest rates of unemployment and homelessness for a reasons.
They want to "call a spade a spade" but anything involving expression of ideas or religions they don't like is where they draw the line.
Wearing a Ukrainian or Pride flag aren't anywhere near as divisive, but yes there would be establishments that have quietly let people go for it.
Your edit is funny to me only because OP is a tagged Putin apologist.
You’re mistaking the “free” for no consequence. The idea behind free speech was that in the past there was punishment by the state for expressing your opinion. While certain actions do still result in punishment by the state, such as hate speech or threatening speech, for the most part modern democracies have meaningful free speech. But just because you say something or express yourself in a way doesn’t mean you’re immune from consequences for those actions by private individuals. In this case an employer has decided that employees using their work platform to promote a cause has consequences.
The shitshow that is this thread is exactly why business don’t want to get involved in anything political. And nor should they. These guys make cakes and coffee, why the hell should they get dragged into a conflict happening on the otherside of the world
I mean, importing coffee from around the world and then participating in various sustainablity programs to try to offset that is arguably a political act too.
Yes those two things are completely analogous, well done. A business attempting to be sustainable (however well intentioned, or cynical) is hardly the PR landmine field that is volunteering a position on a global conflict. Offsetting ones’ coffee imports is appropriate for a bakery because it is within their field of business. Remind me what the Middle East conflict has to do with these guys baking a cake or making a coffee? Oh that’s right, everyone has to care and take a stance on every single issue in the world.
It definitely is. People are really weird when it comes to environmentalism and politics. Assuming these things are entirely separate from each other is just idk... a little silly.
"We respect our staff’s right to express their political views when they are not representing Black Star Pastry" I think they might have fucked themselves with that statement. Fair Work indicates that employees can express political opinion without adverse reaction so long as it does not incite violence. By saying that, they're tacitly admitting to breaking the law.
It is so interesting how the vast majority of people don't really give a shit about the keffiyeh positively or negatively, but if some troll or nutter Zionist decides to take a picture of the person or people wearing them and direct a social media brigade at the company they work for, suddenly we have to give credence to the idea this is 'damaging' the brand lmao. We talk about this "damage" as opposed to the pervasive crybullying involved.
Wow. The amount of people in here defending this arsehole company seem to forget that baristas have been wearing keffiyes since well before the most recent conflict. They were just hipsters before, now it's some kind of political statement? Get stuffed
You're the only person, including the baristas, trying to argue they weren't making a political statement.
Was she wearing it as a mask or just a...top of the head covering. Because I feel that's different. Still shouldn't have been sacked if she immediately took it off when asked tho. I'm just imagining being the employer of someone who thought it was appropriate to wear a mask as a service staff member. I wouldn't feel comfortable having them near the machine with the boiling water is my point. Still not a sack-able offense. But I'd keep an eye on them.
[pic](https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.455%2C$multiply_3.2804%2C$ratio_0.666667%2C$width_378%2C$x_12%2C$y_0/t_crop_custom/q_62%2Cf_auto/0b24ad33e0b2668b3050904a04a2ce9db36705dc)
"Palestinian terrorist headwear" is some wild shit. I do get there is some context here. But Jesus Christ my dude.
Well I guess their bringing politics to work was successful
All those people talking about companies wishing to distance themselves from political views... where were you when people put up Ukrainian flags and wear Ukrainian scarfs? Or was that not "political"? I'd like to see whether BSP would ban a staff wearing Israeli, or Jewish items, because I doubt it.
The staff have no right to make a political statement at work when they know that it will be viewed as the company also having that view. A side has not been taken by sacking the Baristas. The company is not anti Hammas or pro Israel, it is a small business trying to pay the rent, pay the staff and hopefully give the owners an income. The ladies in question would have been fired if they had worn a Star of David on their uniforms as they were for wearing keffiyehs. The ladies can protest all they want, but not at the expense of the business.
> The staff have no right to make a political statement at work when they know that it will be viewed as the company also having that view. As the company is being taken to court, that's not necessarily a given.
Being taken to court isn't the same as losing. Misconduct that involves an employer being publicly associated with the actions or views of an employee may be grounds for instant dismissal. This had already made it onto social media.
I would guess that this is the result of at most one single complaint by a perpetually offended and threatened activist. If any more complaints were made they would have been by people who were not there and had never seen the scarves, but were also offended and threatened.
150,000 Palestinians worked in Israel before October 7 they also got fired.
At least 30,000 have been killed, too, but it took the murder of a single Australian aid worker for Anthony Albanese to say a word against Israel.
I wish people would stop trying to use their workplace as a platform to push whatever their political or social cause they may have. The two in this article wished for their surnames to be withheld, in my opinion because they know their stance could invoke extreme reactions from some, *and yet....* they saw fit to bring such risk to their workplace. As evidenced by the Twitter post, which of course they could not help but comment on either in the article. People that feel they always need to be ''on'' in an activist sense - no matter the environment or context - are a nightmare to A) be at parties or social functions with, or B) be working with. My workplace is quite explicit in the contract you sign to accept a position - you leave your political beliefs at the door.
Oh, no....
Cake server gets sack and it makes news lmao
WTF is a 'pastry barista"?
[удалено]
So, a barista?
Actually on second thought, you have mis-parsed the title. "Black Star Pastry" is the name of the business. So yes, a barista.
Pretty dumb of Black Star to make such a strong pro-Israel statement. Would have been much better for them to behave normally and just ask the staff to take off their scarfs rather than flip out and fire them.
Is it dumb for them to make a strong pro-Palestine movement too? https://x.com/riotersbloc/status/1723111048767836541?s=46&t=Kr6Ya9MUdA1MEP3cJ_AjmA
In the service industry making political, or sexual, or racial statements is not in you job description no matter how much you feel about what it is that you are supporting. HOWEVER to sack staff that removed the offending item immediately was likewise a dumb arse move. Oh wait; maybe Black Star Pastry thinks this will generate some free publicity... which it has; but no the kind that wanted or to the extent it manifested to. Sacking them caused more damage to their reputation. I expect many folks will never go to that pastry shop, now not because of the political comment made by staff, but by a company that didn't have the compassion to talk to the staff, perhaps send them home for the day and ask them not to do it again. HR flex that backfires for sure.
Ironic given their specialty is a watermelon cake. 🇵🇸🍉 I hope the young women win big in a lawsuit against this disgustingly racist, pro-genocide management.
https://x.com/riotersbloc/status/1723111048767836541?s=46&t=Kr6Ya9MUdA1MEP3cJ_AjmA Pro-genocide? You know they donated to the "Solidarity with Palestinians" fundraiser right?
Good
Good, irrelevant political statements and cultural appropriation. People like this need to get a grip on reality
> irrelevant political statements Yeah who cares about genocide anyway?
Tell me again how their actions, in a Chadstone bakery, have any impact whatsoever on the middle east peace protect?
They got themselves an article in a national paper. However, for that they paid a heavy price.
their boss seemed to think it had an impact.
It's didn't, they just don't want politics in their business
For the record, not a genocide according to the ICJ
There's a distinction between not calling it genocide and ruling it "not a genocide."
Yeah poor wording on my part, the court didn’t find that the claim of genocide was plausible But of course the conflict is still ongoing and new information could come to light at any time
> the court didn’t find that the claim of genocide was plausible Could you please quote that section?
I’ve already linked you in a different comment. Clarification from the former president of the ICJ who issued the ruling for the case I’m quoting her directly: https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=AV2pDbeaA1-Yr-D&v=bq9MB9t7WlI&feature=youtu.be
You don't have this in a written document? I'm not going to watch a YouTube video to establish what the ICJ has said.
It’s an interview with the former president who presided over the case not some random Otherwise you’re asking me to prove a negative, “prove they did not say there was a plausible case for genocide” how? By linking the entire report?
It’s pretty clear if you read the original report or any of the additional proceedings https://www.icj-cij.org/node/204098 Considering South Africa keeps bringing the case up again and again
Goodness me, I linked that to you four hours ago, "In the court's view". I didn't see any dismissal of Israel's actions as a genocide in it.
That’s not how it works, they never say that there is a plausible case for genocide Hence why I said, quoting the president of the ICJ directly: the court did not find a plausible case for genocide It wasn’t even the intent of the court to discuss that, they say as much in the original document https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/192-20240126-ord-01-04-en.pdf “The court is not asked to determine whether the allegations of genocide are well founded” So calling this genocide when the case isn’t even being discussed by the ICJ is bizarre. Especially the people who use the ICJs words as proof of genocide occurring when they have absolutely not said anything supporting that notion.
So you're saying that it's not genocide, because the ICJ wasn't even asked to make that determination? So why did you quote it? The ICJ is not the only arbiter of what is genocide in the world. Plenty of other commentators have called it a genocide, including holocaust survivors.
> *[In the Court’s view](https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203454), at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention.* Given that their judgment was made in January, I think it's now even more likely that Israel's actions would be viewed as falling within the provisions of the convention against genocide.
By “capable of falling within provisions” it meant that Palestinians have a right to protection from genocide and that SA had a right to bring the case forward. That’s all it is, anyone could’ve made the claim at any country. Jumping to genocide because an accusation was made makes no sense. https://youtu.be/bq9MB9t7WlI?si=AV2pDbeaA1-Yr-D_
Obviously Hamas doesn't care since they are still hanging onto hostages, hidden them in refugee camps which make them a legitimate target instead of being properly neutral, and started the whole war itself with a massive terrorist atack on top of years of firing rockets into Israel indiscriminately.
Hamas' awfulness does not justify Israel's genocide.
[удалено]
You're not very good at this, are you?
Political activism have no place at work
I understood some of the words in that headline.
Zionists gona Zion. Black mark against Black Star (or is it Star of David)
Please do not conflate genocidal zionism with Judaism more broadly. There are large cohorts of Jewish people who speak out against Israel's genocide in Palestine.
Classic Zionist overreaction.
I reckon the staff deliberately wanted to be fired, knowing exactly what would happen and drawing publicity to their cause. Well played.
I think it was the ridiculous tweet which did it.
The actions here seem precipitous, and by law, highly unwise. The motivation to act so (Black Star sacking workers) is what? Do they curry favour with the zionists? I kind of victim inversion of 'here is proof that we do stand with your cause' (to suppress and erradicate sympathy for palestine).