National Labor Relations Board Vs Starbucks

After reading the articles involving Starbucks and the dispute with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) I don’t think the administrative judge went too far. I believe that Starbucks was wrong for the termination of employees because of their stance on union support. Starbucks allowed employees to wear one pro-union button at a time, but the NLRB ruled that employees could wear as many as they would like. Corporations are well known to try and violate an employee’s right of personal expression. We can take a look back at the case of the NRLB versus Wal-Mart and how they unlawfully terminated employees for protesting the company and trying to get a union established. Employees were threatened with being fired and disciplined for doing so. The courts in that case ruled against the employer as well.

The law gives employers a lot of leeway in creating the culture they desire in their workplace, and this includes allowing employers to decide how employees should dress and groom. Some employers like to set a professional tone by requiring employees to wear suits. Other employers like to foster a more creative environment by allowing employees to wear T-shirts and blue jeans. Just about any rule is fine, as long as it doesn't violate laws against discrimination or harassment. (Deplo, 2015) When an employee agrees to what the companies expectation are in the dress code, the employee is expected to follow the rules. If an employee is in violation of the signed agreement then the company can place the employee on disciplinary