communist state. They need some blue in there asap.

Texas Farm Bureau is a private employer setting a dress code policy which is perfectly legal as long as it isn't discriminatory or places an undue burden on a certain class of employees.

I guess that an employee could try to sue, but why would anyone risk losing their job hoping for a hypothetical payday from a settlement? I doubt that the employee would find any attorney willing to take the case and since Texas Farm Bureau also provides insurance coverage they have plenty of attorneys on staff to fight the lawsuit. I also doubt that a lawsuit of this nature is going to be viewed favorably by either a court or a jury (this is Texas after all).

I doubt that many of the TFB employees wear Nike shoes anyways. They are either going to wear dress shoes or boots instead. I don't believe any other Nike clothing meets the level of professional attire expected in an office environment and there are plenty of alternatives to choose without labels for the employees in positions where more casual clothing is acceptable.

Nike decided to take a stand on a social/political issue which invited the controversy. There is no constitutional right that an employee be permitted to make a social/political statement at work. However, to deflect the criticism the Texas Farm Bureau should prohibit athletic/leisure wear for all employees.

The mere wearing of Nike apparel is not "making a social/political statement at work." Wearing a shirt that says for example, "fuck Trump", is. But you can't tell my politics just because i wear a fucking Nike shirt. This shit is getting ridiculous.

I would agree with your statement that they have a right to a dress code and sports apparel is probably not appropriate. Should have left it at that.

apparel was not making a social/political statement at work. That perception changed with their primary clientele, farmers, due to this advertising campaign.

I doubt that the policy at Texas Farm Bureau began with a decree from the top or the dissatisfaction of a single customer because of the negative publicity the new directive would generate. I suspect that there was some organized response movement from TFB's clientele that prompted the directive. Perhaps there was an office where nearly everyone dressed in Nike gear for the day that caused the phones to ring in the Waco headquarters? If that was the case then there was a social/political statement made at work and the management was correct to react.

For the time being, I think that wearing Nike apparel is making a social/political statement in almost every setting beyond a gym, athletic facility, exercising, or lounging at home. Is the quality of their products that much better than the competitors that people are willing to pay two or three times the cost? The "swoosh" has symbolism steeped as the peace sign had in the 1960s. Whether that social/political statement subsides or expands will depend on the marketing campaigns by Nike. Seeing how successful Nike was with this marketing campaign I expect that they will continue to work with outspoken athletes. It's a profitable business model for Nike, but they are going to alienate a segment of the population similar to how conservative organizations alienate liberals on occasions.

Have the intestinal fortitude to actually own up to your position: "Yeah, we banned it! We picked a side! Come at us bro!"

I think it's wrongheaded on several levels, but the weaselly explanation is just obnoxious.

They cannot dictate what brands people can and cannot wear. Not everyone has the ready cash to go out and replace footware or wardrobe, so this will not stand up to legal scrutiny.

I sweat this shit is getting out of control. One man, kneels silently and respectfully, and the whole country loses its GD mind.

correct.

Employers have wide latitude on setting their dress codes unless they are discriminatory or place an undue burden on one class of employees compared to another. They do have to make accommodations in circumstances of physical disabilities and they cannot adopt a dress code that results in a cultural or religious bias, but I don't believe that prohibiting Nike apparel can be considered as discriminatory when it is applied to all employees.

Texas is a right to work state and showing up to work wearing the Nike gear would be considered as insubordination and grounds for termination. As long as they don't violate any discrimination laws in their dress code then the farm bureau is within their legal rights.

I also question whether it is professional and appropriate to wear any type of athletic wear or leisure wear when working for an insurance company. When I worked for an insurance company in the Metroplex women were banned from wearing Capri pants and I understood why because they look unprofessional. They also banned men from wearing Hawaiian shirts. Denim was prohibited for all employees except on casual days or unless they were performing tasks involving a significant amount of physical activity such as loading boxes from the file cabinets.

they cannot specify the uniforms or footwear. Nor can they prohibit a specific supplier from bidding on a contract without good cause.

If the employer wants to specify that employees cannot safely use the products of any supplier then they must specify in any bid contracts what is required. At that point ANY supplier who submits a bid that meets the criteria must be considered.

Unless you live in Russia.

I don't know of any legal authority for your assertions.

You may be confusing states with...oh....athletic associations, which are not state agencies. In other words, while the Commonwealth of Virginia cannot discriminate and must observe strict procurement standards, a university athletic association is a separate entity (a business) and can do whatever suits them. Teams around the country switch athletic apparel suppliers at will.
As I said in my OP, Mississippi is Mississippi and I am not sure what their guidelines are.

So they can do pretty much whatever they please so long as they don't violate laws barring discrimination against a protected class.

I addressed the "organization" aspect in post # 16.

Have a good morning!

Lots on my mind this morning. DU is a nice distraction.

To avoid the appearance of conflict they should probably ban all athletic/leisure wear at work except for occasions like when a department is moving or emptying file cabinets.

Considering who the employer is, there aren't going to be many employees that would be wearing athletic gear on a frequent basis. An employee could file a lawsuit because people can sue for anything, but I doubt that any attorney is going to take a case on a contingency basis claiming it is discriminatory to ban Nike but allow Adidas. So unless someone is willing to pay the attorneys up front and risk getting laughed out of court, the wisest course of action if the employee wants to keep their job is to comply with the policy or at least cover the labels on the clothing with tape.

the state of Texas. They are an "organization."

I suspect they do try to avoid conflicts of interest or appearances of bias in their procurement standards. However, they are not held to the same restrictions as state agencies.

I also don't believe that the Texas Farm Bureau procures any type of clothing (except for goodwill items such as employee anniversaries).

I'm not an attorney, but to me this seems pretty clear cut and any employee who violates the dress code places themselves into being addressed with disciplinary action by either their supervisor and/or HR. Repeated violations of the dress code should draw increased levels of discipline starting with verbal warnings, then written documentation.

It would also be difficult for an employee to claim an undue burden is being placed on them since I recently purchased shoes and the Nikes were $70 while an acceptable alternative were $30.

Ultimately it is the responsibility of the employee to decide whether they want to work or be terminated. If they are behaving in a rebellious nature then TFB is completely justified to terminate the employee because they can't be trusted to perform their job duties with the best interests of the company.

difference is when states "provide" attire and employees are forced to wear that attire, the state must use it's own procurement guidelines and cannot discriminate in a bid situation. Some government agencies get around this by issuing employees a stipend to purchase their own choice of "like" products. A good example would be when certain types of workers are required to wear steel toed shoes. It is generally more efficient to issue a stipend to eligible employees rather that try to stock every size and width on the shelves when many of them would never be used.

See how they like pressing 2 for English.

They need to be institutionalized for ours and their own safety. I hope they all stroke out when trump is removed.

Texas Farm Bureau does not necessarily have the same procurement constraints as a taxpayer funded state agency does. I agree, this entire Nike thing has snowballed and is really stupid.

Who enforces that?

Nike makes non-cotton-based compression t-shirts to wear under football jerseys, lacrosse jerseys, and so forth, too.

Nike compression gear is made of the same stretchy material that Under Armour uses for its compression gear.

As long as the TFB isn't conducting an underwear check, it will never know if an employee is wearing Nike compression gear.

Just slowly get rid of all of their clothing.

Not all of Farm Bureau’s clients are idiots.