We want you to bring your whole self to work. But only if your “whole self” is the one we decide you should have.

This is what companies really mean when they tout this "whole self" pablum. It's an employee marketing slogan, not an authentic exhortation.

After nearly two years of advocating for open schools throughout 2020-2021 - and close to twenty three years at Levi’s - I was ousted from the company. During public school closures, I tweeted, wrote op-eds, organized rallies and appeared on both local and national news programs to urge San Francisco’s school board and public health officials to open schools, as had been done in other countries, like Denmark, in the spring of 2020.

I was repeatedly told by other executives (my peers) and my boss - the CEO - at the company that I needed to hold my tongue. Why? Because as the Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) for Levi’s, and eventually - as of October 2020 - the President of the Levi’s brand, when I spoke, I spoke on behalf of the company. Or so I was told.

I insisted throughout that time: no I do not. I’m a private citizen. I speak as a mother and advocate for children. The message delivered back to me repeatedly was:

You are the brand. Your name is synonymous with Levi’s. Even if you don’t say that you’re speaking on behalf of the brand, your views and the company’s will inevitably be conflated.

Ok. I don’t accept that, but let’s play it out for a moment.

The CEO of the company, Chip Bergh, has said repeatedly that the company doesn’t wade into politics with support for candidates or PACs. He said it as recently as April 22, 2022, when he was asked by Liz Warren for Rivet (a trade publication for the denim industry) if Levi Strauss and Company (LS&Co.) contributed money to political campaigns:

“No. This is pretty straightforward. We do not have a political action committee and to my knowledge, I don’t think we have ever had one, and we do not make any political donations to any politician or political party.”

Meanwhile, in October 2019, as reported by The Tucson Standard, Bergh himself donated money to Arizona Democratic Senate candidate Mark Kelly. Indeed, Bergh was ranked in Kelly’s top one hundred donors.

I have no issue with this donation, or any other. I myself supported a range of candidates (though not to the tune of $5k) during my time at Levi’s. My donations never made headlines. The donations all had one thing in common though: they were all in support of Democrats. While many of my peers questioned my support of Elizabeth Warren (“anti-business”), it was within the bounds of acceptability because she was running as a Democrat. So they were willing to let it slide, I guess.

But I’d ask: If the company’s official policy is not to support political candidates, but the CEO has given money to specific candidates, following their logic (leaders speak on behalf of the company), wouldn’t the CEO, even more than me as the Brand President, be “speaking” on behalf of the company with his donation?

Why is Bergh’s “speech” via political donation not considered by the company and the board to be on “behalf of the company,” but mine was?

Of course he wasn’t speaking on behalf of the company when he donated the money. Just as I wasn’t when I donated to Warren and bought my mug.

And neither was I when advocated for open schools.

But rules are rules, right? Levi’s either supports political candidates or they don’t. We, as executives, either speak on behalf of the company, or we don’t.

Apparently not.

One might argue it’s a case of rules for thee and not for me. Meaning: the CEO can do what he wants but no one else can. But that isn’t it.

It’s because his “speech” (i.e. donation) was tacitly endorsed by the company, and mine, urging for open public schools, was not.

This is about so much more than Levi’s contradicting itself. It’s about what it means to work for a company today. Do we accept that if you work for a company you sign away your right to having an opinion on political matters? (Opening schools should never have been political, but I’m not making that case here.)

Or, do we accept that there is a line, and that once you reach a certain level, one of visibility within the company and the world more broadly, you sign your right away to having opinions on matters of public concern? I don’t think anyone - workaday employee or executive - would sign up to work for a company if that was the requirement. You’d be giving up your rights as a citizen.

If that is not the ask from companies, then is the (unspoken) point being made by my former company: you can have opinions but only those endorsed by the company you work for? In my case, in a San Francisco company, those opinions being those of the Democratic party? Who would choose to work in a company wherein you had to adopt all of the companies views on politics? Some might think it sounds OK in theory, to fully align your views with the company you work for, but what if your employment contract stated: you have to vote for who we say to vote for? Or, you can only support causes we support. Who would do that? Once again, you’d be giving up your rights as a citizen.

I realize I’m relying on a logic here that simply doesn’t exist when these emotional decisions are made. But these are questions that must be asked. Otherwise we all just accept that individuals must adhere to certain political orthodoxies, which become corporate orthodoxies, to hold jobs in America.

And isn’t this antithetical to the inclusive environments most companies tout and say they seek to create? Isn’t it antithetical to American values and the spirit of the Bill of Rights, guaranteeing free speech to all Americans?

Whether this is legal or not is not the point. It’s wrong. And of course, it’s hypocritical for a company that claims to want employees to bring their “whole self” to work, to push someone out for expressing opinions outside of work.

There’s a joke in the fashion industry. When you ask young people, especially those who are “into fashion,” what they want from their clothing, they all tend to say some version of: “I want to be different, to look different, to be original, but also fit in, and be just like my friends.” This, seems to me, to be an apt analogy for those deciding who gets to work at the company. So just say it Levi’s:

We want you to bring your whole self to work. But only if your “whole self” is the one we decide you should have. And the same one everyone else has that works here. It can be a little different. You can support Warren rather than Biden. But not THAT different. You certainly can’t support a Republican.

At least this would be more honest, though fraught with its own issues (see the part about who would want to work for a company that dictates your politics align with the company’s). But I, for one, would respect the honesty a whole lot more. At least then, as citizens, we could decide whether or not we want to be employees of such a company, before we spend more than two decades of our lives there.