Are "zero-tolerance" signs are sign of inclusivity?

Aggressive and abusive behavior should never be tolerated, and many in the retail or service industry face such behavior often. Maybe a sign like this is warranted due to past experiences employees faced? I suppose one can take the argument that the establishment is trying to “silence” any criticism it may receive for slow and/or terrible service, but the underlying fact is that many people treat workers with contempt instead of seeing their inherent human value. Unfortunately, a person's skin color contributes to this in some instances. Criticism is one thing. Verbal abuse and violence are another. No worker should be subject to the latter, which I take signs like this to mean, while at the same time bearing the responsibility of hearing the former if the job is not done well.

After reading your post, I have two different yet related interpretations of this “zero tolerance” policy.

The first one is that whoever is putting out this message wants to create the illusion they care about the well-being of the community, while leaving the underlying structural issues unaddressed. For instance, globalization gave us access to cheap products and services in some countries, but it also created collateral problems (e.g., massive migration and lack of sovereignty) that we can't afford to ignore forever.

The second is that the hidden message behind the campaign is that there will be “zero tolerance” to those dissenting with the ideology imposed by those in power. And given that the language can be manipulated if you have the “authority” to do so, they define what “aggressive and abusive behavior” means—and may also change their own definition as they please. Any dissenting opinion will be labeled as “aggressive and abusive”, and won't be tolerated. This intolerance may be aggressive and abusive, but that's okay. In other words, you comply or else.