home

The Whole Foods Boycott

Count me out for the Whole Foods Boycott.

The CEO John Mackey wrote an op-ed opposing health care reform in the Wall St. Journal.

Whole Foods is a grocery store that apparently provides decent health insurance to its employees. The boycott, if successful, could lead to employee layoffs. What best interest does that serve?

Who cares what this guy thinks? If he was advocating a change in the law so Whole Foods could terminate their employees' coverage and institute a policy that Whole Foods workers would have to pay their own premiums or go without insurance, I could see the battle-cry.

As it is, he's just one more capitalist that doesn't think health care is a right guaranteed to all. Others can and should feel free to disagree.

I want to protect the workers, so I'm not boycotting Whole Foods over the stupid remarks of its CEO.

< Friday Night Open Thread: How Does It Feel? | Organized Protests Expected in Grand Junction for Obama Health Care Talk >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Irony (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by koshembos on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:45:14 AM EST
    The typical buyer at Whole Food is a well off middle class family that voted for Obama in the primaries and the general elections. It's kind of a poetical justice to see the CEO of the well of Obama's support oppose Obama's health care insurance/reform. (Who knows what the latest incarnation of a sad and inept way toward a small slice of the needed reform is now active.)

    As a Trader Joe's and farmers market customer, I find Whole Food to be expensive unjustifiably. I see limited harm to the store's employees by shifting some of the grocery buying to cheaper and less politically repulsive stores.

    Low paying jobs, young workers (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by NealB on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:31:47 AM EST
    Mackie brags about the health insurance offered to his workforce made up mostly of invincibly healthy 20-somethings. There's no downside for him with such a business model. The makeup of his workforce of healthy, young, indentured servants means the costs of the health insurance Whole Foods provides is negligible. The average wage Whole Foods pays its employees is about $12 an hour. On top of that they provide a $1 per hour HSA (health savings account) benefit ($1800 per year) against the $2,500 annual deductible required on the health insurance Whole Foods provides. And what a career track for these youngsters! Checkout and deli girls! Stock and bag boys!  In short, he's using cheap labor selling a grossly overpriced product to a wealthy clientele. Good times.

    Parent
    Trader Joes (none / 0) (#3)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:42:02 AM EST
    is non-union.

    Parent
    Good to know (none / 0) (#5)
    by koshembos on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:39:27 AM EST
    Thanks for the information. Is there an alternative? I stopped using Fedex (UPS is unionized) and drinking at Starbucks. We should all shun the slave owners.

    Parent
    You might want to (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:19:19 AM EST
    talk to the employees before you decide a company is a slave owner.  I've dealt regularly with FedEx and UPS for many years, and the difference in the employees' happiness with their company is light years apart.  The FedEx people feel well treated, valued and respected, the UPS folks not so much.

    I'm a huge believer in unions, but when a company treats its workers right without having to be forced to by a union, it makes no sense to disdain it.

    Parent

    The most effective union busting tactic (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Jen M on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:26:29 AM EST
    Is happy workers!

    Parent
    Ironic isn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:27:54 AM EST
    Absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 10:14:06 AM EST
    The only reason unions exist at all is to protect workers from exploitative business owners.  Duh!

    You can immediately tell how a company treats its employees, union or no union, by the attitude and demeanor of those employees.  Trader Joe employees in my experience are nearly blissed out.  They aren't unionized, but they adore the company and believe fiercely in its products and business policies.

    I wouldn't call FedEx people blissed out, but right from the start of the company, I was struck by how unusually good-natured and helpful its employees were.  That's still the case these many years later.

    Not so with UPS, which, despite the union, has work rules and business practices the employees who deal with the public are often forced to violate in order to deal fairly with their customers.

    Parent

    FEDEX is union, (none / 0) (#9)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:20:30 AM EST
    at least the pilots are.  ALPA.

    Parent
    Whole Foods (none / 0) (#46)
    by MrConservative on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 07:44:01 PM EST
    I think this CEO proves that the entire brand is nothing but a grand attempt at greenwashing.

    Parent
    More on WF Health Insurance (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by NealB on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:19:09 AM EST
    Mackey said in his WSJ op-ed that Whole Foods provides an $1,800 annual benefit to his workers as an HSA (health savings account) to offset the high deductible ($2,500) of the health insurance benefit. I read in a diary at dKos by Tzimisce, a former Whole Foods employee, that workers at Whole Foods don't get it until after they've worked there for five years; the benefit starts at ~$500 a year. Given the young age of most Whole Foods employees, that means that probably VERY FEW of them ever get that full annual $1,800 benefit. The same diary suggests that much of what you buy at Whole Foods isn't really any better (organics included) than what you'd get at any other grocery store, just more expensive.

    When Whole Foods has gone into new locations, it has often put smaller independent grocers out of business....resulting in, wait for it... loss of longer held jobs by people who live in those neighborhoods.

    In short, Whole Foods starts to look not much better than Wal-Mart; they're just another huge, corporation looking to monopolize their market.

    If I stopped shopping at WFM (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:53:22 AM EST
    I'd be out convenience and not much more.  My co-op is further out, so to save gas I shop there twice a month and can get almost everything that WFM.  Anything that I couldn't get there, I could buy online.  (Plus, I think the co-op carries better quality supplements.  I read the labels on everything.)

    Local eggs and dairy are easy enough to find.  They are so easy to find that I can often choose between different local brands.  Meat is a bit more difficult, although I am lucky enough to get beef and goat from a family that both raises their own and runs the butcher's shop.  

    I can easily cut my shopping at WFM down to zero and shift the commerce to my co-op and locally owned/operated stores - and it wouldn't cost me any more.

    I never buy regular items at WF, but (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:26:50 AM EST
    that's where I go for the produce I can't find elsewhere. The produce section seems competitively priced...the rest of the store I ignore.


    Parent
    Poor business strategy (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:03:42 AM EST
    I just don't understand why any CEO would chose to get into the political fray. It's a no win situation.

    And it sure isn't because WF wants to protect the "high quality" health care benefits they offer their employees. I have a friend that works there, and as weak as her benefits were, they were cut this year!

    They can always fire him (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:08:12 AM EST
    for unsound business practices.  He can figure out his own health insurance situation after that. I'm fine with that.  I bet he has different coverage than his "lower class" employees too.

    Parent
    Whole Foods isn't an option for me (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:22:30 AM EST
    If it was it would be hard to boycott because I have no comparable options but at this time I sure would.  I have to add my voice to this debate at every opportunity or my people won't get what they all need AGAIN.  I'm done with that.  I mean business now.  I won't save a couple of Whole Food workers in order to sacrifice my whole country.  If healthcare reform fails I'll be forever turned off by Whole Foods.

    I won't boycott (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Jen M on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:03:10 AM EST
    as I have never shopped there in the first place. I don't even go to Trader Joes. I prefer Giant and the two of the local hispanic mami and papi 'chains' (is 3-4 stores a chain?)

    But I have to ask, what is the point of publicly stating views that you have to know will honk off most of your customers?  Olberman says that there is a lot of boycott talk, on the store's own website.

    "let them eat cake" never goes over well.

    Ask the Dixie Chicks (2.00 / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:29:27 AM EST
    But I have to ask, what is the point of publicly stating views that you have to know will honk off most of your customers?

    I have never been able to figure out why Gollywooders, singers, corp executives and TV types do these things..  I would guess massive egos and a belief they can do what they please no matter. See the multiple DWI/drug/domestic violence arrests, etc., in addition to the flapping lips.

    Parent

    But Jim (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:37:54 AM EST
    It worked out really really well for them in the end to tell the King to eat some cake :)  Country music stars are often viewed as mindless, but the Dixie Chicks are now viewed as gorgeous, self thinking, and intelligent women.  Expressing their views didn't destroy their careers, after a momentary pain their careers were enhanced.

    Parent
    heck (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Jen M on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 10:00:04 AM EST
    my 77+ dad bought their 'comeback' album.

    He never ever ever listens to country music.

    Parent

    It's funny isn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 10:05:14 AM EST
    I have some friends that never listened to country music before who are now part of their fanbase and I'm starting to suspect that they are sneaking other country preformers in now too.

    Parent
    It was their plan (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Jen M on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 10:24:17 AM EST
    all along!

    ¬.­¬

    Parent

    They may recover (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:18:06 PM EST
    they may not.

    I suspect that the CEO will not be harmed...

    No one has ever lost money underestimating the taste of the american mass market... or at least not since 1955.

    Parent

    you mean like (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jen M on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:23:39 PM EST
    putting a swoosh on a tennis shoe and charging 100$ extra?

    Parent
    People have been sending death threats (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Jen M on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:56:48 AM EST
    to wholefoods???

    Parent
    Caring about workers (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Moacir on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:27:49 AM EST
    This came up implicitly in an earlier thread, but I think it's worth emphasizing:

    Making the case of continuing to shop at Whole Foods out of some kind of concern for the workers well-being is a peculiar position, when many nearby grocery stores are actually closed shops (by me, both Dominick's and Jewel are unionized--the Jewel proudly bears a sticker on the front door). If caring about the worker was important, the effort should be made to shop at unionized groceries, not to keep anti-union ones in business.

    Trader Joe's is cheap (in part) since it's open. Whole Foods, otoh, is open and expensive. The mind boggles.

    My understanding is (none / 0) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 10:22:53 AM EST
    that TJ's employees, right down to the cashiers, are paid extraordinarily well.  I have read, mind-boggling as it seems, that cashiers earn up to $50,000 annually.

    It's not a public company, so there's not as much known about its business, but their ability to provide high-quality products at good prices is not even in part based on screwing either its workers or its suppliers.  The company has a superb business model which it has doggedly stuck to despite the many temptations to veer away from it.

    Parent

    High wages are a bribe (none / 0) (#35)
    by Moacir on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 10:32:53 AM EST
    Not letting your workers organize is the definition of screwing them, no matter how well they're paid.

    Parent
    You cannot (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 07:47:36 AM EST
    "not let" your workers unionize.  If they wanna unionize, they'll unionize, whether you like it or not.

    It's really quite funny, too, to say treating your workers well is a "bribe" to keep them from unionizing.  All American workers should be "bribed" so well. Then we would not need to have unions to fight the bosses.

    Parent

    Whole Foods (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by mstar57 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:37:24 AM EST
    CEO comments are completely unacceptable. And, your comment:

    "I want to protect the workers, so I'm not boycotting Whole Foods over the stupid remarks of its CEO."

    This is one of the most STUPID, ignorant comments I have read regarding this company!  Is it any wonder this country is in a fog - thanks to a mentality such as yours...

    People have been boycotting (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:50:07 AM EST
    companies that advertise on Glen Beck's show and I've yet to hear about how we should not do that because it might lead to layoffs at those companies.


    Parent
    And apparently (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:46:34 PM EST
    it's working, although FOX as a whole hasn't really felt the pinch  since the advertisers are just shifting their money to other time slots.


    Parent
    No more Whole Foods for me. (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by easilydistracted on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:43:34 AM EST
    I appreciate the various arguments regarding the impact of a boycott on the employees. For me, however, its a question of whether I want to risk having my hard earned bucks ultimately bankroll a political agenda that is at odds with my overall best interests. I say, No.  

    Whole Foods is a rip off (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:47:17 AM EST
    Whether you boycott them or not is not my concern.  I've determined Whole Foods targets people with money to spend and a certain point of view, and then overcharges those people.

    In my area (East Bay Area) we have the usual Safeways and Luckys, and then if you want better (organic, local, etc.) stuff that's a little more expensive you can go to Whole Foods.  

    But there's another store in the area called Draegers, and one would think Draegers is a boutiquy store for only the super wealthy.  It is located on the edge of a gated community of multi-million dollar homes.  

    So here's what I've found.

    Whole Foods has higher prices for the same stuff than Draegers.  And it's because of a marketing strategy that exploits the good intentions of people who would support Obama and his policies.

    I'm not into boycotts.  I won't shop there cause it's stupid to shop there.

    I don't have a lot of experience (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:57:16 AM EST
    with Whole Foods, but your analysis seems to fit very well with why this CEO is essentially such a society tool.  So Whole Foods attempts to sell an "image" to liberal elites and many took the bait?  Sometimes it can be shocking what people will sacrifice for an image.

    Parent
    If you make 80 to 200k per year (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 10:00:11 AM EST
    and you shop at Whole Foods all I know is you are paying more for the same stuff as someone in my area who makes 500k per year and shops at Draegers.

    I think that's funny.


    Parent

    Ouch, MT, (none / 0) (#28)
    by easilydistracted on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 10:03:46 AM EST
    Thank goodness I'm a former shopper of WF.

    Parent
    These are my shopping choices: (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 10:13:41 AM EST
    the commissary (usually gets my business), the Piggly Wiggly (2nd in line), Winn-Dixie (farther down the road), Walmart (the devil).  Even if I wanted a grocery shopping image.....well, there you have it....all my possibilities.  So this Whole Foods image seems sort of transparent from my perspective :)  I do order some items through the mail because I just can't get them.  When I go to Montgomery I get to shop at Publix then.

    Parent
    It wasn't the image, for me. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by easilydistracted on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 10:20:13 AM EST
    It was the experience, I suppose. Locally, HEB's Central Market will now fill the void. Pretty much the same concept, and probably more locally produced frutis and vegetables there. Then its Tom Thumb (a Safeway division). Never WalMart.  

    Parent
    Walmart has (none / 0) (#42)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:49:55 PM EST
    the cheapest ammo.

    Parent
    Imported From China and Russia (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:54:40 PM EST
    Nope (none / 0) (#44)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:23:19 PM EST
    it a all Remington, and Winchester, all US made and suitable for reloading.  
    The Wolf (Russian) is really cheap at gun stores and on the internet but no suitable for reloading.  And a lot of guns can't handle aluminum cased ammo.

    Parent
    That's another point against them, IMO....n/t. (none / 0) (#49)
    by sallywally on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:03:52 PM EST
    I don't buy into the whole Organic movement (none / 0) (#47)
    by MrConservative on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 07:48:21 PM EST
    I'm a rational environmentalist. Why should we reject the improvements in food production that science has brought us? It's almost a neo-luddite attitude. Plus, we could not feed the planet if we all used organic methods.

    Parent
    I agree with your latter point (none / 0) (#48)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:12:44 PM EST
     and I also think an "organic" label is not the end all and be all of healthy given the labeling standards. But, I prefer my meat w/o artificial hormones and antibiotics and my vegetables without pesticides. There is a need to maximize production and preservation but I can still choose to eat food without the potentially harmful bypducts of maximization.

        Growing things  faster and larger with less loss to disease,  pestilence or spoilage  may be necessary to "feed the planet" but not to feed me and if you buy local it's really not much more expensive and it helps the local economy.

       We buy as much as possible from the local organic farmers and I see it as a win for us all.

    Parent

    Farmers' Markets, and monthly boxes (none / 0) (#50)
    by sallywally on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:06:02 PM EST
    of produce from local farms, is what a lot of folks here in Columbus are doing. I'm thinking it's relatively widespread if it's reached us here.

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by standingup on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:07:10 AM EST
    The title he used is "Whole Foods Alernative to Obamacare," not "John Mackey's Alternative to Obamacare."  Mackey is the one putting Whole Foods at risk by exploiting his position and the company to publicly pitch his personal views on healthcare reform known.  And he couldn't leave out inflammatory rhetoric do make his point or avoid using disinformation from sources like Investor's Business Daily.  

    Let Mackey answer to the Board of Directors and shareholders who might also be hurt by his actions.  There are alternative solutions to laying off employees in situations like this.  Customers have every right to choose whether or not to patronize a business when an executive decides to use that business to promote his own personal beliefs.  We have to use the tools we have at our disposal to fight for the changes we want too.  

    I plan to stay out of Whole Foods (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:17:02 AM EST
    for a good long while.  In fact, I took a copy of Mackey's heinous editorial in to the manager of my local store.  I told him that I don't feel good about spending hundreds of dollars every month at a store whose CEO is working against my deeply held principles.

    I, too, care about their workers.  But I care about all the other workers in the US who have no insurance or lousy insurance.  And all the workers who lose their jobs and have to go on COBRA at astronomical prices...until it runs out.

    Everyone makes this calculation for him or herself and my decision is to stay away from Whole Foods.

    I've decided not to boycott, BUT (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by katharinec on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:41:54 PM EST
    I've decided that on balance boycotting is not the way to go for me personally. However, I was offended by the editorial. It's not that Mackey had different opinions or that he expressed them, but that he brought the Whole Foods brand into it and that he opened with a Thatcher quotation insinuating that health insurance reform is socialist. That is ignorant, that is an unfair thing to say, and Mackey cannot hide behind ignorance. He knows better than to call it socialism, and that was just dirty politics.

    So am I formally boycotting? No. After much pondering and discussion (some of it here in case anyone cares) I've decided that boycotting "formally" won't be the politically wise thing to do for a number of reasons but in part because I have to pick my battles in order to increase my efficacy overall.

    But, Mackey hurt his brand identity... and while I'm not going out with pitchforks and shouting a boycott from the rooftops of a million social media outlets and to all my friends and family, you can bet that I won't be shopping there as much. I used to go every Monday... now that he's disrupted their brand identity... I just don't feel like going there as much... sorry Mackey.

    Any you know... the hurt brand identity is a perfectly free markety reason to not shop there... it's Marketing 101 without even treading on boycott territory. Crafting brand identities is all about communicating values to the consumer, and Mackey just tainted the values communicated by the Whole Foods brand, and the brand no longer aligns with my predilections as well, so I'll be taking much of my business elsewhere. Cold hard capitalism at work - that's part of the beauty of that angle of the non formal nature of ratcheting down my Whole Foods purchases - it creates a consequence but can't be written off as "liberal nonsense overreaction."

    It's just business.

    The way I put it on my blog is that it's a middle ground reaction to a middle ground situation. It wasn't a cut and dry OH THIS IS DEFINITELY BOYCOTT MATERIAL in my mind, but it certainly did rub me the wrong way.

    Let's play nice and not throw around words like "socialism"" on the op-ed page of the WSJ, okay Mackey?

    Yeah (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 10:09:09 PM EST
    He sure showed his hand. My take is that he is cynically taking advantage of consumers who are willing to pay more for largely repackaged gussied up supermarket food.

    The article was gross. I was never a fan of whole foods, especially after I read negative reports about their meat purchases. Overpriced, imo.

    And Lanny Davis helped him write it. Wow, right after helping Micheletti and his non coup coup..

    Parent

    Why not boycott everything? (none / 0) (#7)
    by pluege on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 07:29:33 AM EST
    the plutocrats run every corporation in America. Just because most don't have op-eds in the wall street journal doesn't mean they're not 100% anti-progressive, anti-worker, anti-human  or that they're not directing the destruction of social safety net, environment, and frustrating every effort improve the average American's quality of life.

    If people want to do something productive, vent their anger at the masters of Big Media who are the true enemy; who are traitors to telling the truth, who have misinformed and deceived the American people so badly for 30 years that the notion of helping people, i.e., being liberal is ingrained in the national psyche as something bad. Big Media must be destroyed if progress is ever to be made in the US. That is the challenge. John Mackey means nothing.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#11)
    by moderateman on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:53:55 AM EST
    First, there are a lot worse corporations than Wholefoods to boycott.  And honestly, the only people you'd end up hurting are the workers themselves.  Who do you think is going to be the first to feel the pain?  The CEO?  I don't think so.  It's the guy who started 6 months ago for the health benefits because he got laid off from his middle management job.

    Why not put that energy into lobbying your representatives?  That's a far better and more effective way of spending your time.

    Parent

    Why not do both? n/t. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by sallywally on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:07:32 PM EST