Why boycotting Whole Foods is Stupid
scottberkun.com
scottberkun.com
I 100% agree.
1. Some people support universal healthcare. 2. Some people are boycotting Whole Foods. 3. All the people boycotting Whole Foods support universal healthcare.
Therefore, all people who support universal healthcare are ideologues who are incapable of carrying on a rational debate.
Eh, I guess it appeals to the same sort of people who think Glen Beck is representative of everyone who votes Republican, though.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020425140457434...
What I don't understand is the guy who compared Thatcher to the Third Reich. Do they forget what "Nazi" actually stands for? Anyway, what is even more frustrating is that unions now want to have John Mackay fired for having the gall to disagree with the President (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/08/25/business-specializ...). Is this thuggery what counts as discourse in the US now? If you don't agree with the current administration you must be racist, stupid and ought to have your livelihood taken away?
I read an opinion piece in a local (Monterey, CA) weekly paper, trying to explain why the Whole Foods boycotters are completely different than the "teabaggers". It essentially was, "we think those guys are retarded, but he's why we're not retarded, even though you can't tell us apart by looking."
The ability to self-delude is a key attribute in taking part of silly "us vs. them" partisan politics. Issues like health care are amazingly complex, but it's easier to go with the groupthink and take up a rallying cry than dig into the issue and realize how nonsensical the "bumper sticker answers" are.
At the end of the day, people want to feel that they're being heard. And if they believe a boycott is the best option they have to get their opinion out, then we should support their right to do so.
In an ideal world, the appropriate response to political speech that one find's wrong, objectionable, erroneous, or otherwise misleading is to engage in political speech yourself. The cure for political speech is more political speech.
However, I agree with you that the average person does not have the same level of access to venues for political speech that Mackey does. It's not easy to get pride of place on the WSJ editorial page. Not even terribly easy to get your letter to the editor printed.
Nevertheless, we have to ask ourselves what the purpose of the boycott is. We can all agree that free people are necessarily free to spend their money where they like, going out of their way to avoid certain brands in favor of others. Usually, we avoid brands because the products that the brand represents are flawed, sub-par, or fraudulent. Obviously, this is not the case with the Whole Foods boycott. Boycotting Whole Foods for the political speech of its CEO is an action not directed at Whole Foods per se, but at the political opinion of one man responsible for the company.
Will affecting Whole Foods' bottom-line persuade Mackey? Will it persuade the rest of the public? Unlikely in either case. A boycott of this sort is not meant to persuade, it's meant to punish. This is why people like the author of the linked article and others think that this kind of boycott crosses the line from civil speech to incivility. The rationale seems to be: if we can't persuade Mackey or achieve a place on a soapbox comparable to his, then perhaps we can punish him enough that he will regret having spoken up.
Seeking to punish Mackey for expressing his opinion is not an equivalent act of free speech. It crosses the line into incivility.
Yes it is. It gets media attention to the opposing idea.
> It crosses the line into incivility.
No, it does not. Refusing to buy products from people you disagree with, and convincing others to do so as well is perfectly civil.
Refusing to buy products from John Mackey, or from Ben & Jerry, or from the Dixie Chicks because you disagree with their politics is the height of arrogance: "I am so 100% certain that the federal government should be running a health insurance company (or blowing up Iraq, or legalizing oil-drilling in Alaska) that I want you to lose your livelihood for ever expressing an opinion to the contrary".
That is not at all what is says. What it really says is this
> I am so 100% certain that the federal government should be running a health insurance company (or blowing up Iraq, or legalizing oil-drilling in Alaska) that I will not voluntarily support you with my hard earned cash for expressing an opinion to the contrary
The average person isn't likely to write as well as that article was written.
> a small minority of anti-reform fanatics have made sure that it is impossible to have an actual dialog in town hall meetings.
Those things are just marketing events, anyway. The "debate" is going to happen elsewhere.
> Debate would be great, but where is it going to happen?
. . . the same place it always happens: where it isn't televised. It happens in online discussions like this, and it happens in discussions amongst friends, families, and co-workers.
> At the end of the day, people want to feel that they're being heard. And if they believe a boycott is the best option they have to get their opinion out, then we should support their right to do so.
I support that right, even when I think it's being poorly used.
That's not what he wrote. He wrote:
Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.
Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.
I don't know enough about nutrition to discuss the second graf, but he doesn't imply that good nutrition negates the need for health care--people get diseases and injuries that aren't caused by bad decisions of their own the other 30% of the time--but it's equal "stupidity" to think "let's spend trillions of public dollars on treating each other for diabetes and heart disease instead of putting down the cheeseburger and going for a jog".
Thatcher presided over a country with socialized health care and heavily unionized coal mining, and complained about them.
In the US, we are now debating having the government run the health sector. I.e. "socialism".
I don't think that a criticism of socialized healthcare from someone who's been there is quite the same thing as "referencing the third Reich".
From http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp...
Our stewardship of the public finances has been better than that of any Government for nearly 50 years. It has enabled us to repay debt and cut taxes. The resulting success of the private sector has generated the wealth and revenues which pay for better social services—to double the amount being spent to help the disabled, to give extra help to war widows, and vastly to increase spending on the national health service. More than 1 million more patients are being treated each year and there are 8,000 more doctors and 53,000 more nurses to treat them.
That is the record of eleven and a half years of Conservative Government and Conservative principles. All these are grounds for congratulation, not censure, least of all from the Leader of the Opposition, who has no alternative policies.
The New Oxford English Dictionary defines communism as:
a political and economic theory of social organization that
advocates that the means of production, distribution, and
exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a
whole.
• policy or practice based on this theory.
• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between
the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of
communism.
Somewhat inflammatory, sure -- but hardly worthy of a boycott. The vast majority of the Mackay piece is a level-headed argument -- one that you can certainly disagree with, but I think calling for a boycott is schoolyard politics.
But then, unless you have the IQ of a watermelon, you really didn't need this to figure out that a lot of people on either side of the political spectrum already have their minds made up.
"This shows that folks in favor of government run healthcare are not really interested in a debate - they are interested in complete victory, with zero dissent. It's an ideology, not a rational position."
You have to recognize this happening on both sides of the aisle (Town Hall Meetings anyone?)
1. Demonstrating in front of the store and forwarding boycott emails targets consumers, trying to get enough pressure aimed at the Whole Foods founder to get him to recant or shut up and stop contributing to the debate based on his own principles.
2. Making noise at a "town hall" meeting (laughable misuse of the term for Presidential stumping for a Federal program) is just an attempt to make sure the President knows that there are many people who disagree with the idea, more directly addressing the figurehead for the whole policy.
Obama is in a position to directly affect policy; the founder of Whole Foods is only in a position to foster debate.
She was a biographer of Voltaire and came up with the quote as an illustration of his beliefs.
> A boycott is a ban and bans on other people’s opinions are stupid and childish.
I don't know if this was a massive logical slip-up on Berkun's part or what, but: nobody's banning Mackey's opinion. As far as I'm aware, copies of the Wall Street Journal containing that article are not being burned, nor is the website being hacked to prevent anyone from reading it.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with guaranteeing that people should keep patronizing your business if you say something that rankles them.
I'd also say banning whole foods is somewhat analogous to people who are 'banning' non-organic products by shopping at whole foods in the first place. They are speaking with their dollars about a position they are against (genetically engineered products). If Whole Foods the company has a culture/leadership which is against health care reform, people are certainly free and rational to ban Whole Foods if they feel strongly about the issue.
Free speech isn't about freedom from consequences. It's about letting people say what they like, if they're willing to accept the natural consequences. One of those consequences is that, if people disagree with you, they can choose to take their business elsewhere.
Problems arise when the consequences are things that private individuals would not be permitted to do, like imprison or harm the speaker.
To put it more simply: I may disagree with what you boycott, but I will defend to the death your right to boycott it.
People can say anything they like, even if they are standing centre-stage and making my blood boil, but that doesn't mean I'll want to buy something from them afterwards.
Civil society is poorly served when people can't even bear to listen to any opinion differing from their own.
I find it odd that he finds their reaction "ridiculous" and that instead they should've had a debate with him. Really? How will they do that? Call him on his cellphone and tell him they don't like what he said? Send him emails? I mean, even if they were able to find out what his email address is, I seriously doubt they're going to change his mind or even illicit a response.
Instead, they chose to do something that seems to be having great results for them. And considering that Mackey essentially said "fuck the 45 million uninsured", their reaction is well measured, I think.
However, as a consumer, I also try to patronize companies that share my ideals and do not actively work against what I work for. Many progressives do the same, and were shocked to find out that the CEO/founder was a libertarian.
I am not boycotting Whole Foods (though I do not shop there on a regular basis to start), but I do not feel that such an action is censorship.
That's why I can't take these political disagreements seriously. What makes you so sure you're right about politics and Mackey is wrong? I used to be wrong about quite a few political issues--maybe I used to be right, and I'm wrong now. How do you get so confident in your political opinions that you want to get in the way of people expressing a contrary viewpoint?
I boycott Rockstar energy drinks. I do so because the owners of the company actively contribute to causes that are anti-gay, and the founder is a man who has said all sorts of vile things about LGBT people and their community, and the company is held by his family (though they have publicly disavowed current official affiliation -- it's his son and wife, for crying out loud!)
Why in the world would I give money to them? Or Hyatt, who would use my hotel money to fund a ballot measure to demote me to second class citizenry?
And if they feel as strongly about health care as I do about LGBT issues, that's what informed capitalism is about.
If Whole Foods contributed their profits to fund anti-health-reform PACs I guess that would be comparable, but they don't. They pay $1 in salary to a CEO who wrote one editorial in one newspaper expressing his personal opinions and experiences. That's akin to getting ticked off at something Paul Graham wrote and refusing to do business with any YCombinator-funded startups.
Actually it's even worse, since I'm pretty sure Paul Graham makes more money from YCombinator's investments than Mackey makes from Whole Foods at this point. And, unlike Mackey, Paul Graham's made some recent political contributions, so the money he makes from YCombinator actually goes to "the bad guys" (depending on your perspective) while Mackey's money either stays with him or goes to charity.
(OpenSecrets.org lets you search for political contributions. John Mackey's made some political contributions, but not since 2000 and even then, only to fringe nutjobs, which is the most harmless type of political contribution possible.)
The problem with politics is that people feel too strongly without thinking strongly enough. It should not be blood-boilingly offensive for someone to express the contrary viewpoint about most political issues.
I don't think this boycott is really very well thought out, though. It really is (as another HN community member pointed out) punitive rather than corrective; his opinion isn't funded by customers' spending at Whole Foods the way, say, customers' money funds Sony/BMG's use of DRM. Boycotting Sony/BMG for DRM use is corrective, providing a perfect counterexample to the poorly conceived boycott of Whole Foods and its punitive effect.
It's not even a boycott of principle related to how one's money is spent, as far as I can tell.
Our legal and constitutional rights are wide-ranging enough to allow people to be immoral jackasses without the law ever laying a hand on them. This doesn't mean "it's fine to be a jackass", it just means "it causes more harm than good for the government to outlaw all forms of jackassery".
No buying products is not in any way comparable to posting pictures of Obama's daughters being raped by bears. One is a personal attack, one is just a refusal to financially support.
That having been said, I would rather not punish people's livelihood for expressing contrary opinions to mine in newspapers.
If the company is actually doing things (putting DRM in music, hiring Latin American death squads to eliminate union bosses, beating employees, racially segregating their customers, donating tons of money to political parties, pulling Google Voice apps from the App Store), then boycotts are fine. If all you're doing is writing an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, where's the rationale? What's so offensive about writing an editorial that it deserves a boycott? What's so offensive about simple disagreement? If I happen to agree with John Mackey will you stop being friends with me? Refuse to let me borrow a couple bucks for lunch even if I have an excellent record for paying you back? Not come to my yard sale? That's a pretty dick move.
I always thought it was reasonable, even healthy to have friends, do business, and even make love with people who have different politics than you do. I don't really care for the alternative.
There's a difference between having a different opinion, and actively pushing that agenda. I don't care what he believes personally, but putting an editorial in a major paper is not having an opinion, it's actively advocating one; you are no longer a civilian in a sense, you've become a solder for that agenda and you should expect retribution from those who disagree and will be negatively affected should your agenda succeed.
Your analogy actually exposes the major problem here: rather than being a fellow member of society acting in good faith who simply endorses a different solution than you do, you cast Mr. Mackey as a "soldier" for an "agenda" who deserves "retribution" because he (implication: intentionally) is trying to "negatively affect" people. You allow absolutely no room for someone to disagree in good faith: the minute someone expresses a criticism of a political position you believe in, that person is "the enemy" and deserves "retribution". I adopt what I consider a more enlightened view: that people who disagree with me may just be right, that they are acting in good faith, that their criticisms deserve an answer, and that they are fellow members of the community.
Your mindset is that of a civil war between pigheaded zealots, mine is that of a peaceful and free society of civil, fair-minded people. You try to destroy people you disagree with without listening to them. I listen to them and carefully consider their views. Most of all, you presume that all of your opinions are right above all criticism, question, or suggestion of alternatives. I carefully consider every criticism of, and alternative to, my views because I have changed my mind in the past and anticipate having cause to change my mind in the future.
People who are incapable of considering the possibility they might be wrong aren't suited for a democracy. They're suited for a religious war. That's what this "boycott" against Mackey is, that's what the "boycott" against the Dixie Chicks was, and that's what politics in this country has degraded to. Please keep that in mind.
As for your employer argument, it's a straw-man and not at all comparable to the consumer relationship in boycotts. I reject the question because it's absurd.
People can disagree in good faith, and sometimes neither side is clearly right. Other times, this isn't the case and one side or the other is simply wrong.
My mindset is of the real world where zealots exist and they have to be dealt with. You apparently live in a fantasy land where everyone is civil and fair minded; you're wrong, so wrong. Logic doesn't work on everyone, sometimes you have to force people to change, civil rights, womens rights, and soon, gay rights. There are not two valid sides to these issues, one side is clearly wrong and will only change by force of law or force of money.
You suggest I'm a pig-headed zealot, I suggest you're a naive dreamer who hasn't experienced enough of reality to realize how idealistic and impractical your approach is.
You are wrong about boycotts, it is a perfectly fair and moral practice and is quite civil; it is the only power consumers have against companies and voting with the wallet is a core feature of a free market.
How is it absurd? If my employee is trying to, in your words, "persuade people to take the other side and stop progress I'm hoping to see", then why would I want to voluntarily support that? Why wouldn't I want to "punish their livelihood before they punish mine"?
"civil rights, womens rights, and soon, gay rights. There are not two valid sides to these issues, one side is clearly wrong and will only change by force of law or force of money"
Not all issues are like this--certainly not health care reform.
I'm not against boycotts and it's a straw man attack to say that I am. I think boycotts are a good way to protest against companies that actually do things to halt progress. But if a public figure, who is the CEO of the company, simply makes a public statement or writes an editorial I disagree with, that's not even remotely the same thing. I don't think everyone is civil and fair minded, but I think writing editorials is a civil and fair-minded practice that should be responded to in kind.
According to OpenSecrets.org, Paul Graham has contributed to certain political candidates--money, not words--whose policies I oppose, and who (in one case) has personally involved in a certain armed conflict that I opposed. And maybe I'm cheesed off about one of his essays (I'm not but maybe you are). Would you join me in a boycott of all YCombinator-funded startups (and all companies that have acquired them)? After all, pg makes more money from a successful YCombinator startup that John Mackey makes from Whole Foods these days, so this is a chance to actually affect the guy we're going after. And Steve Jobs' wife donated to a certain candidate in the Democratic primary who wasn't my favorite. Do you want to boycott Apple with me? I dunno--maybe you're okay with bombing Yugoslavia or whatnot, but if you were consistent about going after every public figure who made $1 a year from a given commercial enterprise, you'd have to do a hell of a lot more boycotting.
(I'm not actually boycotting pg or Apple, but maybe you should.)
Because that's akin to saying if my hot secretary refuses to date me, why shouldn't I fire her. It's an abuse of power and in many states could get you sued. The employer/employee relationship is completely different than the producer/consumer relationship and that should really be totally obvious and require no explanation.
> Not all issues are like this--certainly not health care reform.
Many people would disagree. There's room for debate on how such reform should happen, but there seems to be little room for disagreement that reform is necessary.
> I think boycotts are a good way to protest against companies that actually do things to halt progress.
Writing an Op-ed in a major nationally read paper is doing something to halt progress. I think you underestimate the power of words to affect people. We don't have to agree on when boycotts are appropriate, there's room for reasonable disagreement here, but boycotts themselves are an appropriate action for a consumer to take whenever they feel they should. If you don't support a particular boycott, then don't join it, if you do, then do; that's how it works. But it's petty to stand there and tell someone else that they're not being civil because you don't happen to agree with their boycott.
You can't seriously expect everyone to agree on exactly when a boycott is or isn't necessary. It's necessary anytime any consumer feels he doesn't want to give his money to any company for any reason whatsoever, and if enough people agree with him such a boycott will be successful, if not, then it won't.
The employer/employee relationship is a special case of the producer/consumer relationship. It's not different at all.
"There's room for debate on how such reform should happen, but there seems to be little room for disagreement that reform is necessary."
Mackey agrees that reform is necessary, he's just engaging in the debate on how such reform should happen.
"I think you underestimate the power of words to affect people."
That's your mistake: to you, words are insufficient to respond to words. If you're dead set against paying this guy's $1 salary that's your call, but in the long run, all you're doing is discouraging rational discussion and encouraging dumb conflict.
Plus--and here's the kicker--there are lots of people who make far more than $1 from Whole Foods whom this boycott personally hurts. Not getting paid because your boss is a libertarian seems a lot less fair than not getting paid because you work for a company that racially segregates its customers or puts rootkits on CD's. It's arguably immoral to work for a company that engages in racism and destruction of property, but working for a company that was founded by some opinionated dude? Do people really need to be punished for that?
I disagree, but whatever.
> Mackey agrees that reform is necessary, he's just engaging in the debate on how such reform should happen.
I really don't care at all what Mackey actually said, that's not the point. I'd be defending peoples right to boycott even if I agreed with every single word he said; I'm not boycotting anything. Other people have a right to spend their money however they want, it is not uncivil for them to do so. Clearly you think it is, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Except employers?
"I'd be defending peoples right to boycott"
...except you're not doing that, you're trying to argue that they're not being jackasses. I already conceded there's a right to be a jackass.
Yes expect employers, who are generally bound by laws such as the Equal Opportunity Act which prohibits such types of discrimination.
Consumers are under no such obligations.
> ...except you're not doing that, you're trying to argue that they're not being jackasses.
And I already said, we just aren't going to agree about this, so what's you point this time?
"...sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities..."
which would also be particularly immoral reasons to boycott a business. The main reason there's no equal opportunity law against boycotts is because it would be rather unenforcable--I would certainly consider it reprehensible (though perfectly within one's legal rights) to boycott a business due to the race, sex, religion, etc. of the proprietors.
Other than that, US employers have the right to either continue or terminate employment "at-will". Things that we would normally boycott companies for, like putting rootkits on people's computers or engaging in unethical business practices, are also normally acceptable things to fire employees for.
And considering that the purpose of employment is for the employer to purchase the services of the employee for an indefinite period of time, how is it not a special instance of the producer/consumer relationship? What else could it be?
No, it's because it'd be stupid. For example, it is not the government's business if a consumer chooses to go to Jamba Juice because they like Mormons, but it most certainly is their business if Jamba Juice chooses to hire only Mormans. You can claim it's the same all you like, but the law is on my side, it is different, as it should be.
A consumer is free to discriminate by whatever criteria he wishes when purchasing goods, the employer is not allowed to do so when hiring labor. They are different. Employers are in a much better position to abuse their power and when they do it has a far greater impact on the person being discriminated against; that's why it's different and that's why we regulate them.
Since when has stupidity disqualified legislation from being passed into law?
> A consumer is free to discriminate by whatever criteria he wishes when purchasing goods, the employer is not allowed to do so when hiring labor. They are different.
Congress has been trying to alter the laws of nature with legislation for years. That doesn't mean that the law is a reliable predictor for reality, though.
I must admit, you got me there.
Maybe that's enough?
I'm not big on boycotts, but rich business people pissing off their core constituents by opposing reforms they seek and offering fringe ideas as alternatives right in the middle of a big debate about a fundamental part of society just seems dumb. I thought we were pro dumb actions having consequences round here.
Look, there are certain opinions which are so far beyond the pale that I think it would be reasonable to boycott folks who express them. But these are opinions lying well outside the mainstream Republican/Democrat opinion blob. When the ~50% of society who believe one thing start retaliating against the ~50% of society who believe the other thing, then that's really bad for society, and reflects very badly on those who want to lump all dissent from their own position into the "unacceptable" basket.
Retaliation from the government, sure, but not from the market. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.
What is offensive about the boycott is that they aren't interested in debate, they are only interested in submission. Their calls for his firing in addition to the boycott are case in point.
Part of his success, however, comes from building a brand based on ideology. Whole Foods stands for the values of the Local, Green, and Fair Trade movements, among others. At least some of the people who shop at WF, and who therefore have contributed to the CEO's +100 charisma, do so because they feel like it's a good, responsible thing to do.
However, now the CEO is trying to persuade Americans to pursue a course of action which runs contrary to the values of his customers and the perceived values of the WF brand. From a business standpoint this could definitely be a dumb action. From the standpoint of doing what you believe in even if it hurts your bottom line, it's a stand-up action.
It's one thing to be an organic vegan hippie and a multimillionaire capitalist. It's another thing to use the platform afforded you in part by your customers to influence national policy in a way that conflicts with those customers' values and the perceived values attached to your company's brand.
I'm going to use an extreme example; hopefully it won't be so extreme as to be rendered irrelevant.
Suppose I run an organization, "World Fish", dedicated to preserving aquatic life in the world. My organization receives millions of dollars in donations every year and is successful at what it does. WF becomes a leading light of the "aquatic life" movement. Those who support aquatic life are proud to send money to WF.
Now suppose that in my country, a contentious bill regarding the ethical treatment of land-based animals (chicken, pigs, cows, etc) gets proposed by my government. The bill sparks weeks of debate and media coverage. Some see it as a moral victory, while other see it is another step toward "socialism" and governmental/societal decline. Then I, the figurehead of WF, decide to write an op-ed detailing my reasons for why this bill is a bad idea. It also details ideas I think will work, but which aren't the "moral victory" the bill's supporters are looking for.
Do you think that the people who've donated to WF for years are going to continue donating? Or do you think they'll feel betrayed? If these people value aquatic life enough to donate, they most likely value animal rights in every form. In their minds these values logically go together, and by giving money to me they likely never suspected I would try to influence public policy in a way they perceive to be harmful to one of their cherished values.
To bring this back to the real WF - this isn't just about the man and his opinions. It's about the values associated with the brand he's built, the nature of shopping at WF, and the context of this particular op-ed.
The WF brand is very strongly associated with morals. WF touts ethical treatment of people and ethical treatment of animals. As a consequence, shopping there (for some) is not just about price or quality of goods; it's a moral choice.
The people who are joining this boycott evidently feel that the public option is the moral choice for this country to make, and it falls into the same sphere of moral choices that Whole Foods is aligned with. Fair Trade is about treating people across the world with dignity and humanity; the public option is perceived as treating people in our own country with dignity and humanity.
It makes sense that these boycotters perceive betrayal when the CEO of a company that has become an extension of their identity opposes the values they thought they were supporting. It's not "You don't like to eat animals therefore you must support a public option"; it's "We bought from your stores, told our friends to shop there, invested in your idea, and helped make you rich and given you this platform, and now you're turning around and using that platform to betray our values - the values we thought you stood for." Mind you I'm not saying I agree with this, I'm not saying whether this is objectively logical or not, I'm just trying to outline what I think are the boycotters' perceptions.
The final piece is the nature of this particular law. If the CEO come out again Net Neutrality (since it's governmental regulation), I doubt anyone would feel outraged enough to boycott WF. But health care reform deals specifically with the ethical treatment of people, something which WF is associated with.
I get how it's bad PR on Mackey's part. But it's an unfair expectation on the part of the boycotters.
Besides, Mackey's stance has been empirically expressed for a long time now; just examining the way he handles health care internally, with his own employees, should tell much of what he believes in. To rifle and shout for blood now, just because he's released a minor articulation of something he's been advocating a while now, would seem sort of silly on the part of conscious Whole Foods consumers.
Why should advertisers not advertise on Glen Beck's show? For those who don't know, Beck opined on his show that President Obama has "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. . . I'm not saying he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist." That's an opinion as well.
Beck's opinion is, to most, more inflammatory than Mackey's, but that can make Mackey's all the more dangerous (if you're someone who would like to see public healthcare). The fact is that Mackey seems to be a liberal of sorts (in fact, Whole Foods offers health insurance to their employees) and an at least somewhat successful business person (I don't actually know enough about Whole Foods, but they don't seem to be going bankrupt).
So, his words are quite a threat to the agenda of those who would like to see a public health plan. And his words have that much more power because they're coming from someone who seems to have liberal leanings and is running a business that does provide health care to their employees. If someone is advocating for the opposite of what you would like, should you not take that into consideration? We vote with our feet every day. He took action against public health care in trying to change people's opinions through his piece. I know many who stopped buying CDs because of the RIAA's positions.
I will grant that his piece was a lot more thoughtful and measured than many have passed on, but this is an issue that is very contentious and many people feel (I'm not making any judgement here) that his words contribute to a negative impact on the possibility of a public health plan and that the lack of such a plan will have a negative impact on their life. As such, they don't want to spend their money at his business.
But there's no need to make a huge deal out of it, as the boycott is doing. Just read the article, and read the 'About' section on their website, and see whether one seems a justified response to the other.
From our perspective, perhaps. I don't doubt the people behind the boycott think there is a substantial need to make a huge deal out of it.
I resent your use of the word "threat" in this context; a threat implies the pending use of force to harm. Are you sure that you want to equate a man expressing his opinion publicly to the promise of inflicting pain?
I think what's important here is that the boycotters perceive the Whole Foods CEO's opining as an actual threat. In the "battle" for ideas, it makes sense that you wouldn't actively support your opposition.
For example, "Your capricious coding practices are a threat to the quality of our code base."
You're stuck on the first entry in the dictionary for "threat." The parent was using the second entry: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/threat
The guy delivered a big Fuck You to his customers - the same people who are responsible for him having a stronger voice than an ordinary person. Now he has to pay the price for his stupidity, and they are absolutely right to boycott WF.
It's missing the point and excessively patronizing. He is sticking it to his customers, you just aren't reading critically. To his credit, he's been consistent -- I found articles about the WF health plan from way back where he is equally patronizing about how his employees chose the "Suck Less" health care plan by vote. Gee, thanks. :-)
Lets take some choice quotes:
Covering the naive, self-serving bases we have: "Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover", "Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year." Incredibly naive. Just astoundingly so. Also, note the complete lack of concern for the patients in this triangle. Or at least the ones who may not have the privilege of working at WholeFoods.
And under the WTF category: "Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation [for people with no insurance]". Does anyone think this proposal is actually legitimate? This is the most intelligence insulting bit of ass-covering I've ever seen.
But it doesn't end there. He references an article in Investor's business daily which is basically full of lies (look up the rebuttals -- it's quite humorous)
And I love this one. Note the pre-built conclusion: "Why would [Can,UK employees] want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right to health care"?" Well, fucking duh, they don't need high deductable insurance from WholeFoods, and they want access to extra benefits in some form. But, he's smart, he knew this already... He just didn't choose to phrase it that way.. for our beenfit, of course. :-)
And we have the patronizing implication in: "Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted:". If that isn't a huge fuck you, I have no idea what is.
You can already deduct medical expenses and charitable donations in the US, and "donating" to family members is ripe for tax fraud. It's just not realistic. But igoring that, the thrust of that part of the op-ep was that this would pay for all those who can't afford insurance is absolutely ridiculous -- basically just, like I said, dumb and really naive.
As for the second, while it may be true that "many" problems are self-inflicted in a technical sense, that rather vague statement is not the point. The point is what it implies. It implies that if everyone just ate their greens, we'd see less of a problem. Not only is it basically wrong (look up the stats). It's insulting because you're implicitly blaming a significant ("many") part of the healthcare problem on the people who... seek out healthcare. This is, again, stupid, and not the debate -- WHile people could take better care of themselves, they aren't ruining the system with hangnails and type 2 diabetes caused by Twinkies. That just isn't happening the way he implies. What we are talking about is a significant class of people who do not seek out healthcare because they cannot afford it.
i'm not sure how the author would reconcile the fact that the CEO of a company should have the right to express his opinion via the editorial but the consumers should not be able to express their opinion by not doing business with the company (how else will the average joe on the street be able to actually have any direct effect on or interaction with a CEO?).
Alternatively, bonus points if you can find me someone supporting boycotting Whole Foods who ridiculed the boycotting of the Dixie Chicks. Or vice versa.
Not to mention that in this case, we're talking about the CEO of a company that has built itself on an image. Not only that, the company targets a certain demographic, and the majority of that demographic (at least on the surface) believes in government healthcare. For the CEO to come out and say something like this, it's almost an expected response.
The Dixie Chicks on the other hand have a wider audience, and prior to them actually saying it, I wouldn't have necessarily expected such a response from the general public or their fans. Not only that it was all over in the media with lots of 'media personalities' jumping on the 'trash the Dixie Chicks for ratings' bandwagon.
Of course, I think I'd starve to death if I boycotted all the stores that don't support my politics.
The whole foods ceo is in the newspaper because he is the CEO of whole foods, not because he has all these interesting things to say. Since his ability to push his opinions through the newspaper is predicated on his position at that corporation, he is writing as 'the CEO of whole foods', not merely as a citizen. That they point out who he is adds to this, since not only is he only invited because of his job title, but the newspaper is also using the title to add weight and authority. If the employees of a company offend you the best and really only way to influence them is to stop giving that company your money.
Really, as a practical matter, no CEO of any company should be out there publicly talking about their personal political views. In fact, it is odd that the company didn't have a written policy preventing employees from using their affiliation with the company in this way. If the guy who makes sandwiches started endorsing panini grills, and the ads used the Whole Foods name, they would be shut down. It is just obvious that the sandwich guy can't use the company's trademarks to push his personal agenda, and neither should the CEO be allowed to.
What the boycotters don't understand is that you get nowhere if a bunch of disconnected individuals just stop buying something because they're angry. It only works if you make specific well-publicized demands, continue the boycott until the demands are met, and then end it. A boycott without demands is tactically pathetic. It's a bit late now, but the boycotters could have demanded, for example, that Whole Foods publicly support a single-payer system.
While it's obviously a bit different for a CEO (being more in the public eye, and seen as the 'face' of the company), HR and legal departments are worried about similar backlashes from comments made by 'grunt-level' (or even mid-level) employees.
This is obviously a flawed assumption, because the people at the top of the company have a higher chance of garnering public outrage against a company, yet they are the ones with the most leverage to say 'screw you' to such policies that would limit their free speech and (at least try to) negotiate them out of any contracts.