

Why boycotting Whole Foods is Stupid - Anon84
http://www.scottberkun.com/blog/2009/why-boycotting-whole-foods-is-stupid/

======
tjic
I read a quote somewhere (forget where) saying "folks in favor of universal
healthcare keep saying 'lets have a debate'. OK, then Mackey's editorial was a
PERFECT example of having a debate ... and he's getting castigated for it.
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."

I 100% agree.

~~~
dtf
He starts his article with a line from Maggie Thatcher on socialism. Not a
subtle way to tee off a debate - he may as well have dropped in a couple of
references to the Third Reich while he was at it. Maybe he does raise a few
interesting points, but he then completely loses it by claiming that it's
plant-based nutrition (organic, no doubt) that we all need rather than doctors
and medicine. It's a perfect "qu'ils mangent de la brioche" moment that shows
the man has zero clue what he's talking about. This isn't a cogent argument
against healthcare reform that needs defending as free-speech-under-attack;
it's just a public relations facepalm of the first degree. The boycotts _are_
stupid, but that's just stupidity responding to stupidity.

~~~
tjic
> _He starts his article with a line from Maggie Thatcher on socialism. Not a
> subtle way to tee off a debate - he may as well have dropped in a couple of
> references to the Third Reich while he was at it._

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".

~~~
mighty
To my knowledge, the Thatcher quote has nothing to do with their health care
system, and it would appear she was an advocate of the NHS, not an opponent.

From
[http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp...](http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=108256)

 _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._

------
stuff4ben
Incredibly well said. Reminds me of one of my favorite movie quotes, "You want
free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil,
who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which
you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." \- The American
President (<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112346/>)

~~~
smakz
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your
right to say it. [might not be Voltaire]

~~~
mighty
I'm sorry, but the idea that the boycott is somehow threatening freedom of
speech is utterly absurd.

> 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.

~~~
smakz
Absolutely and I agree. I don't usually post ambiguous quotes but the
grandparent reminded me of that quote which I liked.

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.

~~~
mighty
Voted you back up. Fwiw, I was trying to respond to the general sentiment that
this was a free speech issue, and the quote made for a good place to do so.
Thanks for clarifying your stance. In retrospect, I should have used less
strong language--"utterly absurd" wasn't necessary, as I can see how one might
regard it a free speech issue.

------
ZeroGravitas
_"If I were to boycott Whole Foods or critique Mackey it’d be for poor or
manipulative timing, and not much else."_

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.

~~~
wolfish
I disagree that expressing a well thought out opinion on an important social
issue is a dumb action.

~~~
gloob
Clearly the market disagrees with you.

~~~
wolfish
I'm not sure if you're referring to the boycotters or HN. But I'd hardly call
a vocal minority "the market." The lines in the Whole Foods a couple blocks
from my apartment seem to be just as long as ever.

~~~
gloob
In which case they're hardly infringing on his freedom of speech, now are
they? I am, incidentally, quite serious: I can't see how "The boycotters are a
meaningful threat to freedom of speech," and "The boycotters have negligible
impact on the real world," are anything but mutually exclusive.

~~~
wolfish
I've never said either of those things. The first one is absurd.

------
mdasen
The Whole Foods CEO wasn't just having opinions. He was actively opining
(which spell check assures me is a word) that we shouldn't have a public
health care system.

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.

~~~
jobeirne
"So, his words are quite a threat"

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?

~~~
nonrecursive
That's not the only meaning: "a person or thing likely to cause damage or
danger". There are economic threats (the threat of bankruptcy), social threats
(blackmail), etc. etc.

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.

~~~
jobeirne
Even so, the word has a devious connotation. There is nothing devious about
open speech.

~~~
nonrecursive
I'm curious: what word would you use?

~~~
jobeirne
"So, his words are quite a _challenge_ to the agenda of those who would like
to see a public health plan."

------
jswinghammer
I totally agree that this boycott business is nonsense. I don't understand why
some people seem to believe that everyone has to agree with you. Is the case
for health care reform so weak that people need to jump on anyone who
dissents? Mackey doesn't even draw a salary so by boycotting Whole Foods it
isn't affecting him directly. He's a libertarian sort of guy but that's
nothing new. I shop at Whole Foods every week and have no plans to stop that
any time soon. My wife and I joke that we should be spending more there now
that some people are boycotting.

~~~
jz
I've shopped at Whole Foods once or twice in the past and came to the
conclusion that it was a bit pricey. I just started shopping at Whole Foods
again to help negate the boycott. I also plan on buying a Ford the next time I
need a car. I've always bought GM/Chrysler, but Ford has earned my respect by
refusing the government bailout.

~~~
hughprime
I, likewise, am planning to shop at Whole Foods more frequently now. Actually,
one of the reasons I didn't shop at Whole Foods before was that it was always
too crowded. Maybe it'll be easier to find a parking space from now on. (It
helps that my local branch is in Berkeley.)

------
jobeirne
If anything, a rabid boycotting effort seems detrimental to the case of
reformists; fear-mongering and verbal abuse simply because a man authors an
eloquent article stating his opinions? That sounds scary to me.

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.

------
martythemaniak
This seems to be news to many people, but "free speech" does not mean others
have to listen to you, agree with you, or least of all financially support
you.

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.

~~~
jz
Did you even read the article? I was unable to find even one instance where he
was sticking it to his customers. All his points had everything to do with
changes to the health care system, but with a minimal (if any) increase in the
deficit.

~~~
ezy
Did you? Read it again.

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.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Two points: 1) "voluntary, tax deductible, donation" presumably means one can
donate charitably to an individual who needs a medical intervention of some
sort, eg pay for your brothers kidney operation tax free - what's your
objection to this sort of thing? Your vitriol is obscuring your message. 2)
"many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted:", they are though aren't
they? No where near all of them, but certainly many (I'm in the UK, perhaps
people [contrary to all media reports] look after themselves better in the
USA?).

~~~
ezy
Admittedly I was peeved when I read it, but you have to consider the reality,
rather than the ideal.

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.

------
noodle
what is a boycott but an expression of opinion?

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?).

~~~
pyre
Yea. The article seems more to the effect of "Your political opinions are
stupid, therefore your actions to express those opinions are stupid as well"
and venturing into "your opinions are so stupid that you don't have a right to
express them" territory.

------
hughprime
Out of curiosity, can anyone point me at some well-argued articles offering a
refutation of Mackey's original editorial?

Alternatively, bonus points if you can find me someone supporting boycotting
Whole Foods who ridiculed the boycotting of the Dixie Chicks. Or vice versa.

~~~
pyre
The boycotting of the Dixie Chicks was more ridiculous, in my opinion... By a
couple of orders of magnitude.

~~~
hughprime
Uh huh. How so, exactly?

~~~
pyre
Because there was a larger portion of the population that agreed with it.

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.

------
evanjacobs
As far as the (stock) markets are concerned, Mackey's opinion piece doesn't
seem to have affected the value of WFMI. After a brief dip, the value of WFMI
has steadily increased during the past week: <http://bit.ly/4BCUjh>

------
eli
People are just unhappy that Whole Foods' senior management doesn't jive with
the company's careful constructed image.

Of course, I think I'd starve to death if I boycotted all the stores that
don't support my politics.

~~~
viggity
I would die of boredom if I didn't watch movies made by people on the opposite
side of the political spectrum.

------
justin_vanw
Ok, the article seems to miss something.

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.

~~~
tc
You may not be aware, but John Mackey _founded_ Whole Foods (in his garage, no
less) in 1978. His identity is naturally rather intertwined with his company.

------
ranprieur
Both sides on this issue are failing to understand the vast potential power of
the tool of the boycott. It doesn't matter whether Mackey's argument was
reasonable. People are fired up and motivated, and that energy can be tapped
to influence Whole Foods, and then influence another company, and another. The
more we use the muscle, the stronger it gets.

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.

------
pyre
I'd like to take a second to remind folks that _this_ is the reason that
companies want to have access to your facebook pages, have you sign away your
right to blog in public, etc.

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.

------
doki_pen
It seems to me that boycot is perfect way to censor people. I find nothing
wrong with it. There are social consequences to what you say. This is the way
it should be. Government cencorship, on the other hand...

------
mcantelon
Also stupid is screwing your shareholders by pissing off your company's
customers.

