OK, I'm not going to say much about this because it's a real hot-button political issue, but .... some people are calling for a boycott of Whole Foods because they don't like what the CEO wrote about Obama's health care plan in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal.
I'm not going to tell you where I stand on the health-care plan because 50 percent of you will be angry with me, and it's not like I'm going to change your mind.
That said, the boycott ticks me off. Basically, all a boycott can do is possibly make the company punish the CEO for not personally supporting the president's every move. Last time I checked, it's OK to disagree in a America, just like it's OK to not shop at a store.
And what if the boycott was REALLY successful? What if Whole Foods closed? Congrats, thanks for taking away a company that was helping create the demand for organic and natural foods.
Point is, think about what decisions you make. Shop elsewhere if it's important to you to punish a company run by a person you disagree with. But if you like free speech and you think we don't all have to agree, pick the store by what they sell, not who they hire.
Julie Todd is the night editor at The Herald News in Joliet. She and her
husband are looking to cut the chemicals and get back to basics -- minus the
granola and hemp clothing. They live in a home they bought last year in
Plainfield, where they're making changes to create their own little patch of
utopia.
I can understand why you might be upset were Whole Foods to be penalized for its CEO's opinion. However, a CEO is not simply one of the employees. Being CEO is as much a political position as it is a managment one. My point? If your stock person or cashier is bashing Obama or his health plan, so what, right? It's one opinion and we are all free to have them. I agree.
If the CEO is as a party with friends and business associates and says something against Obama and his health plan, well, it's still a personal opinion and to be taken as such. If, however, the CEO, takes a public political stand then it transcends arena of simply being the opinion of an employee. The CEO is the public face of the company and it's his job to direct the company AND influence other businesses and political leaders to take action that favorably impacts the company and its bottom line.
Once a key leader at a company takes that kind of stand it's nearly impossible to believe that the entire company is not tainted/influenced (your choice here) by this one person's opinion.
So picture this, you love Whole Foods, you love the concept it's built on BUT it's key leader is diametrically opposed to your political views on key issues AND he makes it public and tries to use his influence to convince you and others that your views are wrong. Now what? Don't you start to worry that the whole organization isn't really committed to the things it says it is? Don't you start to think that the CEO has somehow been duplicitous in representing the company and it's goals? Don't you feel betrayed?
People with power, like CEOs, have influence unavailable to the average employee so to say he is just another employee is not really valid. I'm not saying that this isn't the way of the world and I'm not saying the CEO is not entitled to his opinion. I'm just saying that a CEO's political opinion shared in a public forum, can in no way be compared to "just another employee's opinion".
How can average people compete with that kind of power or voice their extreme displeasure with the CEO's opinion and be heard? They can't. The common man has no vehicle to share his opinion that is widespread or effective. Even boycotts don't really work.
So I agree to skip the Whole Foods boycott, not because I think the CEO deserves a pass but because it's not going to serve any purpose. I'm afraid in this matter I think the little guy really does get the shaft.
This actually makes it a lot clearer for me. Thanks for that. You're very levelheaded about this.
And, come to think of it, I think I've avoided companies that clashed with some of my strongly held beliefs before - but it was never a shop I loved this much. I think I'm blinded by the organic granola, which is a bad sign.
I wasn't sure how to see if the boycott is "working." I suspect we won't see bottom lines from them. The stock is going up, but my husband's theory is that the folks who buy the stock are likely the folks who oppose the health care plan so it's not a good monitor of what's going on.
Can organic granola really taste good? :0
I suspect Whole Foods will survive this intact. They offer products that are simply not readily available from anyone else. There is a strong demand for a place like Whole Foods and no real competition for them in sight.
I'm glad that a company like Whole Foods has made organic food available to more people and, as you say, driven a greater demand for organics.
That said, however, Whole Foods at the end of the day is, after all, a for-profit corporation. In fact, it's a corporation which through careful market research has managed to close down locally owned and operated natural food co-ops across the country (I have direct knowledge of this in Seattle and second hand knowledge of it in Chicago).
If people want to feel righteous about their food, they'd do well to shop at farmers' markets, buy CSA memberships, form cooperatives and garden at home rather than pinning moral authority on a for-profit corporation like Whole Foods. In a place like Illinois where we have so many small organic producers (we have a grass fed meat CSA in Ottawa), there's not much excuse for trucking in organic food from elsewhere.
Interesting that *this* boycott got so much attention and not the intervention from the Organic Consumers' Association when Whole Foods started to replace organics with "natural" foods to increase its profit margin.
The meat CSA might work most of the time, but what do you do about produce in the winter in the Midwest? Farmers markets and CSAs can only take you so far because when it's -20, you better have canned something yourself if you want to eat organic and local.
As for the natural vs. organic, I would hope consumers know the difference when shopping. Sometimes at Whole Foods, I buy the nonorganic versions of stuff when I just can't afford to do the organic one. I'm glad I have the choice.
I'm not saying Whole Foods is perfect. Far from it. But for every coop they've allegedly crushed, there's a farmer that is producing for them. If they went out of business, would there be another organic grocer to step up and keep the demand so the farmers wouldn't go back to regular methods?