From the nooze:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081803613.html


Whole Foods Devotees Lash Out at CEO

Customers, Angry Over His Health-Care Views, Share Feelings of Betrayal on
Web

By Ylan Q. Mui
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 19, 2009


"Whole Foods aficionados who assumed the company's management was as crunchy
as the brand are feeling betrayed.

They have stormed Twitter, Facebook and the blogosphere to vent their rage
at John Mackey, the chief executive. In an op-ed column in the Wall Street
Journal last week, he argued for health-care savings accounts and declared
that health care is not an intrinsic right-- ideas with a conservative bent,
which made Whole Foods' liberal customer base go ballistic.

They are even talking about a boycott. And who knows? Maybe some will have
to rethink shopping at Wal-Mart. Unions once attacked the retailer's labor
and benefits policies, but Wal-Mart has become the nation's largest purveyor
of organic products and recently espoused a position on health-care reform
that is widely considered progressive.

What's wrong with this picture?

"A lot of people have been paying a premium for the Whole Foods brand for
years," said Mark Rosenthal, a playwright living in Massachusetts who
founded the Boycott Whole Foods group a few days ago. It has nearly 14,000
members. "A lot of people are sad to look at this corporation and see that
it is just like any other, if not worse."

Whole Foods spokeswoman Libba Letton said that Mackey was expressing
personal opinions in the op-ed and that the company has no official position
on the issue. Whole Foods has sent letters to customers apologizing for any
offense and created a forum on its Web site to discuss the issue. There are
more than 10,000 posts, compared with 77 posts on the raw foods forum.

Mackey is not the first corporate executive to wade into the contentious
health-care debate, but other brands do not inspire the level of fanaticism
that Whole Foods does. Safeway chief executive Steve Burd wrote an op-ed in
the Wall Street Journal in June that also called for market-based reforms in
health care with nary a social media ripple.

In some cases, the pushback has worked. Wal-Mart was thrust into the
health-care debate following vigorous campaigns by labor unions. The
retailer has spent several years removing the tar and feathers: It lowered
premiums for its health insurance, reduced the waiting period for
eligibility and slashed prices on prescription drugs for all customers. This
summer, Wal-Mart broke with business groups to support universal health care
alongside its one-time foe, the Service Employees International Union.

In a post to the D.C. for Obama listserv urging members to boycott Whole
Foods, Thomas M. Goldstein wrote, "We want CEOs to understand that they
benefit from promoting progressive policies and face costs when they take
right-wing stands."

Mackey has described himself as a free-market libertarian and has long been
known as a maverick in the industry. He has cut his salary to $1 and has
imposed caps on executive wages but opposes labor unions. In recent years,
he was investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for posting
anonymously on a Yahoo Finance message board dedicated to Whole Foods. The
agency has ruled out any action.

Mackey was unavailable for an interview, but on his blog he blamed the
column's headline -- "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare" -- for
sparking some of the furor. He noted that his piece did not mention the
president. He did mention, though, that the company provides high-deductible
insurance for most of its employees, as well as $1,800 a year for their
discretionary health-care expenses.

Letton, the spokeswoman, pointed to the grocer's long history in supporting
sustainability and organic farming, food and nutritional labeling, and
ethical treatment of animals.

"The list goes on and on," she said. "I hope that our customers will keep
those things in mind."

But that is part of what made Whole Foods the "primo hangout of liberal
Democratic yuppies," as one call to action on MySpace put it -- and exactly
the reason that many say they feel duped.

"Dear Store Manager," a member of the Boycott Whole Foods Facebook group
wrote, "The 30 risotto cakes that I purchased from Jenkintown Whole Foods,
last Friday, were scrumptious. But today they are giving me indigestion of
the soul as I realize that my money may have funded the demise of the public
option in the nation's health care reform legislative debate."

Rosenthal said he was so enraged by Mackey's opinions that he started the
Facebook group, but did not urge his friends to join at first. Just as he
avoids sending an e-mail when he's angry, he said he tried to take a step
back -- only to find when he returned to his computer that 50 people had
discovered the group and joined.

"I think a lot of people feel really betrayed," he said.

The group also started a Twitter profile under the name Whole Boycott and
have been filing frequent updates. So far, it has just 83 followers -- make
that 84 -- compared with Whole Foods' 1.2 million. But it's still early.

It was "only a matter of time before i'd have to reconcile my politics w/my
addiction to #wholefoods," one supporter tweeted recently. "i have to get my
puffins elsewhere."

</>

Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> "Whole Foods aficionados who assumed the company's management was as crunchy
> as the brand are feeling betrayed.
>
> They have stormed Twitter, Facebook and the blogosphere to vent their rage
> at John Mackey, the chief executive. In an op-ed column in the Wall Street
> Journal last week, he argued for health-care savings accounts and declared
> that health care is not an intrinsic right-- ideas with a conservative bent,
> which made Whole Foods' liberal customer base go ballistic.

Why didn't they already know John Mackey is an evil man?
This was well-documented in an earlier Wall Street Journal
article:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article..._20070719.html

He used a Yahoo stock-market discussion forum to drive down
the price of Wild Oats' stock just before he bought the
company. He has always played dirty. I enjoy shopping
at Trader Joe's, but I always feel unclean buying anything
at Whole Foods.

Here's a shorter URL to the Wall Street Journal
article on what John Mackey did to rip off
the shareholders of Wild Oats:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118418782959963745.html

Mark Thorson wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>>
>> "Whole Foods aficionados who assumed the company's management was as
>> crunchy as the brand are feeling betrayed.
>>
>> They have stormed Twitter, Facebook and the blogosphere to vent
>> their rage at John Mackey, the chief executive. In an op-ed column
>> in the Wall Street Journal last week, he argued for health-care
>> savings accounts and declared that health care is not an intrinsic
>> right-- ideas with a conservative bent, which made Whole Foods'
>> liberal customer base go ballistic.
>
> Why didn't they already know John Mackey is an evil man?
> This was well-documented in an earlier Wall Street Journal
> article:
>
>
http://online.wsj.com/public/article..._20070719.html
>
> He used a Yahoo stock-market discussion forum to drive down
> the price of Wild Oats' stock just before he bought the
> company. He has always played dirty. I enjoy shopping
> at Trader Joe's, but I always feel unclean buying anything
> at Whole Foods.


Even though WH doesn't carry lobsters because killing them would be
"cruel"...???


--
Best
Greg

On 2009-08-20, Gregory Morrow > wrote:

> "Whole Foods aficionados who assumed the company's management was as crunchy
> as the brand......

"crunchy"?

> They have stormed Twitter, Facebook and the blogosphere to vent their rage
> at John Mackey, the chief executive.

What took 'em so long? Anyone who's paid the least bit of attention
to Mackey and WF's history knows the guy was a fascist right wing
money whore from the get go. I love the part about WFs sustainability
and organic foods. WF has done more to co-opt (there's one for the
books) the standards of organic food than any single Agribiz corp in
the US. I think the whole thing is hilarious.

nb

Gregory Morrow wrote:
>

Nothing new here, the wingers on either side always feel betrayed when
their baseless assumptions and willful ignorance are shown to be false.

In article > ,
"Gregory Morrow" > wrote:

> From the nooze:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...AR200908180361
> 3.html
>
>
> Whole Foods Devotees Lash Out at CEO
>
> Customers, Angry Over His Health-Care Views, Share Feelings of Betrayal on
> Web

Angry? I will not be shopping at Whole Foods any more. No anger here. I
am just using my little corner of the capitalist system to express my
dislike for how Whole Foods treats its employees.

Gregory Morrow wrote:

>
>
> Even though WH doesn't carry lobsters because killing them would be
> "cruel"...???
>
>

How do they rationalize selling beef, pork, chicken, fish, etc?
Or aren't those killed before they are sold?

gloria p

Gloria P wrote:
>
> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Even though WH doesn't carry lobsters because killing them would be
> > "cruel"...???
> >
> >
>
> How do they rationalize selling beef, pork, chicken, fish, etc?
> Or aren't those killed before they are sold?
>
> gloria p

How about that dead broccoli, or the dead tomatoes, or all the dead
yeast in the bread?

Kill it and eat it is my motto...

On 2009-08-21, Pete C. > wrote:

> Kill it and eat it is my motto...

What's that old saying? Something about I didn't spend centuries
rising to the top of the food chain to play second fiddle to a banana.

nb

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:13:08 GMT, notbob wrote:

> On 2009-08-20, Gregory Morrow > wrote:
>
>> "Whole Foods aficionados who assumed the company's management was as crunchy
>> as the brand......
>
> "crunchy"?
>
>> They have stormed Twitter, Facebook and the blogosphere to vent their rage
>> at John Mackey, the chief executive.
>
> What took 'em so long? Anyone who's paid the least bit of attention
> to Mackey and WF's history knows the guy was a fascist right wing
> money whore from the get go. I love the part about WFs sustainability
> and organic foods. WF has done more to co-opt (there's one for the
> books) the standards of organic food than any single Agribiz corp in
> the US. I think the whole thing is hilarious.
>
> nb

mackey is also the reason that people who shop the bigger chains can find
organic food if that's their interest.

the whole thing is a tempest in an artisanal teapot.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:40:18 -0400, Stan Horwitz wrote:

> In article > ,
> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
>
>> From the nooze:
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...AR200908180361
>> 3.html
>>
>> Whole Foods Devotees Lash Out at CEO
>>
>> Customers, Angry Over His Health-Care Views, Share Feelings of Betrayal on
>> Web
>
> Angry? I will not be shopping at Whole Foods any more. No anger here. I
> am just using my little corner of the capitalist system to express my
> dislike for how Whole Foods treats its employees.

the head of whole foods may be anti-union, but he treats his employees
pretty well. that's his basis for objecting to the unions. let's not make
him out to be some kind of wal-mart weasel.

WHOLE FOODS MARKET
The organic superstore pays for 100% of all its employees¡¦ health insurance
premiums. Whole Foods Market's (WFMI) benefits include medical, dental,
vision, and a ¡§wellness plan,¡¨ which helps cover the costs of qualifying
out-of-pocket health expenses. Life insurance, disability insurance, and a
401(k) are also standard. As an added bonus, workers can apply for credit
union membership and are eligible for paid leave of absence¡Kand all the
organic jelly beans they want for 20% off.

<http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/insurance/six-companies-amazing-employee-benefits>

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:40:18 -0400, Stan Horwitz wrote:
>
>> In article > ,
>> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
>>
>>> From the nooze:
>>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/18/AR2009081803613.html>>>>>> Whole Foods Devotees Lash Out at CEO>>>>>> Customers, Angry Over His Health-Care Views, Share Feelings of Betrayalon>>> Web>>>> Angry? I will not be shopping at Whole Foods any more. No anger here. I>> am just using my little corner of the capitalist system to express my>> dislike for how Whole Foods treats its employees.>> the head of whole foods may be anti-union, but he treats his employees> pretty well. that's his basis for objecting to the unions. let's notmake> him out to be some kind of wal-mart weasel.>> WHOLE FOODS MARKET> The organic superstore pays for 100% of all its employees¡¦ healthinsurance> premiums. Whole Foods Market's (WFMI) benefits include medical, dental,> vision, and a ¡§wellness plan,¡¨ which helps cover the costs of qualifying> out-of-pocket health expenses. Life insurance, disability insurance, and a> 401(k) are also standard. As an added bonus, workers can apply for credit> union membership and are eligible for paid leave of absence¡Kand all the> organic jelly beans they want for 20% off.>><http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/insurance/six-companies-amazing-employee-benefits>>> your pal,> blakeThat is much better than average for benefits in the retail industry. I'mgoing to make a point to shop there more often now to offset the idiotprotesting the fact that the CEO has an opinion.

Stan Horwitz wrote:
> In article > ,
> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
>
>> From the nooze:
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...AR200908180361
>> 3.html
>>
>>
>> Whole Foods Devotees Lash Out at CEO
>>
>> Customers, Angry Over His Health-Care Views, Share Feelings of Betrayal on
>> Web
>
> Angry? I will not be shopping at Whole Foods any more. No anger here. I
> am just using my little corner of the capitalist system to express my
> dislike for how Whole Foods treats its employees.

Just because someone doesn't care for labor unions doesn't mean they
mistreat their employees. They actually treat their employees quite well
and are the polar opposite of walmart in that regard.

And an interesting story about that way of thinking. I worked for a
company for years and they were one of the best places to work in that
area. Upper management had a strong anti-union stance. It wasn't because
they were greedy walmart. They resented the idea of taking the risk and
providing jobs and being told what to do by folks who had no risk. They
paid above average wages and had excellent benefits and had great profit
sharing. I had tremendous latitude about how to treat people who
reported to me. If someone was a good worker and they had health issues
or were caring for an elderly parent etc we covered for them.

Then we were purchased by a greedy liberal (they have lots of great
ideas how to spend the money of others to right all wrongs-just don't
ask them to contribute anything) who was a friend of the Clintons.
Benefits were immediately cut and profit sharing and sick days were
stopped. If someone was an excellent worker they were thrown under the
bus if they missed work because they had health problems or were a care
giver. Raises were suspended and salaried folks were required to work
10 hour minimum days and had to come in on Saturdays and Sundays for
free. The place spiraled into the ground.

George wrote:

> Stan Horwitz wrote:
>> In article > ,
>> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
>>
>>> From the nooze:
>>>
>>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...AR200908180361
>>> 3.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Whole Foods Devotees Lash Out at CEO
>>>
>>> Customers, Angry Over His Health-Care Views, Share Feelings of
>>> Betrayal on Web
>>
>> Angry? I will not be shopping at Whole Foods any more. No anger
>> here. I am just using my little corner of the capitalist system to
>> express my dislike for how Whole Foods treats its employees.
>
> Just because someone doesn't care for labor unions doesn't mean they
> mistreat their employees. They actually treat their employees quite
> well and are the polar opposite of walmart in that regard.
>
> And an interesting story about that way of thinking. I worked for a
> company for years and they were one of the best places to work in that
> area. Upper management had a strong anti-union stance. It wasn't
> because they were greedy walmart. They resented the idea of taking
> the risk and providing jobs and being told what to do by folks who
> had no risk. They paid above average wages and had excellent benefits
> and had great profit sharing. I had tremendous latitude about how to
> treat people who reported to me. If someone was a good worker and
> they had health issues or were caring for an elderly parent etc we
> covered for them.
>
> Then we were purchased by a greedy liberal (they have lots of great
> ideas how to spend the money of others to right all wrongs-just don't
> ask them to contribute anything) who was a friend of the Clintons.


Yup...as Margaret Thatcher was fond of saying:

"Socialism is fine until you run out of someone else's money..."


> Benefits were immediately cut and profit sharing and sick days were
> stopped. If someone was an excellent worker they were thrown under the
> bus if they missed work because they had health problems or were a
> care giver. Raises were suspended and salaried folks were required
> to work 10 hour minimum days and had to come in on Saturdays and
> Sundays for free. The place spiraled into the ground.


The Clinton era was hardly "warm and fuzzy" to ordinary workers. Clinton
kowtowed shamelessly to Wall St. and big business in general, his audacity
in doing this gobsmacked even the far - right believers in Reagan - era
economic policies...he was not called "Slick Willie" for nothing.


--
Best
Greg

Gregory Morrow wrote:


> And of all creatures, lobsters are the least likely to have
> "feelings"...they certainly do not feel "pain" when they are cooked. If
> lobsters were sensitive creatures they wouldn't be opportunistic bottom -
> feeders with *extreme* cannibalistic tendencies...

I've met humans who would classify themselves as "sensitive", who
nevertheless behaved like opportunistic bottom feeders with extreme
cannibalistic tendencies. Evidently, being exquisitely attuned to your
own sensations does not ensure empathy with others.

Gloria P wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Even though WH doesn't carry lobsters because killing them would be
>> "cruel"...???
>>
>>
>
> How do they rationalize selling beef, pork, chicken, fish, etc?
> Or aren't those killed before they are sold?


He...I've always found WH's "save the planet" schtick pretty risible,
especially considering that their parking lots are more often than not
chock - full of gas - guzzling SUV's, invariably occupied by one measly tiny
yuppie female.

And of all creatures, lobsters are the least likely to have
"feelings"...they certainly do not feel "pain" when they are cooked. If
lobsters were sensitive creatures they wouldn't be opportunistic bottom -
feeders with *extreme* cannibalistic tendencies...

:-)



--
Best
Greg

On 2009-08-22, Gregory Morrow > wrote:

> The Clinton era was hardly "warm and fuzzy" to ordinary workers. Clinton
> kowtowed shamelessly to Wall St. and big business in general, his audacity
> in doing this gobsmacked even the far - right believers in Reagan - era
> economic policies...he was not called "Slick Willie" for nothing.

You crack me up. Sound like the guy that whined, bitched, and
complained about Clinton all through the deliriously prosperous 90s
while he was pulling down unheard of wages as an "ordinary worker".
Company stock split and doubled 4 times in ten years making even wage
earners near millionaires if they did even basic stock withdrawals
options and bonuses. I know, cuz I was one.

But, he never failed to bitch about Bill. Not who won last nights
game or that hot new babe in shipping or that new movie or restaurant
or new car you could buy with this quarter's bonus. Just, "Did you
see what the dirtbag Clinton, did!?" Got so people scattered at his
approach, even hardcore conservatives.

nb

Kathleen wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
>
>> And of all creatures, lobsters are the least likely to have
>> "feelings"...they certainly do not feel "pain" when they are cooked.
>> If lobsters were sensitive creatures they wouldn't be opportunistic
>> bottom - feeders with *extreme* cannibalistic tendencies...
>
> I've met humans who would classify themselves as "sensitive", who
> nevertheless behaved like opportunistic bottom feeders with extreme
> cannibalistic tendencies. Evidently, being exquisitely attuned to
> your own sensations does not ensure empathy with others.


Very true...Narcissus was not a crustacean, but a human being...!!!

:-)

--
Best
Greg

On 2009-08-22, Gregory Morrow > wrote:

> Very true...Narcissus was not a crustacean, but a human being...!!!

That reminds me.

Q:Which one of these is not the same?:

a) lobster
b) crab
c) catfish
d) chinese fellow hit by a falling safe

A: The catfish. All the rest are crustaceans.

nb

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in message
m...
>
>
> "Socialism is fine until you run out of someone else's money..."
>
>
The trouble with you, and many USians, is that you don't have an effing clue
what constitutes socialism. For you, it boils down to anything you don't
like!

On 2009-08-22, graham > wrote:

> The trouble with you, and many USians, is that you don't have an effing clue
> what constitutes socialism.

Sure we do. "Socialism" is what we call giving free money to poor
people. If it's giving free money to rich people, we call it
something different, like "stimulus".

nb

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:40:18 -0400, Stan Horwitz >
wrote:

>In article > ,
> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
>
>> From the nooze:
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...AR200908180361
>> 3.html
>>
>>
>> Whole Foods Devotees Lash Out at CEO
>>
>> Customers, Angry Over His Health-Care Views, Share Feelings of Betrayal on
>> Web
>
>Angry? I will not be shopping at Whole Foods any more. No anger here. I
>am just using my little corner of the capitalist system to express my
>dislike for how Whole Foods treats its employees.

That's just silly. Punish the employees because the CEO has an
attitude you don't agree with? He could care less. He's rich and
only takes a dollar a year. You must have ketchup between your ears.

Lou

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:27:04 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

>the head of whole foods may be anti-union, but he treats his employees
>pretty well. that's his basis for objecting to the unions. let's not make
>him out to be some kind of wal-mart weasel.

I'll bet many people wish they were treated as well as whole foods
employees. S-K tools in Chicago eliminated all health benefits
without notice in May and they went on strike this morning. I suspect
we'll see more of this kind of thing. From what I've heard companies
who pay 100% of health insurance premiums will be cheaper off by
dropping the coverage and letting the people get the government care
and the company pays the additional tax penalty. One small business
owner said she paid 110K a year in premiums and would save close to 50
grand buy paying the tax instead.

Lou

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:32:28 -0500, Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:40:18 -0400, Stan Horwitz >
> wrote:
>
>>In article > ,
>> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
>>
>>> From the nooze:
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...AR200908180361
>>> 3.html
>>>
>>> Whole Foods Devotees Lash Out at CEO
>>>
>>> Customers, Angry Over His Health-Care Views, Share Feelings of Betrayal on
>>> Web
>>
>>Angry? I will not be shopping at Whole Foods any more. No anger here. I
>>am just using my little corner of the capitalist system to express my
>>dislike for how Whole Foods treats its employees.
>
> That's just silly. Punish the employees because the CEO has an
> attitude you don't agree with? He could care less. He's rich and
> only takes a dollar a year. You must have ketchup between your ears.
>
> Lou

on the other hand, some of the wingnuts like michelle malkin have promised
to flock to the store in solidarity. hope they don't *plotz* when they see
the arugula bins.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:32:28 -0500, Lou Decruss wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:40:18 -0400, Stan Horwitz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article > ,
>>> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> From the nooze:
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...AR200908180361
>>>> 3.html
>>>>
>>>> Whole Foods Devotees Lash Out at CEO
>>>>
>>>> Customers, Angry Over His Health-Care Views, Share Feelings of
>>>> Betrayal on Web
>>>
>>> Angry? I will not be shopping at Whole Foods any more. No anger
>>> here. I am just using my little corner of the capitalist system to
>>> express my dislike for how Whole Foods treats its employees.
>>
>> That's just silly. Punish the employees because the CEO has an
>> attitude you don't agree with? He could care less. He's rich and
>> only takes a dollar a year. You must have ketchup between your ears.
>>
>> Lou
>
> on the other hand, some of the wingnuts like michelle malkin have
> promised to flock to the store in solidarity. hope they don't
> *plotz* when they see the arugula bins.


Conservatives as a group generally have more disposable income so they
shouldn't blanch at WH's lettuce prices, blake...

:-)


--
Best
Greg