(Revision of August 26, 2009 article)
When Whole Foods co-founder and CEO John Mackey's
Op-Ed titled 'The While Foods Alternative to ObamaCare' appeared in The Wall
Street Journal August 12, 2009, it received considerable attention, but few
would have anticipated the establishment of a boycott as a result, yet that is
exactly what happened. Within a week of the opinion piece's posting, websites
were created promoting a boycott of Whole Foods for one reason - some people
did not like the opinion of the author.
This boycott
is troubling to Boycott Watch because this boycott is about the content of free
speech of one person and has nothing to do with the company itself, the
products sold or services provided. The boycott is about one thing - silencing
the free speech of someone who some people do not agree with about a political
issue. This great nation was built on respecting the free speech of others,
including people you do not agree with. Boycotts such as these only have one
purpose - to scare people into being silent about political issues, and that is
absolutely against the principals this great nation was both founded and built
on. Facilitating free speech is a founding principal which has made this great
nation what it is. We should be celebrating people's rights to express their
opinion, not silence people.
And that is exactly
what happened - Whole Foods as a company distanced itself from the personal
comments of their CEO, yet the boycott is still being pushed, making this an
open ended boycott, meaning there is nothing Whole Foods can do to satisfy the
boycotters. This boycott is not attacking the content of the message, just the
messenger. Giving into the boycotters, therefore, was the absolute wrong move
for several reasons, first being that Whole Foods never had an agreement or
target in mind to satisfy the boycotters, and because it was not about the
stores products or services, but rather the opinion of a corporate officer and
nobody should ever give up their free speech because someone does not like the
content.
The same political "Progressives" who are
promoting this boycott also tend to make the claim that labor and management
are equally important in companies. If that were true, then the logical
question is why is Ford, for example, not being boycotted if one of their
employees expresses a political opinion? The obvious answer is that, once
again, this boycott is about silencing the content of the specific free speech
the boycotters do not agree with.
Just because
someone is successful does not mean they loose their right to free speech.
While President Obama, unions and some companies are promoting what the Wall
Street Journal calls ObamaCare, we should be welcoming the opinions and
thoughts of all people to help make any legislation the best it can be, not
silencing people, especially people like John Mackey who has experience
supplying health care to his employees. Additionally, just like cars and
screwdrivers have a primary purpose and can be abused to harm people, boycotts
are great consumer tools that can also be abused, which is what we see here.
The Whole Foods situation is a secondary boycott
since it is not a boycott of John Mackey, but rather of a business he is
affiliated with, regardless of that affiliation. People have the right to offer
their opinions separate from their work affiliation. Is Mackey's church being
boycotted? The answer is no and it should not be boycotted in this case either.
This boycott is clearly politically driven, and
political actions always have a political counterpart. When John Kerry ran for
President for example, there was a call to
boycott Heinz
Ketchup because of his wife's relationship to that company, causing a
"buycott" campaign by Democrats to push people to buy Heinz products as a show
of support. Those campaigns got very little traction because ketchup is one
item in which people's personal preference will supersede any boycott calls.
Countering the Whole Foods boycott are a new
frontier for the Tea Party
activist who are staging "buycotts" in cities such as St. Louis, which is
far from the California epicenter of the Whole Foods boycott campaigns. While
the "buycott" efforts are small in number at the moment, they did start much
later than the original boycott campaigns, so it is too early to judge the
results.
This is not, however, the only boycott
Whole Foods is facing.
Columnist
Debbie Schlussel has raised the boycott flag on Whole Foods over their
carrying of products which are made in "Palestine" while not selling products
made in Israel. The letter from Whole Foods on Ms. Schlussel's site mentions
products made in "Palestine" which is a non-existent country, nor has there
ever been a country named "Palestine." To those activists who are upset at this
fact, I simply ask if they can name the ruler, currency or any facts of any
government of any nation named "Palestine." The fact is that the United Nations
may have a "Palestine observer," but there is no nation called "Palestine"
recognized by the United States or the United Nations. Making that state
declaration indicates that Whole Foods is playing Middle East politics, and
that that is not by individual employees - that was in an official
correspondence from Whole Foods since it came from an email address from
wholefoods.com, where as Mr. Mackey's Op-Ed was not sent on Whole Foods
stationary. There is a big difference.
Boycott Watch
investigated the charge by Ms. Schlussel that there are no Israeli products on
the shelves at Whole Foods while they do carry items made in "Palestine" and
were unable to find any Israeli products on their shelves. One item caught our
attention though; a certain product which is labeled as made in Israel in other
stores is curiously missing the "Made in Israel" statement while in Whole Foods
stores. Could Whole Foods be requiring a different version of this one product
in order to offer it in their stores? We have been unable to determine the
answer at this time so we are continuing our investigation. At the moment we
are calling this very curious, but are not ready to make any claims one way or
another about Whole Foods and possible compliance with the Arab boycott of
Israel, which in this case may or may not constitute illegal compliance with a
foreign sanctioned boycott. On her website,
Ms.
Schlussel also points out that Whole Foods finances Radio Intifada on KPFK
radio.One thing is abundantly clear, Whole Foods is in fact playing Middle
East politics and some Boycott Watch readers have already told us they are not
shopping at Whole Foods Because of Ms. Schlussel's report. As such, Boycott
Watch is tracking two completely separate boycotts of Whole Foods.
This is only the second time we have seen boycotts
used to stifle free speech. The first was in November of 2008 when stores were
boycotted in San Francisco and other parts of California against people who
supported the Proposition Eight ballot initiative which passed, banning gay
marriage in California. That boycott included a witch hunt, seeking the names
of contributors to boycott the companies they own or even work at. The message
was clear - if you donate to these initiatives, you and your employer will be
tracked down and financially ruined. Regardless of the content of the free
speech, people have the right to express their opinions, and should neither
fear expressing their opinions nor be punished as a result.
A major problem with the Whole Foods boycott over
free speech by John Mackey is who will potentially be affected by that boycott,
and where. As for the where, the boycott is California centered and probably
has zero affect on stores in the Mid-West where Tea Party "buycotts" will bring
first time shoppers into Whole Foods stores. Active boycotters will probably
come back to Whole Foods in the near future since vegans and other natural
foods proponents are not going to change their entire outlook on natural foods
because of one political issue, and there are only so many store choices for
these consumers.
The big question is who will
potentially be affected by the free speech boycott of Whole Foods, and Boycott
Watch believes that will be the Whole Foods employees who have absolutely
nothing to do with the boycott. This is because any drop in sales can directly
affect the number of hourly employees needed at the stores. In the long run,
the Mackey letter will probably be a good thing for Whole Foods since it will
being in new politically Conservative customers, especially to their prepared
food selection.
At last check, the Facebook group
promoting the boycott has about 31,000 members while Whole Foods has 270
stores. If this is any indication of the effectiveness of this boycott, those
numbers translate to a total of 115 boycotters per store on average, and that
is hardly enough to have any significant or even noticeable affect on the
chains overall sales or profitability. These numbers also indicate the related
boycott of Glenn Beck and the secondary boycott of his advertisers is also
meaningless.
Considering the media attention this
boycott is getting and the relative low numbers of boycotters, this boycott
appears to be more of a media sensation than anything else, meaning it is not
only media driven, but even promoted by people in the media who wish to bolster
the boycott because of their own personal bias. In the mean time, the boycott
numbers thus far indicate the Mackey-inspired boycott is irrelevant. |
| |
|
|
| Advertisement: |
 |
|
|
