![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deirdreSo several people I know have stated that they won't be shopping at Whole Foods because of the CEO's post at the Wall Street Journal. (See also his followup here.)
Fair enough. Everyone gets to decide where their money goes.
Here's my take on it: every one (including each of you reading this) will fail in a way that's important to me. Even if you and I have the same criteria for fail, we may weigh them differently. On balance, I want someone who, for my life, does more good than harm.
As an example of fail, the CEO of Cinemark donated nearly $10,000 to help pass Prop 8. This wasn't a company donation, but an individual one. Many gays and gay-friendly people boycotted Cinemark as a result.
On the flip side, Cinemark played Milk longer and on more screens than anyone else. It took a long time for the movie to earn enough to be in the black, and it wouldn't have done it without Cinemark. I know several people who learned a lot about the struggle for gay rights by watching the film. Some of them learned it at Cinemark.
So, overall, I think Cinemark as a company did more good than the CEO personally did harm.
Which brings us to the Whole Foods situation.
One of the problems of specialty foods is distribution, and Whole Foods is the 500-pound gorilla when it comes to organic food.
Sure, you can now buy organic milk at Wal*Mart, but it's the other stuff you can't get. Buckwheat cereal, for example.
In general, farm workers are treated badly, and the treatment of Smithfield workers as documented in Food, Inc. was horrific as well, complete with company-scheduled INS raids of laborers and no sanctions for the company. Grocers who aren't unionized (and Whole Foods is notoriously anti-union) are treated poorly, but not as badly as most farm workers here and abroad.
Compared to those labor practices, the health care proposal outlined in the WSJ article by John Mackey is downright enlightened. (This is not to say I agree with it; I do not.)
In general, the smaller farms and especially smaller organic farms tend to treat their workers better, and Whole Foods is the difference between make or break for many of these workers. Should their employers fail, their current alternatives are far worse than even Mackey's plan.
Additionally, Whole Foods does a whole lot of good in helping the planet, its animals, and its people avoid nasty chemicals, and so I'm going to continue to shop there.
I fully understand if you choose differently.
I'd like to add my own experience with a high-deductible plan, because I think it's relevant in the discussion of Mackey's proposal.
I had such a plan from 1994-2000 when I was doing a lot of contracting. In 1995, it was determined that I probably had sleep apnea, but I'd need to spend $1500 for a sleep study. I kept putting it off because of the money (three months' rent), and I finally had it scheduled for the end of 1996. Then my husband of the time had a stroke and died (kept alive on a ventilator while they ran tests), and I couldn't bear to be on something even remotely similar to a ventilator for even an evening. Understandably, I think. I was ready around 1998, but there was that $1500 looming overhead. Due to various coverage and money issues, I wasn't able to get the sleep study until January 2003, when I had Kaiser.
It was covered for all but a routine visit fee ($15).
It was done immediately.
I had a CPAP within a week at the princely sum of $11/month and a deposit that was under $100.
I may have done long-term damage to my heart from the oxygen deprivation over an eight-year period simply because I had a high-deductible plan. We'll never know for sure.
Updated to add: link to some of Whole Foods's less savory business practices.
Fair enough. Everyone gets to decide where their money goes.
Here's my take on it: every one (including each of you reading this) will fail in a way that's important to me. Even if you and I have the same criteria for fail, we may weigh them differently. On balance, I want someone who, for my life, does more good than harm.
As an example of fail, the CEO of Cinemark donated nearly $10,000 to help pass Prop 8. This wasn't a company donation, but an individual one. Many gays and gay-friendly people boycotted Cinemark as a result.
On the flip side, Cinemark played Milk longer and on more screens than anyone else. It took a long time for the movie to earn enough to be in the black, and it wouldn't have done it without Cinemark. I know several people who learned a lot about the struggle for gay rights by watching the film. Some of them learned it at Cinemark.
So, overall, I think Cinemark as a company did more good than the CEO personally did harm.
Which brings us to the Whole Foods situation.
One of the problems of specialty foods is distribution, and Whole Foods is the 500-pound gorilla when it comes to organic food.
Sure, you can now buy organic milk at Wal*Mart, but it's the other stuff you can't get. Buckwheat cereal, for example.
In general, farm workers are treated badly, and the treatment of Smithfield workers as documented in Food, Inc. was horrific as well, complete with company-scheduled INS raids of laborers and no sanctions for the company. Grocers who aren't unionized (and Whole Foods is notoriously anti-union) are treated poorly, but not as badly as most farm workers here and abroad.
Compared to those labor practices, the health care proposal outlined in the WSJ article by John Mackey is downright enlightened. (This is not to say I agree with it; I do not.)
In general, the smaller farms and especially smaller organic farms tend to treat their workers better, and Whole Foods is the difference between make or break for many of these workers. Should their employers fail, their current alternatives are far worse than even Mackey's plan.
Additionally, Whole Foods does a whole lot of good in helping the planet, its animals, and its people avoid nasty chemicals, and so I'm going to continue to shop there.
I fully understand if you choose differently.
I'd like to add my own experience with a high-deductible plan, because I think it's relevant in the discussion of Mackey's proposal.
I had such a plan from 1994-2000 when I was doing a lot of contracting. In 1995, it was determined that I probably had sleep apnea, but I'd need to spend $1500 for a sleep study. I kept putting it off because of the money (three months' rent), and I finally had it scheduled for the end of 1996. Then my husband of the time had a stroke and died (kept alive on a ventilator while they ran tests), and I couldn't bear to be on something even remotely similar to a ventilator for even an evening. Understandably, I think. I was ready around 1998, but there was that $1500 looming overhead. Due to various coverage and money issues, I wasn't able to get the sleep study until January 2003, when I had Kaiser.
It was covered for all but a routine visit fee ($15).
It was done immediately.
I had a CPAP within a week at the princely sum of $11/month and a deposit that was under $100.
I may have done long-term damage to my heart from the oxygen deprivation over an eight-year period simply because I had a high-deductible plan. We'll never know for sure.
Updated to add: link to some of Whole Foods's less savory business practices.