Well, I suppose I must say something in defense of Whole Foods. The usual liberal subjects are outraged--OUTRAGED!--that CEO John Mackey wrote a boilerplate defense of so-called market reforms for the WSJ, and are threatening a boycott. Shall we simply note that John Mackey has, thus far at least, delivered health insurance and a living wage to more people than Barack Obama and a 60-seat Democratic Senate majority? In fact, as a national solution, HSAs and high-deductible plans make no sense at all, since they fuck the distribution of resources by removing everyone young and healthy from the risk pool. But it is every private American's right to hold crackpot opinions and to write about them in the Journal.
I will say this, though. Pittsburgh's thriving young artist scene and its thriving young cycling community gain living wages and health care by working for Whole Foods. Whole Foods, like any major grocery chain, depends on a far-flung network of global suppliers, but it also does more than any other grocery store, including locally owned stores and chains, to support regional agriculture. Pittsburgh has a large community of Somali refugees and a large contingent of Sudanese "Lost Boys," whom Whole Foods likewise employs. Pittsburgh's East Liberty neighborhood has seen something of a renaissance since Whole Foods came to that formerly blighted community, and although some of that has been unwanted gentrification, much of it has benefited the extant businesses and residents of that community. Indeed, second only to the pierced-and-tattooed set, our Whole Foods most prominently employs young blacks from nearby neighborhoods. At a living wage. With health insurance.
Whole Foods likewise employs many older people--an aunt of mine, for instance, long-since laid off by US Airways--who would otherwise subsist only on a fixed income. Dignity, respect, a living wage, and health insurance. These are not niceties, nor mere slogans of a half-assed political non-movement that prefers to believe a lousy piece of Shepherd Fairey graphic propaganda than the evidence of its own eyes.
Of course, you cannot save a nation by having everyone work at an expensive grocery chain, but here you have what is quite simply one of the most admirable large companies in America, and liberals are pissed because the bossman wrote a glorified letter to the editor with which they disagree? Dear Progressivism, kindly fuck yourselves to death! Your one saving grace is your total, utter, and absolute fecklessness, which doomed your bullshit boycott before it began.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Whole Paycheck
Labels:
Economy,
Foodie stuff,
Health Care,
Progress,
the Donkle
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
81 comments:
You're sexy when you're all het up under the collar.
No, seriously, thank you. I'm so sick of the usual stupid fucks shrieking about boycotts every time someone says something they don't like, regardless of whether it actually leads to anything like negative real-world consequences. Shows how appealing censorship is to your average pwoggie, as long as it takes an indirect way to get there.
I tend to read the momentary liberal rage against Whole Foods as just sheer misplaced anger at their own elected Democrats and guilt over continual support for them. Now that the writing's on the wall for health care - an issue they actually care about, as opposed to war and torture - they're starting to lash out at everything and anything around them except for their own beloved party leaders. Who's killing health care reform? Why, it's these $2.99/lb organic apples!
How was this boycott going to work, exactly, anyway? Isn't the whole point of a boycott that you apply economic pressure to an institution, with the expectation that said institution is going to make a change in policy in order for the boycott to end? What did they want to happen, for Mackey to renounce his private political opinions? To vote Democrat? To write another op-ed that said "just foolin'" at the end?
Well, leading pwoggie dumbshit Yggy the Stooge seemed to be hoping that the board would shitcan Mackey.
I tend to read the momentary liberal rage against Whole Foods as just sheer misplaced anger at their own elected Democrats and guilt over continual support for them.
Yes. I would go farther and say that almost every instance of liberal Democrat rage directed at a human target in the last 20 years is displaced anger and self-loathing generated by their abusive relationship with the Party.
No wonder Mackey is a union-buster; it's actally for altruistic reasons. Largesse dispensed purely by whim of the bosses is the real road to dignity. Why didn't Andrew Carnegie ever think of that?
I think I have a glimmer as to why Kevin Carson pushes free-market anti-capitalism.
Shows how appealing censorship is to your average pwoggie
Well, at least you merely used a stupid definition of censorship, instead of leaping straight to calling a proposed boycott an infringement of the First Amendment. That's pwogwess, I suppose.
Largesse dispensed purely by whim of the bosses is the real road to dignity.
I think this sentence misuses the words largesse, dispensed, purely, whim, and dignity, but otherwise it's spot on.
Proggel boycott...
Yer doing it wrong!
A serious boycott would be seriously stupid. Seriously.
But whatever. Boss man is free to write his letters to the editor and the rest of us are allowed to pick which grocery stores we go to.
I will admit that "largesse" was ill-chosen. I blame a society in which a living wage and high-deductible health insurance look like largesse rather than subsistence. Though if Whole Foods ever does get into enough of a financial pinch (say, if and when its workforce skews older in aggregate), Mackey's putative allies at the WSJ will use a similar label. Not to mention major shareholders.
I'm still not clear on how benefits and an administrative structure that exist entirely at the whim of the corporate leadership, don't in fact exist entirely at the whim of corporate leadership, stakeholder theory notwithstanding.
Look, it's nice that Mackey is one libertarian who told Bloodstained Uncle Miltie to step off. But if nothing else, it won't always be him at the top. George Eastman believed in treating his employees nicely, too. But he reserved the right of people like him to decide to.
Of course, none of this ever mattered before to the boycotting fake progressives of Team Blue, which is probably why few of them have aggressively emphasized how liberating it would be for workers to not depend on an employer for health insurance, and why their half-assed attempts at reform don't really address this.
...Okay, so the Monsieur has a point, as usual, and none of the current outrage in the granola aisle has anything to do with my own hobbyhorse. Mock on, mock on.
Good points IOZ in favor of WF that I haven't seen anywhere else.
I'm going to cut libs a little slack on this one though. Sure, they're stupid to believe the crunchy WF marketing about various causes and mission statements- but WF does present it's self as being on team liberal- or at least it can be reasonably interpreted that way. From the 'Values' section of their website, value 2 is "Satisfying and delighting our customers". Well, some of their customers aren't delighted. Whatevs
Actually, the most radical thing that John Mackey has said, at least within the not-so-superstructure of American state capital, has been to consistently tell WF shareholders that WF is a grocery store, not an investment house. I cannot emphasize enough how unusual this is.
"No wonder Mackey is a union-buster; it's actally for altruistic reasons. Largesse dispensed purely by whim of the bosses is the real road to dignity. Why didn't Andrew Carnegie ever think of that?
I think I have a glimmer as to why Kevin Carson pushes free-market anti-capitalism."
So, because Mackey runs his company responsibly and provides good benefits and wages, he is to be derided. What exactly would he have to do to win praise? Give all employees a pony?
The boycott is bullshit, for sure. And Whole Foods can be commended without hesitation for many of their environmental initiatives. But come on: thanking WF for employing people at a living wage? I think it's important to understand that as the velvet glove part of Mackey's anti-union tic. mds above has it right, vocabulary-wise and otherwise.
What exactly would he have to do to win praise? Give all employees a pony?
Respecting the right of his workers to unionize would be better, even, than a pony.
I cannot emphasize enough how unusual this is.
Yeah, Jim Sinegal has taken a similar admirable tack with Costco shareholders, and experienced some heat for it, even though he too is less than keen on organized labor. I know this blog is all about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, but sometimes I just can't help wanting more.
"Respecting the right of his workers to unionize would be better, even, than a pony."
Aha. So assuming that unionizing is a right and that it's a good thing, Mackey can only be praised when he's perfect. Doing good things: not enough.
What is the purpose of a union? Is it intended as a social club, a negotiation tool, or another set of managerial bloodsuckers? (It is all of these things, but which motivates our unalloyed demands for unionization?)
It seems unlikely that the workers IOZ describes need a social club or a Hoffa administration. So, we're assuming that they need to negotiate for something. What is that? They like the health care they have. They like their working conditions. They are unlikely to find better remuneration for their skillsets elsewhere. What else is there?
I suspect that unions are desired not for the benefit of the workers, but rather for the benefit of the pwog political machinery. Unorganized workers have better things to do than take a bus to a town hall media event in another state.
What is the purpose of political freedoms, if one already has what one wants? Come now, Jess. Don't be obtuse.
That said, the leaders of Whole Foods have never been unclear about what they are. If you've read one article about their business model, you'll understand this. I can't believe people would be surprised about this.
Well, at least you merely used a stupid definition of censorship, instead of leaping straight to calling a proposed boycott an infringement of the First Amendment.
Actually, champ, I'm talking about how the knee-jerk reaction of so many pwoggies to a harmless opinion piece is to herd together and demand that the offender be made to suffer for it. I'm humbly suggesting that such reactions belie their insistence that they're only motivated by opposition to dangerous "hate speech", or whatever the excuse is, and that the urge to snuff out heterodoxy is just as strong with them as it would be under their right counterparts. I did not call this example "censorship", I said it indicated that real censorship is appealing to them.
If anything, that's so obvious as to be almost not worth stating, so why don't you practice a little reading comprehension after you get done administering a thorough self-fucking.
JOHN: I’ve written a 17-page pamphlet (a chapter in my upcoming book) called Beyond Unions. In it I outline my philosophy towards unions. I can’t do complete justice to all my ideas briefly. Let me just make a few points.
The right to collective bargaining (unionization) is an important legal right. It is important that employees, when they wish to, should have the legal right to form unions. In countries where unions are outlawed we see massive totalitarian exploitation of workers. Solidarity in Poland was a very important force to liberating that country from communism.
No employee should be forced to join a union against their will. Unfortunately in many states in our country, such as California, once a union is voted in by a majority of the employees, employees no longer have free choice in this matter. This closed shop means they must join the union and pay dues to the union whether they wish to or not. If they don’t join then they are fired. I believe open shops should be legal in all states and no employee should be forced against their will, as a condition of employment, to join a union.
egads! what an evil man! he doesn't support a closed shop! the horrors of having the ability to unionize but choosing not to bc you are happy with what you have!
don't be obtuse, cuneyt.
Uh, yeah, you're right of course Cüneyt; I was a bit sloppy there (regardless of that passionate anonymous defense). Is the following an improvement?
We enjoy a wide range of freedoms that we don't actually exercise. I personally don't want to go downtown with an "End Is Near" sign and preach on the street corner, but I do have that right, and I may get all Voltaire on anyone who wants to take that right from me or anyone else. Even though I've never wanted to unionize, workers at WF or everywhere else certainly have that right. My previous comment was an explanation for why even though they have the right, they so far have not exercised it.
Some commenters have implied that Mackey has denied his employees their rights to unionization. I'd need to see more detail about that to assess the claim, but I smell exaggeration. I'm sure he has criticized unions. I'm sure he would hire scabs at some point in protracted negotiations. I'm sure he would prefer that his employees not have a fraction of their pay automatically diverted into a political machine.
In all of these things, Mackey would be like so many executives before him. If you need more "respect" for the right to unionize than this, don't ask an executive. I'd prefer to credit WF employees with just a bit of agency: since they haven't organized yet, they probably don't choose to do so.
Whole Foods has benefited from a customer base created by bubble economies.
As wages continue to stagnate we'll see how Mackey's vision and Whole Foods market share fares over the next decade.
Mackey's editorial in hurts the WF brand which is WF's biggest asset. He jumped into a contentious debate at precisely the wrong time, when town halls were erupting with vitriol and weapons were being flashed by opponents to a public option with cries of "nazism". Mackey's timing couldn't have been worse.
As a CSA member who shops as locally as possible already on the fence about relying on WF for my bulk goods Mackey's editorial prompts me to go elsewhere (local Foodcoops) with my money.
I now associate WF with right wing Friedmanites and retarded Ayn Rand sycophants shouting "Who is John Galt" and "Nobamacare!". The extra 20 minutes it takes going to a local coop is worth not having to navigate the mental space of the CEO of WF's politics.
I'll probably go there in a pinch for the teatree toothpicks though, those things are hard to find.
The extra 20 minutes it takes going to a local coop is worth not having to navigate the mental space of the CEO of WF's politics.
I may not understand a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to misstate it.
Doing good things: not enough.
Comity!
Jess;
In my experience in a union- one benefit you didn't mention was other union members speak up on the floor when they see management break labor law- things like punch out and keep working, tips or other undue payment going to management, lax safety, unpaid overtime etc. In general, managers at union shops are more aware of labor law and less likely to break it.
I don't know what 'social club' has to do with unions. Hanging out with coworkers happens in nonunion shops too. I don't remember any ice cream socials down at the hall.
It's fairly simple. I am now aware that CEO John Mackey is a Randite douche. When I see the WF's logo I see "Randite Douche" where I once saw flowery petals of organic bliss. So rather than waste my time getting pissed about yet another Randite douche I'll take the extra 20 minutes out of my week to go to a local food coop.
Mackey's an idiot for compromising his brand.
...on the other hand it could be that he's gained 1.5 Randite douche customers for every one of me that he's lost. If that's the case he's smart to have grown his brand.
Who is having the last laugh now, Mr. Mencken?
after you get done administering a thorough self-fucking.
Ahhhhhhhhhhh. Soothing.
Okay.
Actually, champ, I'm talking about how the knee-jerk reaction of so many pwoggies to a harmless opinion piece is to herd together and demand that the offender be made to suffer for it.
Actually, the reaction of the pwoggies in question was to herd together and declare that they weren't going to give more of their own money to the offender's company. Mr. Mackey is unlikely to personally suffer all that much for it, and a few of them probably even know this. And therefore the natural conclusion is that they would gladly use the organs of the state to seize the printing presses, or something, given the chance. Yeah, that's a tightly-constructed conditional there. It's a wonder pwoggies haven't convened citizens' grand juries to indict Mr. Mackey of "hate speech" in absentia. Or... have they?
I'd need to see more detail about that to assess the claim, but I smell exaggeration.
Madison, Wisconsin, though the NLRB found that the de-certification campaign was legit, despite their own strong pro-labor bias. There's also been some "be a shame if something were to happen to your jobs" rhetoric in the Bay area, but that's plausibly just an overzealous local manager talking. Of course, plausible deniablity tends to work wonders under current US labor law.
I'm sure he would prefer that his employees not have a fraction of their pay automatically diverted into a political machine.
Why should he care?
I am now aware that CEO John Mackey is a Randite douche.
(1) I think it's "Randian."
(2) This is starting to make me want to go buy something at Whole Foods, and the nearest one is a couple hours away. The editorial was a clumsy, uninformed attempt to make a special case into a general one. But Mackey's brand of right-libertarianism isn't particularly close to Objectivism, or this post wouldn't read like it does.
I am always amazed at how many people can afford to shop at that place.
Randite douche, randian doosh asswipe. I'm flexible.
sick and tired of your ism schism.
Surely insuring tens of thousands of people is enough of a reason to just accept him helping deny insurance to tens of millions...that's perfectly logical. Maybe he won't change anything, but he can't help us, so we won't help him.
OH AND HE'S ALLOWED TO DO IT, SO IT MUST BE A GOOD IDEA. Sorta like bringing an assault rifle to a Presidential townhall.
I guess in these days of mediocrity it's "cool" to be outraged at the outrage no matter where it comes from.
I'm sure he would prefer that his employees not have a fraction of their pay automatically diverted into a political machine.
Why should he care?
This may be a bit theoretical, but if marginal compensation is lowered (as would be the case for union dues levied on a per-hour or per-dollar basis), then employees might seek to cut their hours. I guess he might not care about that, so you're right. Only workers would care about their pay being diverted to a union, and screw them.
easy there 2:46. don't want to have an aneurysm without health insurance now do ya?
Freiheit: "So assuming that unionizing is a right and that it's a good thing, Mackey can only be praised when he's perfect. Doing good things: not enough."
Your first sentence and your second don't match up. "Not enough" doesn't mean complaining that he's not perfect; it means that he could do better.
mds, I thought, was quite reasonable on that: "I blame a society in which a living wage and high-deductible health insurance look like largesse rather than subsistence." Exactly.
Mr. Mackey is unlikely to personally suffer all that much for it, and a few of them probably even know this.
Mr. Mackey runs a company that has severely curtailed executive pay by setting it to a fixed multiplier of the wages of the lowest-paid full-time employee. That's partly a publicity stunt, as he can still own company stock and be rewarded if it performs well, but WF doesn't have anything like the elaborate executive comp schemes of other big companies.
Surely insuring tens of thousands of people is enough of a reason to just accept him helping deny insurance to tens of millions...that's perfectly logical
Duder, if you think that the CEO of a Grocery Store chain is denying health care to millions of people, then you've got bigger problems than those usually associated with people who comment in ALL CAPS!
@Kafka: In my experience in a union- one benefit you didn't mention was other union members speak up on the floor when they see management break labor law- things like punch out and keep working, tips or other undue payment going to management, lax safety, unpaid overtime etc. In general, managers at union shops are more aware of labor law and less likely to break it.
Ahh, there's the rub. As a lifelong exempt salary and/or contract employee, many of these "rights" have never existed for me. Nevertheless, I see their allure, and if I were ever irreplaceable I would definitely think about unionizing to get them.
It may be that, my ignorance notwithstanding, WF employees have also taken the work-rules-awareness benefit into account in their decision not to unionize.
You wanna boycott someone? You outta start with the goddamn barber that fucked up your head.
Just as a final and further note, the Pwoggie-bloggie imaginary fun-time boycotters can yabble all they like about unions, but since Whole Foods has always been a no-union company, doesn't it seem a weeeeeeeeeee bit convenient that nice liberals who've been shopping there lo these many years have just now discovered this TITANIC OUTRAGE111!!!111?
You're cute when you get a crush on a corporation.
Jess,
You don't like unions, fine. But on average, union workers take home more pay than simular nonunion workers. $10-$15 a month in dues isn't onerous when they negotiate higher pay, better benefits and better work conditions. If WF did unionize, workers almost certainly wouldn't take home less money.
The argument usually from union foes is that union members make too much money. But if it serves your purpose, I guess you can argue that unionizing means a cut in worker's pay.
Thanks, k-sky. Presumably in the mutualist-anarchist-regionalist Utopia that I execpt to arrive aaaaany day now, there will be no Whole Foodseses to defend. And seriously, I do not think that benevolent corporatism is the best organization of human society, although it is certainly fun to tweak many of my lovely lefty readers with that implication. (Hello, lovely lefties.) That said, given the competition, it is admirable; and with regards to local wages and development, the results have been on balance positive.
What I find praiseworthy about Whole Foods as a business is that it is a business in the sense that I think businesses should be businesses. It is a grocery store. It sells groceries. It isn't an investment scheme with a few brick-and-mortar dealerships attached, or a "content provider" that really sells advertising/speculates on real estate/what have you. It pays people small but decent wages for their labor, anchors neighborhoods, gives food to local little league teams . . . in short, acts like a grocery store! It is a transparent and comprehensible business. That in itself is remarkable in our world.
why is it that, with all of those things being true for unionized workers, Kafka, I can only imagine those ("good") increases being passed on as higher prices to other people? whether it be a service or a good.
it's gotta be a trick. or some equation I'm missing.
please flatter my naivete with the opportunity to comment at length. I noes you will.
Kafka, my argument is, and has been, that there might be a perfectly rational explanation for why WF employees aren't unionized; namely, that they choose not to unionize.
We can spin all sorts of wonkish tales about others' interests given particular assumptions. Until we have some indication that Mackey has been union-busting in an illegal fashion, the cry of "WF isn't unionized" is not an appropriate criticism of Mackey, or of his healthcare opinions. Even given such malfeasance, would it not be better to critique his ideas on their merits?
Actually, the most radical thing that John Mackey has said, at least within the not-so-superstructure of American state capital, has been to consistently tell WF shareholders that WF is a grocery store, not an investment house. I cannot emphasize enough how unusual this is.
Is this the same dude who was puffing his stock on Yahoo!!!!! message boards?
brother IOZ, you have earned an anonymous AMEN! for your 3:56 i am not always on board with how you view things, but Amen hallelujah to that.
What I find praiseworthy about Whole Foods as a business is that it is a business in the sense that I think businesses should be businesses. It is a grocery store. It sells groceries. It isn't an investment scheme with a few brick-and-mortar dealerships attached, or a "content provider" that really sells advertising/speculates on real estate/what have you. It pays people small but decent wages for their labor, anchors neighborhoods, gives food to local little league teams . . . in short, acts like a grocery store! It is a transparent and comprehensible business. That in itself is remarkable in our world.
You must live your life exclusively in the blogosphere, because in my world, where actually there are very few Whole Foods, there are many many businesses - as opposed to investment vehicles.
Actually, most places I shop are businesses. You know, like Wal-Mart is not an investment vehicle. It's like a fucking massive General Store. And Barnes & Noble. It's a bookstore. And Port City Java, it's like a Starbucks.
I don't think there's anything spectacularly awesome about Whole Foods that exempts its CEO from criticism when writes bullshit.
Are you going to be telling us next that Wal-Mart is all about offering people an honest day's pay for an honest day's work? Cause I don't see the difference, except that Wal-Mart is declasse
4:33 here again. I didn't realize that Fresh Fields is a subsidiary or different service mark of Whole Foods. In my world, there actually are quite a few Whole Foods. My bad, and I shopped at a Fresh Fields last night.
Anyway, the rest of my comment I won't change.
Until we have some indication that Mackey has been union-busting in an illegal fashion, the cry of "WF isn't unionized" is not an appropriate criticism of Mackey
Some indication.
Workers don't really have the opportunity to "choose to be unionized" under what passes for current labor law. The few protections that law offers are routinely violated with impunity. It's entirely possible that given labor law reform, WF workers would continue to abide by their employer's preferences -- but if that were to happen, it would be because WF competes successfully with the material (wages, benefits) and democratic (protections against unfair treatment) benefits offered by union membership at other local firms.
I think IOZ makes a fair case that WF in many cases displays "corporate benevelonce". In others, it doesn't, and the whole thing is complicated by the value of its altruism to its bottom line and the importance to Mackey to keep out unions.
Mr. Fundamental,
All things being equal- yes, higher wages for workers have to come from somewhere.
"Passing the cost on to other people" makes it sound like there's a victim somewhere who has to cough up some dough. I don't see how a company jet keeps prices down, but some executives buy company jets. Whether the cost of the jet comes out of shareholders, executives, workers or customers is up to the executives to decide.
Like Ford wanting his workers to be able to afford his cars, workers with higher wages will spend that money. And maybe they'll be better, healthier workers who show up more often and do a better job. Maybe those happier workers treat customers better and bring in more business for boss man. Some union companies manage to actually make a profit.
OK- hit me
Actually, the reaction of the pwoggies in question was to herd together and declare that they weren't going to give more of their own money to the offender's company. Mr. Mackey is unlikely to personally suffer all that much for it, and a few of them probably even know this. And therefore the natural conclusion is that they would gladly use the organs of the state to seize the printing presses, or something, given the chance. Yeah, that's a tightly-constructed conditional there.
Look, you stupid, dumb retarded fuck: if you really feel that people who react this hysterically to someone simply saying something they disagree with wouldn't let power go to their empty little heads if they ever got any, fine. Maybe we'll find out if that ever happens; personally, I would rather it remain in the realm of speculation. Go hang out with all the other touchie-feelie boycotter types at Kos and Digby's if you think their hearts are in the right place.
Also.
Ioz, why do you hate unions?
I don't, Jenny. I hate America.
The question of unions is actually moot, although it's made for a fun and interesting thread. Unions are the women's rights of this little Iraqerie, i.e., a post hoc moral rationalization, not a reason.
I've got nothing against workers organizing to bargain collectively, and indeed, think protections of their prerogative in such efforts is merited. That said, I think the idea that it is every bagboy's right to join SEIU is foolish, and I think closed shops violate the principle of voluntary association, which I hold dear. The business in which I am a minor administrative cog is unionized, and I work with the guys every day, have negotiated CBAs, etc. Their unions have done them much good, but neither are they unmitigated goods.
When I see the WF's logo I see "Randite Douche" where I once saw flowery petals of organic bliss.
really?
ideological fencing or marketing folk magic?
neither sounds like fun.
But how do you know if Whole Foods allow for unions that it'd be the Involuntary type? I bet you there's a few Whole food employees who do want unions. No really.
Kafka
I just see taxes, regulations, zoning, unions, etc. as a mechanism for pricing people out of situations, locations, jobs, and so on. it's protectionism. it's exclusionary (is that a word?). I say this because I work for the third "richest" municipality in the country, and I know I couldn't afford to live there with my own (over-inflated) salary. they wouldn't want me there anyway, I'm an asshole.
I couldn't deal with the over inflated self-worth, pumped up opinions, over-valued self-importance. I guess I just don't like mirrors. but really I'm just tired of talking about how things "should be," and try to let them be and enjoy them as is. I'm a Defeatist after all.
Mr. Fundamental,
I hear you. I called myself a libertarian for a long time without really thinking it through. I hate pretense to authority, smoke a ton of dope and hated the suburbs where I grew up so it seemed like a natural fit. Now, like you, I take a more existential or stoic view- or try to anyway. The Cabala supposedly says "Always be thankful that all things are exactly the way they are"
I'm tired of talking about unions (not really relevant to the post anyway) so I'll lay a little Erich Fromm on you;
"Free man is by necessity insecure, thinking man doubtful. The task is not to become certain or secure but to endure insecurity and doubt without panic or undo fear."
"In the nineteenth century the problem was that God is dead. In the twentieth century the problem is that man is dead."
"I recognize no authority over myself other than my own conscience"
Oops- bstinar commenter should have been Kafka as commenter
I find any CEO that subscribes to the old feudal value system to be admirable.
Just a quick note about unions, having been a member of one for most of my working career. The leadership are, to a man and woman, complete fucktools. Like any institution, they're subject to the Iron Law and are generally more concerned with preserving their power than actually doing anything for their members.
The best way to improve the power of the working class is to mandate that they all save 20% of their income each year and have at least a year of expenses in an FDIC insured institution. Otherwise, they're only a small recession away from losing their jobs, their health insurance, etc unless they do what they're told thank-you-sir-may-I-have-another. And they have to buy their own lube. Those United pilots did pretty well, eh?
I really enjoyed this post.
I find Whole Foods an interesting case. As you note, in many ways it exceeds community standards, which is great. In other ways, it is a corporation, which means it is not bound by them.
I would merely suggest that we challenge Whole Foods when it fails to meet community or workplace standards, as defined by the people in them.
Mackey's op-ed fails to do this rather spectacularly -- which is really funny! People are right to be offended.
But, alas, Mackey is not Whole Foods; and it's hard to see why his opinions on US policy matter -- or why anybody try very hard to change them!
As I like to say, liberalism could use some class analysis to put shit in perspective, organize its efforts, and stop amounting to so little.
Jenny, outside of so-called "Right to Work" states, most American unions run closed shops. That means that once the union is certified by a majority vote, all affected workers must join the union or be fired. (Bit simplified, but there it is.)
thanks kafka. those are nice.
OMG! Who would have expected that a CEO doesn't like unions and favors market solutions to the health care crysis?!?
"I think closed shops violate the principle of voluntary association..."
As does the concept of 'employment at will'. Your mutualist utopia will have to deal with this, exactly how?
But you write the best bon mots that I have ever read. So I boycott you daily.
Ugh, IOZ. In a closed shop, employees are union members by default and contract. Union dues are witheld from paychecks. Thus, you cannot be 'fired' because you don't want to join the union or pay dues. The employees only option is to quit which, as I understand it, is a lot different than getting fired.
In "right-to-work states" individual employees in union shops can decide whether or not union dues are witheld from their paychecks. Suprise suprise, many employees take the free rider and the money.
Maybe we should have 'right to consume' states. You know, where you walk into a store and put something in the bag and decide how much, if anything, to pay. But that would be communism or something.
A couple years ago, the high-functioning retard that's still the mayor of Boston came out against low-cost clinics in (I think) CVS stores. "No one's going to make money off the sick," mumbled the man who governed one of the nation's medical-industry Meccas. Fuck, I'd rather see universal insurance too, but why deny a market thing one of those special times when it's actually likely to work? I'll take y'all's word about the awesomeness of Whole Foods--I wish there was the equivalent in my shitty town.
And Mackey's policy opinion, which is dickish as far as I bothered to skim it, is obviously a different thing than his corporate organization. And that's fine, go off on the opinion. Differences in personal and corporate generosity aren't even that rare. Look at Bill Gates: bastard of a competitor, but a fabulous philanthropist.
Ugh, IOZ. In a closed shop, employees are union members by default and contract. Union dues are witheld from paychecks.
What the fuck are you talking about, Donny? I love this argument - we don't make you join the union, we just make you join the union.
Or else you can't work there. In other words, you either become a member of the union, or you lose your job.
Alright, short notes on open shop, closed shop and union shops;
Old style closed shop illegal after Taft-Hartley Act 1947.
Before Taft-Hartley;
Mostly transient work force industries. Waiters, musicians, circus freaks
Company can only hire union members already on the union books- no off the street hires who join union after hire. Seniority get's first pick (jobs posted at union hall). Was used by some unions to lock blacks and others out by denying membership
Open shops
Required in right-to-work states (mostly in the south and west- matches current red state map pretty closely). Freedom of Association- no employee if forced to join union or pay dues. Causes free-rider problem because nonunion employees benefit from collective bargaining but don't pay dues and aren't forced to strike. Over time most new hires don't join and union often dies out.
Union shops
Mostly blue states
New hires have 30 days to join union after hire. Although by law employees can refuse to join union and not be fired, they do have to pay dues and are subject to all union policies. Not joining means you get no vote though and often don't get seniority- so most join union
Thank you for the clarification, Kafka. But don't the building trades have closed shops? I know some trades in some areas will permit hiring off the bank, but generally the employer calls the union dispatcher.
IOZ: Who the hell is Donny? And why the bile? Not getting hired, getting fired, or quitting share one thing only: No work. Other than that, they are indeed different, or so I've been led to believe.
Your education is your own responsibility.
In other words, you either become a member of the union, or you lose your job.
There is no closed shop in the United States. The agency shop is its nearest equivalent. In an agency shop, all workers must join the union or pay an agency fee, which is a payment calculated to reimburse the union for the service it provides in the worksite but does not fund any external activities, such as organizing new members.
I'm sure I'm a much bigger fan of this state of affairs than IOZ. I will point out that in Nevada, an open shop state, the Culinary Union (Local 226 of what's now called UNITE HERE) took up the challenge of operating in an open shop and built enormous power, raising standards impressively for Las Vegas casino workers. They made their case hotel by hotel, department by department, and maintain a high enough degree of full, voluntary dues-paying members to continue organizing.
Anonymous 4:06
There are limited exceptions to 'closed shop law', particularly in the building trades in strong union states like MA and RI (I can't speak to other states). The exceptions have mostly to do with trade licensing and safety. State suits brought by union workers refusing to work with unlicensed workers or workers who have not had union sponsored safety training have been successful for certain trades and work sites (mostly municipal or state contracts). Trade licensing and certification is expensive for certain trades, and unions have a virtual lock on training through their apprenticeship programs (MA building unions spend $28 million annually for training and certification for apprentices)- part of the 'craft union system'.
Meant to say- technically the exceptions above are not closed shop sites because union membership is not a precondition to hire. As a practical matter though the contractor isn't going to easily find nonunion workers with the required licenses and training so they call the union dispatcher.
It's entirely possible to see these two points at the same time, and to hold them without any sort of inconsistency:
1) pwoggies are frauds, morons who seek to punish anyone who doesn't want a heavily regulated system of commerce... while they lord their superior incomes and purchasing power over the proles they pretend to defend -- as evidenced by their outrage at a Yupscale faux-grocery's tactics
2) Mackey's decision to provide more health benefits than the US Congress is providing -- big fucking deal.
Sometimes, IOZ, your entries' arguments seem compiled while in a fugue state. Just because Mackey provides some benefits, and just because pwoggies are mad at Mackey, this doesn't mean Mackey is to be excused, nor does it mean that the Yupster faux-Grocery known as Wholly Overpriced "Foodstuffs" is a moral or market exemplar.
@ bstinar --
bueno, calling on Fromm. dude had so many wise observations.
Jess,
You don't like unions, fine. But on average, union workers take home more pay than simular nonunion workers. $10-$15 a month in dues isn't onerous when they negotiate higher pay, better benefits and better work conditions. If WF did unionize, workers almost certainly wouldn't take home less money.
oh holy fuck. so now unions are to be praised just because they raise income?
what moronic bullshit suggests that is a golden rule? dollars are now our existential verification? we are nothing without dollars?
jesus, the shallowness of some people astounds me. you and "Jenny" should go play in the freeway.
Charles,
Nice job of skimming a great post and a few comments and then extrapolating wildly.
BTY, the Fromm quotes were my comment- I was logged into a client's Google account by accident when I published. Here's another one;
"There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as moral indignation"
Oh, if you're a gentleman, you should apologize to Jenny- she seems sweet and earnest.
Charles: Do you hate Whole Foods or not? And stop being an irrational cunt.
so much for 'sweet'
Well I'm sorry,but he is: he lashes out at liberal bloggers for trying to do something about the war rather than doing the far more rebelious thing of admiting defeat and moaning about how it's the end. See here: http://pezcandy.blogspot.com/2009/06/we-are-world.html
Not to mention he's extremely condescending to women who are in favor of pro choice policies.
Good day !.
You re, I guess , perhaps curious to know how one can manage to receive high yields .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may begin earning with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you thought of all the time
AimTrust represents an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
It is based in Panama with affiliates everywhere: In USA, Canada, Cyprus.
Do you want to become really rich in short time?
That`s your chance That`s what you desire!
I`m happy and lucky, I began to get real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to choose a proper partner utilizes your savings in a right way - that`s the AimTrust!.
I make 2G daily, and what I started with was a funny sum of 500 bucks!
It`s easy to get involved , just click this link http://sasebicamu.arcadepages.com/daxyrub.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take this option together to feel the smell of real money
Post a Comment