David 31 Oct 05

The awesome food doesn’t hurt either.

Alex Bosworth 31 Oct 05

High PE: 60.54

Not that WF isn’t a great store, but is everyone ready to pay a high premium for groceries?

Nick Hodges 31 Oct 05

Alex —

Everyone? Probably not. But apparently a lot of people are.

Jamie Tibbetts 31 Oct 05

One is coming to the Woodfield area in Schaumburg soon. I can’t wait. I’ll be able to go to the Apple Store and Whole Foods in the same trip. Now that’s livin’.

Dave Churchville 31 Oct 05

I love healthy food and all of that, but the Whole Foods here in California is a bit of a rip off from a pricing standpoiint. I can buy a hand-raised cow from the Del Mar fair for about the price of an organic steak at Whole Foods.

But seriously, I wish them well, they’ve found a large niche market, and are getting great margins compared to the rest of their industry.

Josh Williams 31 Oct 05

WFMI is the best performing stock I have ever owned. And I sold it all nearly five years ago for really wonderful gains. And it’s just kept going up since. Should’ve held it longed. Much longer.

brad 31 Oct 05

This type of high-end natural foods market, where everything is a bit too perfect, sterile, and expensive, started in Boston with Bread and Circus. I had a friend who worked there; she said they had people to polish every apple by hand before it was put out. These places turn me off; they’re like a Neiman-Marcus version of the food co-op, and, at least at the WF Markets I’ve been to, tend to attact a similarly self-absorbed and status-conscious clientele. Ick.

DQ 31 Oct 05

Past performance is not indicative of future results.

Looking at a chart from dot-coms of the late 90s may have looked very similar to this chart.

Darrel 31 Oct 05

Organic food is better for the environment, the animals, and us, but I too find WF a little bit overdone. It’s akin to modernist homes or modern sofas. They’re designed less that way because they are a good, practical design, and more because there’s this semi-snooty consumer level that will pay a premium just to say they live in one. (or now that I’ve read Brad’s comment: what he said)

But, you have to start somewhere, and WF’s success is certainly helping the organic movement stick this time. Now to push the organic + local concept…

Darrel 31 Oct 05

Looking at a chart from dot-coms of the late 90s may have looked very similar to this chart.

True, but look at the business models. WF actually has one.

Shawn Oster 31 Oct 05

WholeFoods here in Boulder, CO is pretty much always packed and has been since day one. Their prices are slightly higher than other chains but still cheaper than eating out (all this is assuming you aren’t SuperSizing yourself with Value and Combo meals). I buy mostly meats and veggies there while staple items I grab from the super chain. Plus their buffet area rocks.

The only thing I dislike are the people that use it like a status symbol, as if it’s some form of exclusive country club and you get more cool points for going there.

FineJames 31 Oct 05

It amazes me how many sheep flock to that place. If you dig around, over 65% of their store stock is available, cheaper, at most local grocery stores. The highest profit margins are on these items, and they clean up with the sheep mentality.

The trendy thing in my town is to be spotted in a foriegn car, waiting to park in the crowded WF lot, while your adopted asian kid makes faces out the window

SH 31 Oct 05

“…the Whole Foods here in California is a bit of a rip off from a pricing standpoiint…”

I disagree with that statement, but only from past experiments/experience with grocery shopping in CA. I actually shopped exclusively at Trader Joes, Safeway, and Whole Foods for a month each and found that Whole Foods not only stood out as far as the quality of food I bought but I ended up paying almost $200 less on my groceries the month I shopped there than I did at the other stores. For a single person shopping weekly for organic food stuffs, that’s a pretty significant savings.

Specifically I found that while the produce was more expensive, it was grown locally so it stayed fresh/edible for a longer period of time (esp. the avocados, which from a regular store barely last a day) which meant I ultimately bought *less* of it, saving a lot in the process. The things I buy often like organic juice and gluten-free flour were *less expensive* from Whole Foods, which even tempted me to buy *more*.

Over all, I don’t think it’s accurate to just assume Whole Foods is more expensive because yuppies shop there, and especially if you’ve never shopped there consistenly for yourself.

Anonymous 31 Oct 05

I like Whole Foods a lot, but where’s the love for Trader Joe’s?

Anonymous Coward 31 Oct 05

Not everything at Whole Foods is super upscale. It’s no Dean and Deluca’s. Some stuff is at a premium, but I can generally find produce for the same price as Safeway but at a higher quality.

brad 31 Oct 05

Well, I’ve shopped a few times at the WF market in Toronto, which is in a glitzy shopping mall in a very swank part of town, and saw items there that were more than twice the price of the same items at the local health food store where I usually shop in Montreal. The produce at WF is definitely better than what you can find in most other stores and it’s worth shopping there for that, but for packaged goods, cosmetics/deodorants, etc., my experience has been that other stores are often cheaper, sometimes a lot cheaper.

Sharaf 31 Oct 05

Certain organic items are much cheaper at Trader Joes. I love both of them, but you have to be smart because certain things are expensive at WF, so get those goodies at Acme or Genuardi’s.

If you want the organic stuff WF and TJ is the way to go.

For example, Silk Milk is expensive at Acme or at Safeway, but much cheaper at WF…anyway there are some weird price differences on certain items…

I usually mix and match when I shop…go to different wants depending on what I need.

I admit WF has the best bakery….

anonymous 31 Oct 05

A lot of Whole Foods’ social responsiblity schtick rings hollow when you compare the wages and benefits it offers to the traditional stores it portrays as morally inferior. Whole Foods’ wages are much lower and the health care and retirement benefits are far inferior.

Whole Foods is Wal-Mart for upscale yuppies. You’re paying a lot more but the people who serve you aren’t seeing any premium because of that.

In Seattle, for example, you’re much better off going to PCC or one of the local Town and Country markets, which matches the wages and benefits of the larger corporate stores like Safeway and Kroger (Kroger owns QFC and Fred Meyer).

Kyle 31 Oct 05

Love WF. I don’t get the whole snobbish feel from it that a lot of people do, but perhaps that’s just because it’s the only grocery store within walking distance to my house. Being in DC, I can’t begin to imagine shopping elsewhere, if only because the Safeways/Giants in the area are either (a)really tiny, (b) really dirty, or combination of both.

Giant tried opening their organic store not too far from where I used to work, and to me, the biggest difference was in there hiring practices(overweight, and bad attitudes), and the cleanliness of the store.

Whole Foods gets my money, hands down.

pwb 31 Oct 05

Looking at a chart from dot-coms of the late 90s may have looked very similar to this chart.

Show us *one* 90’s dot-com chart that looks like that for even 1 year (much less 5)!!!

This is more like it.

Christopher Fahey 31 Oct 05

Ironically, in NYC Whole Foods is cheaper than most supermarkets in poor neighborhoods. It’s a bizarre, and atrocious, economic phenomenon that a gallon of milk costs more at a C-Town in Red Hook than it does at a Whole Foods on the Upper East Side. This is how I justify spending money at the Whole Foods near my office - that at least I’m getting a better price than I would at the supermarket a block from my house.

Larry 31 Oct 05

I agree with Kyle. What he doesn’t mention is that the customer service at Whole Foods in the DC area is far superior to that of the Giants and the Safe ways.
So if Safeway and Giants are run with union labor and and pay higher wages than WF, then why are the people at WF a lot more helpful and more friendly?

anonymous 31 Oct 05

Is it the cashiers’ fault that the fixtures and lighting at the Adams Morgan Safeway are so rundown?

It doesn’t make sense to blame workers who have to deal with overcoming such a crap work environment for that crap environment’s existance. It’s not their fault that Safeway pours tons more money into a large new store out in Fairfax and barely spends a dime on the upkeep of the Columbia Road store and 17th Street store. These are management failures — not the union or the employees’.

Nobody is arguing that the Adams Morgan Safeway is nicer than Whole Foods. (Although the new Giant in Columbia Heights is arguably just as pleasant as the Logan Circle Whole Foods — and much more affordable.)

If that’s your thing, fine. But just don’t fool yourself into believing that Whole Foods “team environment” rhetoric actually translates into a great deal for frontline employees. Whole Foods makes fat margins partly by charging a whole lot more on many items and by holding down employee pay and benefits across the board.

The stock price usually is not a good indicator of how frontline employees’ standard of living is doing. Often, it’s the other way around.

Sunil 31 Oct 05

It’s hard to rail against Whole Foods since it’s an easy place to get food if you want to eat healthy and responsibly… organic, whole, local, sustainable, and free-trade.

But there is a bad taste left in your mouth when you realize they don’t quite live up to one responsibility: making healthy food accessible to American families (and they’re certainly not the only ones at fault). Kids are given the crappy food they eat because it’s cheap. Most of us are lucky that we have the means to eat healthy, but the majority of the country can’t even think about regularly buying at a Whole Foods enough to bitch about it.

Anonymous Coward 31 Oct 05

Everyone in the know, knows the new rage is discount food stores. What’s more earth friendly than eating the food they are about to toss into a great big hole in the ground.

Jake Walker 31 Oct 05

making healthy food accessible to American families (and they�re certainly not the only ones at fault).

At fault? How are they at fault for not making healthy food accessible to American families?

First of all, it certainly isn’t their responsibility to do so.

But second of all, they have paved the way for organic / non-GM food buying in the United States, which has OF COURSE increased the available supply of healthy and safe food. If not for Whole Foods, it’s unlikely that there would be anywhere near as much emphasis on or production of healthy, organic foods.

:) 31 Oct 05

Libertarian owners.

anonymous 31 Oct 05

Does the “14 times” ratio include total compensation (incl. options) or just salary? Is it written down as a contract between John Mackey and everybody else?

The “Best Companies” thing is a PR contest for HR departments. Wal-Mart was listed on the “Best Companies to Work” list until just a couple of years ago. They got delisted when reality caught up with Bentonville’s PR.

It’s not the voting on the healthcare that’s important — it’s the affording it.

Sunil 31 Oct 05

making healthy food accessible to American families (and they�re certainly not the only ones at fault).

At fault? How are they at fault for not making healthy food accessible to American families?

I think it’s hard to not put Whole Foods at fault for selling a box of organic granola for twice the price that I pay at Trader Joe’s (or organic orange juice, free-range eggs, etc… the list goes on). Whole Foods and others charge a premium for the experience. Just because it says organic, they think they can blow out their margin. Trader Joe’s are one of the few places I know I won’t get fleeced for just wanting to eat healthy.

I totally agree that Whole Foods has done great things. I feel lucky to have access to one. I just wish their pricing wasn’t a function of the upscale clientele that shop there.

Martin 31 Oct 05

“it was grown locally so it stayed fresh/edible for a longer period of time (esp. the avocados, which from a regular store barely last a day)”

Interesting detail. Here in Germany, avocados come from Israel, South Africa or Spain. And you barely get a chance to buy them ripe. They are so unripe, that you have to plan ahead and buy them three days in advance and keep them in a bag with an apple to let them ripe.

Don Schenck 31 Oct 05

I’m getting to be a Luddite; we’ve joined a CSA, grow veggies and visit local “natural food” stores.

And cook at home.

And support the Slow Foods movement.

*sigh* I’m such an old fogie …

anonymous 31 Oct 05

I guess I have to admit that I’m biased as well. I’ve read the Mackey Fast Company profile. He obviously gets great press. And I think he’s a huge fake. All of the flowery talk about respecting employee input needs to come with a giant asterisk indicating that it only counts along as the employees don’t really disagree about anything.

I think Mackey showed his true colors when the employees at the Madison, WI store decided they wanted to form a union. Then Mackey and WF unleashed the wolves and behaved just as badly as any other ruthless large company would. If the WF Declaration of Independence meant anything he would’ve respected their right to choose to form an independent organization. Instead, he acted as callow as H. Lee Scott.

And the other thing that bugs me about the Whole Foods/Mackey cult, especially in DC, is not just the food snob thing but the snob snob thing. Listening between the lines when I hear people rave about WFM, I hear a troubling glee over finding an oasis of paleness in DC, where only a certain kind of people come because only a certain kind of people can afford the meat and produce.

If WF cult members want that kind of environment, then say hi to John Galt for me. But I don’t want to hear how they’re so revolutionary when they’re really just buying into a new kind of economic and social royalism.

anonymous 31 Oct 05

I guess I have to admit that I’m biased as well. I’ve read the Mackey Fast Company profile. He obviously gets great press. And I think he’s a huge fake. All of the flowery talk about respecting employee input needs to come with a giant asterisk indicating that it only counts along as the employees don’t really disagree about anything.

I think Mackey showed his true colors when the employees at the Madison, WI store decided they wanted to form a union. Then Mackey and WF unleashed the wolves and behaved just as badly as any other ruthless large company would. If the WF Declaration of Independence meant anything he would’ve respected their right to choose to form an independent organization. Instead, he acted as callow as H. Lee Scott.

And the other thing that bugs me about the Whole Foods/Mackey cult, especially in DC, is not just the food snob thing but the snob snob thing. Listening between the lines when I hear people rave about WFM, I hear a troubling glee over finding an oasis of paleness in DC, where only a certain kind of people come because only a certain kind of people can afford the meat and produce.

If WF cult members want that kind of environment, then say hi to John Galt for me. But I don’t want to hear how they’re so revolutionary when they’re really just buying into a new kind of economic and social royalism.

Now, Izzy Cohen, that guy was an inspiration.

Kyle 31 Oct 05

Hey, Don -

What’s CSA? Welcome to the club, though. Nothing like growing your own herbs and veggies.

I guess that makes me a young old fogie (27 isn’t old, right?).

Kyle 31 Oct 05

@anonymous: I suppose I can see your point about WF Declaration of Independance / not allowing a union. Still, from my outsiders perspective, the a lot of these union efforts are driven by outside organizations targetting strictly non-union orgs. I’ve worked closely with Unions, and I know that they are always on the look out for opportunities to make headlines and further unionize (it makes the union more powerful).

I think there’s perhaps a place for unions, and I think that some organizations/CEOs should learn to embrace them and work with them when it makes sense to do so. However, I think by attacking John Mackey, and Whole Foods in general, they’re really just trying to make headlines rather than focus on employers who actually treat their employees poorly. Highlight the bad and try to make it better. Don’t highlight the already outstanding, just to set agenda.

Darrel 31 Oct 05

“What�s CSA?”

Perhaps the best way to buy organic food.

It’s not strictly an organic term, but refers moreso to the locality of your food: Community Supported Agriculture.

They typically take the form of a co-op. Families buy shares in the farm which, in turn, allows the farm to exist. Their dividends are all the product the farm produces. It keeps a small farm going, keeps a small farm local, and gives you much fresher food than most any other option. It also cuts out the middle man…such as Whole Foods. ;o)

Darrel 31 Oct 05

However, I think by attacking John Mackey, and Whole Foods in general, they�re really just trying to make headlines rather than focus on employers who actually treat their employees poorly.

I’d say any corporation who actively partakes in union busting is not a corporation that has any interest in treating their employees well.

anonymous 31 Oct 05

Kyle: who gets to decide which employers “actually” treat their employees poorly? You? Me? John Mackey? Donald Trump? Lee Scott?

The best system would be for employees themselves to have a free choice about whether they want to have a union or not.

The Madison employees decided to they wanted to have a union, even after WF put enormous pressure on them to vote against having a union.

When they still voted for a union, WF didn’t respect their choice and work with them — it dragged out discussions about an employement agreement for months to frustrate any real dialogue or input until those Team Members learned their lesson and gave up.

The whole thing was a sad mockery of “Interdependence.” There wasn’t any difference between how WF reacted and how Wal-Mart reacts if its employees try to form a union.

Anonymous Coward 31 Oct 05

This is to all those WF bashers:
If the employees don’t like working there they can work somewhere else, if the customers don’t like buying there they can buy somewhere else. If there is no place else, then you can start one. You would get more employees because according to you they are being mistreated, and you would get more customers because according to you they are being Gouged.

I love whole foods because I can buy all the things I want in the same place. I don’t have to worry about the quality of the food, and shopping there saves me time. I might be paying a little extra, but I’d rather make that up working harder on my competitive advantage, than wasting my time price hunting.

Also I do appreciate the fact that the stores are clean, and the employees are courteous. It is the beauty of capitalism, if you don’t like it, you could move to Cuba.

Kyle 31 Oct 05

@Pro Union anonymous & Darrel: To answer your question regarding who gets to decide who treats their employees poorly, it’s a combination of the would-be employees, currrent employees, the executives who run the company, and the customers who support/shop at Wholefoods. Ultimately, though, the CEO has the final decision in what’s best for all of his stakeholders (employees, investors, customers, etc.), and it’s job to make those decisions.

Generally, though, unless working conditions are poor(which Wholefoods is most definitely not), I generally tend to be suspicious of union efforts. As I mentioned, I’ve worked fairly closely with a few union organizers, and they’re just every bit as opportunistic as a lot of businesses. Like I said, there are plenty of bad companies out there that these unions can target, I think they’re just trying to raise headlines and their own profile by targeting Wholefoods.

“However, I think by attacking John Mackey, and Whole Foods in general, they�re really just trying to make headlines rather than focus on employers who actually treat their employees poorly.”

“I�d say any corporation who actively partakes in union busting is not a corporation that has any interest in treating their employees well.”

I disagree, and union busting is of course rather extreme term. Unions are not always a good thing. The idea that any company that refuses to allow their employees to unionize is somehow anti-employee is ridiculous and rather extreme in my opinion.

anonymous 31 Oct 05

Kyle: The problem is that the Madision employees decided to form a union. That’s their choice to make, regardless of whether you or I or John Mackey thought it was appopriate. They held the vote. They made the choice. And Mackey and Whole Foods pulled out every legal stop possible to stop them from having an independent organization.

WF can’t have it both ways: WF can’t say it honors “Team Members’” input but then turn around an stop employees from forming a union. Even after employees voted in favor of having a union, WF relentlessly worked to block them from building a constructive relationship.

The disconnect between WF’s hype and the reality reminds me of people who openly say they don’t like gays but also claim their not homophobic. You know: “I’m not hobophobic — I just dislike the gay lifestyle and I don’t want to be around those kind of people.”

And who decided that unions are only allowed in places where conditions are bad? Pleny of enterprises that are successful have unions: Southwest Airlines, Cingular, Harley Davidson, etc.

Kyle 31 Oct 05

@anon: Hey, I think we’re going in circles, but I’m happy to continue the conversation. Perhaps SvN isn’t the best place to continue the discussion. If you want to continue the conversation, I’m happy to do so via email. If you want to contact me, you can find my email on my website profile.

Cheers,

Kyle

pwb 01 Nov 05

GE, AIG, Microsoft, American Express, Dell, et al are all way off their highs, too. What’s your point? You’re talking about one of the great companies started in the last 20 years.

DQ 01 Nov 05

PWB, you asked “Show us *one* 90�s dot-com chart that looks like that for even 1 year (much less 5)!!!”

Thanks for helping me make my point.

Darrel 01 Nov 05

If the employees don�t like working there they can work somewhere else

Also, If the employees don�t like working there they can organize and demand better working conditions.

Or don’t you believe in that kind of freedom in this country?

Darrel 01 Nov 05

As I mentioned, I�ve worked fairly closely with a few union organizers, and they�re just every bit as opportunistic as a lot of businesses.

Yep. It’s called balance of power. ;o)

The idea that any company that refuses to allow their employees to unionize is somehow anti-employee is ridiculous and rather extreme in my opinion.

So, union busting is pro-employee? I’m confused. Explain.

Tim 01 Nov 05

I’m a John Mackey fan, and I also believe that unions can be a powerful positive force. If you accept Mackey’s motivations as genuine, it’s easier to understand his anti-union stance. If you look at a company like it’s a government, Mackey’s trying to form a democracy where every stakeholder has a say in the direction of the company, as opposed to most companies which act more like dictatorships. In a dictatorship the only way for the individual to gain power is to revolt and form their own government, which is how unions act. Mackey may want to give his employees as much independence as possible, but in the bounds of a democratic company, a competing body of government is a destructive force.

anonymous 01 Nov 05

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_43/b3956106.htm

Kyle 01 Nov 05

@Darrel: I wasn’t saying Union busting was pro-employee. Please. However, not all empoyers/situations necessitate a the need for a union. In addition, corporations are private entities, and just as much as free speech laws don’t necessarily translate to what you can say in a company, the same goes for forming unions, IMO. Mackey goes above and beyond trying the norm in his efforts, and since it’s his company, I think he has a certain right to say whether or not a something as significant as the formation of a Union is allowed into the company. Indeed, if the success of his competitors (Safeway?) are any indication, the formation of a union would be a detriment to his the service his customers receive, the growth of his company(thus less well treated employees), the communities that have benefited from his stores, as well as possibly slowing the organic food movement in general.

As I mentioned, Mackey does an extremely good job of playing well with all of his stakeholders. If it’s not perfect, it’s certainly better than most. He’s proven that he’s capable of providing stellar service to customers, excellent returns for his investors, great treatment for his employees, while investing in his personal philanthropy.

I agree with the poster above, I believe unions can be a powerful positive force, but why try to fix what’s already working? I have a hunch it’s just to try and prove a point. Like I mentioned, why waste time by going after employers that are actually doing bad? Heck, I imagine a good bit of time could be spent just trying to fix the bad relations in existing union organizations.

Kyle 01 Nov 05

Yikes, lotsa grammar problems in that last post. Connection problems had me coming back to edit the post in this small box. Hope it’s still clear.

anonymous 01 Nov 05

Kyle: the problem with your idea that unions should only be permitted at companies that are bad is that it’s impossible to let companies themselves decide if they are a good employer or not.

Naturally, every company will say it’s doing just fine as an employer and veto any effort to make changes. Especially the bad ones.

Whole Foods is not Safeway’s key competitor. Wal-Mart is. And Wal-Mart, like Whole Foods, gets a leg up by paying its workers significantly less, but on a much, much larger scale. Most people agree that Wal-Mart falls short as a good employer. And Wal-Mart is fanatically opposed to letting its employees form a union — a very good example of why your “only let workers at bad companies form unions” idea doesn’t work. It doesn’t make sense to let Mackey or any other CEO make that decision on behalf of employees.

The only way around this is to empower employees to decide for themselves whether they want to form a union. Theoretically, that’s the system we have in the US, but the law is so weak it makes it very easy for employers to block employees from forming a union. (Which is what Wal-Mart does, and what Mackey did at the Madison store.)

And Tim’s idea that a union would mess up Mackey’s carefully constructed democracy doesn’t work, either. It’s not a democracy if stakeholders within in it are barred from joining together to advocate in the way that they choose to do so. By creating a one party “democracy” Mackey’s system isn’t any more democratic that the old Soviet Union was.

A union doesn’t cancel out the ability to build the kind of employee-management dialogue Mackey says he wants. The health care workers at Kaiser Permanente, for example, have an interesting partnership that empowers workers to work throught their unions to have a say in planning workflow, hospital design, scheduling, etc.

Kyle 01 Nov 05

@anon: I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion. I agree that it’s difficult, if not impossible to allow employers to make the decision whether they’re good or not. However, that’s a fairly narrow view. There are many stakeholders that make that decision (communities, investors, employees, customers, etc), and allowing a single store to make a decision that could have broad implications for any and all of the rest of the stakeholders and not allowing the those stakeholders veto power is a bad decision in and of itself.

Are you of the opinion that Whole Foods treats its employees unfairly? I don’t think I’ve seen you come outright and say that? I’d be suprised, speaking anecdotally, most of the employees I’ve talked to (cashiers, butchers, cheese counter, etc) at my local Whole Foods like the current management, and enjoy the pay, benefits and the performance based bonuses.

I also disagree with the fact that Walmart is Whole Foods direct competitor. I’ve never stepped foot in one, but I imagine Walmart would have a difficult time matching the experience of Whole Foods (my second reason behind the quality of food). Secondly, Walmart traditionally targets low income neighborhoods, which is the direct opposite of the Whole Foods strategy. In addition, if Whole Foods can force Walmart to adopt an organic food policy, I’d have to give them some credit. Walmart may some day be the primary competitor with WholeFoods, but I’d say at this current juncture, Whole Foods is probably more concerned with the likes of Wegmans (can’t speak intelligently about their employee treatment), and the Giants/Safeways that are moving into more organic, ambience focused stores.

Secondly, I’ve stated that I think unions can be a positive force in some occasions (I think WalMart employees could benefit). Are you saying that you’re of the opinion that unions are beneficial to every employee/employer relationship? Are companies not able to treat their employees fairly in the absence of a union? To be open, I’ve never worked for a union (and don’t particularly care to), but I’ve had my fair share of good treatment (5 weeks vacation, good bonuses, great benefits, etc). Do David, Jamis, Matt, etc. need a union in order to have fair treatment from Jason? I know it’s different situation since the Signals are highly skilled, educated workers but you’re mentioning the likes of Kaiser, Cingular, etc. So I imagine you’re not basing your judgement on education or skills.

I’m apologize if I’m misinterpreting your statements.

Cheers,

Kyle

anonymous 01 Nov 05

[My point about Safeway and Wal-Mart wasn’t clear. It seemed that you were implying that Whole Foods has better stores than Safeway, therefore unions suck, and therfore Whole Foods would not be gaining on Safeway if it had a union. My point is that I think Safeway really doesn’t view Whole Foods as a significant threat, but Wal-Mart is its main threat. And Wal-Mart is gaining largely because it ratchets down employee health care and wages. So does Whole Foods, but that’s a separate discussion.]

I’m not saying that every worker everywhere has to be in a union. I’m saying that employees themselves need to be empowered to make that choice for themselves — and the freedom to make that choice is meaningless if you let an employer veto it.

I think you’re stuck in the rut of thinking that only employees who you categorize as ill-treated are suited for being in a union. It is possible to enjoy your job, want your company to do well, and support having a union. It’s okay to want to advocate for changes and improvements with your co-workers. I do the same thing in my neighborhood through the political process. It doesn’t mean I have a lousy neighborhood — it means speaking out can make things better for everyone.

James 02 Nov 05

Rethinking the Social Responsibility of Business

A Reason debate featuring Milton Friedman, Whole Foods� John Mackey, and Cypress Semiconductor�s T.J. Rodgers [reason.org]

Ben 02 Nov 05

Way. Overpriced. Here in Madison, WI, I get my hippie food at the local co-op. On the rare occasions when I visit Whole Foods I am stunned by the high prices, and amused by the snobbery of the clientele.

I tried to find a pack of gum there once—there is nothing under two dollars!

Of course the quality of the food is high, the bakery is excellent. But prices are killer. That’s why we call it “Whole Paycheck”.

Wouldn’t it be nice if you could get food of this quality without paying through the nose for it?

Darrel 02 Nov 05

and since it�s his company, I think he has a certain right to say whether or not a something as significant as the formation of a Union is allowed into the company.

Uh, no. That’s the whole point of a union. To counter management dictating everything only to their benefit.

He can SAY he doesn’t want a union, but to actively prevent it from happening just stinks, no matter how you frame it.

He may be a very good boss, and a good, ethical employer, but the union busting taints that image.

I also disagree with the fact that Walmart is Whole Foods direct competitor. I�ve never stepped foot in one, but I imagine Walmart would have a difficult time matching the experience of Whole Foods

Wal-Mart is the biggest grocery chain in the country. They are everyone’s competitor, and likely the reason Mackaey didn’t want a union, as Wal-Mart uses non-union labour to undercut the competition. I do agree that Whole-Foods is targetting a differnt audienec though…which is good.

Kyle 02 Nov 05

Umm… Darrell, I think we’re probably never going to see eye to eye on this issue. However, I did want to follow up on the following:

Uh, no. That�s the whole point of a union. To counter management dictating everything only to their benefit.

That’s where I think there’s a major difference of opinion. I don’t believe preventing employees from unionizing is solely looking out for the benefit of management. I think unions can be beauracratic, I think it’s looking out for his customers (prices), the growth of his company (and thus more future employees that may be treated better at WholeFoods rather than perhaps even some unionized industries), as well as the more general growth of the organic industry in general.

As for:

Wal-Mart is the biggest grocery chain in the country. They are everyone�s competitor, and likely the reason Mackaey didn�t want a union, as Wal-Mart uses non-union labour to undercut the competition. I do agree that Whole-Foods is targetting a differnt audienec though�which is good.

Look, I don’t think Walmart is necessarily good business, and I understand it’s been shown that they’re wages allow for some people to qualify for welfare in certain states, and they’re low wages likely help contribute to the fact that a good portion of their employees are unhealthy, obese, etc. That said, I don’t think the fact that they try to offer extremely low prices in low wage areas is their problem. They ought to be commended for their low prices, and in fact, for the people that work there, the low prices probably raise there real wages to a certain degree. However, as I mentioned, it would probably result in a measurable net benefit if their employees unionized, and I wouldn’t be opposed.

I’m wondering, though, if the audience Whole Foods targets is too rich, and the Walmart one is too poor, what’s your ideal sustainable sweetspot? How do propose we go about controlling that?

Kyle

andream 02 Nov 05

as a mom, i love shopping at whole foods. there aren’t tons of color saturated over-packaged products to make my kid freak out and grab boxes and scream ‘i want this’! the most colorful part of the store is the produce section - right on, as nature intended. there are always healthy food samples, friendly staff and plenty of options/pricewise, etc. you gotta be a smart shopper everywhere. at whole foods, you can be smart and savvy and still walk out with good food/great deals and a superlative family-friendly, wholesome shopping experience. i see more and more moms there enjoying a shopping experience with their kids. you can’t do that at mainstream grocery stores. too much stimulation, cartoon laden products and junk food. i never loved a grocery store chain until i met whole foods.

John Y. 03 Nov 05

I may be combining different people’s arguments here, but Trader Joe’s is also non-union. And an attempt to unionize a store in Pasadena in 1999 failed. So, if you don’t want to shop at Whole Foods because they blocked a union, then you’d better avoid TJ’s as well.

Or, you could look at the fact that both companies try to hire people from the neighborhood they’ve built in, pay better than union wages and benefits, and generally treat their employees well. But I guess that’s not black-and-white enough.

Personally, I’d rather shop at the non-union but fair-paying Whole Foods than the union-but-nasty-management Safeway.

Anonymous Coward 13 Nov 05

I work for WF in Austin @ the Landmark store. I have only been working there for a year and a half, and I already have stock options, free medical insurance, very cheap dental insurance, extremely cheap life insurance, disability, and I make a damn fine living wage. Any assertions that they don’t treat their employees as good as MOST places are ignorant and false. Unfortunately, this is also why the prices are as high as they are.

For example, we get complaints once a year about these blueberries that are ridiculously expensive. They are 6.99 for a small box. What is different about them, however, is that the workers that harvest the berries are paid a living wage, they are obessively organic, and they are really really really good tasting. True: they are expensive, but we always offer some conventionally grown bberries that are not nearly as expensive, or there is always the option of going elsewhere. That is precisely the same story with the entire experience: you pay a premium for a relatively less guilt-ridden shopping experience, as well as arduos quality control. And if its too expensive, we offer alternatives that are not so expensive, and you always have the option of only getting the things that you can afford.

daniel 14 Nov 05

I know four people who work for wfm and all enjoy it.
My question is , the people that are slaming this company
do you work there? or is your opinion based on someone elses word. you should take into consideration when a company has 20000+ employes there are 20000+ points of view. Now I’m no economics major but for all the pro union pro better health benefit pro higher wage people out there,
all this brings higher prices. Also just look at all american steel companies and general motors, there paying out more in retirement checks and health care then they make in sales! all this thanks to the union deals…. oh ya I’m anti union

BB 07 Dec 05

To Brad & the others who think Whole Foods caters only to the food snobs that want to out-do the Joneses - think again. My daughter is one of millions of American kids who exhibit ADHD symptoms when they are exposed to artificial dyes, flavorings & fragrances - sadly a staple of kids’ lives in this country. We buy at WF & bypass all the ritalin-like drugs. Spending a little more on junk-free food far outweighs the cost of medication and the future well-being of our kids. Eating healthier should never be considered a fad.

anonymous 11 Jan 06

As a former employee of the huge Whole Foods Market in Union Sq. in NYC, I can tell you that this company could care less about it’s employees. Making the almighty dollar is the only thing they love there. Employees are working for 8.50 per hour, compared to other cities like Chicago, where the WFM employees are paid 10.50-11.00 per hour based on the cost of living. I’m pretty sure it more expensive to live here in NYC, than in Chicago. Also, during the infamous NYC transit strike, millions of us were stranded in our boroughs, and could not afford to take taxi’s to work, but sure enough, the team leaders at WFM were calling with threats of final warning notices, and terminations of any employee who refused to take a taxi into the city. Let me also say that they were only willing to reimburse us $5 each way, when the average one-way cab fare was at least $20. They refuse to hear anything about the workers starting a union, and have threatened any workers seen speaking with any protesters, or union reps. WHOLE FOODS IS A FRAUD!! They treat their workers like crap, and the look on the faces of the 32+ cashiers there at one time tells it all. GOD BLESS ANYONE WHO HAS THE STRENGTH TO STAY WORKING IN THAT PLACE……

Anonymous 30 Jan 06

I work for WF - and they do care about the dollar and not the employees - yes you can vote for your healthcare, but the medical is the only thing paid for. They are closed for Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years but you are NOT paid for this mandatory time off. You get 10 days off after you worked a year and that 10 days is for sick, personal and vacation and holidays if you want to be paid for those three days. Most people I work with are very unhappy and would leave if there were other jobs readily availble. Some stores get bonus’s and they are passed out with the top 60% of the pie going to management and the other 40% going to the worker bees and there are alot more worker bees than management - I know since I work in the accounting dept. WF’s bigger problem is they believe their own hype about them being untouchable by any other store - keep saying that and let’s see how many stores you close in 6 years. WF also ask local farmers to give them not only their best price but also anywhere from 3-5% kickback for stocking their product - it’s called market value.

Latinamama 06 Apr 06

I just got hired at the Bellevue wa store Whole foods. I asked for 12 bucks an hour, even tho I’ve been an executive assistant making much more. They never told me what the starting wages were. When they called me they offered me what I asked for. Should I call them and ask what the starting wage is? Or should I just leave well alone?