The Whole Foods Market boycott doesn't make sense to me either. All the people who boycott are only denying themselves their favorite place to shop. Also what do they expect they can do? If stores started to close then employees would be the ones out of work and the CEO with whom this boycott is about would still probably be rich. Essentially this boycott is cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Permalink | Report

First of all it is not rational to expect people to behave rationally. By and large outside of areas of professional expertise, and often not even then, people's decisions are based more on emotion and gut feel than rationality.

I'll take the opportunity to plug Behavioral Economics.

The next question is whether those emotions are in some sense rational.

One of the findings of behavioural economics is that people are probably wired to punish people that have behaved badly or unfairly, even when that punishment hurts them as well. On some level that tendency makes sense because it creates a disincentive for people to behave badly, and thereby keeps bad behavior in check within a community.

Now is it rational to punish Whole Foods for the behavior of its CEO? Well, maybe if that is the best route you have to inflicting pain on that CEO. And there's not many things will hurt CEO more than customers shunning a company and citing his actions as the cause.

Is it rational to want to punish that CEO in the first place for expressing his views on healthcare? Maybe not.

But then again people aren't rational, and people that try to operate in a purely rational manner are not effective at making things happen in a society or an organisation.

So if you interested in being effective and actually accomplishing something, it isn't necessarily rational to be rational.
Permalink | Report

is there an alternative? then yes it is rational,for years we have been told to accept less and compete just so some executives can have more. if someone can finally stick it to one of these pampered puss's then yes, do it!
Permalink | Report

Others have addressed the issue of rationality. So I will primarily focus on the concept of the boycott and its use as a form of political and economic protest.

" A boycott is a form of consumer activism involving the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some other organization as an expression of protest, usually of political reasons." -

htttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott

If you look at this historically, you'll find recent examples of boycotts and see that they can change consciousnesses, business practices, politics and societies, to wit, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the United Farm Worker Lettuce Boycotts, International Divestiture and Boycott of South Africa.

(1) In the 1950's the Montgomery Bus Boycott called national attention in the U.S. to segregation of the races and raised civil rights to the forefront of American political issues. The fight for civil rights is not over by any means...but today we have an African-American as President of the United States

(2) In the late 1960's United Farm Worker President Cesar Chavez called for the first of several boycotts against lettuce and strawberry growers to protest the abhorent employment practices in agriculture and the substandard pay and living conditions of the human beings who made it possible to have produce on our American dinner tables, the farm workers who stooped, picked, sorted, and packed. Celebrity folksinger Joan Baez joined the cause and reached the hearts and minds of even more people around these issues. Many Americans had their consciousnesses raised, some laws and regs were enacted (but often not enforced). The fight still goes on. Many grape growers and wineries in recent years have come to understand that their image and sales can be hurt when attention is called to the fact that farmworkers lack toilets in the field, proper housing and healthcare and are still dying from lack of drinking water in the fields! In the United States! In the 21st century! Some growers and wineries have raised funds and have built some worker housing (but no where near enough because land is expensive in wine country) and also a health clinic.. THe fight still goes on.

(3) The INTERNATIONAL boycott against South Africa in the '80's in which American Univeristies and other institutional and private investors sold off all South African investments in their portfolios, refusing to purchase anymore...and in which many entities refused to even trade or do any form of business with or in South Africa, labelling South Africa a rogue nation for its national policy of APARTHEID, a barbaric form of segregation and abuse of native Africans by descendants of white colonialist settlers, effectively cut off South Africa after calling attention to the need to end apartheid. (This is not to in any way diminish the contributions of those activists on the ground in South Africa such as the Reverend Desmond Tutu, and various black and white (often Jewish) people subverting the Apartheid system to destroy it from within. Apartheid is now history. South Africa now has normalized relations with the rest of the world...and ther strugglle for equality among peoples there goes on.

There are so many examples of boycotts and the positive changes they have brung about. In this particualr case, it doesn't matter whether the CEO of Whole Foods is hurt. as someone here said, he'll remain rich. But his arrogant pride will be hurt if his company suffers. More importantly, the boycott is raising issues (1) health care in America and why we the United States is the ONLY modern nation without universal health care for all. The CEO's editorial against everyone of us having the type of health care he has has angered Americans who don't normally talk about this issue or "get political" - that is, he has reached apolitical Americans who DON'T shop at Whole Foods, ordinary Americans...and they are talking and wondering how a man so wealthy can say that the rest of us don't deserve decent health care like everyone else living in modern nations.

Whole Foods CEO has interjected himself into the political process by trying to use his and his company's name, fame, and wealth to influence national politics...so we, the people of the United States, people who live in a Democratic society have a right to say, if we believe it to be true: "You're wrong. You're not only wrong, you're hypocritical...and we can take our business elsewhere".

Here in San Francisco, many of us will be shopping instead at a real co-operative called Raibow Co-op. It seems just like Whole Foods but it is WORKER-OWNED and they do not sell meats because they are essentially vegetarian and are not hypocritical (like the Wholefooods CEO preaching to the masses that they musn't eat meats if they want to stay healthy - as if chronic illnesses like Multiple Sclerosis were caused by eating burgers - but then turning around and making a fortune selling meats to people at outragous prices. Other people in this area will be shopping at a chain called Real Foods.

Still others will be seeking out the few remainng independent health food-style stores that remain in the Bay Area and around the country that have not been gobbled up by BIG BOX Wholefoods - for that is what Wholefoods really is, the Walmart of healthfood/gourmet/upscale groccery stores - owned by a man as right-wing or Libertarian as the late Sam Walton and the Walton family, owners of Walmart. The truth is out. This man has only himself to blame. People who would never shop at a Walmart for political reasons now realize that by purchasing groceries at Whole Foods they were essentially doing the same thing.

Rationality. Interesting question. Is it rational to boycott Whole Foods? Is it rationalize to believe something politically and socially...and then not act on it. Is it rationalize to spend my money at a person's store KNOWING that it will be used (through political and charitable contributions) against my own and other ordianry American's best interests. one cannot know the political and charitable beliefs and contributions, if any, of everyone with whom we do business with. But sometimes we can know these things because they write editorials, speak to the press, announce their contributions or beliefs, etc,
Permalink | Report

I'd ask myself if the political opinions of the CEO effect the business in any way. Chances are they do. Many CEO's make donations on behalf of the company or support their affiliations with the help of the business.

If you're torn, "soft boycott" them.

I have "soft boycotted" by local grocery store. I hate them. I'm generally a very happy, friendly guy. But boy, do I ever hate my local Sobeys. They're evil.

Sadly, this is the only grocery store in my town. So, it's difficult not to shop there. Since empowering my soft boycott, I have done the following things. Maybe they'll help you with your cause.

Tell everyone know about your problem.

If they're empathetic, ask them to follow you

Spend as little money as possible. I enjoy buying large quantities of loss leader items at my store and nothing else. That makes me feel good.

Write letters to your local paper and e-mail them to the corporate office

Clearly, spending as little money as possible at the store is the most reasonable. My family does our weekly shopping at our local farmers market or a grocery store that is further away, but much less evil.

Permalink | Report

I personally respect the CEO for expressing his true opinion.. whether it is right or wrong. That's a lot more than I can say for most anyone else in this country. You never hear people's true opinions because they fear retaliation, or they want to manipulate a situation... i.e. a president wanting votes. I don't agree at all with people's choice to boycott Whole Foods Market. It's childish
Permalink | Report

My dear friend, you have answered your own question on this subject, ie,
By not agreeing with the ceo. If you do not agree with his policy or actions then why would you follow his line of thinking.
To boycott something is a serious step to take and one which needs to be thought out to the point that you can come up with no other alternative but to take boycott action.
If your conscience takes you to a place where it hurts you to decide what solution to come up with, then the dilemma is between right and wrong, and only you who can make the correct decision according to your conscience.
Permalink | Report