In brief: It was a good time, ranged from about 5 people to about a dozen. We had good discussion with many Berkeley types, including a few Berkeley libertarians, and a few Whole Foods HR reps who stood out and talked with us and with their customers. One Whole Foods employee (we didn't ask his name) told us that Whole Foods provides him health care coverage that costs him about $200 out of each paycheck, and he supported our position and was glad to see us out raising awareness.
Some responses to comments below the fold:
What I've come to realize about this is that it's not really about Whole Foods or about John Mackey. It's about wealthy and powerful people using the pull of their corporations to drag health care reform in the direction that will harm ordinary people in order to increase their own profits. Every thing we do to bring more visibility to this issue is valuable. Just as it's John Mackey's right to speak about his opinions about health care, and it's his privilege to publish those thoughts in the Wall Street Journal thanks to his position as Whole Foods CEO, it's my right to speak my opinion, and my privilege to use my position as one of Whole Foods Market's target demographic to raise the profile of my speech. But if you look at these things carefully, you see they're not very equal. The people feeling sad because we're "punishing" John Mackey for saying what he thinks are, I think, feeling sad pretty needlessly; John Mackey can get in the Wall Street Journal whenever he wants. I had a very pleasant photographer from Indymedia come talk to me for awhile, but it's all I can do to get my letters to the editor in the local paper. I have other actions going on too. But I also want to send a clear message that there are a chunk of Americans who get angry enough when corporations are seen opposing genuine health care reform (no matter how Mackey's letter and the apologia from Whole Foods position him as for reform, reform for the benefit of corporate interests is just more of the same).
But if I read this right it was only the CEO personally expressing his opinion. If that is the case then DK anger is complete horse shit.
I could understand wanting Whole Foods Inc. to apologize for a policy put in place by Whole Foods Inc., but to demand an apology for a personal statement? Come on.
Should the Right demand we apologize for publicly exercising our First Amendment rights?
First of all, I don't want an apology from Whole Foods. They sent me the apology after I sent them an email letting them know how I felt about Mackey's statement. Mackey is using his status as CEO of Whole Foods to get an opinion in the press, and it happens to be an opinion that is not only one I disagree with, but is actually pretty naive. He says that there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees a right to health care (or food, water, or shelter), therefore there is no right to health care (or food, water, or shelter). Well, if you remember your high school civics, the text of the Ninth Amendment reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." We have a right to life, and food, water, shelter—and, yes, health care—are all basic, widely practiced means of maintaining life. And he says that deregulation of the insurance industry such that insurance companies could pick and choose what they would cover with total freedom would lower the price of insurance premiums. First of all, it wouldn't. The CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield is not going to give up $1 of the $3.5 Million he made last year if he's not required to by law, or by the market. John Mackey thinks the market would take care of that, but here again, he's wrong—even if you accept the premise that the free market is an infallible way of regulating costs and values, which has never been demonstrated in reality, the insurance industry cannot operate on free market principles—there is no room for meaningful competition or comparison. You can't go out and start up a new insurance company and compete with Blue Cross Blue Shield, Humana, or even State Farm. The only entity that can is the US government.
But I can't get this position printed in the Wall Street Journal. I can only bring attention to it by doing the kinds of things I'm doing—calling my reps, writing letters in the local papers (not the WSJ, but all the same, so far no luck) waving signs and trying to put a dent in a major player's stock prices. Just as Mackey has the right to air his opinion with all the media support he can muster (which is considerable) I have the right to air mine and put all the force I can behind it. That's what I'm doing here. An apology from Whole Foods is irrelevant. And, unfortunately, the friendliness of the Whole Foods representatives who kindly came out to talk with us is also irrelevant. I'm just arguing in the only way that can get some attention.
So I can understand the desire to protest Whole Foods when you have readily available alternatives, like you do in Berkeley. But this is a national chain. The CEO is acting in a logical way to improve profit. Another Berkeley resident, Robert Reich, argues in Supercapitalism that to expect a company to do otherwise is foolish and illogical. You want to enforce change then you do so through regulation.
I believe your anger and time is therefore misplaced. I wish you would have taken this energy to call Blue Dog Congressional Representatives in California, the West, and beyond. I wish that you would have taken this energy to volunteer with OFA. I even wish that you would have sat down with a Montana phone book and began randomly calling Senator Baucus's constituents urging them to call Senator Baucus and support the public option.
I respect your desire to be involved in the community, but as was often the case when I lived in Berkeley I don't see how the end game is going to be accomplished through the actions local citizen typically engage in.
First, I think you're probably mistaken in the notion that those of us who were involved haven't been calling our reps and Blue Dog reps and volunteering in perhaps more constructive ways as well. I can't swear that any of us have thought of randomly calling Senator Baucus' constituents to urge them to support the public option, but I have been after Baucus to try to get him kicked off the committee (or at least let him know that enough people want him kicked off the committee that maybe he should think twice about how much he's giving away).
Second, there are several possible outcomes that I hope will happen from this push. I hope that other corporations consider that being seen embracing a pro-corporate vision of health care "reform" could harm their profits. I hope that the general Berkeley population begins to think more about which corporations are supporting the insurance industry in its efforts to cripple health care reform. I hope that the folks who have felt confused about which way public sentiment really leans on health care reform get the picture that there is actually a sizable chunk of people who want a public option and believe that yes, we all really do have a right to health care, enumerated in the Constitution or not, and we're willing to stand up and say that in as many forums as necessary. What it's not about is making Whole Foods change their policies in this instance, or Mackey change his mind. Those aren't very worthwhile goals, and if they were what we were trying to do, you'd be right about this not being a very good use of resources. You may still be right, but I'm willing to give it a shot.
What would you suggest? That he not express his opinion, or that he quit from his job if he wants to express his opinion?
What should Whole Foods do? Should they require all of their executives to sign an agreement that they will allow the company to prescreen all of their public statements to make sure these statements conform to certain progressive principles? Should the company now fire him after the fact?
No. I just want us, the consumers, the people who will most likely be hurt by it if "reforms" like Mackey's are actually implemented, to be able to answer back. I can't get an editorial published in the Wall Street Journal. But just as Mackey can use his money and position to be heard by a wide audience, so can the ordinary people who (no longer) shop at Whole Foods. He has that right, and so do we. We just have to use different means to get heard, since the editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal are not ass-kissing us to solicit our opinions.