4 ms·

Why should they? I mean, they're a business, not a charity, and they operate on razor slim margins. Like most other large grocers, their net income is under 2%.

yesimahuman 17y ago
Hence the "evil" designation in many people's eyes.
- replicatorblog 17y ago
  Which is just a reflection of knee-jerk thinking. This "Evil" corporation pays better than companies that require similar levels of education/commitment and also offers employees health insurance. However, these benefits are better than those offered by unionized companies and this is a threat to those unions. So you get a smear campaign even though HF nets out as a far better corporate citizen. A lot of my liberal friends were among those angered by the WSJ editorial. Strangely none of them wanted to peer deeper into how this company with a low/no-skill workforce was able to offer insurance benefits. This company should be studied and held up as an example, not pulled into the borg.
dnsworks 17y ago
Thinking through this more (there's now a raging debate going on about this is now going on in my home office) my best guess is that Whole Foods has this "evil" image because of their union-busting history. I think the first time I heard someone say that Whole Foods is evil was during a union-busting scandal at a midwestern WF store when I first moved to SF in 2000. It was humorous as I had 2 musician roommates who worked at Whole Foods and it was the best paying, most reliable job they were able to get in San Francisco for their skill-levels/desires.. Us left-coast liberals tend to get up in arms about unions, even though none of us are in them, affected by them, or really touched by them anymore. I would rather buy my groceries from a health-oriented libertarian than from Safeway or Albertsons, which both carry far inferior produce and have religious roots that offend the athiest in me.
joe_the_user 17y ago
Have you got reference for the %2 in the Whole Foods Case? I remember natural food stores doing much better than conventional grocery stores a few years ago.
- dnsworks 17y ago
  Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, really. The number is specifically their Net Income.

yesimahuman 17y ago

Hence the "evil" designation in many people's eyes.

replicatorblog 17y ago
Which is just a reflection of knee-jerk thinking. This "Evil" corporation pays better than companies that require similar levels of education/commitment and also offers employees health insurance. However, these benefits are better than those offered by unionized companies and this is a threat to those unions. So you get a smear campaign even though HF nets out as a far better corporate citizen. A lot of my liberal friends were among those angered by the WSJ editorial. Strangely none of them wanted to peer deeper into how this company with a low/no-skill workforce was able to offer insurance benefits. This company should be studied and held up as an example, not pulled into the borg.

dnsworks 17y ago

Thinking through this more (there's now a raging debate going on about this is now going on in my home office) my best guess is that Whole Foods has this "evil" image because of their union-busting history. I think the first time I heard someone say that Whole Foods is evil was during a union-busting scandal at a midwestern WF store when I first moved to SF in 2000. It was humorous as I had 2 musician roommates who worked at Whole Foods and it was the best paying, most reliable job they were able to get in San Francisco for their skill-levels/desires.. Us left-coast liberals tend to get up in arms about unions, even though none of us are in them, affected by them, or really touched by them anymore. I would rather buy my groceries from a health-oriented libertarian than from Safeway or Albertsons, which both carry far inferior produce and have religious roots that offend the athiest in me.

joe_the_user 17y ago

Have you got reference for the %2 in the Whole Foods Case? I remember natural food stores doing much better than conventional grocery stores a few years ago.

dnsworks 17y ago
Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, really. The number is specifically their Net Income.