John Mackey of Whole Foods feels the heat

[tomcat]

Whole Foods CEO to give up title of chairman


Friday, December 25, 2009

---

---

(12-25) 11:25 PST PHILADELPHIA, (AP) --
The chief executive of organic supermarket chain Whole Foods Market Inc. is giving up his title of chairman, following years of petitioning by an activist shareholder to separate the two roles.

---

---

---

Co-founder and CEO John Mackey is voluntarily giving up his chairmanship, a position he's held since the Austin, Texas, company's inception in 1978, according to a Thursday filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mackey will remain on the board.
Whole Foods said lead director John Elstrott will become chairman. His current position will be discontinued.
At Whole Foods' annual shareholders meeting in March, CtW Investment Group, a shareholder activist group that works with union pension funds, unsuccessfully proposed that the CEO and chairman roles be separated. The grocer said it has been receiving these proposals for three years.
But in August, CtW raised the stakes by calling for the CEO's removal. The activist group said an editorial by Mackey opposing President Obama's health care plan damaged the company's reputation, especially among its left-leaning customers.
The group said Mackey "attempted to capitalize on the brand reputation of Whole Foods to champion his personal political views but has instead deeply offended a key segment of Whole Foods consumer base."
CtW said Mackey has become a "liability" because of his "indiscretion."
The shareholder activist has wanted Mackey to relinquish his chairman title because it believes an independent chairman could improve the company's stock price performance. CtW noted the stock had fallen 30 percent over the past five years ending Sept. 30, 2008 compared with a 14 percent gain in the S&P 500 Index.




Read more: Whole Foods CEO to give up title of chairman

[n4rky]

Whole Foods CEO to give up title of chairman


Friday, December 25, 2009
(12-25) 11:25 PST PHILADELPHIA, (AP) --
The chief executive of organic supermarket chain Whole Foods Market Inc. is giving up his title of chairman, following years of petitioning by an activist shareholder to separate the two roles.

But Mackey remains CEO. So this makes little difference in the running of the company.

[tomcat]

But Mackey remains CEO. So this makes little difference in the running of the company.

Well, maybe, but at least they know that we were "deeply offended" and are calling him a "liability", so our protests woke them up a bit.

>>> The group said Mackey "attempted to capitalize on the brand reputation of Whole Foods to champion his personal political views but has instead deeply offended a key segment of Whole Foods consumer base."
CtW said Mackey has become a "liability" because of his "indiscretion." <<<

[Stephanie S.]

The New Yorker covers John Mackey
John Mackey and Whole Foods : The New Yorker

[n4rky]

The New Yorker covers John Mackey
John Mackey and Whole Foods : The New Yorker

So apparently in addition to his bizarre attitude towards health care reform (not that what is emerging from Congress is worth celebrating), Mackey is a climate change denier.

The best reply I've seen to arguments that we should boycott Whole Foods is that it is unlikely we investigate the views of CEOs of other corporations we do business with, and that the views of these latter are unlikely to be better.

For me, this response is unpersuasive. While most (if not all) CEOs are capitalists, very few are capitalist Libertarians. From what I hear, many corporations are coming around to advocating action on climate change (but perhaps I'm being too optimistic about "greenwashing"). But capitalist Libertarians are an especially egregious bunch. The Cato Institute exists for capitalist Libertarian so-called scholars to avoid peer review; it churns out article after article of pseudoscience designed to advance the cause of free (for the extremely wealthy but frightfully expensive for everyone else) market economics.

Most CEOs have enough sense to avoid so visibly antagonizing their customers. But as Matthew McDermott put it, writing for Treehugger, "Accepting that there may be some nuance left out of the quotes chosen by The New Yorker, I still can't help but to put it bluntly. Mackey is crazy."

Perhaps someone with training in psychology can help me out here. Is there a clinically-recognized threshold where someone suffering from delusions no longer perceives a need to disguise the delusions? If so, I would suggest that Mackey has crossed that line.

[tomcat]

Thanks for that link Stephanie. After reading that, I guess we could say he really is a "Wackey Mackey". : ))

The New Yorker covers John Mackey
John Mackey and Whole Foods : The New Yorker

[busyb555]

I find your generalized argument about CEO's pointless and in case you missed it the facts just don't support your "Gore Global Warming" argument any more. In case you missed it its actually colder than normal and the Co2 connection as proof of your premiss proves the contrary point of the argument. There is more evidence that warming of the earth from lets say sun spots actually gives rise to an increase in Co2 not the other way around. EPA will screw us all through their ruling on Co2 being toxic. Wait till you start paying for this silly stuff. You think you are broke now, brace yourself.

So apparently in addition to his bizarre attitude towards health care reform (not that what is emerging from Congress is worth celebrating), Mackey is a climate change denier.

The best reply I've seen to arguments that we should boycott Whole Foods is that it is unlikely we investigate the views of CEOs of other corporations we do business with, and that the views of these latter are unlikely to be better.

For me, this response is unpersuasive. While most (if not all) CEOs are capitalists, very few are capitalist Libertarians. From what I hear, many corporations are coming around to advocating action on climate change (but perhaps I'm being too optimistic about "greenwashing"). But capitalist Libertarians are an especially egregious bunch. The Cato Institute exists for capitalist Libertarian so-called scholars to avoid peer review; it churns out article after article of pseudoscience designed to advance the cause of free (for the extremely wealthy but frightfully expensive for everyone else) market economics.

Most CEOs have enough sense to avoid so visibly antagonizing their customers. But as Matthew McDermott put it, writing for Treehugger, "Accepting that there may be some nuance left out of the quotes chosen by The New Yorker, I still can't help but to put it bluntly. Mackey is crazy."

Perhaps someone with training in psychology can help me out here. Is there a clinically-recognized threshold where someone suffering from delusions no longer perceives a need to disguise the delusions? If so, I would suggest that Mackey has crossed that line.

[n4rky]

I find your generalized argument about CEO's pointless

So you believe that CEOs should antagonize their customer base?

and in case you missed it the facts just don't support your "Gore Global Warming" argument any more. In case you missed it its actually colder than normal and the Co2 connection as proof of your premiss proves the contrary point of the argument. There is more evidence that warming of the earth from lets say sun spots actually gives rise to an increase in Co2 not the other way around. EPA will screw us all through their ruling on Co2 being toxic. Wait till you start paying for this silly stuff. You think you are broke now, brace yourself.

So you ignore the thousands of studies that establish that global warming is real and is caused by human activity. You ignore the arctic and antarctic ice melt. You ignore the release of methane from the tundra and from arctic seabeds. You ignore the disappearance of glaciers, including those which hundreds of millions of people rely upon for drinking water.

You ignore vast quantities of data in favor of cherry-picked studies published by the Cato Institute (which exists to avoid peer review and to advance a particular extreme capitalist libertarian ideology) and the fact that you're colder this winter.

And on this breathtaking display of reasoning, you attack my argument?

[busyb555]

If only you and Gore and the others could do your Global Warming, or Global Climate Change lemming charge without taking the rest of us with you, it wouldn't be so serious. By the time you rob all the assets you can in the name of what ever hype you invent it will be too late. Your manipulating so called science to prove your theories so you can cheat us through taxes or simple stolen liberty is the worst kind of manipulation. If you were to actually look at the data its Global Cooling, but then you would have to think without simply playing follow Al.

Soon we will see how silly you all were.

B

So you believe that CEOs should antagonize their customer base?

So you ignore the thousands of studies that establish that global warming is real and is caused by human activity. You ignore the arctic and antarctic ice melt. You ignore the release of methane from the tundra and from arctic seabeds. You ignore the disappearance of glaciers, including those which hundreds of millions of people rely upon for drinking water.

You ignore vast quantities of data in favor of cherry-picked studies published by the Cato Institute (which exists to avoid peer review and to advance a particular extreme capitalist libertarian ideology) and the fact that you're colder this winter.

And on this breathtaking display of reasoning, you attack my argument?

[n4rky]

Your manipulating so called science to prove your theories so you can cheat us through taxes or simple stolen liberty is the worst kind of manipulation.

So I'm supposed to believe your one scientist--on the payroll of an energy corporation or working for the Cato Institute--and disbelieve the thousands of others you accuse of "manipulating so called science." But you have no evidence to support your accusations. The so-called climategate nonsense has been quite thoroughly debunked by multiple organizations.

So you seem to think that it is okay to be paranoid when the conclusion favors corporate interests and it is okay to discount science when the conclusion goes against corporate interests. In other words, corporations are your gods. You believe that the rich are always right. And money is truth.

Your position is not a respectable position in any forum I deal with.

[tomcat]

The information I was trying to point out at the beginning of this thread is that a group of stockholders are worried that Mackey has made the Whole Foods stock price go down because of his outspoken personal views and that he has offended a key segment of Whole Foods consumer base, which means to me that when people complain and vote with their feet and $$, sometimes we get heard and it can make a difference.... or do you think that it is just a Public Relations move to make progressive shoppers feel better about Whole Foods?

Now, the question of climate change and who or what is to blame may be what got Mackey in trouble, but it's not the topic I was trying to have a discussion about.


>>>The group (ctw) said Mackey "attempted to capitalize on the brand reputation of Whole Foods to champion his personal political views but has instead deeply offended a key segment of Whole Foods consumer base."
CtW said Mackey has become a "liability" because of his "indiscretion."
The shareholder activist has wanted Mackey to relinquish his chairman title because it believes an independent chairman could improve the company's stock price performance. CtW noted the stock had fallen 30 percent over the past five years ending Sept. 30, 2008 compared with a 14 percent gain in the S&P 500 Index.<<<

[n4rky]

The information I was trying to point out at the beginning of this thread is that a group of stockholders are worried that Mackey has made the Whole Foods stock price go down because of his outspoken personal views and that he has offended a key segment of Whole Foods consumer base, which means to me that when people complain and vote with their feet and $$, sometimes we get heard and it can make a difference.... or do you think that it is just a Public Relations move to make progressive shoppers feel better about Whole Foods?

The Board claimed that they were eliminating the position of president. That suggests they are organizing according to a different system than normal. The author of the article I read didn't treat this as unreasonable. But there are functions associated with a president and I dimly recall that this is one of the positions required by the State of California for a charter.

Perhaps I remember incorrectly. Also, I don't know what state Whole Foods is incorporated in or if that state's rules are different. Regardless, I was left unclear on how the board was now to be organized.

I think a step towards an answer to your question lies in whether the elimination of a position is a change in name only or if there has been some significant shift in corporate governance as a result.

But a larger question is whether this change affects any of the reasons for avoiding patronizing Whole Foods. My reading on this is quite clear: no.