Tuesday, January 05, 2010

John Mackey: Food Fighter


Mackey, an outspoken critic of executive overcompensation, pays himself $1 a year. No one at the company can have a salary more than nineteen times what the average team member makes. (On average, an S&P 500 CEO makes 319 times what a production worker does.) Last year, the highest salary went to Walter Robb, the co-president and chief operating officer, who made just over $400,000 (supplemented by a bonus and stock options). The average hourly wage was $16.50.

Whole Foods has made Mackey a wealthy man. He owns roughly $30 million in stock—less than one per cent of the company—and has sold millions more over the years. Still, he flies commercial and drives a Honda Civic hybrid.


27 Comments:

At 1/06/2010 10:18 AM, Anonymous richard said...

** off topic **

Did you see this? It's hilarious:

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-goods-producing-wrokers-vs-government-payroll-2010-1

Quote:

Toward the end of 2007, the total number of government jobs exceeded the total number of goods producing jobs. Welcome to the government payroll economy.

 
At 1/06/2010 10:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those "activist investors" were representatives of union pension funds. Union pension funds often take an interest in a targeted company in order to attack from within. Just one more way that unions are like a disease.

 
At 1/06/2010 10:59 AM, Anonymous Lyle said...

Re: Anonymous at 10:25, if the unions manage to convince a majority of the stockholders to their point of view, what is wrong with that, the majority of the owners of the company have then told their employees the management what to do.
When there was all the talk about allowing stockholders to nominate directors on the company proxy statement making it other that a non-election (which it is today), there was concern that a nominee might run the company into the ground, but if a majority of the owners of a company want to run it into the ground is not that their right? After all its is theirs not the managements. Of course to get this majority you have to convince the institutions to vote, and an obvious run into the ground candidate would never get the institutions votes because it would violate their fiduciary duty to do so.
Companies today are run by their managment for their managment, to enable the management to get its bonuses come hell or high water. They are not run for the owners, witness Citi.

 
At 1/06/2010 10:59 AM, Blogger sethstorm said...


Mackey, an outspoken critic of executive overcompensation, pays himself $1 a year.

That's just to deflect complaints towards him. If you go down one notch, there will be people with a clear salary.

He still retains his influence despite the deceptive salary.


Still, he flies commercial and drives a Honda Civic hybrid.

Thankfully those things are too small to armor; he'd be fine if he picked up something more American than a Japanese designed, American assembled car.



His disdain for contemporary unionism is ideological, as well as self-serving.

I wonder how he feels about company towns. He seems to be the kind of person who was eventually run out of town if not worse.

 
At 1/06/2010 11:13 AM, Blogger sethstorm said...


Those "activist investors" were representatives of union pension funds. Union pension funds often take an interest in a targeted company in order to attack from within. Just one more way that unions are like a disease.

So the only answer to unions that can/should be protected is "no", even if that means falling foul of established legal precedents?

Interesting. You can't say yes without being intimidated, you can't invest honestly without them using the government against you.

Sounds like the Whole Foods guy is talking from personal experience with the STD when talking about unions.

 
At 1/06/2010 11:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

... you can't invest honestly without them using the government against you.

Using the government against you? Are you insane? Unions are allowed to direct investments in their retirement accounts without consequence. If the investment makes money they keep it, if the investment loses money the taxpayer fill in the hole. That's not investing "honestly", that's a criminal enterprise. Unions have used access to pension funds to buy political favors, line the corrupt pockets of their leadership and, in the case of Whole Foods, to attack those companies that resist the protection racket they call their business.

 
At 1/06/2010 11:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seth-

You need to adjust your meds. That was incoherent and nonsensical even for you.

 
At 1/06/2010 11:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NEW YORK (AP) -- A law enforcement official says the New York Police Department raided circulation offices at some of the nation's largest newspapers as part of a union corruption probe.

The official says the offices of The New York Times, the New York Post, El Diario and the Daily News of New York were raided Tuesday. The official spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

The official says the newspaper delivery system around the city is under investigation and the news organizations are not involved.

The 1,600-member union that delivers papers was previously accused by the Manhattan district attorney's office of being run by the mob.

KnoxNews

 
At 1/06/2010 11:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

... if the unions manage to convince a majority of the stockholders to their point of view, what is wrong with that...

They didn't convince a majority of anything, they simply disrupted the business until he voluntarily gave up his post:

PHILADELPHIA — 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.

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.

Huffington Post

 
At 1/06/2010 12:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Teachers in the Hoosier State recently learned that the Indiana State Teachers Association’s (ISTA’s) Insurance Trust has effectively gone bankrupt. Regulators revealed that the trust, which pays benefits for disabled teachers, owes $86 million in liabilities and has only $19 million in assets. The FBI has begun investigating.

Much of the portfolio’s value apparently vanished in high-risk investments. The investment broker managing the trust made 4,000 trades over a nine-month period, perhaps motivated by the 50 percent hike in commissions on trades that ISTA’s executive director, Warren Williams, authorized.

As investigators sort out responsibility, school districts and the state government are examining what the fund’s shortfall will mean for teachers and taxpayers, who could be on the hook for a bailout to ensure that teachers are insured. Williams has resigned, and the National Education Association announced that it has taken over the Indiana State Teachers Association.

The insurance-fund crisis demonstrates the importance of transparency. Union members deserve to know how their unions spend their money so they can hold the unions accountable. As insurance commissioner Dan Clark argued: “They need to open their books. We don’t think ISTA membership is aware of how serious this situation is, and we don’t even know how well-informed their board is.”

Sunlight protects against corruption and unethical practices. Congress passed the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) in the wake of scandals in the 1950s involving ties between organized labor and organized crime. Congress believed that workers had a right to know how their unions spent their dues. Lawmakers hoped that transparency would discourage kickbacks to the mob.

National Review

 
At 1/06/2010 12:02 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...


They didn't convince a majority of anything, they simply disrupted the business until he voluntarily gave up his post:

...where the post was filled by a loyalist to the ex-chairman. What they were doing outside of Whole Foods is not part of the matter.

I'd not compare unions to the mob if you have folks like Goldman Sachs running around with the same legality. They (and other birds of the same feather) certainly have played the "privatize the profits, socialize the losses" game.

In short, everybody's hands are dirty.

 
At 1/06/2010 12:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

With the help of intermediaries who had political connections, Mr. Leuschen approached state pension funds in New York and elsewhere to invest in Carlyle/Riverstone.

[...]

He walked away with a $40 million investment from the New Mexico State Investment Council on that day, according to the minutes of the meeting.

But while scooping up such multimillion-dollar victories, he also paid millions of dollars to pension intermediaries working in New York and other states. Paying intermediaries, known as placement agents, is legal unless those fees are simply a disguised form of a bribe or a kickback.

Several people paid by Mr. Leuschen’s firm have pleaded guilty or been charged in the New York scandal in recent weeks for essentially arranging bribes. Federal securities officials have described the New York payments as part of a “fraudulent scheme to extract kickbacks.”

New York Times

 
At 1/06/2010 12:16 PM, Anonymous Norman said...

ThIS WF article could have been subtitled: STOP GOING TO THIS STORE, MACKEY IS A TRATIOR!!!

This issue of the New Yorker was a venting of all of their liberal biases which being a magazine they are entitled to. But the stories are getting more strident. More to come, I'll bet.

 
At 1/06/2010 12:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd not compare unions to the mob if you have folks like Goldman Sachs running around with the same legality ... everybody's hands are dirty.

I'm not comparing them to the mob, I'm saying that, in many cases, their leadership are the mob. It is interesting how your argument has suddenly changed from unions are the champion of the little guy to, "everybody's hands are dirty". If Goldman, or anyone else, has committed a crime I say throw 'em in jail. I do not accept criminality because, "everybody's doing it".

Unions are a cancer that eats at our industries and our communities. They corrupt the political process and deny kids a decent education. And, in the end, they exploit the very people they claim to represent.

 
At 1/06/2010 12:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The president of a maritime workers union - a labor organization dogged for years by declining membership and a federal racketeering lawsuit - reported receiving $1.2 million in compensation last year but abruptly gave back much of the money in April after his big payout was disclosed to the government, according to federal documents and interviews.

Even after giving back more than half his compensation, Richard J. Hughes Jr. of the International Longshoreman's Association still earned $494,635 in salary and expenses in 2008, putting him among the top two dozen highest-salaried labor executives outside of professional sports, according to public records.

Washington Times

 
At 1/06/2010 12:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

President Obama today unveiled a paltry $17 billion in cuts to the $3.4 trillion federal budget, about half of which will come out of defense spending. But buried in the budget documents released by the White House today is a 9 percent cut in the unit of the Department of Labor that is in charge of regulating unions.

Under the leadership of Elaine Chao during the Bush administration, the Labor Department’s Office of Labor-Management Standards took its job of policing unions seriously. Its actions led to 929 convictions of corrupt union officials and to the recovery of more than $93 million on behalf of union members. Yet the Obama administration has proposed slashing its budget from $45 million in 2009 to $41 million in 2010, citing an insufficient “workload” for the office.

Instead of using the money to make sure unions play by the rules, the Obama administration proposes shifting resources to the department’s Wage and Hour Division, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration — all areas of the agency focused on regulating businesses.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, who has had a long and cozy relationship with big labor, already announced recently that the department would loosen union disclosure requirements.

These are the type of actions that occur under the radar, out sight of most Americans, but that have a dramatic impact on life in the workplace.

The message to crooked union bosses by the Obama administration is being delivered loudly and clearly: we’ve got your back.

Spectator

 
At 1/06/2010 12:46 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...

Anonymous said at 1/06/2010 12:18 PM

...or you're mistaking where my support is directed towards. Such support is towards the US and the individuals that legally compose it and do not undermine / evade its citizens(e.g. as done with offshoring/outsourcing).




This WF article could have been subtitled: STOP GOING TO THIS STORE, MACKEY IS A TRATIOR!!!

If it's fine enough to do it in one political direction, it is fine enough to do it in another.

But then I've never shopped at Whole Foods. For what I'm concerned, I take the chemistry definition of "organic" instead of the other one.

 
At 1/06/2010 12:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But the negotiations have taken a new direction. Treasury now has an agreement in principle with the U.A.W., whose members’ pensions and retiree health care benefits would be protected in the event of a bankruptcy filing, said the people with knowledge of the discussions, who asked for anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case.

New York Times

You gotta love it, Democrats passing out your children's and grandchildren's earnings, like party favors, to their union bosses.

 
At 1/06/2010 1:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Perry has blogged on this extensively, you can search his archives for posts like these:

What About Outsourcing TO The US: INSOURCING

Economics of Outsourcing: MN Goes Global

There Is A Very Bright Future for the U.S. Auto Industry; IF You Include the Foreign Transplants

Outsourcing is a two way street with foreign firms "outsourcing" to the U.S. as well. What's more, some firms manage to stay in business by outsourcing parts of their operation, thus preserving American jobs that might otherwise have been lost.

Your belligerent "America first" attitude isn't evidence of patriotism, it's simply ignorance.

 
At 1/06/2010 2:25 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...


Outsourcing is a two way street with foreign firms "outsourcing" to the U.S. as well. What's more, some firms manage to stay in business by outsourcing parts of their operation, thus preserving American jobs that might otherwise have been lost.

That seems to be a very hollow justification for its willingness to commit what normally would be considered treason. It's more like a multi-lane highway for the exits, but a dirt path road for the inbound lane.

If Pawlenty wants to sell his own soul, so be it. Don't let him be the broker for the population of the entire state.

Besides, I've already covered the topic where the outsourcing never is implemented with honesty at all. Explain that one.



Your belligerent "America first" attitude

I have a certain pride in being a US Citizen, in a nation that is part of the First World. If you call it belligerence, so be it. I'm just not going to sell it to a Third World despot.

 
At 1/06/2010 2:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a certain pride in being a US Citizen, in a nation that is part of the First World. If you call it belligerence, so be it.

No, I just think that you're a pretentious ass, who believes he can define patriotism as agreement with him. Answer these questions, who are the public employee's unions organized against? Is organizing against the American people "patriotic"?

 
At 1/06/2010 2:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just as the Treaty of Versaille continued to sever cordial trade relations among the European nations, and provided the necessary ingredients for a massive global recession/depression, it also created an economic situation so dire that populations looked to extreme forms of government and leadership. There's no doubt that Hitler is a madman, but what about the men that created a binding agreement not to get along and trade after WW1? Aren't they to blame, too? ...maybe even more so, as they created a situation ripe for Hitler's ambitious taking.

...That said, it's not very patriotic nor very practical to eliminate free trade. While low wage jobs are going overseas creating new opportunties here in the US, the reverse situation, highlighted above generates only death and destruction. A lack of trade, measured in goods and ideas, tends to lead to conflict.

I've been to Iraq, and I've seen war. To think that "Saving Private Ryan" occured because the Europeans couldn't get along economically or politically is disturbing, from an American point of view. I don't want my son to be sent to land on a hostile foreign beach because we were too scared/emotional/irrational to trade with someone.

The future brings new opportunites, and these opportunities usually mean change. People are often fearful of change, positive or otherwise. But we should be prudent and rational as we look toward trade and foreign relations.

 
At 1/06/2010 3:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's no doubt that Hitler is a madman, but what about the men that created a binding agreement not to get along and trade after WW1? Aren't they to blame, too? ...maybe even more so, as they created a situation ripe for Hitler's ambitious taking.

No.

 
At 1/06/2010 4:17 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...


Answer these questions, who are the public employee's unions organized against? Is organizing against the American people "patriotic"?

1) A different group of US citizens.

2) When it is for a foreign country(whether directly or indirectly represented), no. Doubly so if they're in the Third World.


It is no different than the practices of avoiding US citizens in finding work in the private sector.

 
At 1/06/2010 5:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lame answers.

 
At 1/06/2010 10:37 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...


Lame answers.

Well, even worse for you to quote Elaine Chao. She did worse by her connections to Chinese/Taiwan business; she acted as if US citizens were merely in her way of moving jobs to her home country, China. Solis on the other hand, largely keeps her pandering to entities whom exist within the US's regulatory domain.

Elaine Chao's position was to clear the way for a jobs funnel to China / Taiwan. The unions were as much in the way as US citizens were, while ignoring any influence by another non-US/non-ally sovereign power(whether it was Taiwan or China).

 
At 1/07/2010 12:13 AM, Blogger sethstorm said...


..That said, it's not very patriotic nor very practical to eliminate free trade. While low wage jobs are going overseas creating new opportunties here in the US, the reverse situation, highlighted above generates only death and destruction. A lack of trade, measured in goods and ideas, tends to lead to conflict.

...and selling your country out is patriotic? Yow.

What also leads to conflict is thinking you can win by outlasting and excluding the displaced.

Note that I'd be willing to work with like nations (read: NATO defined First World + Philippines) as a bulwark against the Second/Third World nations.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home