The question that is never answered is, "As opposed to what other local supermarkets are doing?"
It's crappy as hell. We know this. But I also don't know whether the working conditions at Whole Foods are, as a whole, worse or better than at the other 3 chains I can easily access. Crappy as this is, I am very sure that they're better than at least one of the chains, possibly all 3.
I call this the SeaWorld Effect. PETA luuuuuuurves attacking SeaWorld. Why? Because it's an immediately recognizable, large corporation they can whip people up about. Never mind that most of what they say about SeaWorld is a lie. Never mind that if they actually cared about marine life, they'd be closing down our local for-profit aquarium, or any number of similarly abusive facilities with a heinous death rate around the country, or fighting a variety of dolphin kills and captures around the world. But no, no, attacking SeaWorld, a corporation that has a lot of flaws but also is EXPERT at caring for the animals in its care, and provides wildlife sanctuary, rescue, and rehabilitation services, is so much preferable because it's mediagenic.
So while I'll stand with the workers at Whole Foods, I find these shocked headlines less than useful in determining where the worst problems lie in grocery working conditions. Attacking Whole Foods is mediagenic. Attacking Whole Foods now that it's owned by Amazon is doubly mediagenic. But despite all that, is it still the place where a lot of grocery workers will flee too from even worse conditions in the other chains in the region? Possibly. It's not even worth the furor because of the argument, "Where Whole Foods goes, others will follow." No, they'll follow Target and Walmart, and also H.E.B. in this region, the 800 pound gorillas around here.
= new reply since forum marked as read