I said that I agree with much about what you said, but my position was influenced by reasons other than you mentioned. It is a form of demurer rather than a rant, I suppose.
As I see it, your arguments on this issue fall into the following category "actions of some organizations may be intended to achieve acceptable goals, but they also have unnacceptable side effects, consequences, or implications." Whole Foods may be greenish (good), but it is also not very union friendly (bad). Urban renewal aims to rebuild our cities (good), but it displaces some poor folks and enriches some money grubbers (bad). I guess the only way to decide such dilemmas is to attach weights to the goods and bads, and see which ones prevail, otherwise the bottle will always look half full, half empty. Of course, we (as well as the stakeholders) may disagree about the weights, but that is a different issue which I believe cannot be rationally solved.
I tend to attach a greater weight to the "good" aspects of Whole Foods operations (green ideology, their role in urban renewal) and gentrification (attracting people from burbs to cities and making citise financially viable) than to the "bad" ones (not being union-friendly, displacement of some poor folks, money grubbing) because I belive that these good aspects can make a bigger difference in this society than the bad ones.
I do not think that a succesful unionization of Whole Foods will have any discernible impact on, let alone reverse, the dreadfully anti-union environment in this country or even discernibly improve union position. One needs to change the whole legal and institutional framework to see that. On the other hand, providing an outlet for organic food can enncourage organic farming and make their produce more available to greater number of people. Locating their store in Baltimore's empowerment zone does attract yuppie clientele, and by so doing it also helps the city's economy, tax base etc.
Most poor communities are horrible places to live - to the point that ACLU won a successful lawsuit against the city of Baltimore for "warehousing" the poor, and forcing the city do dismantle their housing projects. Interestingly, the main opposition to that lawsuit came from the suburbs (led by the current Repug governor of MD Ehrlich "the exterminator") because they feared that the residents would move to the burbs. Relocation of residents certainly poses inconvenience, but ends their dreadful living conditons. It is true that contractors hired to build new housing projects (such as Hope VI) profit, but they also give something in return (better neighborhoods). On theother hand, the current situation benefits only the slumlords who rent their substandard properties to Section 8 tenants for government-guaranteed market rates, giving nothing in return.
In short, these developments have some positive sides and some negative sides, but the positive sides make a bigger difference than the negative sides, therefore are more desirable. Those who want to make a difference on the negative side of these equations should simply used different means than opposing these particular developments. It does not make much sense to fight environmental pollution by criticizing your neighbor for failing to recycle instead of changing the institutional-legal system that makes pollution profitable.
Wojtek