> I thought that this comment on facebook is interesting. My reply follows:
>
> Erika: "Here's the thing: tons of huge industries hire undocumented workers, the meatpacking industry being the most egregious example, but who gets investigated? A guy who is trying to bring better food to the masses, support sustainable agriculture, and who seems to provide a pretty decent workplace. This isn't about undocumented workers, it's about his politics."
>
> Me: "Erika, see my addendum above [the Reuters quote about Chipotle's uncanny ability to keep its labor costs low]. Ells knows exactly what he is doing. 100 percent turnover doesn't bode well for working conditions. And1.8 billion in sales is no mom and pop organization, nor is a 100,000 person hiring plan. Not many companies have that many workers. This is one firm, not an industry. But it is in an industry notorious for bad conditions, low pay, wage theft, etc. And finally, what do you mean by masses? I have my doubts. And what are Ells' politics? You sound as if he is a communist.”
>
By “his politics” I guess she means someone who is interested in sustainable agriculture (to quote her) and things like animal welfare (which I remember is something they advertise). I am not sure your response negates her comment, since she does not claim (at least in the quoted bit) that Chipotle is not a megaco, but is rather pointing out that they have been singled out among large industries (especially those that hire undocumented workers). FWIW, I think she is right. There are various bits of state legislation either in the works or already on the books that makes undercover video-reporting on the condition of animals in CAFOs and megafarms - a response to recent exposes of the terrible conditions within. Governments seem to be rushing to protect abusers in the majority case while prosecuting Chipotle. Which seems to substantiate Erika’s claim.
However, I do not share her conclusion. As you write, if the guy actually where a labour leftist he would indeed be targeted, but animal welfare (which perhaps Erika did not imply at all)? Typically, mere derision is sufficient to laugh that concern out of court, whether on the right or the left.
What worries me is the growing trend of animal welfare becoming yet another wedge issue within what I consider the left. Whole Foods, even more than Chipotle, makes this problem clear, given the libertarian/Randian aspersions of its CEO. Joanna writes that this demonstrates the limits of consumer politics (I am quoting from memory). But I do not see all consumer politics as a shallow gesture (nor do I see it as moral lecturing, as Carrol does), for to me there is no substantive difference between choosing to not consume products that are a result of torture and brutality, and choosing not to cross a picket line.
In one sense these are both gestures that do not affect immediate reality, but they are also gestures of solidarity that have (IMHO) an cumulative and dare I say holistic effect. I do realise there is an argument based on self-interest that purports to jump the shark (as the cool kids say) when it comes to the picket line, but I will hold my thoughts on that for now to spare youse guys more of my opinion.
―ravi