Whole Foods CEOs apologize for overcharging -- and blame it on employees

11 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Whole Foods CEOs apologize for overcharging — and blame it on employees - Salon.com
  • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
    Banned
    Chris Christie said it best; "Yeah, I was actually the guy in the jumpsuit moving the cones."

    Cheers. - Frank
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10148775].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    I can only ASSUME that the article must be about goods packaged from bulk at the store, like meat the butcher cuts. TWO problems:

    1. It likely IS the emploee who is responsible! WHY would they put up with the store lying like that?
    2. There is NO way to verify it at the store. You would have to take it out of the package and weigh it. What if you don't? SURPRISE! It will seem to weigh MORE! So how much added weight are we talking about? ALSO, what did it weigh when they weighed it? Look at a quarterpounder ad sometime. The base product generally weighs LESS than a 1/4 pound. And they acknowledge it in the ad.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10148789].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      If it's the employees who are "hands on" ----that's where the errors are. Makes sense and re-training, better management would solve the problem.

      As often happens, the "Salon headline" is quite different (more exciting) than the actual article below it.

      Another typical Salon headline on the same subject:

      My Whole Foods nightmare: How a full-time job there left me in poverty - Salon.com

      But the truth doesn't quite match up...to the person (in the article above) who got a job in order to "expose" the need for a $5/hr raise....even though he was hired at $2 OVER minimum wage as a new employee...

      Whole Foods' employees are better paid than the average grocery
      worker. The chain's average hourly wage was $18.89 in 2013, and
      the average annual wage was $39.289.

      The co-founder, Mackey, earns just $1 in annual salary and gets NO bonuses, sotck awards or option awards.
      I've always found the rants about Whole Food interesting BECAUSE that's one place where employees are compensated better than the industry average so shouldn't they take responsibility for the quality of their work?
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      Please do not 'release balloons' for celebrations. The balloons and trailing ribbons entangle birds and kill wildlife and livestock that think the balloons are food.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10148864].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        If it's the employees who are "hands on" ----that's where the errors are. Makes sense and re-training, better management would solve the problem.

        As often happens, the "Salon headline" is quite different (more exciting) than the actual article below it.
        I doubt that the errors are innocent errors originating from hourly staff. It's been an ongoing investigation and they have consistently been found to be overcharging on pre-packaged foods by a lot of money on some items. Don't like Salon. Here are three resources saying the same thing.

        Yes, that’s right. Last week, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs said it was conducting an ongoing investigation into local Whole Foods stores after finding that the chain had “routinely overstated the weights of of its pre-packaged products.” That was true of meats, of seafood, of dairy, and of baked goods. Basically, nothing prepackaged was safe. In all, the Department of Consumer Affairs tested 80 different types of prepackaged products and found that each had some items with mislabeled weights. On top of that, “89 percent of the packages tested did not meet the federal standard for the maximum amount that an individual package can deviate from the actual weight,” the department reported. Hence “systematic problem.”

        Needless to say, the Department of Consumer Affairs wasn’t too pleased with this, nor can we imagine customers were once they found out. It also wasn’t the first time Whole Foods had been accused of iffy pricing practices. Last summer, Whole Foods agreed to pay $800,000 in California to settle an investigation of “statewide pricing inaccuracy.” In that case, investigators said Whole Foods had routinely failed to deduct the weight of self-serve food containers at checkout, labeled prepackaged items as heavier than they actually were, and sold items per piece that it was legally required to sell by the pound. In New York City, Whole Foods faces fines of between $950 and $1,700 per mislabeling violation, and the Department of Consumer Affairs says there could be thousands of them
        These are not minor infractions. The inspections, dating back to 2010, revealed more than 800 violations during 107 separate inspections. The most recent flood of violations came during a sting operation the Department of Consumer Affairs conducted last fall, which specifically checked pre-packaged products to make sure the weight was accurate.

        Inspectors weighed 80 different types of items at eight different Whole Foods’ locations and found that every label was inaccurate, with many overcharging consumers.
        Whole Foods'
        Whole Foods, long nicknamed “Whole Paycheck” by some shoppers, has been overcharging New York City customers for pre-packed food. According to a statement released by the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs, the upscale chain has “routinely overstated the weights of its pre-packaged products — including meats, dairy and baked goods,” while inflating the prices of those items. The agency says that after testing more than 80 pre-packaged goods at eight Whole Food stores around the city, it found that price gouging varied from “$0.80 for a package of pecan panko to $14.84 for a package of coconut shrimp.”

        DCA commissioner Julie Menin was blunt in her assessment of how pervasive and serious the overcharges are. “Our inspectors tell me this is the worst case of mislabeling they have seen in their careers, which DCA and New Yorkers will not tolerate,” she said in a press release.

        An example of overpriced and inaccurately weight-labeled Whole Foods products cited by the agency in its press statement reads as follows:

        DCA inspected eight packages of vegetable platters, which were priced at $20/package. Consumers who purchased these packages would have been, on average, overcharged by $2.50—a profit of $20 for the eight packages. One package was overpriced by $6.15.

        DCA inspected eight packages of chicken tenders, which were priced at $9.99/pound. Consumers who purchased these packages would have been, on average, overcharged by $4.13—a profit of $33.04 for the eight packages. One package was overpriced by $4.85.

        DCA inspected four packages of berries, which were priced at $8.58/package. Consumers who purchased these packages would have been, on average, overcharged by $1.15—a profit of $4.60 for the four packages. One package was overpriced by $1.84.

        This isn’t the first time Whole Foods has landed in hot water for questionable pricing. DCA pointed to a civil consumer protection case brought against the company following a 2012 investigation of prices at Whole Foods stores around California. The case resulted in an $800,000 fine for the grocery market chain.

        Whole Foods may find itself facing similar penalties in New York. According to the DCA release, fines for falsely labeling a package can go as high as “$950 for the first violation and up to $1,700 for a subsequent violation. The potential number of violations that Whole Foods faces for all pre-packaged goods in the NYC stores is in the thousands.”
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10149479].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    BTW do they say HOW LONG that person works a day? In 2014 they created a NATIONAL SCAM! It makes EVERY document that once was easily understood now a potential LIE! HOW? They redefined another phrase! OH, they LOVE doing that! I have actually thought about writing a dictionary for it!

    FULL TIME!

    BEFORE 2014, it meant 40 hours a week or more, and generally at least 1960 hours a year!

    2014 to today? It means 30 hours a week or more, and generally means LESS than 1470 hours a year!

    So SORRY! FULL TIME now may only be PART TIME! You think a little ink in a pen worth an infinitesimal part of a penny will change the entire economy and allow you to make MORE, AND get full benefits, while working only 75% as long? GOOD LUCK!

    NOW, they are trying to pass an overtime bill, but it seems THERE that overtime is over 40 hours a week. STILL, I think it is going to HURT jobs! BESIDES, WHY have a person work overtime, when you can hire another? I bet that happens. We'll have MORE people working for LESS money!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10149057].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    If the mistakes were honest and unintentional, then we should assume there would be as many cases of products being underpriced as there are overpriced.


    However, if the "errors" were all overpricing the products, then I would look at who has the most to gain and I don't see any benefit for most workers to charge more, as they won't make more money. Maybe lower management, as it may look good for them to have higher profits, but I'd look higher on the corporate ladder. Regardless, the buck stops at the top.
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10149484].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
      Banned
      "The potential number of violations that Whole Foods faces for all pre-packaged goods in the NYC stores is in the thousands."

      Where are the goods? Consumed. Where is the package and price labeling? Trashed.

      This won't be easy and they'll settle for an insignificant amount and a promise never to do it again.

      Cheers. - Frank
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10149534].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Are you serious, someone was overcharged for a fresh squeezed smoothie?

    Those bastage eyes holes!







    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10149605].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Outside of an unbalanced scale, which is probably prevented, and a blocked one, which I'm sure has been prevented, an error will ALWAYS be on the HIGH side! WHY? Well, packaging ALWAYS ADDS weight. If a person presses, it ADDS weight! If it is dropped, it ADDS weight. If a person puts their hand on it, or something else is there, it ADDS weight. You do NOT generally see a person get on a scale and weigh LESS than they do naked. If they put on clothes, or pick up their phone, they weigh MORE! A truck filled with stuff ALWAYS weighs more than it does if it is empty. I guess you COULD fill it with balloons or something, but how many of THOSE are likely to be in whole foods?

    So YEAH, it is not only possible, but LIKELY!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10149918].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Outside of an unbalanced scale, which is probably prevented, and a blocked one, which I'm sure has been prevented, an error will ALWAYS be on the HIGH side! WHY? Well, packaging ALWAYS ADDS weight. If a person presses, it ADDS weight! If it is dropped, it ADDS weight. If a person puts their hand on it, or something else is there, it ADDS weight. You do NOT generally see a person get on a scale and weigh LESS than they do naked. If they put on clothes, or pick up their phone, they weigh MORE! A truck filled with stuff ALWAYS weighs more than it does if it is empty. I guess you COULD fill it with balloons or something, but how many of THOSE are likely to be in whole foods?

      So YEAH, it is not only possible, but LIKELY!

      Steve
      ***If*** this were the case, then ALL grocery stores that use SCALES would have *****measurements****** that WEIGH OVER and would NOT only be for WHOLE FOODS when Batman has a picnic with Buddha before taking the midnight train to GEORGIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10149987].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        ***If*** this were the case, then ALL grocery stores that use SCALES would have *****measurements****** that WEIGH OVER and would NOT only be for WHOLE FOODS when Batman has a picnic with Buddha before taking the midnight train to GEORGIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        It IS the case! MOST such things won't be caught, some may accept variances, and some scales may actually have lower settings, so increases will be closer to the actual weight. It's ALSO possible that some include a fudge factor to AVOID such issues. USUALLY the cost is FAR lower than the price, so including a little bit more won't bankrupt them.

        It is NO secret though, and NEVER HAS BEEN, that whole foods tends to have higher price things. Who knows. The packaging may be heavier, and larger. I think we have ALL seen baxes FAR larger than the contents. The contents may weigh the claimed amount, but the box is made to make it look like you are getting more than you are. It ALSO helps hide things when they reduce the stated weight, and contents, as they often do. HERE is an interesting post I found on a site:

        y Ginny~moderator on Sunday, February 6, 2005 - 01:18 pm:

        Here is a history of Hershey bar sizes and prices, through 1986:
        1908.....9/16 oz.....2 cents
        1918.....16/16 oz.....3 cents
        1920.....9/16 oz.....3 cents
        1921.....1 oz.....5 cents
        1924.....1 3/8 oz.....5 cents
        1930.....2 oz.....5 cents
        1933.....1 7/8 oz.....5 cents
        1936.....1 1/2 oz.....5 cents
        1937.....1 5/8 oz.....5 cents
        1938.....1 3/8 oz.....5 cents
        1939.....1 5/8 oz.....5 cents
        1941.....1 1/4 oz.....5 cents
        1944.....1 5/8 oz.....5 cents
        1946.....1 1/2 oz.....5 cents
        1947.....1 oz.....5 cents
        1954.....7/8 oz.....5 cents
        1955.....1 oz.....5 cents
        1958.....7/8 oz.....5 cents
        1950.....1 oz.....5 cents
        1963.....7/8 oz......5 cents
        1965.....1 oz.....5 cents
        1966.....7/8 oz.....5 cents
        1968.....3/4 oz.....5 cents
        1969.....1 1/2 oz.....10 cents
        1970.....1 3/8 oz.....10 cents
        1973.....1.26 oz......10 cents
        1974.....1.4 oz.....15 cents
        1976.....1.2 oz.....15 cents
        1977.....1.2 oz......20 cents
        1978.....1.2 oz.....25 cents
        1980.....1.05 oz.....25 cents
        1982.....1.45 oz.....30 cents
        1983.....1.45 oz.....35 cents
        1986.....1.45 oz.....40 cents
        1986.....1.65 oz.....40 cents

        The Food Timeline--historic food prices

        I don't know after that, as I became a strictly dark chocolate fan and discovered the little Dove dark chocolate squares a few years ago.

        But I've noticed that laundry detergent is often in some odd ounce size, not an even gallon or half-gallon, and lots of other products have a package that "looks" the same size, but when you compare weights it is smaller. I really pay attention to the price-per-ounce on the price tags on the shelves in the supermarkets nowadays.

        And what, pray tell, is with the price of butter and cheese? It is ridiculous!!!
        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10150032].message }}

Trending Topics