I am going to take a contrary position to you Jonathan, and defend John Mackey's (CEO Whole Foods) right to enjoy some of the simple and hopefully legal pleasures commonly denied those in his position. If John was just trying to find an outlet for his energy, I don't see this activity as wrong (and I am assuming that he did not actually intend to use his posts as a method for manipulation but rather to express himself). Why the armchair psychoanalysis? And why the militancy about punishing him even before its determined that his actions were wrong or harmed anyone?

Please don't equate justice with punishment, because that is not what justice means. Justice means equitable conduct under moral standards.

http://mnrtrading.blogspot.com/

FWIW, Mackey isn't receiving stock options this year (or even much of a salary). As of last Q4, WFMI announced Mackey would be earning a salary of $1.00 per annum and proceeds from all stock options would be forwarded to the two primary Whole Foods-related foundations, Whole Planet and the Animal Compassion Foundation.

I believe being a responsible CEO is more important than his personal enjoyment. Find some other outlet. He has already done damage to the company, and must have surely known the possible harm his actions could cause.

The damage is done. WFMI stock is off my to-buy list for at least 10 years.

In response to the Salem Witch hunters who use online vigilantism, to attack a person with disregard for the possible effects of their actions, and perhaps with malice, I am glad that there is a system of justice that rules here, rather than a mob. Let someone step forward to speak for reason.

Surely neither of you expect anyone to blithely accept your supposition that the CEO lowered the earnings or value of his company? Quite the contrary.

As I noted above, if John Mackey did something illegal or even immoral, I too would feel ashamed for him, but let the man have his "day in court" without the mob screaming online for a lynching.

People can do silly, or even inappropriate things, however the unrestrained vitriol against this guy appears to itself cross the line of what is considered appropriate.

The "damage" is in negative publicity and a possible SEC probe because of the actions of the CEO. There is no "witch hunt" or "lynching". Use all the fancy words you want. The CEO used bad judgment.

If bad judgement gets a line manager fired, why would the same rule not apply to a senior "seasoned" manager/LEADER?

and

Who was part of the policy created to terminate "employees" who make "bad" judgements effecting the moral of fellow employees. And is probably more agressively enfored as you go up the line manger chain of command.

The easy qustion is ....What do you think of when you hear the name Whole Foods on this day 7/19/07?

What is the answer costing Whole Foods?
Customer attitudes?
Employee attitudes?
Stockholder attitudes?
Board member attitudes????

I don't feel any obligation to purchase ANY stock. Factored into my decisions to place a stock on my "to-buy" list are objective items like financial data and whether the stock pays a dividend, as well as the recommendations from analysts who cover or rate the stock (I like "stock scouter" ratings at 7 to 8, but not above 8 or below 6); my own "shoeleather research", where I take a look at the company's facilities and/or products in person; and my completely emotional response to the company, its products and news about the company.

My unwillingness to continue to include WFMI on my to-buy list is probably highly emotional, but it's MY money and I'll invest it wherever I please, emotional or not. I really don't care whether I'm condemning Mackey unjustifiably or not.

Mackey is subject to certain rules and regulations imposed by law, one of which is the business judgment rule requiring the use of "good judgment" in all business matters. He also owes a fiduciary duty to the shareholders of his corporation, which requires greater than normal care in those situations involving the corporation's (shareholders') interests. Mackey has the right to free speech, but if he wants to earn millions of dollars as a ceo he must abide by the federal secruities laws. Thus, he does not have the right to say anything that, in good business judgment, is likely to impact the value of the corpration's shares.
If the stock's value fell because of his statements, I am not going to pay Mackey more of my money so he can have "fun" on the internet. Class Action Shareholders' suit.