http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/02/15/are-theos-fair-trade-chocolates-unfair-to-seattle-workers Comments On: Are Theo's "Fair Trade" Chocolates Unfair to Seattle Workers? by Goldy en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Sun, 19 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sun, 19 May 2013 07:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by dbcooper]]> Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:38:44 -0700 The Stranger Posted by wallingforder]]> Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:53:20 -0700 The Stranger
Paragraph 5 states: "It would not have been possible for one worker to gain the backing of parties like the International Labor Rights Forum, Teamsters, University of Washington Law School, Organic Consumers Association, Fair Trade Resource Network, Green America, Fair Trade Seattle, and many others who have been instrumental to the compilation and dissemination of this information."

The organization I work for as Executive Director, Fair Trade Resource Network, neither backs nor opposes any parties in this case. We publish news relevant to the Fair Trade movement. We also didn't help compile information for this case. We simply published news and views from ILRF, IMO and Theo Chocolate to educate the public about different perspectives on this public case.

More at www.FTRN.org


Posted by Fair Trade Resource Network]]> Tue, 05 Mar 2013 09:02:54 -0800 The Stranger Posted by TonyDil]]> Sun, 03 Mar 2013 09:00:30 -0800 The Stranger Posted by TonyDi]]> Sun, 03 Mar 2013 08:55:37 -0800 The Stranger
If management is so eager to reveal employee records, why not go big and also open your own records to the public regarding employee payroll, hiring of David Acosta, the amounts you pay IMO, how they issued you certification despite being fully aware of the union-bust, etc.? Maybe release Mackenzie Jahnke's records, and then try and explain why she was fired 2 days after Green America disqualified Theo from an award for responsible business? Information, such as how much you paid David Acosta per hour, is on Washington State Department of Labor websites anyhow - maybe you should just own up to this. I applaud the transparency Theo is undertaking in your cocoa trading - it's actually a great step - but it seems a little half-assed paired with your selective truth-sharing in this scenario in your own backyard.

Glad you read the report in its entirety - did you also read my comments above, which reveal this same information about the time I was employed'? I'm giving full disclosure. Why aren't you?

No one has asked me personally to review my employee records. Whatever their feelings about the report, any of my former co-workers, tour-goers, or customers would attest that I am a hard worker who poured my heart into my job. Many Seattlites to this day come up to me and state how much they enjoyed or learned from my tour. If I had performed my job at Theo unsatisfactorily, Theo surely would have found just cause to fire me during the 3.5 years I worked there leading up to the union drive. But they didn't. In fact, they hired me back after study hiatuses I took during college because I was such a high-performing employee who brought in great sales and was often requested directly by customers. So there's that track record.

Secondly, the report was compiled by a multitude of testimonies. I can't see what my personal employee record has to do, if anything, with the facts disclosed in the report: a majority of workers signed union cards, management hired a union-avoidance consultant, workers were unfairly discouraged from exercising their rights at work. It would certainly be convenient for management to shift the focus away from these facts by scapegoating me and writing this report off as one disgruntled worker. That is simply not the case. It would not have been possible for one worker to gain the backing of parties like the International Labor Rights Forum, Teamsters, University of Washington Law School, Organic Consumers Association, Fair Trade Resource Network, Green America, Fair Trade Seattle, and many others who have been instrumental to the compilation and dissemination of this information. These organizations are credible institutions that do their research. It's much bigger than me, as the comments from former employees above corroborate. How will you suppress these other testimonies? You can use all the scare tactics in your book, but you can't stop the truth from coming to light eventually. It's about time you learned that.

Everyone involved would be much better off if Theo management agreed to the reasonable requests outlined in the report - all you are being asked to do is sit down, talk about what happened, and make good on your mistakes. It's a relatively easy way to balance some of the awful things management did to people. You claim you are already doing much of what the report calls for - I genuinely hope this is true, because all we ever wanted to begin with was a more equitable workplace. If things have improved so much, then bravo! It would be so simple to formalize this by actually meeting with the parties involved to verify this. If you would just take this step, Theo would be made into a hero for the movement - an example of a growing company that genuinely learned from it's mistakes. Why are you so resistant to the easy way out of doing the right thing?

Posted by taberrachel@gmail.com]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:18:39 -0800 The Stranger Posted by 01010101]]> Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:35:55 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Mondobondo]]> Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:57:57 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Mondobondo]]> Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:50:58 -0800 The Stranger
Are current employees afraid of hostile management? Are managers speaking on this blog in the place of ground level workers? Why are people not willing to publicly own up to their view points?

It'd be great if folks sharing testimony could also share their names, just so we can have transparency about where people are coming from and assurance that people are speaking from their own experience, as I am.
Posted by taberrachel@gmail.com]]> Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:15:41 -0800 The Stranger
If things truly are so much better, why do you think Theo is so afraid to talk it out with ILRF to formalize and publicly announce that?

If Theo simply agrees to formally implement a few small positive steps, which they say they are already doing, then they'll become a poster child of the Fair Trade and labor movement - an example to aspire to. Why are they so resistent to meeting with the parties asking them to do so?

If Theo would do this, we can could resolve the issue and all focus together on calling IMO out. I know Theo and specifically Joe Whinney has been a vocal critic of conflicts of interest in the Fair Trade USA/Transfair Fair Trade program, and rightly so. So surely Theo management can understand the need to improve IMO as well, right?

If you think the report is flawed, please do point out the specific facts that are incorrect. I keep hearing that it's biased and exaggerated, but no one has yet offered any specific details that are untrue. Please know that you are invited to share your testimony -more discussion in the public realm will only help everyone find the right solution. I would be totally happy to connect you with the University of Washington legal team that researched and compiled the report. However, I really doubt they are off in their findings. While Theo management definitely has an interest in protecting their business, and I definitely have an interest in upholding the integrity of Fair Trade, what motive would a neutral, academic legal team have to misreport events?
Posted by taberrachel@gmail.com]]> Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:10:30 -0800 The Stranger
I also wholeheartedly agree that IMO and fair trade organizations in general are due for a serious calling out. IMO conducted an 'investigation' at Theo based on the incidents in 2010, and I have to admit that I was pretty surprised when the inspection went off seemingly without a hitch. I thought for sure there would be some drama over what had happened with the organization attempt, but apparently the letter that we all signed (but didn't draft ourselves) was enough to placate them. Is Theo doing a significantly better job at producing outstanding chocolate while trying to improve the lives of those involved in the process than most other companies? Absolutely without question. But is the fair trade model and the organizations enforcing its ideals extremely flawed? Absolutely.

@66 - I second all of that.
Posted by FormerTheo2]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:36:07 -0800 The Stranger
I miss and love everyone I worked with at Theo, so please do not take my comments personally. Even though I'm not sure who you are, I am sure that you're one of the awesome people I had the pleasure of working with. I feel that by stepping up to contribute my experience, I am doing the right thing. There was never a resolution from the events in 2010, and I'd like to see this come to some sort of closure.
Posted by FormerTheoEmployee]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:34:17 -0800 The Stranger As a current Theo employee I am constantly amazed at the continued transparency and integrity of the company. Theo is always pushing for increased transparency in the fair trade and chocolate industry. As the company has grown, so has our mission and capabilities to fulfill it. Theo has always valued our community, both afar and here in Seattle. I have worked in many departments at Theo and know that the company values the quality of life for both our cocoa farmers and our factory employees. We have made partnerships with non-profits that benefit our cocoa farming communities. We have posted our bean pricing matrix online to show both consumers and farmers what we will pay for beans based on quality (better quality, more pay) (please also note that the lowest Theo will pay is already higher than fair trade minimum standards). To my knowledge, no other chocolate company is positing what they are paying, nor are they willing to be this transparent.
Here at the factory, Theo listens to the employees. I have a voice and I know there are ears to hear and consider my opinion. Theo pays employees fair wages based within the realm of the job position pay range and performance reviews. There is opportunity for pay raises and promotion. Since 2007 I have grown within the company and am provided tools to continue to grow and voice my ideas of where I would like my career to go.
As Theo has grown, so has our resources and ability to continue increasing benefits to our company. We receive health care, paid time off, and recently have acquired a 401k program. Theo has bi-monthly cross-departmental meetings where employees are given a voice to continue Theo’s growth. We are encouraged to brainstorm and share what would make Theo even better. Already we have seen many positive outcomes from these meetings, especially improvements to bike racks, locker rooms, and inter-departmental communication.
I have watched the company grow for over five and half years and I am so proud of how our mission never strays but grows stronger every day. The recent damning article by the ILRF has caused great stress among many Theo employees. Nonetheless, my pride in Theo has strengthened after watching how my co-workers are supporting each other with the increase of negativity targeted toward Theo. This weekend, management dropped by Theo on their days off just make sure employees felt supported. It means a lot to me that a manager from another department would come by just see how we are doing.
I have immense gratitude to Theo employees, including management and executives, for making my work enjoyable. I am grateful for having a place of work where I look forward to coming to everyday and where I feel supported and valued. Thank you to our customer base who have continued to stick by our side after this past week.
Please also note that this is all based on my experience as an employee and is posted of my own free will without being requested to do so.

Posted by CurrentTheoEmployee]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:42:00 -0800 The Stranger
To clarify - some background on how the report was conducted, a clarification of action labor and Fair Trade supporters should take, and a redirection of the focus to IMO - the true culprit in this scenario:

1.) Scholars at the University of Washington Law School compiled the report through checking public records and interviewing many current and former Theo employees who were involved at the time of the union bust. Many more reviewed and approved the report before it was published. It's obviously a sensitive subject to investigate: many workers declined to participate, some fearing reprimand, others wishing to leave this painful chapter of life behind them, others having friends on both sides of the issue don't want the full truth of what happened to be publicly disclosed because of the implications of the public knowing the truth.

The report is based on the testimony of well over a quarter of the workforce eligible to form the union at the time of the bust. If people disagree with specific details in the report, I invite them to compile their own account with similar due-diligence, including interviews and the backing of legal and public records. Or feel free to email me directly with specific corrections that are important to you. If you wish to be interviewed on what happened, maybe we could include your testimony in the report in an addendum. My intention in coming forward with this information is to give consumers and Fair Trade advocates a true account of the failure of Fair Trade, so that they can make informed decisions about how to best secure socially responsible products going forward.

2.) Let me clarify that no one, including myself, has called for a consumer boycott of Theo Chocolate, yet. What we're calling for is for Theo to talk it out in arbitration with the parties involved to make good on their mistakes. This shouldn't be too hard, based on what Theo has said in their public statements. I and the others involved in the report have absolutely no desire to hurt Theo. What we want is a better, more accountable Theo, true to what it's consumers believe in, and more importantly, a legitimate Fair Trade.

I would encourage concerned citizens to voice their feelings directly to Theo and encourage them to make good on their mistakes by agreeing to arbitration, and ask their local vendors of Theo to do the same. This is infinitely more useful than boycotting Theo as an individual consumer. Let's hope Theo cooperates with this simple step so that boycotts and contract cuts will not be necessary.

If Theo agrees to basic steps to right their wrongs, they will become a poster child of Fair Trade. There's nothing to lose by agreeing to talk it out, unless they have more to hide than they are letting on.

3.) I would encourage consumers to focus on the true villain in this scenario - IMO Fair for Life.

We can expect that businesses, however warm and fuzzy their marketing, will always be true to their bottom line: profits for their investors. That's what businesses do. That's what they're legally accountable to do. That's why checks and balances on management, like unions, are necessary.

However, IMO Fair for Life is a disgrace, because they covered up the truth, which undermined a better solution. They have not even publicly responded on the issue. They never documented the union bust, which UW scholars did with relative ease. They granted Theo Fair Trade status even though they were aware the bust had occurred well before doing so. They watered down their standards in the wake of public outcry about the Theo situation.

This is probably because, while they claim to advocate for farmers, workers, and consumers, they are paid by the management of brands: no one bites the hand that feeds them. Their certification was completely ineffective in this scenario, and with this severe conflict of interest, it's unlikely that it will be of any use in any scenario without substantial oversight from the public and legally binding checks and balances on IMO's conduct.

This is very unfortunate. Not only is this harmful to well-meaning consumers, farmers, and workers, but it's harmful to the good businesses out there that IMO certifies. Not all Fair Trade businesses are covering up scandals as grave as Theo's. But the value of their Fair Trade certification is being lowered by IMO failing in this case.
Posted by taberrachel@gmail.com]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:05:50 -0800 The Stranger
I've never been unionized, but I've been fortunate enough to work for companies that at least try to treat their employees fairly.

I can understand a company trying not to unionize. Especially when they're such a small company (50 employees at most?). The problem is that the employees wanted to unionize and Theo's engaged in tactics to destroy that union, while still claiming to be "free trade."

I completely agree with the letter's wording. The problem isn't Theo's Chocolate itself. Their fairness/unfairness hasn't been set in stone for me, dental plan aside. But, the problem is their claiming free trade while union busting.

As a side note, a company doesn't have to have a union to treat its employees fairly. If the employees think their company is doing a fine job, then they don't really need to pay into a union. Unions are more to keep a company in check and treating employees fairly.
Posted by TheMisanthrope]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:52:16 -0800 The Stranger
And how is it an equal relationship with labor if the union can bring in outside experts and money to lobby the workers, but the company is not allowed to do the same?


Posted by Asbel]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:20:08 -0800 The Stranger
Sounds like you need a union, then.

Theo is off my shopping list, period.

They aren't the only local organization to hire union-busting consultants in the last few years, by the way...
Posted by litlnemo]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:02:18 -0800 The Stranger
@56, it really does not matter a flying fuck in what exact manner the company discouraged the formation of a union. Employee unions and collective barganing are *the only effective tool* that the labor side has in improving working conditions, so how union suppresion happens is immaterial. What is relevant is that management *does not want* an equal relationship with labor, and *that itself* is illegal, immoral, and counter to any possible definition of fair trade.

If a company is billing itself as fair trade, that company must *actively encourage* collective bargaining. Anything else - from indifference to suppression - is fraudulent in a free trade model, full stop.
Posted by happyhedonist]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:35:23 -0800 The Stranger
The allegations that Theo hired a consultant to discourage employees from forming a union, and that upper management responded to the attempts of employees to organize in an overly emotional, unprofessional way are true - though a bit exaggerated by the report. @56, the referenced "unfairness" had to do with wage/responsibility discrepancies within certain departments, and specific injury/safety complaints. These issues were - in my opinion and observation - the result of a company growing without consistent organization and strategy. The Theo Employee Handbook did NOT exist until after the failed union organization attempt, at which time an alternative collective bargaining strategy (which ultimately catastrophically failed) was also implemented. That said, the ILRF report's methodology is inherently flawed, as they have indeed refused to visit Theo and are using information gathered from only one, or possibly two, former Theo employees who were in fact treated very unfairly and are very emotionally invested in this report. No one from the ILRF - to my knowledge - has attempted to contact any other members of the Theo workforce who were employed in 2010 or since to research actual working conditions and opinions. That is neither sound nor objective methodology by any stretch of the imagination, and creates a document that is as sensationalized as the media coverage is unfortunately becoming.

I also signed the letter/petition which Theo is now referencing in their defense. I was a very new employee, and while I do not necessarily think that coercion was intentional, being approached by a senior marketing official and asked if I wanted to sign in the middle of the workday did not make me feel as autonomous as would, say, an email sent to all employees to let us know the letter was available in the break room for those who wanted to sign at their leisure. In hindsight, now that I see this letter being brandished as a shield by Theo, I am extremely uncomfortable at my decision to sign it. The letter was indeed the idea and creation of Theo upper management, NOT that of the workforce at large. @56 - the "fear" that we may have experienced in choosing to sign the letter is more of a generalized peer pressure to be a part of the Theo company and always be supporting the mission of the company. People at Theo are very emotionally invested in the business, and do tend to take disagreement personally.

I am sad that would could be a very productive discourse for the parties involved and for the community is becoming a He Said She Said battle between two overly stubborn participants, with the media taking the bait and not doing any investigative reporting. Theo does not deserve to be boycotted or wholly lose the community's trust over this issue - but it is rapidly escalating when an acknowledgement of mistakes made and apologies to those who clearly still feel they need them would be much simpler and more honest. That said, this report does not speak for the majority of Theo employees past and present, and I can say with all honesty that I had an overall positive experience working for this company. I was paid an above-average wage, and given fantastically generous holiday bonuses and other benefits. It is a company for which I have a lot of respect, which like any other good company or good person, made a few small mistakes which should not destroy their reputation.
Posted by FormerTheo2]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:42:44 -0800 The Stranger
The allegations that Theo hired a consultant to discourage employees from forming a union, and that upper management responded to the attempts of employees to organize in an overly emotional, unprofessional way are true - though a bit exaggerated by the report. @56, the referenced "unfairness" had to do with wage/responsibility discrepancies within certain departments, and specific injury/safety complaints. These issues were - in my opinion and observation - the result of a company growing without consistent organization and strategy. The Theo Employee Handbook did NOT exist until after the failed union organization attempt, at which time an alternative collective bargaining strategy (which ultimately catastrophically failed) was also implemented. That said, the ILRF report's methodology is inherently flawed, as they have indeed refused to visit Theo and are using information gathered from only one, or possibly two, former Theo employees who were in fact treated very unfairly and are very emotionally invested in this report. No one from the ILRF - to my knowledge - has attempted to contact any other members of the Theo workforce who were employed in 2010 or since to research actual working conditions and opinions. That is neither sound nor objective methodology by any stretch of the imagination, and creates a document that is as sensationalized as the media coverage is unfortunately becoming.

I also signed the letter/petition which Theo is now referencing in their defense. I was a very new employee, and while I do not necessarily think that coercion was intentional, being approached by a senior marketing official and asked if I wanted to sign in the middle of the workday did not make me feel as autonomous as would, say, an email sent to all employees to let us know the letter was available in the break room for those who wanted to sign at their leisure. In hindsight, now that I see this letter being brandished as a shield by Theo, I am extremely uncomfortable at my decision to sign it. The letter was indeed the idea and creation of Theo upper management, NOT that of the workforce at large. @56 - the "fear" that we may have experienced in choosing to sign the letter is more of a generalized peer pressure to be a part of the Theo company and always be supporting the mission of the company. People at Theo are very emotionally invested in the business, and do tend to take disagreement personally.

I am sad that would could be a very productive discourse for the parties involved and for the community is becoming a He Said She Said battle between two overly stubborn participants, with the media taking the bait and not doing any investigative reporting. Theo does not deserve to be boycotted or wholly lose the community's trust over this issue - but it is rapidly escalating when an acknowledgement of mistakes made and apologies to those who clearly still feel they need them would be much simpler and more honest. That said, this report does not speak for the majority of Theo employees past and present, and I can say with all honesty that I had an overall positive experience working for this company. I was paid an above-average wage, and given fantastically generous holiday bonuses and other benefits. It is a company for which I have a lot of respect, which like any other good company or good person, made a few small mistakes which should not destroy their reputation.
Posted by FormerTheo2]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:40:08 -0800 The Stranger
1) My comment is worded intentionally without reference to whether or not the consultant was a union buster employed by ACG as accused. I do not personally know whether or not David Acosta was employed by ACG, who hired him, or why. All I know is that he was there, and we were encouraged to go the meetings, and many people left the meeting feeling they had been discouraged to form a union.

3) The ILRF report mentions the cases of unfairness, as discussed at the early meetings of union formation. I did not personally attend these meetings, and I do not feel comfortable discussing complaints I heard from coworkers. The heart of the issue is not whether or not Theo was unfair prior to the union bust, it's that they busted a union in the first place and that is in direct violation of IMO's fair trade principles.

4) Emotions were running high during that time, and many people on both sides were visibly upset. The fear I had (as did other employees at the time) of not signing the document was due to a visible, palpable anger and upset coming from upper management. Yes, I did see the outspoken pro-union employees treated with little respect and a lot of anger. I suspected that if I didn't sign that document I would be treated with the same disrespectful attitude. If you're imagining that we were directly forced to sign the document with some kind of ultimatum, we weren't. However, the document created a "for-or-against" division, and those of us who didn't necessarily agree with document felt we had to sign it or else face the kind of painful work environment we saw our coworkers experiencing. It's the "emotional blackmail" referred to in the above article.
Posted by FormerTheoEmployee]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:25:53 -0800 The Stranger
1) The company hired a consultant. So? Presumably the union has consultants as well.

2) I agree that Theo is dishonest to talk so much about the handbook in their response if it was written after the organizing drive.

3) What kind of unfairness? This is the real heart of the issue, after all.

4) What was the basis for your fear? Did you witness other employees being harassed? Did something your manager said imply that it would be bad for you to refuse to sign?

I have trouble respecting someone who wants a union, but only if they don't ever have to actually stand up to management. How are you expecting to hold your own in negotiations if you do unionize?


Posted by Asbel]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:49:53 -0800 The Stranger
First, the allegations that Theo brought in a third-party consultant who ultimately did discourage employees from forming a union is true. The meetings with this consultant were voluntary but encouraged.

Second, the employee handbook many of you are referencing was written AFTER the union bust occurred. There was no employee handbook prior to these events.

Third, Theo had been, in the early months of 2009, guilty of some unfairness towards its employees, particularly in the manufacturing departments. Theo was in fact severely impacted when the recession hit that year, but the unfairnesses were already happening before the recession. Theo's claim that the recession was the cause is not entirely accurate.

Fourth, Theo employees - including myself - did sign a statement regarding their decision against forming a union in the fall of 2010. However, this statement was drafted not by the Theo manufacturing workforce but by a member of the marketing team, who hand-delivered the statement to each department requesting voluntary signatures. The tactic felt divisive and intimidating; I was afraid that if I did not sign it I would be the subject of anger and resentment from upper management, which is how I saw the vocal pro-union employees being treated. I now feel uncomfortable with my decision to sign the statement and wish I hadn't.

Finally, I do not feel that that either the ILRF or Theo is offering an ideal amount of honesty and transparency. While there were some issues and unfairness, the ILRF report uses flawed methodology and does exaggerate some aspects of the situation. The ILRF report does not speak to the experiences of the majority of Theo employees. At the same time, Theo has made mistakes in its rapid growth. I am disappointed that Theo maintains its claim that social responsibility is their bottom line, when in reality Theo is a business, and the goal of a business is and always will be to increase profits. I would like to see Theo own up to their mistakes, and I'm glad this is coming out in public so that Theo can be held responsible for their actions.

I feel that Theo could be a great company, and that a healthy, well-rounded discourse on
these issues is of great benefit for the community and current and former employees. I would like to see Theo move on from this issue with even more respect from the community, and that is only possible if they choose admit to the public--and themselves--that they were wrong in using the tactics they did in discouraging the formation of a union.
Posted by FormerTheoEmployee]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:08:33 -0800 The Stranger
First, the allegations that Theo brought in a third-party consultant who ultimately did discourage employees from forming a union is true. The meetings with this consultant were voluntary but encouraged.

Second, the employee handbook many of you are referencing was written AFTER the union bust occurred. There was no employee handbook prior to these events.

Third, Theo had been, in the early months of 2009, guilty of some unfairness towards its employees, particularly in the manufacturing departments. Theo was in fact severely impacted when the recession hit that year, but the unfairnesses were already happening before the recession. Theo's claim that the recession was the cause is not entirely accurate.

Fourth, Theo employees - including myself - did sign a statement regarding their decision against forming a union in the fall of 2010. However, this statement was drafted not by the Theo manufacturing workforce but by a member of the marketing team, who hand-delivered the statement to each department requesting voluntary signatures. The tactic felt divisive and intimidating; I was afraid that if I did not sign it I would be the subject of anger and resentment from upper management, which is how I saw the vocal pro-union employees being treated. I now feel uncomfortable with my decision to sign the statement and wish I hadn't.

Finally, I do not feel that that either the ILRF or Theo is offering an ideal amount of honesty and transparency. While there were some issues and unfairness, the ILRF report uses flawed methodology and does exaggerate some aspects of the situation. The ILRF report does not speak to the experiences of the majority of Theo employees. At the same time, Theo has made mistakes in its rapid growth. I am disappointed that Theo maintains its claim that social responsibility is their bottom line, when in reality Theo is a business, and the goal of a business is and always will be to increase profits. I would like to see Theo own up to their mistakes, and I'm glad this is coming out in public so that Theo can be held responsible for their actions.

I feel that Theo could be a great company, and that a healthy, well-rounded discourse on
these issues is of great benefit for the community and current and former employees. I would like to see Theo move on from this issue with even more respect from the community, and that is only possible if they choose admit to the public--and themselves--that they were wrong in using the tactics they did in discouraging the formation of a union.
Posted by FormerTheoEmployee]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:58:26 -0800 The Stranger