Joe Stupp Alleges . . . When In Reality . . .

Yesterday, Chipotle announced it's 1st Quater 2009 Results. Despite the massive economic crisis afflicting the world, Chipotle reported an increase in profits of 46.9%. While it rakes in some big bucks, the "fast-casual" restaurant chain still resists working in an authentic partnership with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers in order to guarantee fair wages and human rights for farmworkers in its tomato supply chain.

Nonetheless, Chipotle is insisting that it's doing great things for farmworkers. If you've written Chipotle anytime recently regarding farmworker rights or the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), you probably received a reply from Joe Stupp, the employee responsible for answering Chipotle's email. Stupp no doubt repeated a number of nice-sounding lines about how Chipotle loves farmworkers and is doing what the CIW has asked. Unfortunately, in reality these statements are fabrications - or are at least ill-informed or highly misleading.

While each response varies, yours probably closely resembled this:

Thank you for writing us, and we are glad you love our restaurant! And to make a long story short, we think you're right. The fair treatment of farm workers is extremely important to us at Chipotle. In fact, we've always felt this way, and continue to hold our suppliers to a strict code of conduct with regards to fair labor laws. Recently, we have already agreed to pay more for Florida tomatoes, as proposed by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW). We share their view that Florida workers should receive higher pay - and our hope is that this agreement will benefit those workers directly.

As ambassadors of fair labor treatment practices we also know that what seems to be a good deal for the workers isn't always the case. For example, sometimes the money that was raised for the workers is actually absorbed by the grower instead - never actually reaching the pocket of the workers. This is why, in addition to our proposed agreement with CIW, we are actively looking to make direct agreements with even more growers to guarantee that farm workers receive the money intended for them.

Our support of farm workers is consistent with our practices across the entire food supply system. We continue to seek ingredients raised in more sustainable ways that show respect for the land, the animals and the people who work on farms. Our mission to serve food with integrity is a key part of who we are. We wouldn't feel good about asking you for your business without it.

Thank you again for taking the time to write. We hope we've addressed your concerns and that we'll see you at Chipotle again very soon.

Sincerely,
Joe Stupp
Chipotle

Let’s take a point-by-point look at what Stupp alleges and what in reality is true:

Stupp alleges: “The fair treatment of farm workers is extremely important to us at Chipotle.”
When in reality: If fair treatment for farmworkers were truly important to it, Chipotle would jump at the opportunity to collaborate with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers - an award-winning human rights organization composed of farmworkers with unparalleled experience in fighting the unfair treatment that they face. However, Chipotle still refuses to sign a binding agreement with those very workers that would institute enforceable mechanisms for guarantying their fair treatment. Further, the few actions that Chipotle has taken are a direct result of massive protests by farmworkers and concerned consumers, not the result of the supposed importance of farmworkers to Chipotle.

Stupp alleges: “In fact, we've always felt this way, and continue to hold our suppliers to a strict code of conduct with regards to fair labor laws.”
When in reality: Chipotle has a long history of showing disregard for farmworkers. Both Chipotle and the CIW began around the same time 1993. During that time Chipotle took no efforts to improve the labor standards of farmworkers. When CIW began publicly calling on the fast-food industry to take responsibility in 2001, Chipotle did not try to reach out to them. When CIW began a campaign against McDonald’s, which at the time owned Chipotle, Chipotle remained silent. When CIW first directly called on Chipotle to take steps to address labor abuses in its tomato supply chain in Feb 2006, Chipotle responded by first ignoring them, and then - when protests started – by taking steps to avoid the situation rather than address it. The list of different actions taken by the CIW and their allies to try to sway Chipotle is long but not til recently did Chipotle take even the insufficient steps that it has taken.

As for Chipotle’s strict supplier code of conduct, it amounts to nothing more than words on paper if its not backed by monitoring and enforcement by workers themselves. Every major company has one on the books but very few of them have any meaningful monitoring or means of enforcement. Most importantly, Chipotle’s code of conduct was not developed with the participation of the farmworkers who are impacted by it and therefore can’t claim to represent the needs and interests of them. The CIW’s innovative worker-led strategies for monitoring and combating labor abuses place them in a perfect position to make a supplier code of conduct enforceable. And yet such an enforeable code of conduct developed with the participation of workers is exactly what Chipotle has not agreed to.

Stupp alleges: “Recently, we have already agreed to pay more for Florida tomatoes, as proposed by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW).”
When in reality: Chipotle’s increased payments for tomatoes are NOT what is proposed by the CIW. What the CIW proposes (and what other major fast-food companies have agreed to) are supplemental payments that are transparent and backed by a binding agreement. The transparency ensures that CIW knows where the tomatoes are coming from and in what quantities as well as that the workers are indeed receiving the payments or that the payments are being held in a neutral third-party account until they can make it to the workers. The binding agreement ensures that a company can’t simply back out of the deal when it feel like it. What Chipotle did was simply send the CIW a letter saying it was now paying an extra penny-more per pound for FL tomatoes. There is no way to know from where Chipotle is purchasing tomatoes, in what quantities, where the supplemental payments are going, or that Chipotle won’t stop making them at any time if it is truly paying now. Again that’s NOT what the CIW proposes.

Stupp alleges: “Our hope is that this agreement will benefit those workers directly.”
When in reality: There is no agreement. An agreement implies a contractual relationship between two sides. Chipotle has refused to sign an agreement. What it has done is unilaterally stated a number of things it will do.

Stupp alleges: “As ambassadors of fair labor treatment practices we also know that what seems to be a good deal for the workers isn't always the case.”
When in reality: Chipotle is NOT an ambassador for fair labor practices. This would imply that Chipotle is a representative of the workers and their interests. Farmworkers have been treated for far too long as peons, machines and animals. They can speak for themselves; it is patronizing and condescending for Chipotle to imply to be their “ambassador.” Farmworkers do not need ambassadors; they need allies. Chipotle should stop assuming it knows what’s good for farmworkers and start listening to what they themselves have to say.

Stupp alleges: “sometimes the money that was raised for the workers is actually absorbed by the grower instead - never actually reaching the pocket of the workers.”
When in reality: The growers have never absorbed the supplemental payments paid to workers by other fast-food companies. The existence of a transparent and binding agreement (what Chipotle lacks) prevents this happening. It’s a pretty serious and ugly lie to say this has happened. For two years workers who picked for growers that supplied for Taco Bell (the only company at the time with whom CIW had an agreement) were receiving higher wages. The problem that has occurred, and this may just be a case of Stupp being ill-informed about the details of the situation, is that the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange – a powerful tomato industry group that represents 90% of the growers in FL – refused to allow any of its members to participate in the so-called “penny-per-pound agreements.” This has prevented the money from making it to workers. But contrary to being absorbed by the growers, the money is collecting in a neutral third account until it can be passed along to the workers. If Chipotle is looking for growers who are willing to pass the money along to workers, as Stupp says, it’d be nice to know where that stands and how it is progressing.

Stupp alleges: “Our support of farm workers is consistent with our practices across the entire food supply system.”
When in reality: Chipotle’s (lack of) support for farmworkers is quite inconsistent with its practices in other parts of the food system. While Chipotle spokespeople frequently speak to the press of animal welfare, organic and local food, environmental sustainability, and family farms, they never mention farmworkers. It’s very interesting that Stupp says that Chipotle shows “respect for the land, the animals and the people who work on farms” because at the end of every single one of Chipotle’s press releases there is a nearly identical but significantly different phrase. In the press releases the phrase is “respect for the animals, the land, and the farmers who produce the food.” There is a world of difference between farmworkers (the people who work on farms) and farmers who are the ones who force farmworkers to work in sweatshop conditions for sub-poverty wages. The rights of farmworkers are not part of Chipotle’s “Food With Integrity” consciousness, and that is reflected in its historical lack of any practices that address farmworkers (it sure doesn’t mention any such practices on the Chipotle website where it talks about all their programs regarding animals and such) as well as in Chipotle’s continuing resistance to collaborating with the CIW in a meaningful way. Chipotle’s stated values of “food with integrity” and its unwillingness to provide transparency, accountability and dignity (certainly parts of integrity) for the people who harvest its food are just not consistent with each other.

Stupp alleges: “Our mission to serve food with integrity is a key part of who we are.”
When in reality: A cynic might conclude that its “mission to serve food with integrity” is just a clever marketing ploy designed to create a unique brand image and cash in on a fad.

Let’s at least assume that Stupp, as he claims, is sincerely grateful that you wrote and sincerely hopes that you eat more Chipotle.