By the General Coordinator Team
January 7, 2025
Despite 52 years of success, our Coop’s future is not guaranteed. As General Coordinators, part of our role is to identify risks to the Coop, and we believe growing divisiveness among members is one that we should all be paying attention to.
Many are aware of a campaign by a group of members, PSFC Members for Palestine, advocating a boycott of Israeli goods. However, the broader membership may not fully understand the narrow perspective of this group or the risks their actions pose to the Coop.
Why a Boycott Threatens the Coop and Its Financial Sustainability
A boycott risks dividing our community and weakening the Coop. We’ve already seen increased tension at General Meetings (GMs), in Gazette letters, and through complaints to the Dispute Resolution Committee. We’ve also heard from many members, including staff, who plan to leave the Coop if a boycott passes. This could result in thousands of departures, and it would be irresponsible to assume endless interest from new members. Without new members to replace those who have left, the financial impact could be catastrophic.
Impact on Prices and Staff
Financial fallout from a boycott could force tough decisions such as raising prices or laying off staff. If the Coop is forced to raise prices because of shrinking sales, low-income members will bear the brunt of those price increases. Moreover, if prices rise, some members may reconsider the value of their membership if the price difference between the food they buy at the Coop and other stores narrows.
Reducing staff or cutting benefits would be equally unacceptable. Our hardworking staff, many of whom tirelessly supported the Coop through the pandemic, rely on the income and benefits from Coop employment. A divisive boycott could jeopardize their livelihoods.
Legal Risks
Boycotting Israel carries additional risks. In 2016, then-Governor Andrew Cuomo warned: “If you boycott Israel, New York will boycott you.” Thirty-four states, including New York, have legislation restricting Israeli boycotts. While these laws don’t currently prevent a Coop boycott, doing so may invite scrutiny from state agencies. At the federal level, the new administration has signaled it would target organizations they deem to be antisemitic. Proponents of an Israel boycott might not see their actions as antisemitic but many others do, including those in positions of political power on both sides of the aisle.
As witnessed after a similar boycott succeeded at the Olympia Food Coop, our Coop risks litigation from members unhappy with the outcome. Even if the litigation fails, the financial costs and time required from management staff would be significant.
Boycotts at the Coop
Since 1973, boycotts at the Coop have historically received overwhelming support, often near 100%, with none below 80%. Currently, a boycott must receive 75% or more of the votes at a GM in order to be considered advice to the board in favor of a boycott. The 75% vote threshold ensures widespread support of the membership and better reflects the International Principles of Cooperation. Those principles, embraced by the world-wide cooperative movement, prioritize cooperation and participation over political, ethnic or religious differences. Lowering the vote threshold to 50%, as is being proposed by PSFC Members for Palestine, threatens to undermine these principles and harms the Coop.
Hybrid Meetings Proposal and Its Link to the Boycott
A proposal to adopt hybrid GMs, allowing both in-person and remote attendance, may soon be presented at an upcoming meeting. This initiative is supported, in part, by the pro-boycott group. While hybrid meetings could enhance accessibility and participation, such a significant governance change requires careful study. It has been the Coop’s decades-long tradition to form a committee to study any proposed changes to Coop governance before bringing the changes to a GM.
Before voting, members need answers to important questions: How will member privacy and security be protected? How will the potentially high costs of well-executed hybrid meetings be managed? What impact will hybrid participation have on the GM’s deliberative process? What other logistical challenges do hybrid meetings present, including ensuring that members attending in-person and those attending virtually have equivalent experiences? Until these concerns are addressed, this proposal should not move forward.
A Broader Strategy
PSFC Members for Palestine need the hybrid meeting proposal to pass because it is part of their strategy to boycott Israeli products. Why? Venues have refused to host GMs if the boycott item is on the agenda because of the inflammatory nature of this topic. In addition, their large email list would have an outsized impact with hybrid meetings in effect.
Their strategy has three parts, as outlined in their communications:
- Convert all General Meetings to hybrid.
- Reduce the boycott vote threshold from 75% to 50%.
- Vote on boycotting Israeli products.
We are not opposed to studying and considering other formats for the General Meeting, including hybrid meetings. We are opposed to changes in the governance structure for the sole purpose of advancing this group’s goal to boycott Israel.
Take Action
We believe most members, including those on all sides of this issue, want to protect the Coop from these risks. We urge everyone to:
- Write to the Gazette.
- Attend General Meetings.
- Discuss these issues with fellow members.
- Vote against:
- Hybrid GMs as proposed at this time.
- Lowering the boycott vote threshold from 75% to 50%.
- Boycotting Israeli goods.
Together, we can protect our Coop’s future.
Note: The Coop currently carries less than 10 items from Israel.