Injustice and Oppression...at Market Basket?

I drove up to Market Basket yesterday to get a few things for dinner. Entering the parking lot I noticed the small crowd outside the doors, holding signs in support of Arthur T. Demoulas, who was unfortunately replaced as CEO last month. 

The protesters were cheering at passing automobiles, while drivers honked back in support. As I approached the entrance on foot, I noticed a young girl, dressed in her employee's uniform, holding a sign that read,

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. — Bishop Desmond Tutu".

Whoa, I thought. Injustice and oppression — at Market Basket?

Really?

When I first heard about the recent brouhaha with Arthur T. Demoulas, I signed the petition, along with thousands of others, calling for his reinstatement as CEO.

I hope it will do some good. It has before. 

I recall going through this a year or so back, with a positive outcome for those of us who like the store just fine.

Maybe it won't work this time around. The board of directors could decide to go the other way. That will mean change, which I don't like.

The thought of it makes me experience a slight sense of disappointment and unease. I've become accustomed to a certain routine in my life.

But has anyone suffered an injustice here? Is Arthur T. Demoulas being oppressed? Is anyone being oppressed by Market Basket?

The CEO runs the company, but he answers to the board of directors. Absent any evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that its vote to replace Mr. Demoulas was legitimate, and conducted according to the bylaws of the corporation. Mr. Demoulas himself, in his only statement on the matter, has certainly alleged no wrongdoing.

This is a contractual matter. That makes sense, and helps me to put it in perspective. 

While slightly different in practice, in theory it is no different than if I hired a contractor to do some work.

Say, I want a deck and a patio added to my house. But if the contractor and I sign a contract (or, from an ethical perspective, if we verbally agree) to have the contractor do only one of those jobs, and I decide to hire someone else for the other, then that is entirely within my prerogative as a party to the contract.

I am free, and should be, to hire a different contractor for the second job. Likewise, the contractor is free to walk away, once his contracted work is complete. One or the other of us may be unhappy with a particular turn of events, but that doesn't necessarily mean that an injustice has been committed.

Don't get me wrong: I love Market Basket. The first day my wife and I moved to Portsmouth we went there for our groceries, and instantly loved the place. We've tried a few others over years, out of curiosity — Shaw's, Hannaford's, Wal-Mart, Target, BJ's, Trader Joe's, even Fresh Market — but nothing else compares. It's not just the low prices, the selection is fantastic; the employees are always helpful, knowledgeable, and friendly. 

If the Market Basket board has made a poor choice, they will suffer in the most brutally honest and unforgiving place there is — the marketplace. If the new CEO is an idiot, he'll mismanage the company.

Regardless of his performance, sooner or later he might find himself getting the boot.

He didn't just agree to those terms when he took the job...that's how he got the job! 

Or maybe enough customers will boycott the store, and their collective withholding of patronage will put enough pressure on the company's bottom line to lead to Mr. Demoulas's reinstatement by the board of directors.

Any of those options is metaphysically possible.

All are voluntary. 

Most important: There is no oppression.

I suppose I shouldn't be so concerned about an inaccurate or overly dramatic representation of recent grocery store-related events, in a part of the country that nobody cares about except in presidential elections years or during leaf peeping season, related by a store employee (or maybe not) on a sunny Tuesday morning protest placard as the customers filed in. 

Except that such fuzzy thinking is far too prevalent in our society, and before this is over big dudes with clubs could get involved. I'd rather they not — especially when their legal and moral guidance is provided by people with fuzz in their heads.

Too many people — young people, but also plenty of adults who ought know better — actually think their human rights have been violated whenever someone isn't serving them to their satisfaction. They've become entitled, like brats, honestly believing that by not giving them something they demand, you are in fact taking it from them.

When someone, or some group, initiates force to compel you to act against your values and beliefs — to forswear your loved ones and peaceful pursuits, or to surrender your property for the service of others — that's an actual injustice.

When force, or the threat of force, is employed to secure such compliance — that is oppression.

When a private party is behaving in a manner you find objectionable, in an environment from which you can voluntarily divest yourself, and your patronage? That's called an inconvenience.