Sounds like the workers/union miscalculated the strength of their bargaining power. Of course, we all make mistakes, and being fired will probably be tough for them, so I think the workers deserve sympathy. But it is not at all clear to me why I should punish Krug for deciding that they’d rather replace the workers than accede to the union’s demands.

Is it not possible that the union’s demands were unreasonable? Should I assume that Krug is immoral by default, simply because they happen to be a large, successful company?

The agriculture industry's track record of mistreating and underpaying its workers is well documented. Try picking grapes for a buck a bucket for a couple of days and then decide if the Union's demands were reasonable.

Mr. Camp, it seems that your argument may be summarized as follows:

1) The agriculture industry's track record of mistreating and underpaying its workers is well documented.
2) Krug Modavi is a company engaged in industrial agriculture.
3) Therefore, Krug-Mondavi is guilty of mistreating and underpaying its workers.

I believe this logic suffers from a fallacy in which exceptions to the general rule are ignored. Here’s another example of similarly flawed logic:

1) Craig Camp finds recent release Alsatian Rieslings to be disappointing.
2) The Albert Mann 2004 Riesling is a recent release Alsatian Riesling.
3) Therefore, Craig Camp will not like Albert Mann 2004 Riesling.

Of course, we know you quite enjoyed the Albert Mann 2004 Riesling.

My intention here is not to be a persnickety punk, but rather to highlight the dangers of generalization. Of course, generalization is very useful tool with which we may simplify our complicated world. But imprudent use can be very hurtful.

You seem to be encouraging people to boycott Krug-Mondavi. This is a direct threat to the employees and owners of this company. Their lives could be materially damaged by this boycott, were it to be successful. Do you think it responsible to attack people’s livelihood in this manner before first knowing the facts?

If Krug-Mondavi truly behaved unscrupulously, then by all means take action. But in my view, we all deserve to be innocent until proven guilty.

So by your own logic, as you admit you don't know the facts why are you bothering to comment. As you refer to the Mann Riesling, it is the exception to the rule, I can assure you that C.Krug/Mondavi are not when it comes to the treatment of agricultural workers. Perhaps if this boycott was successful it would help the lives of these workers - a problem that is more pressing than helping the wealthy owners of these wineries. You could not have any other reason for taking up their banner other than you are indeed "persnickety".

I check your blog on a daily basis and I enjoy learning about your perspective on wine. I commented because I felt the linked webpage didn’t sufficiently support a very serious action such as boycott. I’d hoped we’d have a good discussion on the topic. Perhaps you had information on Krug’s past practices that you could link to, for example. I’m disappointed you’ve chosen to withhold from me the benefit of the doubt, but it’s your blog so I suppose it’s your prerogative to do so.

Thanks for the link.

It is certainly tragic that some people have no better alternative to harvesting fruit by day and sleeping in the woods by night.