Uline, the go-to supplier for countless businesses for shipping essentials, recently stirred more than just packaging orders with its catalog. Known for its extensive 700-page directory of everything from corrugated boxes to essential office supplies, the Uline catalog usually serves as a silent workhorse for operations managers and small business owners alike. However, a recent edition included a message that was anything but silent, prompting many to question the role of political statements in business – and whether such statements come with hidden costs or perhaps, unexpected “free gifts” of clarity regarding a company’s values.
Nestled towards the back of the hefty catalog, after the practical index, was a letter penned by Liz Uihlein, the president of Uline. This wasn’t a typical corporate message about new product lines or quarterly earnings. Instead, it was a foray into political commentary, titled “Hope And Change Part II,” echoing sentiments that quickly sparked debate.
Uihlein’s message touched upon a range of hot-button issues. From decrying Chicago’s rising murder rates and questioning the legalization of marijuana, citing potential workplace safety concerns for Uline’s warehouse staff, to advocating for term limits for politicians and a more defined foreign policy, her letter covered considerable ground. She critiqued “Affordable Healthcare,” arguing against the perceived unfairness to the middle class, lamented the regulatory environment in “State of California,” and called for a “Trade Policy” that levels the playing field for American workers. Even “The Press and Pollsters” faced her disapproval for what she deemed “poor performance.”
Notably, the message also included a reflection on “Jobs/Food Stamps,” citing the high number of Americans receiving food stamps. Accompanying this section in the original online article was an image – a cookie shaped like Donald Trump’s head, adding a visually charged element to her commentary.
The inclusion of such a politically charged message in a business catalog raises a fundamental question: does this belong here? While corporate communications often encourage executives to be direct and personal, Uihlein’s message veered sharply into partisan territory, even if it avoided explicit party endorsements, save for the Trump cookie image.
Some of the points raised by Uihlein resonate broadly. Concerns about crime rates, government accountability, and fair trade are not strictly partisan issues. Many would agree on the need to address violence in cities like Chicago or the importance of responsible trade policies. However, other statements, particularly those concerning healthcare and marijuana, align more closely with a conservative political stance.
Uihlein, and indeed any business leader, certainly has the right to express personal opinions. The critical question for customers then becomes: how do these opinions influence purchasing decisions? Would a customer with liberal political leanings reconsider doing business with Uline upon reading such a message? This situation parallels other instances where CEO political statements, like those of Papa John’s former CEO regarding NFL protests, have ignited public debate and impacted brand perception.
Imagine the reverse scenario. What if a company president used their catalog space to advocate for progressive causes – perhaps calling for police reform, immigrant rights, or universal healthcare? Would this be more or less palatable to Uline’s customer base, or to any customer receiving such a message alongside their expected business supplies catalog?
This scenario forces us to confront a broader question: in today’s increasingly polarized world, must businesses take sides? The author of the original article took a clear personal stand: disagreeing with the political leanings expressed but choosing to continue purchasing from Uline. The rationale? A concern that “boycotting everything we don’t like” leads to societal fragmentation and “warring camps.”
The Uihleins’ political donations, reportedly heavily favoring Republican causes and figures like Donald Trump, are public knowledge. Their media preferences, allegedly including a preference for Fox News, further paint a picture of their political orientation. These actions and preferences are, of course, their prerogative.
However, the act of embedding these viewpoints within a Uline business catalog is a different matter. While some might see it as a refreshing display of corporate transparency and leadership conviction, others might view it as an unwelcome intrusion of politics into a space traditionally reserved for commerce. The question isn’t necessarily about the right to speak, but the appropriateness of the platform and the potential repercussions.
Where is the line? When does a company’s expression of values become a divisive statement that alienates customers? And in a world where consumer choices are increasingly viewed as political acts, do purchasing decisions truly enact change, or are they merely symbolic gestures in an already fractured landscape? Perhaps the real “free gift” in this situation is the impetus for consumers to consider their own values, the values of the companies they support, and the complex interplay between commerce and political expression in the modern marketplace.
