UCD to vote on referendum to reintroduce Coca-Cola

by cabhog Tue Oct 28, 2003 17:51

Congratulations on sticking up for fair play and democracy. The first referendum was marked by scare tatics, and deliberate use of dubious information by a few with peculiar motives. Best of luck in the new campaign!!! Remeber it takes only 30 people to change their minds to win the referendum this time out!

by Degenerate Tue Oct 28, 2003 17:55

If you don't get it right the first time, we'll all vote again until such time as we get the right result.

by su hack Tue Oct 28, 2003 17:57

In a democratic referendum the students decided to ban coke from the SU shops. The vote was democratic, why do you not respect that decision.

What's going to happen is there will be a smaller turnout and people will vote by a higher percentage to keep Coke out of SU shops. People will be pissed off with you for not respoecting the initial decision.

As for the SU shop workers. It is important that the SU exec prepare a package to guarentee to the workers that there will be no reduction in hours or loss of pay. This is essential if the workers are not going to be used as a pawn in Waghorns games

by demosassy Tue Oct 28, 2003 18:00

If people are to vote on something as important as the Nice treaty and the majority claim to know nothing about it and the vote was fraught with confusion is it not a good idea to take a breather and let people learn about it and then vote again. Its not like if people vote one way they will automatically vote the other way if asked to vote again, that makes no sense. We are one of the few countries that cant pass constitutional changes without a referendum.

by Eoin Tue Oct 28, 2003 18:06

If people want to boycott Coke, why don't they do that themselves. They can go around and encourage other people to boycott coke. Then if they are really successful, the SU shop in UCD won't stock coke because it is unprofitable. Whats wrong with that appraoch? Is it that the hacks who brought this measure in don't know believe they can mobilise real support for the measure?

A referendum is the cowards way out as it forces everyone in UCD to comply with the decision of only 1500+ people.

by Ray Tue Oct 28, 2003 18:08

As long as the pro-Coke people had to go through the same process to call the second referendum as the anti-Coke people used for the first, I don't see what the problem is. Obviously, if there's a referendum on the same subject every six weeks things have gotten out of hand, but two in one year isn't too bad. If students are pissed off by having the same question put to them again, they'll vote against the new referendum in larger numbers.
What I don't get is this claim that the SU shop workers are under threat because of this decision. Coke products are a tiny proportion of shop sales, and most students will just swicth to something else. Nobody is going to lose their job over this, any more than people lost their jobs when Nestle products were banned.

by lish Tue Oct 28, 2003 18:10

if the problem is disenfranchisement why is this the campaign to re-introduce coca cola instead of the make sure everyone gets to vote campaign?

sounds u.s. style.

why exactly do you want coke back?

by Cian Tue Oct 28, 2003 18:24

Richard claims in his press release that his campaign is broad and diverse. Funny thing is, that if it was so diverse how come he has to be chair and pro at the same time? Doesn't exactly look like there is a que of people looking to get involved.

Students spoke democratically in favour of human rights. Richard should be ashamed for turning his back on his fellow human beings in their hour of need.

I'm sure if he was under the same conditions as those of the Colombian workers, he would appreciate some solidairty and support.

by Degenerate Tue Oct 28, 2003 18:25

It would seem that the answer to your second question is yes.
Even I was surprised at the alacrity!!
Good job IMC.

by Random Input Tue Oct 28, 2003 18:30

Where to start? You obviously didn't notice that my posting was, like a lot of the things I post - carefully crafted satire.

What I was inferring through this satire was that Waghead or whatever his name is, a) doing this as a CV thing (not uncommon among students), it sure would look good when going for that nice cushy job in some scumbag company (a bank, Coca-Cola, etc - mind you it wouldn't do him any favours with Pepsi) that b) It must be a CV thing, or a very tiny campaign because one guy is both Chair and PRO of the campaign. No group I have ever been involved with had one person holding both these positions and c) It really must be for a CV because no-one can seriously care that much if Coke - a drink which besides everything else, is bad for you - is not sold on campus.

As it turns out, I had to explain it to you in detail.

And 'Fool' was the wrong word to use, I should have said tosser.

by . - . Tue Oct 28, 2003 19:15

.

by Sweet Caroline Tue Oct 28, 2003 19:43

I've no particular problem with Richard Waghorne going again on the referendum. That is his right- any UCD student can call a referendum if they can persuade enough people to sign a petition. Personally I'd favour the banning of Coke products because it's a good message to send to Colombian workers.

I agree with a previous poster saying that the Union Executive should clearly come out an gaurentee the jobs and hours of their workers- regardless of the result of the referendum.

by A pissed off UCD Student Tue Oct 28, 2003 19:59

This is possibly the most ridiculous proposal. Just to clarify a few things.
1 Both sides knew that 4000 students would be disinfranchised 48 hours before the referendum polls opened and niether sides raised any objections.

2 Richard Waghorn on the night that Coke was banned said that he wouln't rerun the referendum because he in his words was a " democrat ". Clearly he doesn't undersand the term.

3 Students have voted - its how that term "democracy" works richard - like it or loathe it.

This is dispicable that people would try and make their own name off the benefit of other peoples misery. what Richard forgot to say is the new ref. will also include a staement of gratitude to cocacola from UCD students. This section shows what this is really about- settling personal vandettas- etc. the no campaign cannot seriously think Coca cola are decent people they have already been Found guilty of racial discrimation in the U.S. and had to pay out 100 million dollars. Whether you believe they are guilty or not in Colombia you cannot believe they are an ethical corporation.

UCd students voted once to ban coca cola they'll do it again. This will merely be an inforcement of a policy that says UCD students find CocaCola morally corrupt.

by Drbinoche Tue Oct 28, 2003 20:19

I don't see the problem with it. It was voted out of the Student Union shops and now some of the people who did not want it removed are going through the official democratic channels to get it back. Nothing wrong with that. If they had tried to ignore the original result or if they had tampered with votes in the original then I would be for the Anti-Coke briagde as it would then have not been a proper decision, but as it stand they have the right.

They also have the right to call for another referendum again and again if this one fails. I personally don't think that the SU had a right in telling the students what was to be sold or not. I mean if I were a student there I would not bother going to two stores to get my sandwich and a bottle of coke. Id just go to the nearest shop in which I could get both of em. In fairness the SU were getting rid of some of their business. I understand why they were doing it, and while I don't really know what the story was down in South America, I will say that it should still have been every students personal decision to not drink coke products.

Bring on the next referendum. Lets see what happens.

And this is nothing like the Nice referendum, this was far more straight forward and there was very little to confuse the people about. Unlike the original Nice Referendum which was a bit muddled!

by Star struck - UCD Student Tue Oct 28, 2003 20:40

Shame on Mr Waghorne and his counterparts for not respecting the freedom of choice of Ucd students they so consistently called for in their first campaign.If human rights is not an issue with him maybe hed be better off create himself some sort of time machine and fuck off to Nazi Germany where hed fit in perfectly,pocket watch and all.
Disgraceful!

by An Púca (former U.C.D. student) Tue Oct 28, 2003 21:40

Wouldent I be correct in saying Mr. Waghorne is a member of Ógra Fianna Fáil? If so its obvious hes just following party policy on referenda. Insult the opposition in a childish manner, revise all your previous statements so you appear less hypocritical and keep re-running the poll untill your happy. (Then stop others from holding another ballot!) At the moment its a tie on the nice treaty lets have another referendum as a tie breaker? Best two out of three democracy.

Ógra Fianna Fáil - "The cream of Irish youth RICH AND Thick!!!"

by binned Tue Oct 28, 2003 23:00

its not a win or lose situation. A referendum is to guage public opinion on a topic generally regarding constitutional changes. If the majority complain about the process and profess to not have a clue what the referendum is about it is more democratic to allow people learn about it then let them vote again.

by David Tue Oct 28, 2003 23:33

Come on, the reason the second nicve referendum passed was because the Government and corporate media decided to not inform people of the debate the second time. They chose the most vulgar and utterly unlikable man possible to front the No campaign, Justin Barrett, a nazi and Christian fundaMENTAList, this man was the only voice allowed to oppose the Treaty in the media and no sane person would like to be associated with him in any way so of course, the treaty was passed.
People still didn't know what the nice treaty was about, they just knew that they didn't want to encourage that man in any way.

by ghost writer Wed Oct 29, 2003 04:23

Graduated from Gonzaga (where he was given a stirling education by the Jesuits) in 2002. While in Gonzaga, was on the debating team where he represented "the College with honour and style", played on the school Chess team, played French Horn (and was selected to play in the National Youth Orchestra in 2000).

Therefore one can assume that when upon entering UCD, or indeed perhaps before, Waggie joined Ográ Fianna Fail. (see related link) And also, it seems, debates for UCD - and is such a nice chap that earlier this year he went back to his alma mater to teach the budding young debaters in the ways of slyly winning arguments (just like Fianna Fail).

And one can safely assume that he is whoring himself to the camera in some of the pictures here http://www.gonzaga.ie/college/sixthyear/ if you have can stomach that much Gonzaga-ness. I can't.

There are also two other Waghorne's in UCD, Dr Earle Waghorne (Department of Chemistry) and Ms. Thomasina Waghorne (Programme Manager for the Dublin European Institute).

It's amazing what you can find on google.

by cabhog Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:00

If people really believing in restriciting consumer choice and bannning coke in UCD, surely they will vote the same way again? Why all the fuss relating to a second referendum? Is it because the first time out it was the left who were extremely organised and won, and this time the pro-consumer choice lot have got their act together and will probably win?

If your convinced at the strenght of the ban coke logic, then you should have no fear as the students of UCD if they believe your argument will vote the same way again.

by "Mr Disco" - ucd SA (Secretive Attorney) Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:36

Dung
Dung
Dung
Dung

Dung
Dung
Dung
Dung

/* And I was touched by the hand of God
I never knew it, but of course I was */

So, dicky decides to have an old re-run eh? thats about as passé as 808state covering bluemonday.

Cant be bad for those pwesidental ambitions then. The wonder in everyone’s little grey cells has to be > will cathal lee give a helping Brest?

Of course, the kbc be no more the party of power round campus way. Aonghus H looked after that.

I think the point of the original ban coke campaign was to raise the consciousness of the masses to a level of understanding exceeding that that proceeded. That being the case, I can’t see how another campaign will be any harm.

/* Bolts from above hit the people down below
People in this world we have no place to go */

Richard gets his name in the observer/trib under a joyous headline
Ray gets his name in the observer/trib under a not-joyous headline
We all get to run around shouting our heads off at s.i.p.t.u.
They all get to run around shouting their heads off at the “loonies”.
Should make for interesting council.
Observer/tribune get a light in their dull pages.
Hacks get to hack.
Politicos get to politico.
Millies raise the level of political understanding.
Joe c comes out in his red (fading to pink) t-shirt.
Students get a chance to vote.
Students get to waste chance to vote

/*Ra ta ta tata tatata ta ta ta ha ha hey! */

But…. Now heres my point, all the time , cokes good name is being dragged through the proverbial shitter

/* Oh, so I drank one
It became four
And when I fell on the floor ...
...I drank more */

Was morrisey drinking the black ikkur?

by Billy O'Neill - Monkfish Wed Oct 29, 2003 16:05

Pointless symbolism, ban Nike shoes from campus as they treat their workers like shit. Ban Ford from the car park, ban Nestle, ban it all. Coke is freely available in the marketplace to ban it is pointless. Proabition never works, education does. Somebody tell McTool that. Good work

by Mr.X Wed Oct 29, 2003 16:10

This campaign has also been started in Trinity where the Ogra Sinn Fein, labour and the SP have been involved.

I attended one the first meeting and it went very well, from the point of activists coming together.

by Degenerate Wed Oct 29, 2003 16:23

That OSF is involved in this.
You would want to watch it lads and lasses.

by Seán Wed Oct 29, 2003 16:34

We may see something similar happening in DCU shortly.

by Janus Wed Oct 29, 2003 18:41

Considering the amount of articles about Colombia, right wing death squads and Coca Cola in the Phoblacht, maybe it's Ann Speed that should watch it. The Baby Shinners seem to be on the right of it on this one.

by Major Woody Wed Oct 29, 2003 19:07

Was not Ann Speed a trot of the 'Peoples Democracy' variety. Old habits die hard.

Tally ho!

by Speedo Wed Oct 29, 2003 19:11

Ann Speed is a member of Sinn Féin. Not any 'trot' organisation

by Random Input Wed Oct 29, 2003 19:29

People's Democracy was a revolutionary socialist group in the North (mainly operating out of Queen's Uni) during the late 60s to mid 70s. It was not 'trotskyist' neither was it 'anarchist' it was broader than that. If memory serves, John McGuffin (one of two Protestants interned during the first swoop in 71 and who wrote "Internment" and "The Guniea Pigs") was a member, as was Michael Farrell (who wrote the brillinat "Northern Ireland: The Orange State" and is now a human rights lawyer/activist).

I do not recall if Ann Speed was a member.

by Major Woody Wed Oct 29, 2003 19:35

Random old boy you are half right. That is where Peoples Democracy came from but the name continued to be used by a rump group of trots until the 1990's. The Major thinks they call themselves Socialist Democracy today. Ann was part of that group alongside some of the older posters on indymedia.

by Random Input Wed Oct 29, 2003 19:58

I didn't know they used to go by that monkier. They are what, the remnants of the USFI or something? Like two people and a dog whose publications seem to consist almost entirely of attacking other lefts. Yeah, I've met 'em. Both of 'em.

So what, did Ann Speed defect to Sinn Fein then?

by Lola Thu Oct 30, 2003 15:09

1. Coke is not good for you for reasons we are all aware of and a bottle of fruit juice or water would do the job nicely.

2. Coke is a prime example of neoliberal control-i.e. we will take charge of sponsoring your college sporting events or whatever, thereby slowely removing the responsibility from the state.
Corporate sponsorship has shown itself to be a negative factor as it never comes without strings attached. If a Big business Co. wants to 'do good' for the public, then fine, about time-but leave the threats and bribe's out of it.

3. The referendum to remove Coke products from the UCD campus was intended as a symbolic act and it was never claimed that the boycott would solve the worlds problem. But the Boycott would in turn influence other college's, workplaces, bar's etc to follow suit and display solidarity with the exploited workforces that bottle the product.

4. Freedom of Choice?!If we take a stand back from this situation and realise that the boycott was intended to show support with an oppressed workforce and ask ourselves 'will I give up my right to choose a Coca Cola product to satisfy my thirst, in order to prove a point to the Coca Cola Co. that I value human rights and the lives of the people bottling that product, will I boycott that product, a product among many others so my choice isn't that limited, in order to better the lives of others?

Bring on the referendum and lets show them that we have the courage of our convictions.

by Roebuck Rover Thu Oct 30, 2003 15:54

I just have to clarify this. Coca Cola products are NOT banned from campus. They are banned from Students' Union shops. There are 5 Students' Union shops in UCD- 4 in Belfield (the Student Centre, The Library, Engineering, Science) and one in Earlsfort Terrace. The ban takes effect in mid December (60 days after vote).

You can still buy Coca Cola products in all the UCD restaurants, canteens, shops, and in the franchises. I would guess that most Coca Cola products bought in UCD's campuses are not bought in the SU shops.

by Ronan from CYM - Connolly Youth Movement Fri Oct 31, 2003 10:15 connollyyouth at hotmail dot com 43, East Essex St. Temple Bar, Dublin 2 01-6711943

The Connolly Youth Movement is to hold a public meeting in Conolly Books 43, East Essx St. Temple Bar, Dublin 2 on tuesday the 4th of November at 8pm.The meeting will be a public viewing of a documentary on situation of workers in Columbia at Coca-Cola bottling plants. This will be followed a short talk by Gareth Murphy from CYM and the UCD boycott Coca-Cola campign.

Admission is free and all are welcome.

For more details about this meeting and the CYM boycott Coca-Cola campign just check out our web page at the above address.

by John Meehan Fri Oct 31, 2003 13:19

Anne Speed was a member of People's Democracy (PD).

PD fused with an organisation called the Movement for a Socialist Republic(MSR) in 1979. The MSR was the Irish Section of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International (USFI).

PD affiliated to the USFI a couple of years later.

PD members, at that time, were active participants in the National H Blocks/Armagh Campaign and the feminist movement.

Anne Speed left PD in 1986 with about 6 other people and they joined Sinn Féin - around 19 remained in PD.

In following years PD declined even more - its successor group, Socialist Democracy is a "sympathising organisation" of the USFI, and strongly disagrees with the political direction chosen by the USFI since the early 1990's : a push for anti-capitalist regroupment, supporting developments such as the Scottish Socialist Party, the Red Green Alliance in Denmark, the Left Bloc in Portugal, and building the European Anti-Capitalist Left.

I generally agree with the USFI on most of these issues.

I do not know if Anne Speed has expressed any view about the growing movement to boycott Coca Cola.

I think it is a great idea, and it is excellent news that the good example set in UCD is spreading far and wide.

There is a clear problem for Sinn Féin members in all of this - accepting corporate Coke donations with one hand, supporting Coke boycotts on the other.

SF supporters came up with a good nickname for the "Real IRA" the "cokies" ["the real thing"].

I suggest this title for the party based in 44 Parnell Square : "Sinn Féin - the Coca Cola Party".


NB

In case anyone thinks I have any time for the "Real IRA" - I repeat again what I have said elsewhere for many years - that organisation should disband.

by Major Woody Fri Oct 31, 2003 13:38

The reason Ann Speed was mentioned - she is the official for the SIPTU branch that Coca Cola workers in Dublin are members of. On the radio she did a RBB and attacked the boycott campaign saying there were no real problems in the bottling plant in Colombia.

by Mike Fri Oct 31, 2003 14:00

Any chance of letting us know more about the Speed attack on the boycott and the outrageous claim that there are no problems at the bottling plants.

Given Siptu's record of defending jobs at Tayto and the like, a claim that things are ok down under, well it is only to be expected.

So what radio? When? Is there an internet link to listen to it?

by SU member Fri Oct 31, 2003 14:04

Speed was out in UCD distibuting leaflets with other members of SF calling for a No vote.

I am not sure about any media coverage she got if any.

The key thing that the SU exec need to learn from this whole incident is that when the referendum is put again the SU exec should make a guarentee to the workers in the SU shops that no jobs will be lost and no hours cut whatsoever regardless of any fall in sales.

by Paul Fri Oct 31, 2003 14:17

I noticed the comment about Waghorne's sly debating tactics. One such tactic is to introduce false information inthe middle of a debate. On nearFM he engaged in a debate where he said that Human Rights Watch claims that there is no basis to the claims made against coke. So, I searched their sight. Result? Simply not true. Waggie made similar claims in UCD about coke's largesse after the earthquake in Colombia. So the campaign contacted the body in charge of coordinating and chanelling ALL aid. Result? The current director checked the books and could find no mention of Coca Cola.

gonzaga is also the alma mater of Michael McDowell, says a lot, doesn't it? Two fine upstanding creeps and right wing fanatics.

by John Meehan Fri Oct 31, 2003 14:32

When and where did Anne Speed make the comments people attribute to her, claiming there were "no problems" in the Coca Cola bottling plant?

Can real people - witnesses - confirm the claim that she and other SF members handed out "Vote No" leaflets?

I am repeating myself here, but no harm - it would help if people making very serious political accusations did not hide behind pseudonyms, and identified themselves.

I will try and check with real people that I know, and see if these allegations are true or not.

by Finghín - SP Fri Oct 31, 2003 14:47

I can confirm that Ann Speed and others who said they were SF members did hand out 'vote No' leaflets in UCD the day before the referendum.

by John Meehan Fri Oct 31, 2003 21:21

Thanks to Finghin of the SP for the information on the SIPTU call for a No vote in the UCD boycott Coca Cola referendum.

I have established from other sources that the statements about the role of the SIPTU Official Anne Speed are true.

Nobody (on this thread at least) has been able to confirm the claim about statements made in a radio interview - however the text below was sent to the Marian Finucane Radio programme by SIPTU shop stewards at the Naas Coca Cola plant - it was sent from the office of Anne Speed in Liberty Hall.

Perhaps activists who are better informed on the fine detail of this campaign could comment on the statement that "In March trade union representatives from 27 unions in 23 countries rejected this call."

Everyone can understand that workers in Coca Cola I(Naas) are afraid of losing their jobs - but why attack people like Finbarr Dwyer - or, by implication, Anne Speed's party colleagues in Ógra Sinn Féin - who are resisting brutal attacks on the rights of Coca Cola workers in Colombia?

Also - since the Naas Coca Cola workers themselves say "We have a good track record as trade unionists supporting the rights of others, and that includes the rights of trade unionists in Colombia" - could they offer us examples - better and more effective methods - than the boycott campaign championed by UCD Students' Union and others?

--------------
Naas Coca Cola workers press statement to marian Finucane RTÉ programme :

Subject: Coca Cola workers reply to UCD referendum



From :


SIPTU Shop Stewards at Coca Cola Bottlers, Naas Road Dublin

Dear Marian,
We listened to UCD student Finbarr Dwyer – listed as Accommodation and Employment Officer on the UCD web site - speak on your Thursday programme on the referendum decision at UCD to ban the sale of Coca Cola products in UCD.

We wish to reply.

We are appalled and dismayed that students have voted, albeit by a very slim majority, to ban products from the Dublin factory where we work. We only became aware of this referendum at the end of last week and were told we could not address the debate as we were not part of the student body. We do know that USI has a special relationship with SIPTU and were disappointed that nobody at UCD Students Union, a USI affiliate, let us know what was about to take place.

We decided we had no choice but to express our concerns in a leaflet addressed to student voters. We are not so-called “accomplices of the company” (a reference in an insulting and anonymous student leaflet handed out on the day of voting). We are six shop-stewards elected by our members to represent their interests.

We have raised questions with our international trade union contacts about this boycott call. In March trade union representatives from 27 unions in 23 countries rejected this call. They also sent solidarity statements to Colombian trade unionists and pledged to raise concerns with Coca Cola Atlanta (the franchise company).

Coca Cola concentrate produced in Ireland for the Atlanta company is exported to Europe. Coca Cola products sold in Ireland are produced on franchise by a separate company with no links to Colombia companies whatsoever. This is where we work. How can jobs lost in Ireland save a life in Colombia – a country in such a political mess with armed factions on all sides.

We discovered students didn’t know the facts of Coca Cola production in Ireland. We respect the fact that students care about human rights. So do we – should ours be sacrificed?

We don’t apologise for defending our livelihood. We have a good track record as trade unionists supporting the rights of others, and that includes the rights of trade unionists in Colombia.

by loola Sat Nov 01, 2003 03:43

I can understand the concerns of Coke workers here in Ireland. They obviously do fear that an extensive Coke boycott would endangertheir jobs. I would say that it is the role of the union leadership and people like Ann Speed to counter this. SIPTU should explain that it is not the boycott that is fundamentally responsible for any job losses but the persuit of profit by the Coca Cola corporation. It is the Coke owners that are the enemy of workers in Ireland not the Colombian workers, the UCD SU or those boycotting Coke.

I also think that is important that the UCD SU come out clearly and guarentee to the workers in the SU shop that their jobs will not be put at risk by any loss in advertising or sales revenue.

by angry liberal Sat Nov 01, 2003 15:03

having been involved with the yes campaign i was one of those who met with people who would later distribute pro-no campaign literature.It was their contention that there were no human rights abuses in Colombia involving the Coca Cola company.They then suggested that it should be left to them to solve the situation(a situation they had just denied existed).In response to the question about the unions internationally which deny Coca Cola abuses,not one of those cited in Colombia represented the plants in which these abuses take place(most prominently,Carepa and Barronquilla)and were not representatives of Sinal Trainal who were conspicuous in their absence being the biggest union in Colombail coke plants.
I will also take this opportunity to add that these "representatives"were told by the no campaign that any leafleting they did on campus was contrary to UCD election law and that they shouldn't take such action.They did so anyway,denying that they had even done so despite clear evidence to the contrary and even continued after they were told to leave the campus.These people had no factually based information and based their worries on un-employment on the fact that they are the best paid workers at Coca ola plants in europe,while their market is small and competition from the third world for plant relocation is mounting.Even by their own arguments(and i should make clear that nobody on the yes campaign either believed or hoped that jobs would be lost in Ireland due to the boycott)job losses would be connected to external factors and they admitted that earlier this year and several times in the past Cokes concerns over their efficiency had been raised.Finally i would remind everyone the UCD has a union and SIPTU or those who claim to represent them have no right to interfere in an internal matter concerning this college.Would they have done the same to mandate?i think not.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Mon Nov 03, 2003 15:27

It is true that a number of unions rejected the call for a boycott and even went as far to claim that there relationship with coke was a good one. I read the IUF statement and it was glowing in its praise for Coca Cola and pretty contemptous of the workers in Colombia. Colombian coke workers are represented by a number of unions, the largest of them being the Sinaltrainal Union. The boycott has the support of the Congress of TRade Unions in Colombia (CUT) and also of the Latin America and also the World Social Forum.

Amongst the unions that represent coke workers is the current union in Carepa. This union was imposed by the paramilitaries after murdering Isidro Segundo Gil and forcing the rest to resign from Sinaltrainal at gun point. For the IUF this is a legitimate union. For real trade unionists it is worse than a scab union, it is a union in the service of the company and the deathsquads and not of its members.

Much is made of the IUF and its affiliates (siptu)rejecting the call for a boycott on the grounds of job losses. The Colombian workers will also be hard hit by this boycott but their choice is quite clear, run that risk or run the risk of being killed because nobody spoke out (including the IUF and Siptu).

Coke's new plant in Ballina has a fully automated warehouse. That is a bigger immediate threat to the jobs of Coke workers than the long term effects of the boycott which have yet to be felt.

Lastly it is not the job of Siptu Officials such as Anne Speed from their nice offices and their very large salaries to tell the victims of deathsquads that they have nothing to complain about. Siptu should be showing its solidarity, but then Siptu has never been that good on solidarity with other Irish workers (ILDA)so why expect them to do anything for Sinaltrainal. When coke sacks Irish workers they will be equally lacking.

by Anonymous Mon Nov 03, 2003 15:33

.

by SU hack Mon Nov 03, 2003 15:56

We don;t know when yet. It will be whenever they decide to hand them into the returning office. I wouldn't be surprised if they do it to coincide with the sabbat elections.

Waghorn running as the sole presidential candidate promising Coke on campus would be attractive to him I am sure.

by Anonymous Mon Nov 03, 2003 17:47

Thanks SU hack. When you say "they" decide. Who do you mean by they? Do you mean the campaign to get Coke back in?

If this is the case, surely it should not be left to them to pick a time which suits them. Especially since they are lucky enuf to be getting a re run on this as it is.

Surely both parties should have an equal say in the timing of the second referendum?

by A different voice! Mon Nov 03, 2003 18:37

Given that the Yes vote campaigners in the original referendum were able to decide when to hand in their signatures and as such dictate the timing of the first referendum, why should things be any different this time round???

by Anonymous Mon Nov 03, 2003 18:59

Did the "No" camp have any objection on the timing the first time around?

by New entrant Mon Nov 03, 2003 19:01

I find it quite amazing that 'Angry Liberal' can claim that 'These people had no factually based information' in reference to the Coca-Cola workers in Dublin.
How arrogant to think that he/she that is 'Angry Liberal' knows more about the Coca-Cola company than the people who actually work there!
How come you know so much then??

www.killercoke.com - there's two sides to every story!

by A different voice Mon Nov 03, 2003 19:10

As far as I know the 'No' camp didnt object last time round but the 'New No' havent come out and openly objected or made any comment so far this time round. Have they??

by Tallyrand Mon Nov 03, 2003 22:04

The new coca cola referendum will take place on November 18th (evening) and 19th (all day). They are taking place alongside the elections of students to the Academic Council and Governing Authority.

by Jim Monaghan Mon Nov 10, 2003 13:31

I am surprised by what appears to be Ann Speeds attitude to this protest about Coca Cola. Ann was one of the genuinely great Socialists and Feminists of my time. She acheived so much without the benefits which many left wing activists have of third level education. Everything Ann got she earned the hard way.When it was unpopular to be for contraception and abortion rights Ann was in the vanguard. Irish Women United and many other campaigns owed a lot to Ann's ideas and dynamism.The Murray defence committtee and the H-Block/Armagh prisoners were only highlights of Ann's activism down the years. Many things that Feminists take for granted were won by people like Ann who turned small agitations into mass movements.
When she joined Sinn Fein, It was still a brave thing to do. Sinn Fein then was not considered a respectable party by the establishment whatever about now. The old Peoples Democracy had exhausted itself in the H-Block/Armagh campaign and in working closely with Sinn Fein many of it's members wanted out of the gehtto of small groups.
I would wish she would seperate her personal attitudes from her job as an Trade Union official.
It is a pity that this has happened.
On a broader note I hope Ogra Sinn Fein will distance itself from the pro Coca Cola side. In fact they should tie it into the campaign to free the Columbia 3 who are being railroaded by an unjust regime in a country without any civil liberties guarantees.
On a footnote I cannot see anyone losing jobs over a ban. I am sure students and everyone else will find something else to spend their money on.

by a real ucd hack Tue Nov 11, 2003 18:13

Good luck this time Richard. justice will pervail !!!!!! it's nice to see someone stand up for what they believe in and not just following sheep. because believe me thats what most people are doing in this unverisity.

by gearailt Tue Nov 11, 2003 21:17

The biggest donor year on year to the Labour party is SIPTU. Labour Youth are almost entirley financed from the Senior Party. So labour youth are using siptu money to campaign on an issue that will adversly effect the living of SIPTU members. Interesting, is all

by angry liberal Tue Nov 11, 2003 22:26

How arrogant of you to think that i don't know anything.These people have no more information on Colombia than i do,in fact they had less and having talked to them unlike yourself i can tell you then turned up with no idea why we were even having a boycott.But please don't waste your obviously vital time listening to me,UCD tomorrow at one in theatre M is hosting a man who actually worked in one of the Colombian(NOT irish in case you were confused where the human rights abuses were)plants in question.So who do who think knows more him or the siptu hacks that came a knocking our colleges door?

by Anne Speed - SIPTU Thu Nov 20, 2003 02:11 Libety hall Dublin 1 01 8748346

Reply from Anne Speed
(I am the Branch Secretary of the SIPTU Drinks Branch that has Coca Cola bottling plant workers in membership. I have just come across comments in reference to me and to workers in the Coca Cola bottling plant in Dublin on this and on other pages. Most of the comments are simply untrue.

Workers were prevented from expressing their views, threatened with legal action, assaulted (in one case) and also insulted by some students in favour of the boycott tactic. The object of this censorship tactic appeared to be to prevent ordinary workers from being allowed to exress their view to ordinary students.)

SIPTU workers in Coca Cola bottling franchise attempted to distribute a leaflet to UCD students. This is the supposed “interference” from “officials” referred to by the article by the Editorial Board.

Without getting into the substance of the argument - this is not the place - the workers consider the boycott call to be divisive of the possibility and need for workers solidarity within the Coca Cola system.

The workers in Coca Cola Ireland are aware that Right wing paramilitaries did enter and shoot and kill a Coca Cola worker and a manager in a Coca Cola bottling franchise plant in Carepa in 1996. This happened as part of an assault on a guerrilla force in the locality. One group of franchise managers (who have since been removed) in the Carepa plant in Colombia engaged in extreme threatening behaviour later in the 1990s against SINAL Trainal members. Coca Cola workers in Ireland demanded and received information on these and other events in Colombia. Nothing new or substantially different has been added by contact with a SINAL Trainal member visiting Ireland recently.

Coca Cola workers are aware of the extreme violations of human rights in Columbia and the role of right wing death squads in assassinating trade unionists, political activists and others. It is possible that those in Ireland who are genuinely outraged by these events and want to do something concrete about them have latched on to the boycott call. Coca Cola workers in Ireland merely ask if that is the right thing to do – and also ask why they were not asked for their views.

Not one Irish campaigner sought the views of or communicated with the Irish Coca Cola workers in the bottling companies. They wished to democratically express their views. So-called advocates of socialism and democracy deliberately excluded them from the debates in UCD – and insulted them when they attempted to express their views. It is not as though workers were asked to express solidarity and refused. They were never asked. If union members in Coca Cola refused to support their Colombian brothers and sisters, there might be a case for the boycott tactic. Pursuing this tactic in the absence of making contact with other Coca Cola workers throughout the world only serves to isolate Columbian Coca Cola trade unionists from their worldwide trade union comrades. For those active on issues pertaining to multinationals to refuse to make contact with the workers is to potentially cut off the active involvement and support of organised labour (as well as being politically sectarian).

A couple of observations on some comments I have come accross:

Major Woody October 31
I did not speak on any radio programme on this issue, nor have I ever said that there are no problems at the bottling plants in Colombia. Let us debate honestly and tell the truth.

A couple of commentators have alleged that “Speed” was out in UCD. I was not. Only ordinary workers and shop stewards from Coca Cola were. If you don't believe me, ask them.

I strongly suggest that anyone using this website contact SIPU Drinks branch for details of the SIPTU workers’ position. Better still, for those of you who are serious about this issue, and not just wondering through the web, why not meet the Coca Cola SIPTU members and hear their views face to face.

Geroid O Loinsigh November 3
Your comments are gratuitously offensive. I never have and never would tell anyone that has suffered repression that they have nothing to worry about. The trade union delegation that met the Colombian member of SINAL Trainal expressed solidarity and offered to pursue various forms of solidarity action.

Finally, to all of you out there, the workers in Coca Cola bottlers in this state cannot understand and are clearly bewildered as to why nobody among all of you revolutionaries, activists and democrats ever bothered to ask them what they think or can do, not just as trade unionists but as human beings. The only interest those “left-wing” supporters of the boycott in UCD expressed in the workers, was to ensure that they would not and could not express their views to students. They were insulted, called “company hacks” and, in one case, assaulted.

But then again they are just ordinary workers. What would they know?

SIPTU Workers leaflet (ask SIPTU for a copy)