Hard on the Heels of UCD - Trinity Votes to Boycott Coke. Maynooth to Follow?

by matt Sun May 02, 2004 13:57

1. ALLEGATION: A plant manager publicly threatened to exterminate SINALTRAINAL and has now gone
into hiding as there is a warrant out for his arrest.

-This claim is simply not true.
No plant manager has ever publicly threatened SINALTRAINAL.
SINALTRAINAL claim to have evidence to support this allegation but have
never produced this evidence.


2.Why the libel case taken by Coca-Cola against SINALTRAINAL
was lost and what was the case taken i.e. campaigners are claiming
that it was lost because Coca-Cola do have a case to answer
The case was not taken by the Coca-Cola Corporation but by one of
the Colombian Bottlers, FEMSA. Basically the case related to defamation.
The Judge dismissed the case under the argument that what SINALTRAINAL
was doing doesn't automatically mean they are trying to offend the moral
integrity of the Company.

3. ALLEGATION: Coca-Cola or its bottlers have a proven direct link with the terrorist
organisation A.U.C. and financially support this organisation
-
No evidence has ever been produced to support this claim. The Coca-Cola
Company is a non political organisation

by Gearoid O Loingsigh - LASC Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:23

The AUC, Colombia's right wing paramilitaries are described by the US department of state as being terrorist as does the EU. The only organization of any significance to remain off the EU list has been the ELN (it is on the US list).

Some unions that are involved in lawsuits in the US are looking at the possibility of bringing charges against the multinationals of supporting terrorism. Given that the Alien Torts ACt under which the different lawsuits have been brought to date will probably be repealed by the Bush governent, the US domestic legislation is a means of pressure, though the civil responsibility would be harder to establish.

by pc Wed Mar 10, 2004 14:16

Indo uses the headline students ban coke for "terrorist link"

an short article on the fact tcd students banned coke from their college

and they use the phrase terrorist link i don't the people behind the coke ban organising, the many of them would throw the word terrorism around, or be quick to excuse others of terrorism, its an over used and dangerous word, terrorism exists but so does freedom fighting

in the articles says a vote was taken and passed in favour of ban then
a coke spokesperson says a "minority of students in tcd"
altougth the thing is being pushed by a few ppl it obviusly has a support of most having indeed gone through two votes in ucd
i was going write them a letter and i probably maybe be delighted to find a word that really pisses us off

by Sean MacGabhainn Wed Mar 10, 2004 13:52

The IUF is composed of 346 trade unions in 121 countries representing a combined membership of over 12 million workers - in Ireland the ATGWU and SIPTU are affiliated.

The IUF statement on the boycott call was endorsed at a special meeting of trade unionists in the Coca Cola system by 27 IUF-affiliated organizations from 23 countries representing more than 100 Coca-Cola trade unions around the world – see http://www.iuf.org/cgi-bin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ID=1119&view_records=1&ww=1&en=1 .

Note 1: not a single trade union affiliated to the International Union of Foodworkers has challenged or criticised this statement.

Note 2: a statement on the IUF’s organising work within the Coca Cola system can be downloaded from http://www.iuf.org/cgi-bin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ID=1362&view_records=1&ww=1&en=1.

Indymedia readers can judge for themselves - I too am finished debating this subject.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh - LASC Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:13

This is my last reply in this endless debate. I am still waiting to see what Siptu have ever done on the coke issue. The branch secretary is a member of sinn fein as are some of the shop stewards and they said not a word when sinn fein voted to support the boycott. Just berate students and lasc of course.

As for the IUF, its website is full of tut tuts but its reasons for not backing the boycott are not tactical, they said there was no evidence linking coke.

Also the IUF represents 346 unions in 121 countries and yet only 73 from 2o odd countries were present when the decision not to back the boycott.

Still waiting on straight answers from NM .

who hasn't thecourage of his convictions to write under his real name but prefers to SMG and questioner. I amy be a minority of one or whatever number as questioner says but questioner is a minority of three.

The idea that the boycott is somehow a side show is laughable. Come on lean over and ask them Does Siptu accept that coke has a case to answer? Yes or No, or is that too complicated

by Questioner Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:12

There seems very little doubt that at a very significant recent demo outside a Coca Cola shareholders meeting, called by Coca Cola trade unions around the world, the Sinaltrainal President did not call for a boycott - because the other Coca Cola unions are against it as a tactic. I have seen a couple of reports and neither mentions the word "boycott". The boycott message is tailored for the audience being addressed – it is not a “central demand” in that sense. It is raised tactically by sinaltrainal (rather than by Gearoid for whom it is a “central demand”, it seems), mainly with students, but also with small groups of workers working in bars, etc.. The problem in Ireland, in a small open economy, is that an organized student boycott has the power to lower production and to shed jobs in a dramatic fashion. It is also, despite the hype, a passive action on the part of students, in that they put a mark on a piece of paper once, after which Coca Cola disappears alongside the concerns of Colombian and Irish workers.

Geroid: why do almost all the organized Coca Cola workers in the world oppose the boycott tactic? Are they all “friends” of Coke?

Significantly on this occasion, Gearoid did not denounce the IUF and its 12 million affiliated members (yes, 12 million - www.iuf.org). Significantly, also, SICO did not get a bashing as a "paramilitary imposed" union representing Coca Cola workers in Colombia. Either this is a step in the right direction or else GOL has so many targets he can’t be expected to hit all of them all of the time.

Which is it Gearoid, has your view of the International Union of Foodworkers changed, or do you still regard them as friends of coke who are contemptuous of Coca Cola workers in Colombia? I am glad to see you concede that it is possible to be opposed to the boycott and still be in solidarity with Colombian Coca Cola workers. You can keep harking back to the situation UCD where the Irish Coca Cola workers were treated like, well, workers with no rights and no say.

As Gearoid knows, the International Union of Foodworkers, to which SIPTU and the ATGWU are affiliated, has voiced concerns about the court case in the US, particularly in the context of the IUF attempting to negotiate a worldwide agreement with Coca Cola on trade union and other rights for all those who work for Coca Cola, including franchised bottlers. That is what the demo in New York was called to demand.

Personally, I am of the opinion that a US court will not be the final arbiter of the struggle of workers for basic trade union rights in the Coca Cola system. That fight will take place on the factory floor and at the factory gates. Maximum unity is needed to achieve that, including the use of a worldwide trade union organization taking on a worldwide US based trans-national corporation. If Sinaltrainal become an affiliated member or the IUF it would add powerfully to the strength of trade union representation within the Coca Cola system worldwide. Gearoid sems to think this would be a bad idea.

I am sure that, had they known it would have put them in Gearoid O’Loinsigh's good-books, SIPTU would have hopped on a plane to NY to listen to the Sinaltrainal President not mention the boycott call outside the Coca Cola shareholders meeting. Had they done so, Gearoid would have very little to complain about, since they would have demonstrated “solidarity” in his view.

Gearoid is correctly putting more emphasis on showing solidarity with Coca Cola workers than on the boycott in his latest post. If he showed a little solidarity with Irish Coca Cola workers he might turn the whole thing around. Who knows? It all depends on what Gearoid thinks is the goal to be won, the maximum solidarity with Colombian Coca Cola workers or attacks on workers in an Irish trade union attempting as best they can to defend their livelihoods.

It is not one or the other Gearoid, your work can encompass the interests of Irish and Colombian workers (whose need for maximum solidarity against attack and the threat of attack is greatest).

by Dave Tue Mar 09, 2004 13:44

I have appraised myself of the facts and have decided that, on balance, the non-consumption of Coke is not a reasonable response to the actions of the Coca-Cola company in Columbia.

Don't tell me what to drink or think. I'll make my own mind up. You just like scoring points off 'big business' and 'big brands'. Your motivation is clear....

...I'll keep on drinking Coke.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh - Lasc Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:54

Not all people who oppose the boycott are pro coke, however, they can show actions of solidarity like for example the meetings held right across teh US. Siptu can show no such examples. When they first met students in UCD they told them that it was all about money (workers who were handing out leaflets in contravention of referenda rules). That is the difference.

I can't comment on why Javier didn't mention the boycott or why the report doesn't mention it (not the same thing). Maybe you should email him if you are so worried. What we have here is a cynical attemt to now make out that Sinaltrainal doesn't want the boycott thtat it has called for.

I can comment on the tour of Luis Eduardo Garcia, one fo the plaintiffs in teh case who when on tour here called for the boycott and met with WORKERS in Belfast where he called for the boycott and they in turn asked management at their place of work to withdraw coke machines. No case of one tactic for students another for workers.

Siptu official and shopsteward at a public meeting in Trintiy said that we don't know the truth of the matter and that a fact finding trip would be needed. They didn't take up the invite from Sinatrainal for an international delegatiion to go there in June. If they don't know (read don't believe) then they are clearly not in solidarity. The US workers mentioned have shown solidarity and do accept that coke has a case to answer. Simple question to which I don't expect a reply from any of your pen names and less still under your real name. Does Siptu accept that the claims made in the lawsuit filed in Miami and if so, what is it publicly doing about teh matter?

Again as I have said before I won't hold my breath SMG. NM, Questioner. I don't expect a reply as Siptu do not accept that coke has a case to answer.

On a recent tour of the US Juan Carlos Galvis a plaintiff in teh case and vice president fo the union in the Barrancabermeja plant did call for the boycott, or at least this time the reports on teh matter published that he called for one.

by Questioner Tue Mar 09, 2004 00:01

According to Gearoid, “The demand for a boycott is worldwide…”.

Then why didn’t the leader Sinaltrainal make this “central demand” in New York to trade unionists from all around the world in front of a meeting of coca Cola shareholders? He didn’t denounce the trade unionists around him as part of the “pro coke side” for opposing the boycott. He didn’t start publicly comparing his wages as leader of Sinaltrainal with those of the leader of the Teamsters (a good bit higher than those of all the SIPTU “bureaucrats” Gearoid could name), as Gearoid has done in relation to the SIPTU wages.

Did the Sinaltrainal leader ignore the “central” boycott demand because the other unions at the demo have the same position on the boycott call as SIPTU workers? Maybe he is not like Gearoid and knows how to gauge an audience.

If Gearoid is going to call everyone who criticizes or who is against the boycott “part of the pro coke side”, he is including not only SIPTU, but also most of the unions in Latin America as well as nearly all the unions in Coca Cola around the world.

According to Gearoid nearly all the workers in all the unions in Latin America and around the world are rooting for Coca Cola.

Unions in Coca Cola in Colombia who do not support the boycott are “imposed by the paramilitaries”, according to Gearoid. The SICO union which has denounced Coca Cola bottlers for firing union leaders and for not honoring contracts is one of these paramilitary “imposed” unions says Gearoid. SICO re-organized Coca Cola workers in the Carepa plant five years after Sinaltrainal were forced to flee by murdering right wing death squads. Gearoid thinks that the International Union of Foodworkers is “embarrassed” by having SICO on board. They show no sign of it.

It would make you pretty pessimistic about the working class if you were to follow Gearoid.

Being in a minority of one does not make Gearoid wrong. But if the vast majority of workers think there is a different way forward, maybe Gearoid should stop the mindless denunciations.

Gearoid, please point out any “lies” or “misinformation” in what I have written.

I should point out that I got the information here mostly from the Labor Education on the Americas Project (LEAP, www.usleap.org), which provides links to CokeWatch, the IUF confederation and other sites promoting trade union rights in Latin America. It reports on the fight for trade union and human rights in Colombia, Guatemala and other countries and attacks the policies of the US government. The “hot news” section on the home page deals with “Violence Against Colombian Workers”. A similar section on the IUF home page (including a home page link highlighting an article on “Coke’s killers”) did not stop Gearoid from denouncing them as “friends” of Coke.

Such is the level of debate……..

by Jockster Mon Mar 08, 2004 20:55

R maynooth goin to have an referendum then

by until it sleeps Mon Mar 08, 2004 18:49

Or is calling yourself kit kat meant to be an ironic Nestle reference? If so congratulations, youre so ironic. Why not try for a career in stand up comedy? After all, you're stupid studenty political beliefs have me laughing already.

The opposite of the Right isn't the Left, its the WRONG.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh - Lasc Mon Mar 08, 2004 11:17

Yet more rubbish from the pro coke side. Sinaltrainal wrote a letter asking students to boycott coke, not because students are the only target but because they were the ones engaged in action at the time. The pro coke side (and that is what they are) keep sinking to new lows of lies and misinformation. The demand for a boycott is worldwide and backed byt eh World Social Forum and collleges and schools inteh USA have also withdrawn coke and at least one major university is the point of doing so.

I am still waiting on straigtht answers to straight questions and none have been forthcoming. Such is the level of debate.

by Questioner Mon Mar 08, 2004 09:15

If the boycott call is "the central demand" (as Gearoid O Loinsigh puts it) for Sinaltrainal, why didn't its leader make this call in his speech in New York? Was it because the Teamsters, whose President also spoke, are against the boycott? Why are the views and sensitivities of US workers to be taken account of, but not those of Irish workers?

It lends credence to the view that the boycott call is a non-starter among other Coca Cola trade unionists. Since Gearoid writes that the Sinaltrainal leader wrote to students congratulating them, maybe Sinaltrainal’s “central demand” is a demand only for students, but not for workers.

it is a strange "central demand" that is completely ignored by Sinaltrainal's leader in a major speech at a major demo against Coca Cola in New York.

by Kit-Kat Mon Mar 08, 2004 03:11

Whats the SWP got to do with it? You'll find very few of them on indymedia ie.
And whats with your stupid name "until it sleeps"?
Agree with you about Nestle, though. Most people will not realise when they are purchasing or consuming a Nestle product.

by until it sleeps Mon Mar 08, 2004 00:22

Nestle has a much worse record in the 3rd world than Coke and I still see their products on sale. This is more studenty left wing crap that you will all forget about in 5 years when you're working in the bank (if you have any sense). The head of the SWP is the son of a multi millionaire. Where do you think Daddys trust fund money is coming from? The Socialist WORKER'S party has the most ironic name ever. Capiltalism WORKS! Its the ONLY thing that works. If we banned every product the loony left disagrees with the shops would be empty, just like every socialisy economy in history.

by redjade Fri Mar 05, 2004 05:57

It made for great headlines, but the fact that the UK version of Coca-Cola's Dasani brand bottled water comes out of the London public supply should hardly have come as a surprise.

.....

The origin of UK Dasani (it's produced all around the world but is always purified rather than source water) came to light when a complaint was made to the British Food Standards Agency over Coke's use of the word "pure" in its Dasani marketing.

The complaint, now being dealt with by the local authorities where Dasani is bottled in Sidcup, east London, hinges on the charge that the marketing implies that tap water is 'impure'.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh - LASC Thu Mar 04, 2004 20:57

Sean hasn't given a single straight answer but engages in more lies. The trade union bureacracy in ireland has tried ot minimise the support the boycott has received but Sean sinks to a new low when he claims that Javier Correa doesn;t make a fetish of teh boycott. Yes he doesn't make a fetish of it but it is the central demand and he wrote a letter to UCD students asking them to support boycott as this the main tactic pursued by the union.

Death squad backed unions

Well Sean it is the case that Sinaltrainal was wiped out in Carepa and the executive forced to flee not once but twice and Gil was murdered there. After that a new union SICO came on the scene adn has been tolerated by the paramilitaries. It is often a tactic used to allow organisations to exist as long as they toe the line. This is a reality of Colombia. It must hurt Sean that Sico is the IUF affiliate in Colombia.

By the way NM when are you going to write under your real name and when will you give a straigth answer to straight questions.

One thing the Sinaltrainal leadership has in common with murdered trade unionists in the rest of the country is that they don't earn four times the average wage of their members, they earn the same unlike the bureacracy in ireland.

by Sean MacGabhainn Thu Mar 04, 2004 18:30

This is the IUF document on efforts to organise within the Coca Cola system

THE IUF AND COCA-COLA: GLOBAL UNION ORGANIZING TO DEFEND WORKER RIGHTS IN THE COCA-COLA SYSTEM

The International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF) is an international federation of trade unions representing workers employed in:

• agriculture and plantations;
• the preparation and manufacture of food and beverages;
• hotels, restaurants and catering services;
• all stages of tobacco processing.

The IUF is currently composed of 346 trade unions in 121 countries representing a combined membership of over 12 million workers. From its founding in 1920, international labor solidarity has been the IUF´s guiding principle. This principle is implemented through:

• building solidarity at every stage of the food chain;
• international organizing within transnational companies (TNCs);
• global action to defend human, democratic, and trade union rights.

The Coca-Cola Company controls a global system of bottling companies that employ hundreds of thousands of workers throughout the world in nearly every country.

However the Coca-Cola Company has in the past refused to take responsibility for the rights and working conditions of the employees working for its bottlers and franchisers.

The IUF has therefore placed a high priority over the last two decades on waging a global campaign to secure the rights of all workers in the worldwide Coca-Cola system. The global campaign to extend worker rights within the Coca-Cola System began in the early 1980s, when international solidarity action organized by the IUF succeeded in winning a number of objectives:

• ending violence against union officers at a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Guatemala City;
• changing the management of the plant;
• recognition of the union STECSA;
• a fair collective bargaining agreement.

Recent Struggles
In 2002 the union rights and working conditions won through the Guatemala struggle were successfully defended through a combination of strong and determined local activity by the IUF-affiliated STECSA, worldwide pressure from IUF affiliates in Coca-.Cola and direct intervention by the IUF with both Coca-Cola corporate management in Atlanta and anchor bottler Panamco regional and national managements.

In 2002 the new union at the Peruvian Coca-Cola bottling company won the reinstatement of fired union leaders, gaining recognition from the company and a new collective bargaining agreement as a result of determined local union action supported internationally by the IUF.

In March 2002 the IUF-affiliated Union of Workers in the Beverage Industry: Brewery, Malts, Juices and Soft Drinks of Colombia (SICO) successfully negotiated a second collective bargaining agreement following strong local organizing supported by a mission of the IUF Latin American Regional Committee.

In 2003 the first independent union at a Coke bottler in Russia achieved recognition, a first collective bargaining agreement and the reinstatement of the union president who had been dismissed for union organizing. These gains were achieved through local actions supported by the IUF Moscow office and by the IUF's interventions with both corporate Coca-Cola management in Atlanta and the regional Coca-Cola bottler Hellenic Bottling Company.

IUF membership and representation
In Peru and Russia, as in Guatemala in the 1980's, IUF support was initially given to a union which was not affiliated to the IUF, because defending trade union rights throughout the global Coca-Cola system is an absolute priority for the IUF. In all three cases the unions subsequently affiliated in order to strengthen the IUF's global union presence within Coca-Cola. The IUF union presence in the Coca-Cola system has recently been further strengthened by the decision of the Mexican union representing workers at FEMSA (the largest Latin American Coca-Cola anchor bottler) in Mexico to affiliate.

In India the IUF has supported the organisation of the All India Cola Workers Council (formerly the All India Coca-Cola Workers Forum), a recently created national body bringing together unions representing Coca-Cola and PepsiCo workers throughout India. This Council includes unions from CITU, HMS, INTUC and others. Unions represented on this Council are fighting for workers' rights to permanent employment. In January 2003 the union representing Coca-Cola workers at the Nasik bottling plant in Maharastra State signed a new collective agreement securing permanent employment status for many workers who had been previously employed on a casual basis. The union successfully resisted company demands for extensive rights to introduce outsourcing and contract labor.

The IUF's membership in Coca-Cola continues to grow and represents a significant majority of the unionized workers throughout the Coca-Cola system including all major anchor bottlers.

Union Rights and Recognition
Coca-Cola, whilst certainly not a "union-friendly" company, is by far the most unionized of the major transnational soft drink producers. Through committed.struggles, unions have generally succeeded in securing normal collective bargaining agreements with Coke bottlers, and where these gains are firmly defended, Coca-Cola bottlers have generally respected relationships with unions. Even in Colombia, where Coke's behavior has come under close scrutiny, Coca-Cola bottlers have recognized and signed collective agreements with all unions (including SINALTRAINAL, SINALTRAINBEC and SICO) that represent workers in the plants.

At the international level the Coca-Cola Company has begun a series of twice-yearly meetings with a team of IUF affiliates representing the IUF's worldwide membership within the company and its bottlers. Delegates from over 100 unions from 23 countries met in New York in March 2003 and mandated the IUF to negotiate such a process of regular meetings with the global corporate Coca-Cola management. The first such meeting involving a team of union representatives from Brazil, Germany, Japan and the United States and Canada as well as the IUF general secretary took place in New Jersey in October 2003; the next is planned for Atlanta in April 2004.
These meetings provide an opportunity to engage the company and address worker rights issues throughout the Coca-Cola system. Employment and broader issues on the agenda of the next meeting will include Coca-Cola's practices concerning HIV/AIDS and environmental issues, including the use of water resources by Coca-Cola bottling plants (a major issue in Kerala, India and elsewhere).

Meetings are prepared based on proposals from member unions at Coca-Cola; the IUF team reports back to the IUF membership.

Future global union strategy
The IUF and its affiliates will continue to engage Coca-Cola at every level from the local to the global - first and foremost to secure and protect the rights of workers throughout the company system. The two key rights are the right of all Coca-Cola employees to form and join unions and the right of these unions to negotiate fair collective agreements covering employment conditions. The strategy and its implementation have been and will continue to require a high degree of commitment and responsibility. The strategy, and years of hard work and struggle, has yielded real and measurable results.
If your union is not yet part of this IUF global struggle you can contact us at iuf@iuf.org and read about our activities on the IUF web site at www.iuf.org.

Join the IUF's global Coca-Cola union network!
Build union strength throughout the Coca-Cola system!
Defend workers' rights throughout the Coca-Cola system!
International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco
and Allied Workers’ Associations
Rampe du Pont-Rouge, 8 E-mail: iuf@iuf.org
CH-1213 Petit-Lancy (Switzerland) FAX + 41 22 793 22 38
TEL: + 41 22 793 22 33 www.iuf.org

by Sean MacGabhainn Thu Mar 04, 2004 18:28

Fruitjuice scatters around his own allegations and wanders off on his/her own tangents. Allegations that Sinaltrainal represent only a minority of the bottling plant workers (by the way, it is not a crime to represent a minority), demands that Sinaltrinal join the IUF? I said that joining the IUF was a good idea. As far as I am aware, Sinaltrainal represents 50% of the unionized bottling plant workers in Colombia (roughly 700 in a workforce of 2,000 direct employees). Sinaltrainal has suffered repression in a country where most murders of trade unionists in the world take place.

Fruitjuice engages in some very foolish statements about the International Union of Foodworkers, which serve as minor and irrelevant debating points. For instance: “Sean has been able to unearth historical material on Coke and the IUF that goes back as far as the times when siptu believed there was a conflict of interests between workers and capitalism ,a long time ago.” A couple of years, fruitjuice, not so long ago.

I went to the IUF home page, copied down relevant sections of that page, did a search by company, noted a front-page highlighted article on “Coke’s Killers” and posted them for your benefit. Took me five minutes, max - in all honesty I could not dignify it with the term "research", no “unearthing” required or necessary (go there yourself, www.iuf.org).

I also found today a document the IUF have produced on their organizing campaign in the Coca Cola system. Seems pretty contemporary to me – just like the other stuff I posted yesterday. I have reproduced it for Indymedia (below). It dovetails well with the central demand outside Coca Cola corporate in New York (more on this below).

It is foolish to suggest that the workers in unions other than Sinaltrainal in Coca Cola bottlers in Colombia are in “death squad approved unions” (no intention of heeding my advice on name-calling then?). This is another stupid slander. Whatever the mechanism by which some of these workers ended up working for Coca Cola bottlers, there is no basis for any suggestion other than that they are in bona fide trade unions fighting for their members’ interests. Do some people like to fight over unnecessary issues that just waste energy and that force workers and campaigners apart?

Fruitjuice seems to be getting more fixated on SIPTU by the day than on corporate Coca Cola. It will be a further waste of precious political resources. Is there a self-fulfilling prophecy in which SIPTU (or the IUF) will betray the struggle, making it necessary to get your retaliation in first? If so, this is called sectarian politics and does not have a hope of convincing significant numbers of workers.

If the main campaigners are focused on the boycott and only organize actions based on the boycott, then SIPTU, I strongly suspect, will not join up. Why? They strongly disagree with the tactic. The campaigners have the floor. They are driving the campaign against Coca Cola in Ireland. Instead of making up “Yah-boo-sucks” demands of SIPTU, think of the most effective way of getting SIPTU on board as allies. If you treat them as enemies, then you will achieve enmity.

The action fruitjuice mentions (again) outside corporate Coca Cola in New York is headlined (in the US), “Teamsters Join Global Delegation to Demand Negotiated Rights Agreement”. Union leaders from around the world joined together to note abuses in Coca Cola plants and to demand that Coca Cola negotiate rights enforceable in all franchised bottlers. They were not queuing up to demand a boycott.

The slogan of this demo is, as I pointed out already, the central demand of the IUF. I do not know if any Irish unions were involved, but I have absolutely no doubt that SIPTU would have had no problem at all in joining trade union colleagues around the world in supporting the demo. Doubtless, some bright spark will bring this up as a further point of contention with SIPTU, if no paddy trade unionist can be spotted in the crowd.

The point I was making is that the last thing a group of trade unionists are going to do is put a demand that puts them out of work if it is successful. Sinaltrainal seems to have an eccentric position on this point, but that does not mean that everyone has to go along with it as a central part of the fight for the rights of trade unionists in Colombia. The President of Sinaltrainal, Javier Correa, was not reported as making the demand for a boycott at the New York rally. Do you think that maybe he thought it wise not to make such a fetish out of it as Irish campaigners have? If he did make it, then CokeWatch (www.cokewatch.org) did not report it. Either way, same point applies. Take a leaf out his book on that occasion is all I suggest.

In the context of a local strike a local boycott would make sense, since it would be organising against strikebreaking. But there is no strike, not here or, for that matter, in Colombia. Do you want to demand that workers here go on strike, as a result of an order from Jack O’Connor in SIPTU, when there is no strike in Colombia. The workers would ignore it. I think I mentioned careful preparation and the need for respect for the views the Irish bottling plant workers. On the one hand there is criticism of unaccountable leaders of SIPTU preventing workers from seeing the evil gleam in capitalism’s eye. On the other Fruitjuice sems to want 'all out' orders issued forthwith from Liberty hall that would fall on deaf ears.

Does Fruitjuice still want to go around muttering that the SIPTU glass is half empty? By the way, if someone wants to find out what they are doing, why not ring them? It seems to me that some people react to the idea of picking up the telephone and speaking to a SIPTU representative as did ancient mariners staring fixedly at maps of the 'olde' world, which warned that “here” at the extremities of the known world “be witches”.

I think I have said enough. I have done my best.

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Thu Mar 04, 2004 17:45

Sean: Putting in motions at SIPTU branches calling for specific action is a good idea, but you don't have to make the boycott the basis for action. It failed in SIPTU in TCD because the boycott was the basis given for expressing support.

me: First off thanks for the constructive comments. OK Sean I don't want to drag this out as i agree with nearly everything you said BUT just to be clear nothing
has "failed" in TCD SIPTU or the Education Branch.

In fact from talking to one of the stewards there, though they took no position, everyone whospoke was on the LASC side (though I don't know if they were actually arguing for a boycott or not)

Further he informed me
that they are considering asking the college to dis-invest the college pension scheme from Coke. So nothing was "lost"
and both sides were allowed to present there argumenets and almost all the people there DO want to do something for the Columbian workers.

"as long as a boycott is the campaign precondition. It is not the bureaucracy that will stop you. It will be the members."

I doubt thats true BUT i haven't seen it said any where the boycott WAS a precondition but I'm not in LASC
- like I said theres plenty of ideas eg the disinvestment above
and industrial action would be the best - not that its going to be easy or quick !

Conor

by Pemberton Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:37

So how about it Sean, the last comment asks some straight questions. What other than quiet words has happened with Siptu and did as seems the case Anne Speed keep her mouth firmly shut at the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis and the Sinn Fein Shop Steward at the Naas Rd bottling plant. do they only lecture students? Could they not stand up to their comrades. Lots of questions but I won't hold my breath, Sean is unlikely to ever answer any of them or is likely to introduce yet more smokescreens.

by fruit juice Thu Mar 04, 2004 03:00

Is it possible for Sean mac Gabhainn to give a straight answer to a straight and very specific question. His scatter gun technique of firing off in all sorts of tangents without ever addressing the substance of the original inquiry is dishonest and makes this discussion of dubious value.
The example I posted of trade union action by the Teamsters and others was precisely that, an example of action. It was not an action against the boycott, or an argument against the boycott, they did not demand that sinaltranail drop its boycott call then or since or advise them to join the iuf. it was an exemplary act of solidarity by the biggest coke union in the world.
The question I raised is what public actions have siptu taken to spread the word on coke’s role in Columbia other than campaigning against the boycott. That shouldn’t be difficult, Sean has been able to unearth historical material on Coke and the IUF that goes back as far as the times when siptu believed there was a conflict of interests between workers and capitalism ,a long time ago.
Talking about raising the matter in siptu branches is another smokescreen. The leadership of siptu have a duty of care to its brothers and sisters in Columbia suffering murderous oppression who asked for their solidarity. the action so far by siptu leaders and supporters has been raise all sorts of doubts about their bona fides. For instance, to assert that sinaltrainal only represent a minority of the coke workers in Columbian bottling plants when death squad approved unions are replacing them as they are driven out and to campaign exclusively against the boycott is obscene. There is a clear obligation to raise this issue publicly, not behind closed doors. Coke is not a humanitarian organisation, it does not respond to moral pressure, only to their bottom line, profit and loss.
On a positive note, I hear Sinn Fein voted unanimously to support the boycott. Seems those sectarian, ultra left, petit bourgeois moralists are getting in everywhere. Has Anne Speed given up on the anti boycott campaign or did she put up a big fight? More questions and very few answers.

by Cormac - UCD Ban Coke Campaign Wed Mar 03, 2004 20:48

As above

by Sean MacGabhainn Wed Mar 03, 2004 18:55

Believe it or not, I am not here to defend either SIPTU or the IUF.

I suspect that the IUF launches its immediate action appeals in the form that it does because of constraints on how it can initiate on the spot action. I also suspect that demands for specific action have to be mandated by constituent organisations. That does not prevent those who want to initiate more direct and immediate action from doing so. It is not such a big deal unless you want to make it into one.

I respect the fact that solidarity campaigners want to get involved in more than letter writing (however, you should do the small things as well as preparing the big actions). It is just a question of what "more" consists of. Sure, the boycott has generated a lot of interest and debate; it has got me and others interested in what Coca Cola is doing in Colombia. But it has the capacity to turn the workers on the Naas Road off - despite the fact that they had already independently initiated discussion at European Works Council level.

Putting in motions at SIPTU branches calling for specific action is a good idea, but you don't have to make the boycott the basis for action. It failed in SIPTU in TCD because the boycott was the basis given for expressing support.

Work in SIPTU should complement action in the colleges and elsewhere, not contradict it - and vice versa. How about if everyone stops calling each other names. One thing is for sure, however, there is not a chance in hell of joint action with the Naas road workers or with other SIPTU branches as long as a boycott is the campaign precondition. It is not the bureaucracy that will stop you. It will be the members.

Just one other thing, finally, there is little point in demanding that SIPTU or the IUF take this or that action. You need to build support in the branches, as you write above, and start regarding the workers on the Naas Road as potential allies. Stick your pride in your pocket and take out a peace pipe for the Coke bottlers before doing a war dance on Coke Corporate.

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Wed Mar 03, 2004 16:52

Sean MacGabhainn sez :

More would be achieved, more quickly and more decisively,
if Sinaltrainal were in discussion with the International Union of Foodworkers
and if campaigners were to engage seriously with the SIPTU workers on the Naas on an alternative way forward.


me: This attitude is mind boggling. one of the biggest union federations in the world and the biggest union in the country WAIT
while the people who are being terrorised and killed have to jump through hoops why can't SIPTU take a bit of iniative ?
why don't other members do what the education branch in TCD did and have a discussion on it?
Why do SIPTU defenders have so much time to waste in indymedia when they could actually be raising the issue IN SIPTU?

Liberal BS
by Gambino - Youth Defence Tuesday, Mar 2 2004, 5:05pm


"If any of the pro-ban people were crediable, they would be complaining about human rights in china"


Me: Funny enough I've been at plenty of demonstrations against the Chinses governements line on Tibet and the Falun Gung amongst other
things prob a few more than the anoymous anti choice muppet above !

OK nice one to Sean for getting the IUF web page - couldn't find it yesterday

from which


"We therefore request that you write the Colombian authorities to demand, as a measure of urgency, that all necessary protection be provided to Euclides Gómez and all other SINTRAINAGRO officers who request it, and to emphasize that the government of Colombia will be held directly accountable for failing to implement the necessary security measures for these threatened trade unionists."


me: Fine as far as it goes and, yes, its good to see from Seans list they do campaign against Coke on other issues too
but to the public to write letters to the Columbian Government is not close to enough!

If people are against the boycott AND committed to the trade union movement why not get them to
move beyond mere lip service

Sean "Just drop the boycott call"

me: Personally I think the boycott is a good propoganda tool (just look at the discussion its got going here !) to raise the issue so I'm not against it

BUT

Industrial action would, with out a doubt, though, be a far more efffective kick up the arse for Coke

BUT ONE WAY or another
those who are oppossed to boycott and say they are for worker's rights
HAVE OUTLINED NO ALTERNATIVE here so far that I can see besides letter writing and other vague mutterings and putting forward hoops for the Columbians to jump through

david " the IUF are so powerful and represent so many workers why don’t they simply call for an international strike of all the Coke workers they represent until the situation is resolved? Then Sinaltrainal would not need to call for the boycott.
"

Exactly !
And to get that going may be people in SIPTU should start putting motions to their branches NOW

Conor

by Johnny Boy Wed Mar 03, 2004 14:18

Well if the only difference is about tactics, why did the shop stewards when they called out to UCD tell some of the students that this was about money and that there was no basis to teh claim.

If the IUF is so concerned about the situation in Columbia why don't they do something about it?

If Siptu were serious they would launch an information campaign explaining to the whole country what is happening in Colombia but they are not interested.

I attended the meetings in Trinity and there a Siptu person said the facts of the case had yet to be decided upon by a court and that we don't know what is happening.

Everytime they are pressed they revert back to type.

by Sean MacGabhainn Wed Mar 03, 2004 14:08

A: Sinaltrainal negotiate with Coca Cola bottlers every day of the week, irrespective of whether they "trust" them or not. They represent 50% of Coca Cola bottling plant workers in Colombia. What else would they do?

B: The IUF does not accept “death, torture, kidnap and assault” – where did you get that idea? Check out the IUF website (www.iuf.org). Local unions negotiate on behalf of their members with employers, good, bad and indifferent and adopt a stance based on the relationship of forces between management and labour. The IUF is only as powerful as the agreement that can be reached with its members. Sinaltrainal did not win many friends by the way they went about their campaign. It was an unnecessary way to proceed.

C: Trade unions are obliged in defence of their members’ interests to point out actions they believe are not in the interests of trade unionists or of trade unions. You can’t persuade workers to take action on behalf of oppressed Coca Cola workers in Iran (a Sinaltrainal claim) when there are no Coca Cola plants in Iran.

D: You have to persuade workers to go out on strike. Have the Teamsters come out on strike on this issue? No. Are Sinaltrainal in Colombia on strike? No. It is a laudable goal and one that would require hard work and careful preparation, respect for the views of workers and it would be a devastating blow to the stance of the Coca Cola Corporation. From the point of view of the boycott call, as the fellah giving directions says, “I wouldn’t start from here if I was you”. If you want an all-out strike, you have to consider how to build for it. Making a demand that is just happens is a recipe for failure. Like the boycott call, it might make you feel good, but it may not produce positive results.

E: No one is trying to “sabotage Sinaltrainal’s efforts” – apart from Coca Cola and the far right paramilitaries and the Colombian state. The boycott call, however, is not the best means of going forward. It alienates Coca Cola workers and they should be seen as decisive allies (as you point out in terms of the impact a protest strike would have).

by David Wed Mar 03, 2004 12:05

That the IUF is sulking because Sinaltrainal don't want to join their organisation. (Similar to the IAWM reaction to the Grassroots?)

The IUF and Sinaltrainal seem to have the same goal in this situation, protection of workers, but their tactics are different. Sinaltrainal doubtlessly have absolutely no confidence in the honour of Coca-Cola executives and how can you negotiate with somebody you don’t trust? The IUF also recognise that Coca-Cola are not an honourable organisation but are still convinced that they can bargain with them and expect Coca-Cola to behave with integrity (Similarly with the Grassroots and IAWM in relation to the Irish Government)

The best situation for the Coke Workers would be if the IUF stood side by side with Sinaltrainal and at the very least did not condemn their tactics while Sinaltrainal stood in support of the actions the IUF are taking. The simple reason is that neither Sinaltrainal or the IUF can possibly know for sure that their strategy is the best one (though they may have strongly held beliefs) but it is pretty clear if they waste their energy fighting each other than neither strategy has a real chance to succeed.

That said, I think that the IUF know that Coca-Cola are responsible for Death, torture, kidnap and assault but they are prepared to accept this kind of behaviour because it is par for the course amongst Multi-nationals. They are terribly short sighted about the consequences of allowing this behaviour to go unpunished. If the IUF are so powerful and represent so many workers why don’t they simply call for an international strike of all the Coke workers they represent until the situation is resolved? Then Sinaltrainal would not need to call for the boycott.
Because they apparently have not even attempted this course of action it can be inferred that they are not prepared to do anything on this matter except sabotage Sinaltrainals efforts.

by Sean MacGabhainn Wed Mar 03, 2004 11:34

There was no mention of a boycott in Hoffa's statement or in his actions. Significant or what?

Equally significant is Hoffa’s demand in the first paragraph that Coke “negotiate a worldwide agreement to protect its workers’ rights and safety”. That is a central demand of the International Union of Foodworkers and can only be negotiated through a worldwide trade union organization. The IUF have said that one of the problems with the Concentration on court action is that a legal principle could be established (that Coke is not responsible for its bottlers) that contradicts what the IUF is fighting for on the basis of workers rights.

The problem in Ireland is that the solidarity campaign did not go near the Coca Cola workers here before launching their boycott campaign. If they had, they would have found that the Coca Cola workers had independently brought up the issue at European Works Council last year and they could have built on that. Instead, there was only disdain, slander and (in UCD) physical assault of the bottling plant workers when they challenged the boycott call.

No one is demanding that Sinaltrainal join the IUF. But it would have been better had they done so and if they were engaged in getting support from Coca Cola Workers throughout the Wold through the IUF, as well as with the forces who are currently pursuing the boycott call. It would have been better, it would still be better, if agreement was found on actions that all could engage in.

Those who are promoting it, should stop the very foolish view that food and drink workers throughout the world, represented by the IUF, are beholden in any way to Coca Cola. It is just a stupid slander.


If you go to http://www.cokewatch.org, you will find

“Welcome to Cokewatch, a website designed to keep an eye on The Coca-Cola Company, one of the world’s most well-known corporations.

You may be shocked to learn about the conditions under which Coca Cola products are produced and distributed.

In Colombia, for example, union workers who bottle Coca Cola products have been kidnapped, tortured and murdered. The largest Coca Cola union in Colombia has asked for an international campaign against Coke to stop the violence against workers, which has included a half-dozen murders at one plant alone in the mid-1990’s. Reports of these crimes sparked a historic lawsuit against the Coca Cola Company and their Colombian bottler by the International Labor Rights Fund and the United Steelworkers of America on behalf of the Colombian union."

Again, no mention of a boycott. This is for the very sensible reason that if there was a successful boycott call after every serious abuse from the Coca Cola company, the abused workers would soon be out of work. I repeat my earlier point that the boycott call potentially punishes Coca Cola workers for the abuses of Coca Cola management.

It may be that there are some who want closure forced on the Coca Cola Company in Ireland. If so, they should come out and say so, as Eoin Dubsky does above. Don't expect agreement from the bottling plant workers on this.

Alternatively, if the solidarity campaigners took a deliberate decision to try to get the agreement of Coca Cola workers around the world, and in Ireland, they would be far more likely to get agreement on direct action from the workers themselves. Just drop the boycott call.

by Rupert Wed Mar 03, 2004 01:38

Ask Rory Hearne, Dozzey.

by fruit juice Wed Mar 03, 2004 01:25

below is an example of solidarity action by trade unionists from coke. Notice there is no demands that sinaltrainal join the iuf or other preconditions or hoops for them to jump through before action be taken. can someone please show what actions are being taken by siptu to expose the actions of coke in Columbia to the irish trade union membership and to the public at large. The campaign of murder is going on a long time and there should be some record of their role other than the current campaign against the boycott.


Hoffa Tells Coke: Murder Is More
Than A PR Problem

Hoffa, Colombian Leader Correa Demand
Negotiated Rights Agreement

(Washington, D.C.) - James P. Hoffa, Teamsters General President, on Wednesday joined Colombian union leader Javier Correa and a global delegation of Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO) union leaders into Coke’s annual shareholders meeting to demand that Coke negotiate a worldwide agreement to protect its workers’ rights and safety.

“Coca-Cola must acknowledge that the killing and abuse of its workers is far more than a marketing problem,” Hoffa said. “This company must take responsibility for its employees and negotiate an enforceable rights agreement with its unions.”

Hundreds of Teamsters rallied outside Madison Square Garden, the site of the Coke’s annual meeting, to protest the company’s poor treatment of its workers. Coca-Cola union leaders from Guatemala, the Philippines, Zimbabwe and the U.S. told members of the Coca-Cola Board of Directors of the harassment and abuse of trade union members at Coca-Cola production, bottling and distribution centers.

Correa, President of Colombia’s food and beverage union Sinaltrainal, described the vicious attacks on union workers in his country. Seven Colombian Coca-Cola workers have been brutally assaulted and murdered during periods of negotiations with their employer.

“Since Coke fired all its union leaders, conditions in Guatemalan Coke facilities are deteriorating,” said Jose Argueta, General Secretary of Guatemala’s Central Bottling Company’s Workers Union - Coca-Cola.

Farayi Makanda, Secretary General of the Zimbabwe Transport and General Workers Union, Andrew Casino, National President of the Alliance of Coca-Cola Unions - Philippines, and Bruce Amidon, former Teamsters Local 79 shop steward, reported a host of human and workers’ rights violations at their facilities.

“All tactics that make the employee suffer are being employed,” Makanda said.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters is the largest Coca-Cola union in the world, representing more than 15,000 workers at Coca-Cola facilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
733 15th Street NW, Suite 920
Washington, DC 20005

by Dozzey Wed Mar 03, 2004 00:29

Are we serious here..another pointless referendum that has absolutely nothing to do with student politics..

How many jobs in ireland will be lost if every one thought the same way...how long will Trinity continue to follow this pointless and ridiculous competition with UCD?

by Sean MacGabhainn Tue Mar 02, 2004 19:15

(It is a bit confusing that the editors have joined together two threads, the TCD one with the latest story about Cocal Cola's fraudulent accounting methods, so that suddenly there is discussion of transfer pricing and of bottled water. My comment above has been moved form the other thread and the one above that was here all the time. The comment below is for the benefit of Gearoid O L who has been moved here too)

A quick search on “Coca Cola” on the IUF website (www.iuf.org) turns up the following headlines (at the end of this comment) on the IUF’s attitude to Coca Cola. The home page highlights the following headline to an article on Coca Cola in Colombia: “Coke’s Killers - soft drink giant to review union deaths”.

The Urgent Action section on the home page has the following:

Urgent Actions

Korea: KCTU Migrant Workers Union Under Attack 15-Jan-2004

Prison Labour Regime for Chinese Worker Rights Leaders 21-Oct-2003

Colombia: SINTRAINAGRO Leaders Still at Risk 07-Oct-2003

Union-busting in Phuket, Thailand: Trade Unionists are "Cockroaches" 08-Sep-2003

Colombia: Killers Target Food Workers Union Leader 25-Aug-2003

Union-Busting at Fiji's Turtle Island, 07-Jul-2003

This indicates an organisation with every intention of fighting for trade union rights for workers around the world, including in Colombia and in Coca Cola plants. The issue is not simply why Sinaltrainal will not talk to the IUF today to organise solidarity. It is also why Sinaltrainal was not a member of the IUF, why it is not affiliated to the IUF and why it did not ask the IUF for advise on putting together a case against Coca Cola, or ask for support from IUF affiliates in the normal manner in which workers show solidarity for each other, through discussion and agreement on joint action. This has been effective in the past. See the relevant information on the IUF site.

For instance, a quick call to the IUF would have told Sinaltrainal that there are no Coca Cola workers in Iran for Coke to oppress, since there is no Coke plant there. Could it not be agreed that this was an example of a “sweeping and unsubstantiated” allegation?

Also, it was not simply the IUF that condemned the boycott call. It was 27 unions from 23 countries. The statement (mentioned below) can be read on the IUF site. It finishes

“It has always been our position that Coca-Cola bears ultimate responsibility for ensuring respect for fundamental rights throughout the Coca-Cola system. In our experience over many years, Coca-Cola is a company which, given the opportunity, is likely to seek to weaken an agreement, block an organizing drive or bust a union where it can do so. In this respect, it is no different from most other transnational companies. To change this our response must be, as always, sustained organizing and engagement backed up by a credible threat of action where necessary to defend and advance respect for trade union rights in this as in all such companies.”

Even if you do not agree with the statement, the IUF is not the class enemy and Sinaltrainal should be in an organisation where it can deal directly with fellow trade unionists. Of course, if Sinaltrainal cannot even convince other workers in the Coca Cola system in Colombia on the boycott call, there is presumably pessimism within Sinaltrainal on getting support for it from other Coca Cola workers throughout the world. What exactly is Sinaltrainal’s position, that every Coca Cola worker in the world is beholden to the bosses, except them?

Coca cola workers in Ireland remain sympathetic to the plight of Coca Cola workers in Colombia and will engage in solidarity action that supports their just demands. The concentration on the boycott call, when Coca Cola workers throughout the world actively oppose it, is politically sectarian and it is ultra-left. It paralyses worker’s solidarity and makes solidarity reliant on those who can potentially punish Coca Cola workers for Coca Cola managements’ faults. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

(By the way, most bottled water is bottled bullshit)

From IUF website (Coca Cola search)

Coke Unions in Asia Demand Rights, Fight for Contract Workers 10-Oct-2003

Coca-Cola Continues to Oppose Union Organization in Russia 18-Sep-2003

Moscow Coca-Cola Union Leader Reinstated By Court Following Union Recognition Win 08-Aug-2003

IUF Coca-Cola Affiliates Reject Call for a global Coca-Cola boycott 15-Jul-2003

Successful Defense of Union Gains at Coca-Cola Colombian Bottler 11-Jul-2003

Union Wins Recognition at Moscow Coca-Cola Bottler 11-Jul-2003

Global Meeting of Coca-Cola Workers: Delegates Vow To Continue Fight for Worker Rights 06-Mar-2003
RWDSU/UFCW (USA) delegates at the meeting

Coca-Cola union in India breaks new bargaining ground and fights off outsourcing 14-Feb-2003

IUF’s Peruvian affiliate signs crucial new collective bargaining agreement with Coca-Cola bottler 03-Jan-2003

Coca-Cola Bottler and IUF affiliate STECSA Sign New Collective Agreement in Guatemala 23-Dec-2002

Trade Union Rights at Risk at Coca-Cola Guatemala 24-Sep-2002

Colombia: SICO and Coca-Cola franchise sign new CBA in Urabá 28-Mar-2002

Coca Cola workers in Colombia win on contract workers issue 03-Mar-2002

Gains for Colombian Beverage Workers/Strike Threat at Coca-Cola Plant 27-Feb-2002

Statement on ILRF/USWA lawsuit filed against The Coca-Cola Company 28-Nov-2001

Coke Fights Unions in Russia 26-Nov-2001

Company Developments at Coca-Cola 05-Mar-2001

by Gambino - Youth Defence Tue Mar 02, 2004 18:05

If any of the pro-ban people were crediable, they would be complaining about human rights in china, north korea, veitnam or cuba. But their not because in those cases, it is socialists doning the oppressing. This group has no credibility and no integrity.

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Tue Mar 02, 2004 17:52

Coke's unon busting is very, very wide spread not just in Columbia - a lot of info on this, their safety record (appalling) and some of their incrediblly creative accounting at this link

from which

"Coke has consolidated a considerable amount of its concentrate production in countries with lower corporate taxes, such as Ireland. Coke's two plants in Ireland produce most of the concentrate for Georgia coffee, a popular line of drinks in Japan. Coke officials reviewed their sales practices in Japan shortly after the SEC issued a bulletin in December 1999 warning companies about channel stuffing and other improper methods of revenue recognition, according to people familiar with the matter."

I think "improper methods of revenue recognition" is a fancy word for makey up profits


http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=9752


more

http://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/GDP/archive/articleC41DB15EFF044EA9AC8E207D979B9E8F.asp

and more

http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=628_0_2_0_C

by Gearoid O Loingsigh - LASC Tue Mar 02, 2004 16:35

Well, if they sell you tap water and give you to understand that it is something else it doesn't matter what the nutrients are.

We are supposed to take their bonafides at face value on the issue of murder when we can't even believe them when it comes to buying water.

Sinaltrainal are not in talks with the IUF at the moment as the IUF gave coke a clean bill of health. Please check the IUF statement on the matter, don't take my word for it, as I have been called a liar on this matter on other threads.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh - Lasc Tue Mar 02, 2004 16:30

I am that this stage used to being called a liar by liars and it is water off a duck'c back. However, Sinaltrainal does represent 50% of unionised workers and if we exclude the management unions set up by Coke itself then the percentage goes up to 80%.

Only some coke workers have called for a boycott. Well given that the penalty for doing so, is a bullet that some is more than enough.

by Ray McInerney Tue Mar 02, 2004 14:10

Remember that clip in the Unbelievables video 'The Telly' where they were filling up bottle water from the toilet.

by Des Tue Mar 02, 2004 13:41

For a more detailed account of Coke's sale of tap water checkout:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1022842,00.html

The article likens Coke's practice of selling tap water for 95 pence sterling a go, to the antics of Del Boy from Only Fools and Horses! Glad to see that some people are still defending Coke.

It seems that no matter what is revealed about this multinational some people will still choose to argue against a boycott.

by Grandaddy Disco Tue Mar 02, 2004 13:30

Is Vic there?

by Sean MacGabhainn Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:59

If true, this practice of “channel surfing” would appear to complement the normal means whereby profits of multinationals sited in Ireland are artificially boosted. It is one of the reasons why they site here - that and tariff free access to European markets. The practice known as “transfer pricing” allows multinationals to register high profits in the area with the lowest effective corporate tax regime and to register lower profits where the tax regime is harsher or where they can be written off against research and development costs.

In the 1980s in Ireland a “black hole” was discovered in the accounts of the Irish state in which billions of pounds had gone missing. No, this was not tax evasion by Liam Lawlor and his friends, it was the disappearing profits of multinationals that were transferred out again.

Transfer pricing is effectively promoted by the Irish state as a means whereby profits can be artificially boosted in the location with the lowest effective rate of tax on exports. The claim by the IDA that Ireland was the most profitable location in the EU for multinationals was based entirely on the practice of multinationals ‘buying’ cheap from one subsidiary, shipping the material to Ireland, assembling and doing final fault testing, and shipping on at an inflated price to the marketing arm of the same multinational in Britain, France, Germany, etc..

Water
A study of the difference between free Dublin Corporation tap water and commercially sold water in Ireland found the corpo water to have the most nutrients. Just goes to show, if you could bottle it, you would make a fortune.

Boycott
Since reference was made above to the boycott campaign, I will go on record again and say that I am against it (see http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=63600). Even from the point of view of singling out Coca Cola among all the multinationals in the world (or even as compared to Pepsi who are said by some to have a worse record than Coke – haven’t seen any details as yet), the boycott campaign is being carried out against the express wishes of the Coca Cola bottling plant workers on the Naas Road. More would be achieved, more quickly and more decisively, if Sinaltrainal were in discussion with the International Union of Foodworkers and if campaigners were to engage seriously with the SIPTU workers on the Naas on an alternative way forward.

The issue of transfer pricing or channel surfing only applies to the concentrate plants, which manufacture for export - the concentrate plant in County Louth is unionised, whereas the plant is Mayo is not. There is little or no connection between the workers in the franchised bottling plant on the Naas Road, who manufacture for Irish consumption, and those in the directly owned and controlled concentrate plants.

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:07

by Vic Lenin Friday, Feb 27 2004, 4:53pm


Only someone devoid of basic politics could suggest that workers’ opposition to losing their jobs was a purely selfish




act – “…. its actually about the greasy bill in the till….”. If you are defending jobs in Colombia then defend them here as well. I notice you are not volunteering the sacrifice of your own job – if you did you could become an unemployed “ashamed” SIPTU member. What makes your wages of the non-greasy variety?


me: The fact that i put my money, my REAL NAME and my heart and soul into political action for the last 15 years !

Again I WASN'T referring to the wages of the workers in Coke but to the inaction of the LARGEST UNION in the country on this issue


vic: Why is it suggested that workers solidarity can only be expressed through your boycott call that could lead to job losses here and have little or no effect in Colombia? They say, by the way, that anarchism is a form of radicalised petit-bourgeois morality. I can think of many forms of workers’ action that would be more effective and direct than this divisive boycott. Get into dialogue (without the name calling) with the SIPTU bottling plant workers and you might learn a thing or two.

me: You mean the guys who wouldn't be in the room at the same time as a LASC speaker when asked in by TCD SIPTU - I'll take me lessons else where thanks Vic (which in no way implys that they don't have a right to fight for their jobs and condituion etc etc )

Your approach can be summed up thus:

We must do something
This is something
Therefore we must do this



me: I actually didn't particularly mention the boycott at all in my comments so your responding to straw men plucked outa
your own head

what i asked was what practical action are SIPTU the largest union in Ireland going to take (I never mentioned the
workers in the plant or the boycott (though I do support a WORLD WIDE boycott) - so more straw men)

What is needed world wide is actual industrial action in my view and thats what needs "investigation" by SIPTU and internationally

As to the "petit bourgeois shite" I think most reasonable people who can read and write will know how to treat that with the contempt it deserves !

conor

by Tony Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:14

It has emerged to day that Coca Cola is under investigation for fraudulent practices involving its Irish plants.
Both the US Attorney's office and the US Securities and Exchange Commission in Atlanta are investigating the company for allegedly arranging with a Japanese company to take large quantities of product from the Irish plants to falsely boost Coca-Cola's quarterly profits during the 1990s.

The two Irish plants supply most of the product for Georgia Coffee, a popular line of Coca-Cola drinks in Japan.

A spokesman for Coca-Cola Ireland referred all queries to headquarters in Atlanta.

Coca-Cola concentrate is produced at two Irish plants, Ballina, Co Mayo, and Drogheda, Co Louth. Various Coca-Cola companies employ a total of 1,000 staff in the Republic.

A full report appears in todays Irish Times. Given the recent boycott campaign, these further allegations of Coke malpractice and dishonesty, cast further doubt on the credibility of the multi-national.

In a separate news piece in the Irish Times today it was revealed that Coke in the U.K. has been selling tap water as a bottled water product and making a nice tidy profit.

by Sean MacGabhainn Mon Mar 01, 2004 00:07

You wrote "the biggest threat to workers rights and jobs internationally" is "the predatory activities of transnational capitalism". I would say it is capitalism and its offshoot imperialism. Your reference, while accurately stating that capitalism is transnational, leads to the mistake common among many in the anti-globalisation movement that it is the transnational element of production that is the enemy of workers’ rights. It also forgets that capitalist power is based on the nation state, or rather the imperialist nation state and the dominance of the US, which promotes the interests of its transnational corporatons.

The transnationalisation of production does not apply to the situation in Colombia or Ireland in relation to the production of drinks for markets there or here. International economies of scale dictate that Coca Cola is produced locally for local consumption. Hence the establishment of franchised bottlers who attempt to impose their own conditions of work, based on local relationships of forces between management and labour. It is the Coca-Cola concentrate that is exported from plants owned directly by the Coca-Cola Corporation. (of which in Ireland there are two, One in County Louth that is unionised and one non-unionised in County Mayo). There is very little, if any, connection between the concentrate workers and the workers in the franchised bottlers. Whether that is good or bad is beside the point. It just happens to be the case.

Coca Cola would like to deny any responsibility for what happens in franchised bottling plants. The International Union of Foodworkers is attempting to negotiate an agreement with Coca-Cola that would cover all plants producing Coca-Cola products. One of the problems they have with the Sinaltrainal court case in the US is that it has the very real possibility of denying legally what the IUF assert in terms of the rights of workers in trade unions – that Coca Cola has a duty of care for all workers employed in plants producing Coca Cola. Far from winning the battle, Sinaltarinal could lose the war.

This leads to a further problem with the Sinaltrainal approach. They are not affiliated with the IUF and have not given any reason why they have not affiliated with an organisation that has contacts with 1.6 million food and drink production workers throughout the world. The IUF, contrary to the lying and mischievous propaganda of some, do not oppose boycotts in all cases and they have a record of defence of workers around the world, including Coca-Cola workers. They organised a successfull boycott in Sweden when. Guatemalan Coca-Cola workers were under attack some years ago. It was a short sharp three-day boycott effectively organised and promoted by the IUF. It worked. Coca-Cola caved in. Sinaltainal have decided to hitch their wagon to anti-globalisation forces that are popular with students and the young. Nothing wrong with that per se, except that the tactic promoted has not got the support of other workers in Coca-Cola in Colombia and has alienated workers within the Coca-Cola system. This is because Sinaltrainal seems totally unconcerned with what other workers think. There was no attempt to prevent Sinaltrainal from having access to other Coca Coal workers.

Since you are obviously writing from a socialist perspective you must have a view on the potential and the need for working class action. It does not make sense that "consciousness raising" among students, while important in itself, should be at the unnecessary and needless expense of the alienation of Irish Coca Cola workers who, it is clear, would participate in joint actions with students if they were given the opportunity to fight with methods appropriate to their current state of organisation and consciousness (both quite advanced).

But you seem to have written them off in advance because of the existence of "social partnership". You clearly do not know how these workers voted on the partnership agreements and you clearly have no conception of the relevance of this general point to the particular issue we are discussing. Your denunciation of "the leadership of the main workers organisations" has cut you off from considering the day to day consciousness of rank and file workers who have a tradition of struggle. You seem to suggest: "That’s it, I wash my hands of the Irish working class. I’m off to do a bit of consciousness raising with some students" - by encouraging the students to engage in actions that the workers perceive as middle class tokenism that might have the effect of putting them out of work. All they have received from some leaders of this boycott campaign is condescension and lies, combined with sectarian insults and abuse.

This approach is the result of opportunism, sectarianism or ultra-leftism – or perhaps a combination of all three. It does not occur to you to call on others to stop the sectarian insults directed at the workers or their representatives. Neither have you commented on Eoin Dubsky’s dubious call to silence the production lines in Ireland, but not in Colombia. Your whole criticism is directed the bottling plant workers on the Naas Road. Since part of the Sinaltrainal critique of Coca Cola is that they are behaving like predatory capitalist employers, what if the situation was reversed. What if supporters of 50% of Irish bottling plant workers who regard their fellow workers as "scabs" in "scab unions" were to arrive in Columbia, ignore the Colombian bottling plant workers and call on Colombian students to close down significant accounts that would result in the laying of bottling plant workers in Colombia? Do you think they would be welcomed with open arms, especially if the promoters of the organised boycott said: "but we are only here for some ‘consciousness raising’ among the students".

A previous contributor mentioned a call made by a SIPTU shop steward in TCD for a strike by Coca-Cola workers. But you have to persuade, organise and build for such a desirable outcome. It will not arise out of petulant demands, especially not where workers are being alienated. Anyone with even a minimal knowledge of workers’ action knows that strikes do not happen because an order is issued from the office of a union general secretary or a union branch official. Some on the ultra-left think that posters and placards calling for a "general strike now" are only thwarted in their intent by evil bureaucrats keeping the workers in the dark and penning them into their factories or places of work. There is something of this conspiracy theory in your suggestion that SIPTU has tried "to prevent… information from being more widely available". It was Irish bottling plant workers that raised Sinaltrianal’s allegations at Coca-Cola’s European Works Council in April 2003, before any activity arrived on student campuses. There is an argument to be made that more urgency was required, but as to your allegation of attempts to prevent knowledge of "the murder of trade unionists"? No, this is nonsense. Sinaltrainal had a responsibility to make workers in the Coca Cola system aware of their plight. Being in the IUF would have been the most effective means of doing so. But issuing vast ponderous denunciations of Coca-Cola (including a suggestion that Coca-Cola workers are under attack in places where there is no Coca Cola manufacturing operation led the IUF to criticise Sinaltrainal for putting out "sweeping and unsubstantiated" allegations that clouded the very real concerns they were expressing.

It made it very difficult to pursue the Sinaltrainal case. Not least because Sinaltrainal accused other unionised workers in Coca Cola in Colombia of being "scabs" for being employed after Sinaltrainal members had had fled after threats from far-right forces and a now departed management in one bottling franchise factory.

Coca-Cola have a case to answer and have a duty of care to employees of the Coca Cola bottlers in Colombia. The Colombian state that is in league with far right forces also has a responsibility. Both should be put under pressure. The question is whether you want united pressure from the trade union colleagues of the Colombian bottlers and student and anti-globalisation forces, or whether you are satisfied with relying on students who are encouraged to call those who oppose the tactic being proposed "scabs". If the Sinaltrainal union persuade their colleagues that thay are under attack they will get solidarity support more quickly and more effectively than with this rolling divisive boycott call. Furthermore, this alternative method will strengthen workers' organisation within the Coca-Cola system. The boycott method will weaken workers' global solidarity and reinforce ultra-left prejudices among forces who will go in a petit bourgeois direction politically.

Food for thought?

by David Sun Feb 29, 2004 18:44

This may be so, but in real life things arent this black and white. When somebody is accused of murder he/she is usually remanded in custody for the protection of society (especially if he/she continues to threaten people)
If the police had to wait until a guilty verdict is passed before arresting sombody then there is a chance that the witnesses might be threatened and that more people will die.

Coke cannot be arrested because its a corporation, and even if it could be, it wouldnt stop them from authorising more attacks on trade unions. The only way to stop a business from behaving badly is to make it bad for business that they do so.
A boycott can be very effective at ensuring this. We could wait for the court cases to all be decided, but (a) that could take years, more people could die in that time, they continue to face threats and intimidation and (b) the courts are not entirely unbiased in this case and the burdon of proof is very high on the prosecutors. A Not guilty verdict would not be sufficiant to prove that coke bear no responsibility for the attacks

by John Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:38

I have never in this thread claimed to represent anybody, especially coke workers.

All i have done is highlight the fact that SIn. is not a majority union in Coca-Cola's bottling facilities in Colombia. the other unions who represent the majority of workers in the Coca-Cola bottling factories are not affiliated to SIN..

How does that make me out to be representing coke workers, johnjoe?

by D E Truth Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:15

The International Union of Foodworkers (IUF), representing 1.6 million workers around the world, have not given Coca Cola in Colombia "a clean bill of health". They have a record of opposing Coca Cola's denial of trade union rights .

This is another O'Loinsigh lie and typical of his politically sectarian approach to campaigning and debate.

Since there is no good reason why Sinaltrainal is not affiliated to the IUF, O'Loinsgh has resorted to lies to cover up their non involvement with thousands of fellow workers around the world

by Johnjoe Sun Feb 29, 2004 00:12

Where did you get your information? I dont see any evidence. Since you are just using the name "John" you are as anonymous as myself, but then I'm not claiming to represent the coke workers in any way, so neither should you.

by John Sat Feb 28, 2004 19:15

the boycott is supported by SOME not all coca-cola workers in Colombia.. The majority of coke workers haven't called for a boycott.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh - Lasc Sat Feb 28, 2004 15:34

The call for the boycott comes from the Coke workers union in Colombia a point often forgotten in the debate. The IUF the international federation to which Siptu branch is affiliated has given Coke and its bottlers a clean bill of health.

Siptu's attitude has been a mixture of misinformation and boxing clever. ONe proposal was for a fact finding trip to Colombia, when it was pointed out that one such trip is being organised they didn't take up on it.

Coke are clearly worried. A major US university is apparently due to sever its contract with coke.

by Róisín Ní Leathlóbhair - U.C.D Student Sat Feb 28, 2004 13:24

It was great to hear that the anti-coke ban has spread to Trinity. Unlike many cynics who have commented above i believe that the effect these bans are having are definitely worth while.

to find out more about the recent events in the battle against coca cola visit www.killercoke.org or cokewatch.org

by john Sat Feb 28, 2004 13:22

k keating wrote 'The reasons given for opposing the boycott are demonstratively false.'

I oppossed the boycott because the allegaitons against coca-cola have not been proven in any court of law. show me how that is demonstratively false.

by John Sat Feb 28, 2004 11:04

The 'Killer Coke' poster was banned by theCollege Authorities late last year. This ban was reported in the college media, and wassupposedly the result of legal pressure placed on the college from Coca-Cola Ireland. If you want to find out more about the banning of the 'Killer Coke' poster line, I would contact Trinity Labour as they were the group placing the poster around the college and were the ones directly informed of the ban.

However, even if wasn't banned in the first place, it wouldn't have been allowed during the referendum.

TCD referenda are run on the following basis (if you want more info go to www.TCDSU.org look for the consitution and for schedule 3).

A referenda is announced on foot of a petition of 350 registerd TCD students, or as a result of a vote of the SU council.

After that a deadline is announced for the registration of campiagns. (Neither the Yes or the No side registered in time, mainly due to the fact that the dealine was not advertised particularly well).

Registered Camapign teams are allowed poster, but only posters that have been printed by the TCDSU or carry an SU apporved stamp. The 'Killer Coke' or the 'Labour Youth/SF poster asking for a yes vote didn't carry these stamps, were not from a registered team, were illegal.

Further more it would appear that outside aid is not allowed in, nor outside funding. However, the killer coke and the flyers distrubted by the pro-ban side, were not printed by the SU nor by the CSC. They came from an outside agency.

by TS Sat Feb 28, 2004 02:56

People have said that its great that the ban went ahead, but there is no real evidence. the courts around the world haven't found against Coke. There is no absolute proof against Coke and yet people are willing to accept that they must be wrong.

On the other hand there are many articles here about the American illegal combatants in Cuba who deserve a fair trial. Again no proof, but yet people are willing to say they arent terrorists. why the differnence?

I know the spelling is awful, but your double standards are worse

by k keating Fri Feb 27, 2004 23:20

The biggest threat to workers rights and jobs internationally is created by the predatory activities of transnational capitalism. That should be abc to a union like SIPTU whose members are suffering the effects of the drive to global deregulation. The attacks on social gains of workers is inevitably accompanied with attempts to undermine and destroy their ability to resist through their defensive organisations - trade unions, political organisations etc. In countries like Columbia the right of workers to organise is very sharply posed as the super profits of multinational corporations is enforced with ever more brutal methods.
The freeing up of capital from competitive restraints such as social entitlements and the right to organise is the same threat in Ireland as in Columbia. Unfortunately,in Ireland the leadership of the main workers organisations have devised their own novel method of meeting the offensive, they have adapted to it, and call it Social Partnership. It's no real surprise that SIPTU have taken the position they have on SINALTRAINAL's call for solidarity. When have the defended Irish workers in recent years? The defeats Irish workers suffered during the Celtic Tiger period, the biggest economic boom in the history of the state, caused absolutely no questioning of their alliance with the bosses.

The most ominous and long term threat to the Coke workers in Ireland is the company getting away with riding roughshod over the rights of workers elswhere in the world, to the extent that they tolerate the murder of trade unionists. The leadership given to the workers by SIPTU is the equivalent of holding a sword to their own throat.
The reasons given for opposing the boycott are demonstratively false. The boycott tactic is a means of spreading information on Coke's treatment of workers in Columbia. It is a conciousness raising excerise. SIPTU's role has been to try to prevent that information from being more widely available as they know the result would be that vast numbers of irish workers would find that the murder of trade unionists is an unacceptable price for coke.

The boycott campaign is being run by small groups of students on scant resources. The duty of SIPTU is to inform Irish workers of the fate of their fellow workers in Columbia. They could use the vast apparatus of the trade unions to do this,it is much more their responsibility to do this than anyone else. If Irish workers and youth knew the price of Coca Cola they would stop drinking it.

by David Fri Feb 27, 2004 20:49

that was proven to be false as far back as the UCD campaign then they are guilty of Lying blatantly to the student population and this is far worse than a few posters here and there that may or may not have been against the rules.

Every single poster and leafet that YFG maynooth produced contains information that was blatantly untrue and considering that TCD were most likely recieving advice from Michael binchy from UCD and Matt Bruton from Maynooth i can be almost certain that the same lies were propagated in the TCD campaign.

YFG remind me of the Americans during iraq howling rage as bodies of two of their soldiers are shown on television meanwhile they maintain concentration camps in Cuba, Bomb Civillian centers in iraq and afghanistan and then use humiliating pictures of Saddam (a POW) for their own propaganda purposes, all far larger breaches of the geneva convention than the Iraqis were being accused of

by Siobhan Fri Feb 27, 2004 18:55

I was not involved in either the pro or anti boycott campaigns in college but I did go to one meeting where both sides aired their views. It seemed to me that there was very little doubt that Coca Cola could do a lot more to defend the workers in Columbia.

I don't think having meetings with Coca Cola managers will get you very far. Unless you are threatening them with some sort loss of profits why would they bother doing anything? Has anything good resulted from those meetings?

The boycott, if it spreads quickly to enough colleges in enough countries, could make them decide to do something rather than risk the loss of a part of their market.

The workers in the Irish plants do have every right to make their views known. I don't think it is fair to see them as some sort of enemy. Being afraid of losing your job (whether it would actually happen or not) is a bloody good reason to make sure your voice is heard.

But then are you saying that nothing effective can be done to support the workers in Columbia?

At the meeting I went to a man (I think he described himself as a SIPTU shop steward in college) said that a boycott would not be needed if the international union that SIPTU is affiliated with organised a one or two day strike in all the Coke plants around the world whre there is a union.

Has SIPTU asked for this to happen?

by Phuq Hedd Fri Feb 27, 2004 18:49

You say that college authorities banned the "Killer Coke" posters and now that there's something else about the non-registration of the pro-boycotting-companies-that-murder-workers campaign.

So which is it? And please a quote from this decision would be nice, or even a quote from some TCD journal. I'd like to know exactly what it is that you're talking about and it sounds vague and unsubstantiated at this point.

And for the person that posted as "Please another Referendum Friday, Feb 27 2004, 8:38am"

QUOTE: "As a long time Trinity Student I am absolutely appauled by the ban. [...] should have ran a long embarressing campaign [...]"

ANSWER: As a Trinity Alumna I'm appauled and embarressed by your spelling.

by ec Fri Feb 27, 2004 18:42

.

by TCD student Fri Feb 27, 2004 18:34

There was 134 votes in it, very close. Fair dues to the people who pushed for it, fought for what they believed in.
But a lot of people ive spoken to were confused by the referendum wording, and the lack of publicity too which i reckon may be important if there's a rerun
A motion to council would get passed to oppose the result, and have a rerun, as the original motion to get the union to support the stance failed miserably.
Therefore i think a rerun would reinstitute coke as there would be a heavily mobilised campaign to bring it back from certain quarters

by John Fri Feb 27, 2004 17:59

Since i'm against the ban and i found the article in the pamphlet too much leaning towards the bans argument, then we'd probably have to agree it was fair.

However, the essential issue remains that the pro-ban people never registered a campaign in time. we're not allowed to poster.

they broke the rules, please so some maturity and accept that.

even though the killer coke poster was banned previuosly, it would not have been allowed to be up this time out because the SU consitution clearl limits campaigns to SU produced posters.

One side behaved honorably and lost.

the other side cheated and won.


Probably a moral in this that would suit FF

by Grandaddy Disco Fri Feb 27, 2004 17:58

BNFL on the line (Your a good man - come work for us)


The night is young, the mood is mellow
And there's music in my ears
Say, is Vic there?

I hear ringing in the air
So I answer the phone
A voice comes over clear
Say, is Vic there?

by Vic Lenin Fri Feb 27, 2004 17:53

Only someone devoid of basic politics could suggest that workers’ opposition to losing their jobs was a purely selfish act – “…. its actually about the greasy bill in the till….”. If you are defending jobs in Colombia then defend them here as well. I notice you are not volunteering the sacrifice of your own job – if you did you could become an unemployed “ashamed” SIPTU member. What makes your wages of the non-greasy variety?

Why is it suggested that workers solidarity can only be expressed through your boycott call that could lead to job losses here and have little or no effect in Colombia? They say, by the way, that anarchism is a form of radicalised petit-bourgeois morality. I can think of many forms of workers’ action that would be more effective and direct than this divisive boycott. Get into dialogue (without the name calling) with the SIPTU bottling plant workers and you might learn a thing or two.

Your approach can be summed up thus:

We must do something
This is something
Therefore we must do this

By the way, do you agree with Eoin Dubsky that the bottling plants should be shut down here, but not in Colombia?

by Mark Fri Feb 27, 2004 17:48

TCDSU brought out material which gave "both sides" of the argument, but in fact was very biased in favour of Coke.

Coke threatened legal action to suppress freedom of speech by the Labour society in Trinity this year.

SIPTU workers yet again interfered in the INTERNAL ballot of another union (could you imagine what SIPTU would say if students attempted to interfere in an internal SIPTU ballot?)

The student union council blocked the referendum and the chance for students to have a say so signatures had to be collected in order for the referendum to take place

The newspaper mysteriously pulled an atricle on the referendum a couple of weeks ago .....

And yet they have the nerve to accuse those who have acted in defence of the lives of our Colombian brothers and sisters of breaking rules!!!

This issue has seen persistent anti democratic measures taken by the pro Coke side who have repeatedly put forward lies such as that the CUT (Colmbian Trade Union Congress) are anti boycott, when in fact the CUT helped launch the campaign! And yet they accuse us, just as Coke point the finger at SINATRAINAL and not at the paramilitaries. These people are unreal.

by john Fri Feb 27, 2004 17:20

if the pro ban side did poster against the rules, would you condemn it?

by Dermot L Fri Feb 27, 2004 17:06

I've only heard your side of the story a chara. Judgement reserved.

by John Fri Feb 27, 2004 17:00

Dermot looney -UCDSU

In your piece above you condemn attempts to destroy the 'balance' of the referendum in UCD by Siptu and condemn their actions as contrary to the UCDSU rules.

Would you similarily condemn the manner in which the pro-ban people in TCD illeaglly postered, giving themselves and unfair advantage over those who agreed to abide by the rules?

Or is your attachment ot rules only in cases whereby your side wins?

by anti caca pipi lala - an t-intifada fáda Fri Feb 27, 2004 16:56

Seriously, though, well done.
A tip or two for those whose workplace has a coke machine: invest in a tube of superglue and cover some coins in it before inserting them into the machine. Should jam it up nicely.

Also an "Out of Order" sign can be just as effective (might even work on a FGers back or on the door of a SIPTU bureaucrat's office).

by John Fri Feb 27, 2004 16:32

It is interesting to note , as I did earlier that this result was only possible because the pro-ban group ignored the rules.

They were not allowed poster because they didn't not register in time. Despite being told they weren't allowed poster, they did. They boke the rules.

In comparision, the yes side obeyed the rules on posters scrupously.

If the electoral commission in Trinity is to have any standing they will have to take serious action against those groups who engaged in such illegal behaviour.

If the democratitc process is to have any merit, it cannot be abused by people. The validity of the vote must be called into question, because of the flagrnat breach of Students Union rules and the illegal intereference in the process by those who put up the 'Killer Coke' posters.

Could Labour Youth and the Shinners explain here why they ignored the Students' Union's rules. Do they believe that they are somehow allowed to breach rules in TCD, while other groups obey those rules.

by David Fri Feb 27, 2004 16:24

They're only employing you for the shortest amount time possible until they can come up with a way to quietly automate their entire production process.

by Dermot L - UCDSU Fri Feb 27, 2004 16:23

The allegation that SIPTU were assaulted on the UCD campus is completely false and part of a campaign of misinformation by a tiny number of Coke employees. Indeed, myself and other activists were verbally assaulted by this small group, who attempted on many occasions to fuck up the delicate balance of UCD's electoral system, which gives an equal amount of material to both sides in a referendum campaign.

Attempts by any Union members to fuck up democratic processes in any other Union are unfortunate to say the least. The conduct of a number of Coca-Cola employees in this whole affair has been to my mind quite shameful and in a twisted way is helping drive the movement against Coke's Colombian Crimes forward.

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Fri Feb 27, 2004 15:30

So a worker's union in Columbia appeals for Solidarity in a life and death situation and here's "response" from SIPTU

"SIPTU are pursuing this issue through the ICTU and the International Union of Food Workers."

translation:


WE DON'T GIVE A TOSS ABOUT YOUSE IN COLUMBIA and we will make vague meaningless noises and ignore your calls for solidarity ACTION because its actually about the greasy bill in the till at the end of the day..........

Conor (WSM and (ashamed) SIPTU member!)

by ec Fri Feb 27, 2004 15:28

The head of the new Galway Film School at the University- Rod Stoneman - Former head of the Irish Film Board - recieves his position courtesy of Coke Sponsorship. The post is sponsored by Coke in other words.

by go away Fri Feb 27, 2004 15:17

if I get 350 names can we have the SWP and their friends removed from campus? now that would certainly get more than a 51% victory

by Vic Lenin Fri Feb 27, 2004 15:07

Just one thing Eoin, workers will not volunteer to lose their own jobs.

In my haste to congratulate you for calling for dialogue I missed your suggestion that Coca Cola should be closed down and the workers caste on to the unemployment heap. Why would it be progressive to engineer a situation where “the bottling lines would be silent anyways” here in Ireland in order that they flow freely in Colombia. Seems illogical to me. But that is the lack of logic inherent in the boycott tactic and why it will inevitably alienate trade unionists who are employed here in Ireland (or in the Coca Cola system throughout the world and why the IUF have difficulty with the tactic).

Your reference to the Dunnes Stores workers’ decision not to handle South African goods and the campaign in solidarity with those workers' decision is different from the Coca Cola boycott call. Here you are calling on the workers to be made redundant through the closure of the bottling plant, without asking the workers their opinion. If you asked them, they would suggest a different method to achieve your laudable aim of allowing Colombian trade unions to bottle Coca Cola without the fear of physical attack.

Colombian Coca Cola is not exported here, it is made here on the Naas Road, employing Irish workers who have a strong trade union record and who support action against repression of trade unionists around the world. But they are not Kamikaze merchants. They want to stay strong trade unionists and be able to provide for their families.

Sacking Irish workers (as you demand) will not free Colombian ones.

by trinity boycott coke campaign - trinity boycott coke campaign Fri Feb 27, 2004 14:54

PRESS RELEASE FROM TRINITY BOYCOTT COKE CAMPAIGN
Trinity Students voted 1,800 in favour and 1,600 against in a referendum calling for the removal of Coca-Cola products from Student Union shops because of the current situation in Colombia.
PRESS RELEASE FROM TRINITY BOYCOTT COKE CAMPAIGN

Trinity Students voted 1,800 in favour and 1,600 against in a referendum calling for the removal of Coca-Cola products from Student Union shops because of the current situation in Colombia.

The campaign to have products of the Coca Cola corporation removed from Student Union shops in Trinity was organized by students (comprising individuals, members of Socialist Worker Society, Sinn Fein and Labour) in the college who spent the last few months organizing information meetings and distributing leaflets calling for Coca Cola to be boycotted. This was despite threats to be sued from Coca Cola and College Authorities making it difficult to run the campaign.

Rory Hearne from the Trinity Boycott Coke campaign said “This is a big victory for members of the SINALTRAINAL Colombian Trade Union who have called for an international boycott of Coca Cola products. The result of the referendum sends a strong message to Coca Cola that it must improve the situation of their workers in the bottling plants of Colombia. Since 1986, 8 Trade Union affiliated employees in Coca-Cola bottling plants have been murdered, some inside the gates of their factories. The result shows that people are fed up of large corporations putting profit before the lives of people and we are going to continue our campaign to boycott coke until workers can organise free from fear of intimidation and death threats. WE call on all other colleges and indeed everybody to boycott killer coke!”

Mary Fitzgerald from the campaign said “This boycott is not about denying consumer choice, its not going to hurt Irish jobs, its just about sending a message to big multinationals that mistreatment of their employees in poorer parts of the world will not go unnoticed”

Danielle McCormack from the campaign said “This is a strong show of international solidarity between students and workers which we believe will lead to a genuine improvement in workers conditions in Colombia, we hope that other colleges in Ireland will follow our example”

by Defender of Democracy Fri Feb 27, 2004 14:23

Really, so all those people agree with you on every issue?
Or did you bother to ask them. you forget that you need to ge a mandate for the positions you take and not just assume that because you win one election that everything you do until the next elction is a representation of the workers beliefs. I'm not going to even bother asking if there was anything in your manifesto relating to colombia.

by Vic Lenin Fri Feb 27, 2004 14:16

It is an excellent suggestion to meet with and to engage with SIPTU workers. That is all they have desired all along. Not to be ignored (or assaulted as was the case in UCD) as though their role and contribution was to be discarded by supercilious students who think they know better.

However, I suggest you do it in a respectful manner that leads to genuine dialogue, rather than the dismissive tactics that have been used up to now. You will have to get around the fact, however, that the boycott tactic cannot be a precondition for common action or dialogue and that the SIPTU workers' opposition to the boycott has its own integrity that cannot be dismissed through the use of slander (describing them as “scabs”, etc). The latter course would be sectarian politically, and against the spirit of what you are calling for, wouldn’t you agree?

Role on dialogue

by Eoin Dubsky Fri Feb 27, 2004 14:01

Congratulations to Trinity students, especially everyone involved in the 'ban coke' campaign there. I think Joe's idea (just above) to contact SIPTU members who have leafletted against the coke ban in Trinity and UCD. There's a parallel in Shannon Airport, where IMPACT and SIPTU members haven't been engaged enough by activists campaigning against the U.S. military there. If there was some workers solidarity, a la Dunnes Stores workers South Africa boycott, we wouldn't need to risk being shot by Irish soldiers guarding the perimeter fence, and students unions wouldn't need to boycott coke from their shops cause the bottling lines would be silent anyways.

by Vic Lenin Fri Feb 27, 2004 13:55

You had the opportunity to vote for those who sit on the Dublin Regional Council of SIPTU - or did you boycott the elections?

Although we share the same pseudonym, I am Vic and he was VI and we are not personally related - he was very democratic so I am happy if you think we are related politically.

by 1 of 70,000 Fri Feb 27, 2004 13:48

I was never consulted but then as your moniker includes the ol' Vlad, I'm not surprised that democracy in SIPTU is of such a bureaucratic manner that members aren't consulted.

by Vic Lenin Fri Feb 27, 2004 13:43

Opposition to the boycott tactic is the SIPTU position, as endorsed by the Dublin Regional Council representing over 70,000 SIPTU members.

There was an attempt by supporters of the boycott to get SIPTU in TCD to endorse the boycott. After a meeting addressed by SIPTU shop stewards from the bottling plant who opposed the boycott, and supporters of the boycott, TCD SIPTU members decided not to take a position.

The bottling plant workers have met with Coca Cola to address issues relating to repression against trade unionists in Colombia. One of the shop stewards in the bottling plant, who has been campaigning against the boycott, had the issue raised in the European Works Council of Coca Cola long before the campaign to launch a boycott (initially in UCD) took off. SIPTU are pursuing this issue through the ICTU and the International Union of Food Workers.

The boycott vote by about 190 votes in TCD out of 3,400 is wafer thin, considering the forces that were promoting it and the attraction of the cause – the apparent ‘sexyness’ of opposing a multinational and the association with US imperialism and Bush. The SIPTU workers handed out a leaflet opposing the boycott yesterday and it clearly had an effect. They are giving students an education in how to think politically and how to promote an alliance between students and trade unionists in the pursuit of solidarity with trade unionists and others who are being repressed.

That will have long-term positive affects long after this boycott business has bitten the dust.

by Dermot Looney - UCD SU Fri Feb 27, 2004 13:34

Well done to all involved in Trinity, another battle won in a war that will see justice done.

by Joe Fri Feb 27, 2004 13:04

As far as I'm aware what people are calling the 'SIPTU position' is in fact the position of the Food and Drink Branch (FDB)alone. Other sections, including TCD SIPTU (part of the Education branch) have refused to take this position.

While I don't agree at all with the FDB position there is a positive point in that at least it appears to stem from the membership. We don't know what level of actual debate (if any) went into forming the position (so there could be problems there) but the problem in this case is at least as much with the rank and file members as the bureaucrats. Speed would appear to be the only bureaucrat involved and she has claimed to be only following the direction of the branch committee (made up of rank and file members).

Is my understanding of the situation accurate? In which case might it make sense to try and find ways to address the general membership of the branch to try and reverse this position. If SIPTU members can leaflet UCD and TCD why not have anti-coke activists leafletting FDB organised workplaces. The Student Unions have had a referendum on this issue, maybe FDB should have a branch wide ballot on the question?

by University College Student Fri Feb 27, 2004 13:02

I think it's great to see Trinity College Students' Union banning Coca Cola. It's disgraceful that SF's "SIPTU" scabs leafleted Trinity College in violation of the internal rules of the Students' Union. They are again showing their complete and arrogant disrespect for the student movement and for human rights abuses in Colombia.

Fair play to Trinity College, Dublin. University College, Dublin, Students' Union have a motion down at USI Congress about Ethical Sponsorship, i.e. USI have to consult with SUs about sponsorship they engage in. In other words Coca Cola and Nestle cannot get sponsorship deals with the USI as the two larger University Students' Unions are opposed to it if the motion is passed at the USI Congress.

Will we see Ann Speed and her scab cronies leafleting USI Congress?

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Fri Feb 27, 2004 12:36

TS: or talk to the Irish SIPTU workers who were so concerned they came from work to hand out leaflets against the ban?

If genius TS ever read the detailed reports from SITU in TCD posted to this forum they might note that the SIPTU branch in Trinity took no position on the boycott (still expecting a lot from a student I suppose!)

- seeing as the major unions in Coke in Columbia have asked workers to support a boycott - SIPTU's position on this, in general, is a disgrace

any way talk about sore losers !!!

Conor

by VenusInFurs - UCD Fri Feb 27, 2004 12:31

Well done to all those involved. We were certainly under no illusions when were running the referendum that a boycott would stop the murder of Colombian workers. However, we ran the boycott campaign as a result of an appeal from SINALTRAINAL to boycott the product and also to draw both a campus and a national awareness to the complicity of Killer Coke in the murder of its employees. Again, i congratulate your efforts. I guess you trinner kids ain't so bad after all!

by Gearoid O Loingsigh - Latin America Solidarity Centre Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:33

The students in Trinity are to be congratulated on this victory for the Colombian Union Sinaltrainal. The efforts must be doubled now. German Caetano one of the leaders of the union has recently been threatened. Armed and masked men recently called to the unions offices in Santa Marta looking for him.

As for a rerunof the referendum. That was tried by right wing anti democratic elements in UCD and they lost by an even bigger majority. Siptu handed out leaflets in Trinity. Was this not a violation of referendum rules.

TCD is to be congratulated as yet another Irish university. This act will bring pressure to bear. This campaign is different to the Nestle one. The demands of Sinaltrainal are specific and the court case goes ahead against the bottling companies.

Well done once again.

by David Fri Feb 27, 2004 09:55

The YFG person who claims that they acted with integrity.. hehe, yeah right. From my experience at Maynooth involved in a coke boycott campaign your party do not know the meaning of the word. (was matt bruton any help to you?)
From my very limited understanding of the situation in trinity posters were not banned, only posters by an official trinity campaign (because they had not submitted their application tyo the S.U. in time or something) The killer coke posters would not fit into that discription.

The coke boycott campaign in maynooth is facing difficulties at present. we need to collect over 1200 signatures (compared with 350 at trinity, a college several times bigger) And our Students Union has come out strongly against the boycott. We are also facing vocal opposition from FF FG and the PDs who are actively discouraging people from signing the petition (they imply that simply calling for the referendum is the same as voting on this issue which is dishonest and undemocratic)

by Please another Referendum Fri Feb 27, 2004 09:38

As a long time Trinity Student I am absolutely appauled by the ban. It's a tokenistic move that won't work. We banned Nestle and they never stopped their practices. We should have ran a long embarressing campaign against Nestle and Coke if we wanted a clean conscience (assuming Coke was in the wrong in the first place, remember the court case in the US still hasn't got near to finishing!).

There are two methods of getting a referendum...
Firstly you could get 350 signatures from students or propose a refendum motion to Council then, if successful, a referendum can be run early next term!
Since the wording of the 10% rule allows exceptions for policy referenda you needn't worry about turnout only getting the right result.

by Where do i sign? Fri Feb 27, 2004 03:07

where do I sign to get a referendum on removing this ban?

by TS Fri Feb 27, 2004 02:51

Who won everything else?

Cant believe my fellow students banned Coke, did none of you read the info on the whole thing? or talk to the Irish SIPTU workers who were so concerned they came from work to hand out leaflets against the ban?

by posters Fri Feb 27, 2004 00:44

Is it those red ones?

by Phuq Hedd Fri Feb 27, 2004 00:24

Specifically what was it that was wrong with those posters? I'd appreciate a quote from the relevant decision.

Personally I applaud this victory and have to say that I'm shocked, completely gobsmacked in fact, that YFG supported Killer Coke. My vote in the next elections was a sure thing but I don't know if I can trust FG now.

I feel betrayed.

by John Fri Feb 27, 2004 00:12

The 'victory' of the pro-ban campaign in TCD was only possible by their descision to flagrantly break to the clear set down rules by the Students Union.

Despite a ban by the college authorities posters refering to 'Killer Coke' were plastered all over college on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

Secondly, despite a ban from the Central Socieities Committee and the Students' Union on campaign posters being used, Sinn Fein, Labour Youth and one other political party in trinity deliberately ignored those rules and put up posters asking for a yes vote.

They yes side only won by breaching the rules.

In comparision Trinity Young Fine Gael, the principal voice of opposition to the ban, obeyed the rules and lost.

by charmed Thu Feb 26, 2004 23:13

without hyperbole or hamsters or bashing of the hated SWP, doesn't it reflect well on the august institution of TCD?
15 words and yet still there's a typo... not once but twice.
[approxiamately is abbreviated as "approx".
two "p"s.]
still 'tis almost perfect.