Coke Workers Repaid For Loyalty To Company

by know152 Mon Jun 06, 2005 21:35

So, Boycotter froim what you've said re: Trinity and UCD you would agree that there should not be another attempt to have any boycott at UCG, UL or Maynooth? Since there were debates there too and the No boycott side won.

by Boycotter Fri Jun 03, 2005 18:23

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

I could go on...

"It's not FAIR! We should have won! Mammy, it's not fair!"

The pro-coke side lost in UCD. After a full debate. Then they tried again, and lost by a bigger majority. The pro-coke side lost in Trinity. After a full debate. Then they tried again, and lost by a bigger majority.

The pro-coke side in both colleges had campaign teams, hundreds of posters, thousands of leaflets, and not one but TWO opportunities to get their supporters out. They lost because they just didn't have enough supporters. Simple as that.

Get over it, loser

by joe Fri Jun 03, 2005 16:37

The victory in NUI Maynooth and UL should be enough for people to understand that people dont want this ban,

WHY?

because these were the only colleges where there was a proper and meaningful debate.

there was a debate in trinity and UCD but this was to overturn a result. WHich is much harder to do politically as anyone involved in politics will know. I mean seriously who is going to bother to come out and vote to bring coke back? people didnt care.

Where as in Maynooth and UL there was a meaningful debate AT THE BEGINNING, which allowed people to make up their minds and allowed BOTH sides to get their votes out unlike in UCD and trinity.

by Oldie Wed Jun 01, 2005 17:07

There is power in a factory, power in the land
Power in the hand of the worker
But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand
There is power in a Union

Now the lessons of the past were all learned with workers blood
The mistakes of the bosses we must pay for
From the cities and the farmlands to trenches full of mud
War has always been the bosses way, sir

The Union forever,defending our rights
Down with the blackleg, all workers unite
With our brothers and our sisters from many far-off lands
There is power in a Union

Now I long for the morning that they realise
Brutality and unjust laws cannot defeat us
But who'll defend the workers who cannot organise
When the bosses send their lackeys out to cheat us?

Money speaks for money, the Devil for his own
Who comes to speak for the skin and the bone?
What a comfort for the widow, a light to the child
There is power in a Union

The Union forever,defending our rights
Down with the blackleg,all workers unite
With our brothers and our sisters together we will stand
There is power in a Union

by Smart Alec Wed Jun 01, 2005 10:56

Really, this is off the wall crap. I happily leave the matter in the capable hands (and eyes) of the readers of Indymedia (see above). I have absolutely no intention getting involved in a scrap with someone so narrow-minded that if they fell on the head of pin, they would lose sight in both eyes. If you cannot interpret acurately what is directly in front of you......? As for the attempt to refight the worst aspects of this debate... despicable. Good day.

by R. Isible Wed Jun 01, 2005 10:11

Repeating that the workers (soon to be ex-workers thanks to SIPTUs ineffective, non-representation of their interests) have been called scabs is not true. Specifically, and only, as proven by the quotes above, the SIPTU bureaucrats were called scabs. As you say, it's all written down here clearly and the only person calling the workers scabs or dupes or whatever are the people like you who are supposedly defending them. Just as the people that supposedly defend and represent them are actually doing the work for company management instead of for their union members. Out of interest, does anyone know the politicial affilitations of the other SIPTU reps that tried to intimidate the UCD campaigners?

by Smart Alec Wed Jun 01, 2005 08:33

Your argument is clearly ludicrous. This is it: workers who campaign against the boycott are not scabs (even though they have been called scabs here). Union officials who act according to these same members wishes are scabs. It boils down to this: if you are a worker and against the boycott you are a scab, then again you aren’t. If you are a union official, you are definitely a scab, because it is a handy insult to throw out, irrespective of the circumstances.

It is all part of the total incoherence of many pro boycott campaigners. Don’t deal with the argument. Spread insupportable insults instead. People can read with their own two eyes. It is all here. Enough said.

by R. Isible Tue May 31, 2005 23:16

There's a difference between calling all the workers at the coke plant scabs and calling the well-heeled union officials scabs. That has been pointed out before. To continue to insist that anyone has called all the workers at the plant scabs (as opposed to specifically Anne Speed and whoever the other unpaid SIPTU officials that spent their time defending the Coca-Cola Company instead of the jobs of the workers that they supposedly represent!) is to distort the truth.

So, to make it very clear again to you: you are lieing if you repeat that.

Meanwhile, what has SIPTU done about the jobs of the workers?

Will SIPTU officials still be campaigning on behalf of the Coca-Cola Company?

by Smart (but sad) Alec Tue May 31, 2005 22:47

Well Tim, do you really think that this debate is helped by the re-publication of vile personal comments, especially when you started off on a very high horse. My short period of research, in which I was able to disprove your original statement that Coca Cola workers were not called scabs, revealed the answer to the slanders you rehash. If you want to exercise yourself, go and find it. I could not be bothered doing any more secretarial work on your behalf.

Is there something in the air out there in UCD, which makes it acceptable to reach for the most abusive terminology possible, mixed with speculation about events and people that clearly you are entirely ignorant of

Is it the anonymity of the Internet that makes you and others in UCD feel that no comment is too low? It is one of the reasons why debate on Indymedia is sometimes deeply unattractive and why it scares off the unwary.

Why not grow up and try and learn to admit it if you have made an error. Writing as you do does you no credit.

("your members" - what are you talking about?)

by Tim Tue May 31, 2005 20:48

Nobody said that all the workers at the Naas Rd plant were "scabs", in this thread, or in any of the examples you cited, simply for declining to support the boycott. But when people actively campaigned for the boycott to be lifted, and handed out leaflets saying that Coke had no case to answer and the allegations were false, that was a different matter.

That's the difference between not supporting a particular tactic, and actively taking the side of Coke. They weren't just questioning whether the boycott was the best way to deal with the problems in Colombia: they were saying that there WERE no problems. And as I said, they had been informed, face to face, by a SINALTRAINAL leader, that his family had been threatened, along with the families of other activists, and it would be much more likely that the paramilitaries would kill them if the boycott was lifted, because they would take that as a green light.

Knowing this perfectly well, they went ahead and campaigned against the boycott and handed out those leaflets. The people who did this can't complain if people call them "scabs". They were campaigning against a group of trade unionists who were facing threats to their lives. Who are you, as an Irish person who has never had to face threats of that sort, to tell Colombian workers that they shouldn't call for a boycott? If it's unacceptable for a student to tell Irish Coke workers what they should do, it's certainly unacceptable for any Irish person to tell Colombian trade unionists what they should do.

Clearly, the vast majority of workers in the plant did not come out and hand out those leaflets, so they don't deserve to be called "scabs", even if they did oppose the boycott. And nobody has ever called them scabs, either. But anyone who actively supported Coke in the boycott campaign has no right to complain - unless, that is, Ann Speed and the shop stewards lied to them about what was said during their meeting with SINALTRAINAL.

As I said, everyone in UCD and elsewhere heard about that meeting, they heard about Speed laughing in Garcia's face. At a later stage, they heard her classic line, in response to the point that "this campaign is all about saving lives" : "well, I'm not a petit-bourgeois moralist."

Don't be surprised if people regard you with contempt after outbursts like that.

Once again, can you tell us what you're doing to oppose the shutdown? Will you be standing outside Coke HQ handing out leaflets? Or are you too busy posting on Indymedia? If this is the best you can offer, your members are entitled to demand a refund of their dues.

by Smart Alec Tue May 31, 2005 19:53

So Tim, from telling us that no one called the Coca Cola workers scabs, you now rectify that by calling them scabs yourself. And you amplify it by rehashing old slander in a fog of words. You have managed to massacre your own credibility in a few short hours.

The workers were against the boycott tactic. They thought it was bad idea. Your livelihood was not put at risk, so what right have you, a student, to call people scabs for defending their jobs?

What are you studying in UCD? Logic? Demand a refund.

by Tim Tue May 31, 2005 19:25

All of the people who came out to UCD during the second boycott referendum had been told that SINALTRAINAL members and their families had already been threatened by paramilitaries. Luis Eduardo Garcia of SINALTRAINAL told Ann Speed and other officials this during his meeting with SIPTU (Speed's response was to start sniggering in his face as if it was hilarious - the details of this meeting were recounted very widely, and made a lot of people very angry indeed). They knew that if the boycott was overturned it would make it much more likely that the paramilitaries would kill them. They went ahead and did it anyway. Their official line was that they didn't know enough about Colombia to make a decision one way or the other; this is what they told SINALTRAINAL (even though they had more than enough information to make a decision). But despite their avowed ignorance, they were happy to hand out leaflets saying that the allegations against Coke were false. That is why people involved in the campaign in UCD, and the campaign in general, regarded them with such contempt. And rightly so. If you don't like the term "scab", maybe you'd prefer "accomplices to murder and terrorism"?

Once again, can you tell us one single thing you have done to oppose the shut-down of the plant? At the beginning of this thread, you were demanding solidarity from boycott campaigners. Now you say you can't tell us what you're doing, in case we support you. Will you just admit that you intend to do nothing whatsoever, and leave us in peace?

by know152 Tue May 31, 2005 19:18

Trespassing on the UCD property, oh that's a good one. Taxpayers come to uni that their taxes paid for and they're called scabs by students. The Right couldn't make stuff like this up!

by Smart Alec Tue May 31, 2005 19:10

The leafleters were all workers from the plant (you twit).
Care to reconsider now?

by Tim Tue May 31, 2005 19:03

Every one of the quotes you cite refers specifically to the people who came to UCD and campaigned against the boycott, handing out leaflets claiming that Coke had no case to answer over Colombia. They didn't refer to the workers in the plant, they referred to SIPTU officials. So no, I don't care to reconsider. You've confirmed my point

by Smart Alec Tue May 31, 2005 18:53

Facts
by UCD Student Thursday, Apr 28 2005, 7:32pm
I discussed the issue of Colombian workers with some of them last year in UCD and they are rotten scabby f**kers.

Congrats to Trinity College Students
by University College Student Friday, Feb 27 2004, 12:02pm
It's disgraceful that SF's "SIPTU" scabs leafleted Trinity College
Will we see Ann Speed and her scab cronies leafleting USI Congress?

put issue to your members
by UCDSU member Thursday, Feb 12 2004, 6:14pm

The SIPTU shop stewards are not acting in the interests of their members, rather they are acting in the interests of their employers (Coca Cola) and their political party (Sinn Féin).

You may be funded by Coca Cola- students are not and there have to be limits on expenditure.

These people also tresspassed on the property of the University.....They had no business on campus.

These people are scabs that are doing the disgusting work of Coca Cola.

Meeting with Speed and co
by Dan - UCDSU Friday, Feb 13 2004, 4:17pm
rogerprotzlives@yahoo.co.uk
We regard ….. the shop stewards ….. as errand-boys for Coke management, not legitimate workers' representatives.

A few points and Questions for Ann Speed
by Arts Student - UCDSU member Monday, Dec 15 2003, 4:13pm

4. Yellow Union. ….I also wonder if those shop stewards were paid by Coca Cola on the mornings they stood outside Belfield and Earlsfort Terrace? Will those shop stewards now be earmarked for promotion for their loyalty to the company?

On the Referendum and "SIPTU's" interferance
by UCDSU and SIPTU member Friday, Nov 21 2003, 12:34am
Just because they are workers we shouldn't believe this shite they are peddling about Union rights. Not all workers act in the interests of their own class. There are things called scabs and black-legs.

by scab hater Friday, Nov 21 2003, 12:46am
I am a UCD student

Spin from Coca Cola
by I hate fleming the spinmaster Sunday, Nov 23 2003, 2:01am
Lets face it. They are a YELLOW Union in Coca Cola. They were PAID AGENTS of Coca Cola who were (ab)using their Union membership to put on the false spin of loosing jobs. It is disgusting the way these Coca Cola agents acted, and it's horrid that they claim to be trade unionists.

by Tim Tue May 31, 2005 17:04

Nobody has said, either on this thread, or anywhere else, that the Coke workers at the Naas Rd are all "scabs" or "yellow". Not once, not anywhere, not even a tiny little bit, no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise. There have been suggestions that some SIPTU officials deserve this label.

As has been pointed out, oh, I dunno, half a million times already, criticism of the SIPTU bureaucracy does not mean criticism of their members. No doubt Speed and the other officials lied to them as shamelessly as they have lied to other people. Your refusal / inability to accept this identifies you, as plainly as anyone could wish, as one of these officials.

by Smart Alec Tue May 31, 2005 15:04

If you go through the debate on Coca Cola (not just "this thread"), you will have no difficulty finding the slanders you mention. Even "this thread" is based on the false premise that Irish Coca Cola workers are 'loyal' to Coca Cola, and that is why they opposed the boycott (in which case Coca Cola has a uniquely loyal worldwide workforce - how do they do it?). Rubbish of course.

by Tim Mon May 30, 2005 21:59

Someone should give you a stand-up slot Anton, you're killing us.

On a serious note, your total silence on that subject can be taken as proof that you have no plans to do anything practical to oppose the shut-down of the Naas Rd plant. Thanks for confirming that, that's great. Shame for the people who pay your wages, but it's hardly unexpected now is it?

As has been said many times before, you are convincing nobody but yourselves with your feeble and/or deranged arguments. This is not a clash between "middle-class students" and decent Irish workers. It's not even a clash between Ann Speed and Gearoid O'Loinsigh. It's a clash between Coca Cola and SINALTRAINAL, and the SIPTU bureaucracy have consistently taken the side of Coke, from October 2003 to the present day. The fact that you can defend your position with pseudo-marxist rhetoric impresses nobody. For many years, Stalinist bureaucrats used pseudo-marxists rhetoric to defend their privileges, it's hardly surprising to find SIPTU bureaucrats doing the same.

And finally, no matter how hard you pretend that boycott campaigners have said that all SIPTU members are "scabs" or "yellow", it is still a lie, as anyone who reads this thread can see. Some have suggested that the leadership of SIPTU could be described as yellow - a very different thing.

by anton Mon May 30, 2005 17:59

It sounds like a great idea: why has nobody thought of it before ?Set up a coca cola workers support group .A good wheeze for no153 if he/she is still scraping along on barely above the minimum wage as he/she was on May 13. You should definitely go for it NO153 -sounds just like what you've been looking for
Set up a support group : run raffles ,salsa nights etc. Get someone to design clever logos . You could do a doctorate on it - academia beckons! Think of all the trips abroad you could make meeting up with nice like-minded people. Think of the prestige.
The only problem I can envisage is the coca cola workers. Some of the yellow bellies might want to get it on the show -couldn't have that now could we.

by Joe (says no to acid) Stalin Mon May 30, 2005 17:04

Dear Mr/Ms Speedwatch,

Why should SIPTU pass on details to you in relation to their opposition to the shutdown of the Coca Coal bottling operation on the Naas Road? You would only make an appearance shouting: “Support the Coca Cola workers, boycott what they produce”. There are enough comedians about.

By the way, do you think you should consult someone about your fixation with this Anne Speed that you honor with your moniker? Everyone who opposes the boycott is acused of being this person. Weird. Could I ask you a question (this is for 'Tim' too)? I don't know whether it is "intelligent" or not. How do you know how much Anne Speed earns? Are you certain of your facts and, if not, could you check before plastering what may be ill-considered views all over Indymedia? Just another tip.

Regards

Joe

by Speedwatch Mon May 30, 2005 14:31

"A tip:
Try and ask an intelligent question that does not appear as though you want to change the subject."

I will ask an intelligent question - what are SIPTU proposing to do to fight the shutdown of the plant? Is is some kind of state secret, that must be kept concealed from everyone?

If you were actually doing anything, you'd be falling over yourself to tell us. Your silence is a clear confession that you intend to do nothing. It's perfectly obvious who wants to change the subject here.

I'd say most students (especially those involved in the campaign) will be extremely lucky if they're earning 70,000 in a few years, Ann.

by Tim Mon May 30, 2005 14:26

"The coke workers did everybody on the left a service by showing the campaign up for what it was: an attack on workers rights dressed up as a defence of Colombian workers."

Let's get this straight - Gearoid O'Loinsigh decided that he wanted to attack the Irish working class. Then he invented the union SINALTRAINAL out of thin air, and persuaded them to call for a boycott, so he could come back and attack Irish workers' rights. Thankfully, they had Ann Speed to protect them - worth every penny of her 70,000 salary, eh Ann?

You don't really imagine that anyone takes your rabid drivel seriously, do you? It reads like Stalinism on acid.

by Little Drummer Boy Mon May 30, 2005 13:00

The market is looking after that. Legging it to Lambeg

by amanda Sun May 29, 2005 21:52

I know Justice for Colombia don't support the boycott however there are other groups who do support the boycott - Colombia Solidarity for example have an entirely different opinion to yours as regards the CUTs support - perhaps you should ask them to change the info on their website. (http://www.colombiasolidarity.org.uk)

I'm also a bit surprised at your inferences about the CUT "member" I met (don't you believe he's a member? - how do you know he wasn't speaking for the CUT - were you there?)
Funnily enough my union sponsored his unions project (for he was not a Coke worker) through - Justice for Colombia - now tell me was he bona fide or not?

I wonder if this is less to do with the Coke workers and more to do with two organisations who want to be seen at the forefront of the Colombia campaign - or perhaps it boils down to differences in idealogy????

Personally I want to work with both (and do) - and believe me I have thought long and hard about it - if a man who has escaped assassinations on several occasions asks me not to drink Coke until the question of security of workers in Colombia is resolved then I won't.

by anton Sat May 28, 2005 14:55

The coke workers did everybody on the left a service by showing the campaign up for what it was: an attack on workers rights dressed up as a defence of Colombian workers.
I'm still waiting to hear from leftist groups whether they still support the boycott campaign ;I've emailed some of them but have had no reply to date.
There's a meeting going on today to form a new political grouping of the left . Partnership will surely be roundly condemned by one and all . People talk about consensus .
There's a consensus in the north where nationalists hold west of the Bann and unionists east apart from Belfast . There are a few awkward spots like the Short Strand ;awkward people who don't want a settlement at their expense.
In the south there's consensus: everybody's making money -partnership delivers ,keeps everybody sweet - apart from people on hospital trolleys waiting for operations who have no economic power . Apart from working class youth who have no prospects of a decent education and have to wear hoods to stop themselves getting constantly spied on by surveillance cameras.
There's consensus on the left as well though . Sectarian groups recognizing that something has to be done to break out of their isolation look for something they can unite on.
So when a campaign to boycott Coke comes along it seems ideal :a far away place ,trade unionists being killed by death squads , a drink that no cultured person would be seen drinking anyway. Let's go for it . We all can't be wrong can we?
Only trouble is those awkward coke workers . If only they'd go away .

by John South Thu May 26, 2005 18:58

Your CUT 'member' did not speak for the CUT. The CUT told the Justice for Colombia delegation last November emphatically that they do not support the boycott campaign. That is what they told me and I believe them. It is easily checked.

Your room full of general secretaries was your typical room full of bureaucrats, happy to cheer something that seemed far away, never for a moment thinking thorough the implications.

It was the workers in Dublin who immediately saw the implications and acted.

In other words a total reversal of the stereotype painted by the boycott campaign of evil bureaucrats duping the simple workers. Think about it.

by amanda Thu May 26, 2005 18:32

Why do you keep stating that the CUT don't support the boycott - as far as I was aware the boycott was launched in the CUT HQ with the President of the CUT speaking at the launch? As I said before I first heard about the boycott at the ICTU Conference two years ago when it was highlighted by Francisco Ramirez (president of Sintraminercol and CUT member) - funnily enough the room was filled with union officials and General secretaries and I don't recall anyone speaking out against a boycott then.

by John South Thu May 26, 2005 17:43

R.Isible:
”The principle is simple. The people getting murdered for joining a trade union in one of the Coca Cola Company's subsidiary bottling plants have asked for this boycott to be supported.”

They are being murdered because they are in a trade union – there is no evidence that the fact of their working for Coca Cola has anything whatever to do with it.

So far this year, right wing death squads have killed one trade unionist a week. 94 were murdered last year. There is no evidence that Coca Cola workers who are in Sinaltrainal are being targeted because they work for Coke or that Coca Cola is doing it. Making that case obscures the fact that the state and its military forces are the murderers, not Coca Cola.

See: http://www.justiceforcolombia.org/urgentactions.html#anchor09

There is no point in falsely accusing multinationals of doing things they do not do, when there is so much you can accurately accuse them of. It is foolish.

R.Isible and (allegedly) ‘Trade Unionist’
“Citing the non-support of the CUT or anyone else for those people under attack is like citing SIPTU on the situation of the GAMA labourers.”

The reference to the CUT and the Teamsters is there because it was the boycott campaign that cited their support for the boycott. They do not support it. It is not I who raised this point, but the boycott campaign. The campaign said there was a boycott in Colombia, when there is not. How could there be when Sinaltainal members produce Coca Cola products?

The basis for the case taken by Sinaltrainal is the entry of right wing forces into a bottling plant in the mid-1990s, the killing of a security guard (and member of Sinaltrainal) and a member of management – and the use of this terror by the then plant management to pressurise workers into leaving Sinaltrainal (and the allegation that there was a relationship between members of that management and the death squad).

The other unions (or workers) in Coke in Colombia do not support the boycott and neither do other Coca Cola workers. For good reason, the campaign has thrown around allegations that have no basis in fact. When workers produce something, calling for others to boycott it in other countries only is regarded as illogical. It is effectively a call for others to lose their employment, so that workers in Colombia retain theirs. Volunteering someone else’s job away is middle class moralism, not trade unionism (whether bureaucratic, revolutionary or whatever kind you are having yourself).

“The very _least_ any high-minded, pragmatic, potential ally can do” is ask what is the best way of publicising this issue that gathers the maximum support and that can put the maximum pressure on Coca Cola to resolve its responsibility for its subsidiary bottling plant’s management in the mid-1990s. From that starting point all the other issues with regard to the situation of trade unionists in Colombia can be addressed. Coca Cola could be put under far more pressure than is the case with this silly boycott that seems to attract a combination of people with an axe to grind and ignoramuses who think that everyone who does not support their views is a class traitor, friend of coke, scab, yellow union member, death squad supporter, bureaucrat or dupe of same.

The workers in Coca Cola here were always referred to as being “dupes” of union officials, or as having been “egged on” by SIPTU. It was inconceivable that they arrived at their anti-boycott position all by them selves. The crackpot point of this thread is that they did it out of "loyalty" to Coke. It is rubbish, as the facts demonstrate: in being the first workers in Europe to raise the issue of Coca Cola in Colombia (before the boycott call) and in that they brought Sinaltrainal into that European discussion after the boycott call (that they disagree with).

Of course Mr Risible I leave you of the above negative categorisation, as you have not conducted the argument on the basis of insults and have not attempted to promote or to introduce lies into the discussion. Well done.

by Trade Unionist Thu May 26, 2005 14:25

"Citing the non-support of the CUT or anyone else for those people under direct act is like citing SIPTU on the situation of the GAMA labourers."

Or Begg/ICTU on the bin tax

by R. Isible Thu May 26, 2005 14:20

QUOTE: "Let me clarify or paraphrase what you are saying here: telling lies is okay if the result is okay, and it doesn't matter what potential allies are alienated unnecessarily on the way."

Ah, a good old "clarification" eh?

I can tell you've been at this game for a while if your mind is so warped that you can extract the above from anything that I've said.

The principle is simple. The people getting murdered for joining a trade union in one of the Coca Cola Company's subsidiary bottling plants have asked for this boycott to be supported.

The very _least_ any high-minded, pragmatic, potential ally can do is support that.

Citing the non-support of the CUT or anyone else for those people under attack is like citing SIPTU on the situation of the GAMA labourers.

by John South Thu May 26, 2005 11:41

Games People Play

by Joe South (no relation)

laddeedadadadanee, etc, etc
Oh the Games People Play Now
every night and every day now
Never meanin what they say now
never sayin what they mean
Why they while away the hours in their ivory towers
till they're covered up with flowers
in the back of a black limosine

Ladandaladandadada, Ladandaladandadada
Oh we make one another cry, breakin' hearts when we say goodbye
Cross our hearts and we hope to die, that the other was to blame
and neither one will ever give in, so we gaze at an 8 by 10
Thinkin' 'bout the things that might have been, and it's a dirty rotten shame

Chorus:

( Ladandaladandadada, ladandaladandadadee
Talkin' 'bout you and me, and the games people play
Oh yeah, all right

(Look Here)
People walkin' up to ya, singin' glory hallelujah
and they try to sock it to ya, in the name of the Lord
They're gonna teach ya how to meditate
Read your horoscope, cheat your fate
And furthermore to hell with hate, come on, get on board

(chorus)

(Now Wait a minute)
Look around, tell me what you see, what's happening to you and me?
God grant me the serenity to just remember who I am
'Cos you've givin' up your sanity, for your pride and your vanity
Turned your back on humanity, ow, and you don't give a da da da

by John South Thu May 26, 2005 10:57

Closer to Joe than Sean. I hope that clarifies matters for you.

Question:
"Do you have to be a Coke drinker to support the workers here in Ireland in their struggle against job cuts?"

Answer:
No.

(Any more questions?)

by Curious Thu May 26, 2005 10:23

Wasn't the original Mr. South a fascist masquerading as a radical?

"(By the way, apart from not drinking Coca Cola, what do you do? What kind of a face have you got?)"

Do you have to be a Coke drinker to support the workers here in Ireland in their struggle against job cuts?

by Joe 'po face' Stalin - The Comintern Wed May 25, 2005 19:52

But what about all the lies told and the sectarian bile? What about letting the Blueshirts in on the act by making overblown noises that were exposed as signifying nothing?

Let me clarify or paraphrase what you are saying here: telling lies is okay if the result is okay, and it doesn't matter what potential allies are alienated unnecessarily on the way.

So, the only way in which to make people aware of what was going on in Colombia is to publicise a boycott that the majority of Coca Cola workers in Colombia, in the world, the majority of trade unionists, the CUT in Colombia, the Teamsters in the US, etc, etc: all think is a bad idea.

As my old pal Lenin (well, all right, he turned on me in the end) said: "Facts are revolutionary things". Lies are not.

I do have to admit, that's more or less the way we did it in the old USSR, and look at the success we had.

(By the way, apart from not drinking Coca Cola, what do you do? What kind of a face have you got?)

by R. Isible Wed May 25, 2005 16:44

But I'd never heard of any of that until I was drawn to read more about the issue: by the Boycott Coke campaign!!!

I guarantee you that the only people that have seen any of the stuff that you link to are dedicated lefties.

Ask any one else what they know about it and you'll find that they know that some people are trying to boycott Coke because of the murder of Trade Unionists.

On the basis of effectiveness Boycott Coke beats po-faced theoretical Marxists any day.

by John Snort Wed May 25, 2005 14:22

In an astonishing development the Viagra workers at Ringaskiddy have come out in opposition to the Viagra boycott (announced earlier on Indymedia) which they say threatens their livelihood.
Chief boycot organiser, Reverend Gearoid O’Lynsigh has moved quickly to denounce the workers, instructing them that there is a higher power at work and insisting that they have been duped by a trade union bureaucracy imprisoned by the secular materialism of social partnership and cheap holidays.

He said he was suspicious of the speed with which the workers had reacted: “Let’s face it, we don’t call them sheep for nothing”, said the normally apoplectic clergyman. “I wasn’t born yesterday you know”, continued Father O’Lynsigh (43).

Fr O’Lynsigh said that the Viagra boycott was part of worldwide solidarity with the Roman Catholic Church campaign to ban the use of condoms to combat AIDS. “This is especially important in Africa, where the multinational contraception industry is trying to force African men to wear condoms while doing what they shouldn’t be doing anyway”. Fr O'Lysigh said this was a double "no-no". He added, "too wrongs don't make a right. That's a fundamental part of Catholic teaching".

When told of this response and explanation from the celibate clergyman, a workers representative in Kerry, Maolshoughlin of Lunatic, said:

“Away and shite you silly tosser! Bring back Bishop Casey. Now that’s the kind of religious leadership we need”. He commented further, “This guy is obviously soft in the head”. Fr O’Lynsigh said he was “hurt” by personal remarks of this kind from godless atheists living a life of drunken debauchery. When asked if there was any other kind of atheist, Fr O’Lynsigh said, “Stop trying to change the subject”.

A source close to the boycott steering group has revealed that they plan a massive college campaign of political impotence with the support of thousands of college students. “This campaign is going into political high gear, we are going to demonstrate our impotence, big time” said the source.

Asked about initial indications that sales of Viagra appeared to be steady if not climbing, the Monsignor said: “Bah, details, mere details. This is a fight for the heart and soul of the young, for whom the problems of life long after late nights in college or on the tear are in the dim distant future. We are interested in the dim hear and now”, he emphasised.

When asked to explain the logic of a boycott of Viagra in Ireland to help persuade people in Africa not to wear condoms, Fr O'Lynsigh siad, "You obviously know nothing about Catholic theology. I am too busy to explain it to you now. Come back tomorrow when I will have it worked out".

Fr O’Lynsigh was at pains to point out, “This is no laughing matter. There are souls at stake”.

by Very Rev Brendan Devine Wed May 25, 2005 14:00

An international campaign for the Boycott of Viagra was launched in Dublin over the weekend.
Taking the success of the Coca Cola boycott in bringing one evil multi-
national corporation to heel as its model , a group of young activists has
launched an international appeal to Catholic and other religious groups to
boycott Viagra and all the works and pomps of the Pfizer Organic Synthesis
and Viagra Plant at Ringaskiddy , Co.Cork . A picture of the sinister
Ringaskiddy facility can be seen here:
http://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/projects/ringaskiddy/

The boycott campaign , led by selfless young missionary ,Fr Gearoid O’Lynsigh and
“ the consumers friend” , Canon Chekov Feeney, was launched over the weekend at
the Mater Dei Seminary , Drumcondra Dublin. Disgusted by the effect of
Viagra on the nation’s manhood, the doughty duo decided it was time to take
the bull by its horns . A picture of the effect Viagra can have on even the
purest of souls is linked to below ,but ,be warned , it is not a sight for the faint of
heart :


http://community.webshots.com/photo/213443180/213445638LBABQy

Whilst The Boycott Viagra campaign is both international and interdenominational in character , it has come to our attention that a certain renegade rabbi , one Mordechai Eliahu- in the holy Land of all places !- has broken ranks on the boycott . As a result of bribes from the evil Pfizer Corporation? Ask yourselves. See:

See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4444839.stm

by John South Tue May 24, 2005 18:40

Get the full briefings, reports at www.justiceforcolombia.org.

Also see www.iuf.org

Poster produced by ILO this time

Poster produced for Glastonbury Festival

Main campaign leaflet

Join up leaflet

by John South Tue May 24, 2005 18:30

Try out www.justiceforcolombia.org - the British Justice for Colombia Campaign - for an alternative way of pursuing Colombia solidarity, that is not fixated on the Coca Cola boycott. The covers of various short briefings and extended reports illustrated. You can get the full documents at the site.

Also, look at www.iuf.org - International Union of Foodworkers.

Something to think about.

Extended report Nov 2004 - including on attempt to prevent entry

Student mobilising leaflet

Attacks on women in Colombia

Attacks on teachers

US military aid to Colombia

by Lady Erne Tue May 24, 2005 16:52

And no word from the ATGWU on what they are doing to "protect'" Waterford Glass workers.
So what.
Protect! Protect?
Coca Cola sacked 10, 000 in Colombia, by some accounts. What did Sinaltrainal do to 'protect' them?

Why do you want to know anyway? Do you want to donate a blanket or something.

A tip:
Try and ask an intelligent question that does not appear as though you want to change the subject.

by Lord Erne Tue May 24, 2005 16:37

"The campaign, as has already been shown, alienates one of the potentially strongest bases of support, other Coca Cola workers - who are then insulted and abused for not going along with a strategy that is not carried out by those proposing it."

Coca Cola is going to do a pretty good job of alienating them as well. Still no word from SIPTU on what they are doing to protect these workers.

by John South Tue May 24, 2005 16:29

The campaigns exist already, but not on Indymedia. Columbia is already in the news and in the consciousness of students. You don’t need dodgy statements about Coca Cola to make students sit up and take notice of the situation in Colombia. If you go to the website of the British Justice for Columbia campaign (which opposes the boycott) you will find resources for political action that do not require the boycott (which, I know, has acquired the status of a fetish a this stage)

Far from the Coca Cola boycott bringing attention to the situation in Colombia, it obscures the role of the Colombian state and its US ally. Coca Cola is made to substitute for action by governments and their forces. The inflation of the role of a multinational company in Colombia does not educate people it miseducates them and it does not make sense. I was in colleges and saw the boycott propaganda. It made you think that Coca Cola were organising assassinations. Absurd.

The situation in Colombia is so stark that the ability to lose a referendum on the issue must have something to do with the weakness in the politics of the question put (rather than with how much money John Bruton or his son received from Coca Cola, or the Blueshirts’ ability to outwit boycott campaigners).

The campaign, as has already been shown, alienates one of the potentially strongest bases of support, other Coca Cola workers - who are then insulted and abused for not going along with a strategy that is not carried out by those proposing it.

When SIPTU involved Sinaltrainal in discussions with European Coca Cola workers to further their case, the next thing they heard was hysterical accusations from you know who, that had no basis in fact (or that could have been cleared up with a telephone call). The campaign leaders are sectarian. They will not allow trade union action in support of the case of Sinaltrainal, or publicised contact with Sinaltrainal, without over the top denunciations that would be regarded as bizarre idiosyncrasies if they were the preserve of some tiny political sect.

The denunciation of the International Union of Foodworkers (wwww.iuf.org) and other Coca Cola unions in Colombia are all par for the course – all because they do not support the boycott.

The only reason for the campaign on Coca Cola is because of the Sinaltrainal Court case. It is part of a strategy being pushed by that union.

It may have an affect on coca Cola. It will do nothing about the situation in Colombia. The killings go on.

Think about it. There's a good fellow.

by R. Isible Tue May 24, 2005 13:41

QUOTE: "Instead of asking basic questions about the situation and the possibilities of building the biggest possible base of support (that includes and not excludes other Coca Cola workers and their organisations), many are happy just to repeat an anti-Coca Cola mantra that they imagine has moral if not actual force. It is the equivalent of saying a prayer for the poor and the destitute. It is an act of faith that makes you feel good."

Seems like the Boycott Coke campaign has stirred up a lot of questions and is actually doing something to draw attention to the situation in Colombia.

While you may be right that the Boycott Coke campaign is addressing a small part of a much wider problem you haven't shown that The Coca-Cola Company has not expressed disquiet to its subsidiary bottlers and the Colombian government about the unfair and irrational response of consumers to boycott its products internationally because of the deaths of a mere 9 fathers, brothers and sons.

You also haven't shown that there is any campaign with a "broader base" or that anyone besides the Boycott Coke campaign is doing anything as high-profile and effective as they are.

Tell you what: you run off and create your maximalist campaign with the broadest possible inclusive base and when it's all set up along with international simultaneous world socialism you come back and let us all know about it.

Good man.

by John South Tue May 24, 2005 01:58

Let me see if I have got this right:

Thousands (yes thousands) of trade unionists have been killed in Colombia by right wing death squads tied to the landed oligarchs and the military.

Yet this website has been consumed by the unjustified deaths of 8 or 9 trade unionists who work for Coca Cola bottling plants in Colombia. Two of those killed were killed in the mid 1990s when a death squad entered a Coca Cola bottling plant and killed a security guard and a member of management (yes, management). They also went into the local town and burned down Sinaltrainal’s (the workers’ trade union) office. There is strong prima facie evidence that the bottling plant management used this right wing terror to pressurise members of Sinaltrainal, which represented workers in the plant, out of their union.

Since then, the other deaths have not been shown to have a demonstrable link with the FEMSA bottler or with the Coca Cola Corporation, by this I mean with Coca Cola linked death squads. They do not appear to have anything directly to do with the company. (In one case it would appear that a Coca Cola worker was hit by a stray bullet during a bank robbery.) The deaths are part of the campaign of terror against trade unionists and militant workers in Colombia. They are encouraged by the Colombian state that refuses to prosecute death squad members and leaders, who act with impunity

Sinaltrainal have taken a court case in the US against Coca Cola, as a result of the events in the mid 1990s, claiming compensation for the lives lost and the jobs lost. On a political and moral level, this case should be supported. Coca Cola have a case to answer. It is possible that other multinationals operating in Colombia, whose workers have been assassinated, have cases to answer.

Workers are scared off joining trade unions in Colombia because of the death squads, which results in weak union density. Sinaltrainal represents approximately 50% of unionised workers in Coca Cola bottlers in Colombia, but are only a small proportion of the workforce as a whole (because of death squad terror) – 350 out of a workforce of 6,000. Workers in Coca Cola in Colombia produce Coca Cola and work according to agreements negotiated by their union representatives with local management, including Sinaltrainal, which has a published collective bargaining agreement. There is no evidence of a boycott in Colombia.

At the same time the war against workers continues, conducted by forces who are allied to and directed by military organs of the state and their rich allies in Colombian society. This process is approved of by the United States and their covert and overt military forces in Colombia. The war against workers is not carried out because they are militant in Coca Cola or any particular company, but because they stand up for workers and democratic rights and are therefore a threat to the continued rule of the oligarchs and their military and death squad allies.

The fixation with Coca Cola and its bottlers is a diversion as far as solidarity with Colombia is concerned. If Coca Cola is killing workers, how come they have only killed 9 (or is it 8?). A giant multinational that enters the killing business should be expected to have a better hit rate than this. It does not make sense. Who is killing the other thousands of workers that no one on Indymedia hears about? Are there other multinational companies going about shooting workers? Who are they? How come we have not been told? How come we are not boycotting them? Are Coca Cola the exception in this regard? Are the other multinationals benign multinationals?

The reality is that killing trade unionists has not been privatised. It is the preserve of the state and its forces, even where farmed out to ‘unofficial’ proxy agents. Repression is ultimately in the service of big business. But it cannot be carried out by employers directly, because capitalists would expose themselves as a minority, oppressing the majority. The capitalist state encourages these acts as a public authority claiming to represent the interests of society as a whole. In fact they represent the interests of the economic system as a whole in political, economic, judicial and military terms. They do not represent the interests of one employer, particularly not the interests of one foreign multinational, not matter how important in itself.

The Colombian state is more likely to represent the oligarchy’s grasp on power and to utilise support from the US to preserve it.

The US cannot guarantee that its strategic interests can be served by the norms of western democracy in a country of such extremes of wealth and abject poverty. It therefore supports the most reactionary forces in society, because they appear to be the most credible in preserving US economic and political interests in the region. Coca Cola is subservient to that strategy as well. It does not dictate it in any way shape or form, whether it serves Coca Cola in the short term or militates against its business interests in the medium to long term.

Coca Cola has a responsibility, a duty of care, which unions negotiating with them demand of them, to the extent of provision of security grills at homes and protected transport for union representatives thought to be at risk. As the International Union of Foodworkers (www.iuf.org) have pointed out, Coca Cola will bust a union agreement if it can, just like other multinationals, but can also be made to stick to an agreement if the pressure is maintained. Death squad activity and union organisation are both part of the business and political envronemnt in which bosses and workers exist in Colombia. Making Coca Cola responsible politically for the death squads lets the state off the hook. It is inflating the role of the multinational corporation.

Combating the terror requires a strategy that focuses on the state, the Colombian state and the US government. They are responsible ultimately for the atmosphere in which workers and their allies have to work in Colmbia.

The boycott is built on a false premise, that somehow Coca Cola represents or is responsible for the situation facing trade unionists as a whole in Colombia, that Coca Cola has a strategy aimed at assassinating trade unionists. None of this has been shown to be true.

The situation for some groups of workers is far worse than that faced even by Coca Cola workers, for example teachers or agricultural workers. The Colombian state has been obscured; the campaign has created division in forces that could easily be united and it has been based on reliance on assumptions, rumours and innuendo rather than facts. This has given right wing forces in Irish colleges, to which the campaign is of necessity generally limited and isolated, a huge gap into which to insert an alternative right wing version of events in Colombia.

Where the right demonstrates the lack of tangible evidence linking Coca Cola to death squad killings, the boycott campaign produces another big poster with a Coca Cola logo that has blood dripping from it. When the right wing campaign produces anti FARC rhetoric, the boycotters blame Coca Cola, when the right mention the rotten Colombian state in tones that describe a government acting according to western European norms, the boycott campaign blames Coca Cola. All the boycotters are interested in is Coca Cola and, increasingly, they lose and instead hand victories and political authority to the right.

The boycott campaign is high on image and impact and low on content. It is advertising not politics. Fighting an image is not fighting reality.

The boycotters have this impression that they stand on some higher plane of principle than those who oppose it. That is why a lot of the rhetoric is reduced to juvenile insults and irrelevant rhetoric about social partnership in Ireland, or the alleged wage rates of trade union officials (wage rates smaller than some students will be earning in a few short years). We are told that Coca Cola is one “the most rapacious multinationals on the Planet”. A soft drinks manufacturer? Gee, what does that make Pepsi, with a far worse trade union record, never mind the arms industry, or Haliburton? Turning to the IUF website (www.IUF.org) would teach a thing or two – to those who don’t immediately think that this international trade union federation is in Coke’s pocket (or who are curious enough to find out for themselves).

Instead of asking basic questions about the situation and the possibilities of building the biggest possible base of support (that includes and not excludes other Coca Cola workers and their organisations), many are happy just to repeat an anti-Coca Cola mantra that they imagine has moral if not actual force. It is the equivalent of saying a prayer for the poor and the destitute. It is an act of faith that makes you feel good.

The boycotters are fighting in image of US capitalism, not its substance. They are fighting the image of the Devil and not the detail (where the Devil really is).

Let us face facts. There is no Coca Cola boycott in Colombia, the trade union confederation there does not support it and the campaign has been built on the basis of the interests of one organisation in Colombia. Coca Cola continue to produce coloured water in Colombia and in other parts of the world without hindrance. When the boycotters say the campaign is growing, they mean that they have more adherents in another spot in the world. Where it matters, in sales of Coca Cola (after all that is what a boycott is for), the boycott campaign is ineffectual – and losing potential allies.

Even if the campaign shut down Coca Cola everywhere except Colombia (where the workers allegedly calling for the boycott continue to produce it without any local campaign), it would not have the slightest effect on the situation in Colombia. The US would sacrifice Coca Cola. After all, they still have Pepsi, which has a far worse anti trade union record. But this is a pipe dream in any case.

The whole thing is absurd in terms of solidarity with Colombia. It has to do with strengthening a position for lawyers bargaining a settlement in the court case. In the meantime the lawyers for Sinaltrainal and Coca Cola have met. They continue to disagree on what constitutes a resolution. Workers in Sinaltrainal in Colombia continue to negotiate with the bottling company, FEMSA, on wages and conditions. Workers continue to be shot by death squads, not by Coca Cola squads.

Let us have a campaign on human rights violations in Colombia that includes the Coca Cola workers, but that also includes the oil workers plight, the farm workers, the students, the teachers, the lawyers who are shot down by state and quasi-state forces. What would be so wrong with that?

by LOL Mon May 23, 2005 21:20

that's a BBC link.

by Curious Mon May 23, 2005 16:02

SIPTU man is ’05 Navan Personality

THE winner of the Navan Shamrock Festival Personality of the Year Award is SIPTU official Anton McCabe, who was nominated for his work with migrant workers.

Mr McCabe received with his award at a ceremony in Navan Rugby Club on Saturday night following the official opening of the festival.

The union official beat stiff competition from fellow nominees Noel Collier, Rosario Fitzsimons, Kathleen Maher, Paddy O’Brien, Eamonn Quinlivan, Pauline Reilly, Paddy Sheerin and Dick Stapleton.

A new Award, The Navan Shamrock Andy Connolly, Community Hall of Fame Award was presented to the former All-Ireland winning Meath captain and referee, Peter McDermott.

The mayor of Navan Colr Andy Brennan officially opened the festival on Saturday night following the lighting of the festival flame.

The flame was lit on the Hill of Tara and members of Navan Athletic Club carried it in a torch run to the Rugby Club.

The festival continues all week and tomorrow (St Patrick’s Day) will be the highlight with a Raft Parade on the Boyne, the main parade through the streets of Navan and a colourful fireworks display at dusk.

There will be a River Rescue display at 1pm on the river and a River Parade at 2pm.

by anton Sat May 21, 2005 18:57

Can I say this about boycotts : Unless a boycott is related directly to either a strike or lock-out , its usefulness as a tactic is limited to propaganda. It's my opinion others may disagree. It doesn't make either of us yellow.
If workers come to the same conclusion as me and if they want to oppose the tactic ,they have every right to do so. I don't know of any group of workers that would support boycotting the product of their labour, but ,if I was working at a factory, and, if a vote was taken to support such a tactic ,and ,if the vote went against me , I'd accept the democraticaly taken decision . I would then try to get the decision overturned if I felt strongly enough about the issue at stake.
Amanda was concerned about the fact that SIPTU actively campaigned against the boycott. Why shouldn't they if that's the way they feel ? If Amanda's union NIPSA took a democratic decision to oppose Tony Blair's support for the Iraqi war ,shouldn't they be allowed to? And ,if a right -wing witch hunt was organized against NIPSA as a result ,wouldn't she tell the right wing that her union members had a right to make its own decisions on the matter?
Same rules apply.

by anton Sat May 21, 2005 17:12

I think it’s too important an issue to waste peoples time on , so I’ll say this : I’m not Anne Speed , and I haven’t posted under any other name on this thread other than Anto .The only other times I’ve posted on the issue was in 2003 after coke workers went to UCD.
On Tuesday, Dec 16 2003, 4:54am I posted as Curious .( Apologies for missed question mark):
“is sinaltrainal calling for a boycott of coca cola in Colombia “
Then on
Friday, Dec 19 2003, 3:02am, posting as Still Curious ,after an affirmative answer to that question ,I said:
“Seems strange to me that sinantrain should be campaigning for a boycott in colombia if it is the union representing coke workers there. If the boycott was successful in Colombia that would mean the coke workers were endorsing a policy that was putting them out of work. It doesn't seem to make sense.”

After somebody posted as cavbhlog saying he/she didn’t think that coke was responsible for the murder of trade unionists at their Colombian plant ,I wrote under the name of
a guy called satan on Saturday, Dec 20 2003, 7:15pm , the following:
“If coke sets up a company in a place where workers are intimidated and murdered for trade union activity that certainly does make them "responsible" . And if sinantrainal calls for an international campaign to bring it home to coke the seriousness of the situation and to galvanize support abroad, I'd go along with that 100%.
That doesn't mean supporting a boycott as a tactic beyond the limits of propaganda. If a boycott sets workers in Ireland against workers in Colombia , LASC should ensure they do everything they can to address Irish workers' concerns .Much as though I'd applaud UCD students for their support for workers rights, I'd say it was more important to win the support of Irish coca cola workers .
Coke workers were expressing genuine concern for their jobs when they went to UCD - workers in Colombia would understand that . I think it's totally wrong to portray coke SIPTU members as company stooges”
Here’s the link:

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=62716&search_text=coca%20cola&results_offset=30

by know152 Sat May 21, 2005 15:55

For the neutrals still reading, though I suspect most will have gotten bored by the catcalling oof who is the real champion/enemy of the workers. Last week, I was asking about what are the comparative sales figures for coke in Colombia before and after the boycott and still I'm still seeing no information coming forward. I'm not talking about unions or organisations, or uni's or clubs. I'm talking about actual people, you know the workers!, not buying coke in Colombia. Can anyone give us some numbers..?

In the absence of any numbers the reasonable conclusion is that there is not an actual boycott in practice in Colombia and the whole thing is a sham.

by anybody Fri May 20, 2005 23:07

"However, at a leadership level this is a union which is fully committed to Social Partnership, stands by in partnership whilst patients die on trolleys. It did nothing about the Gama workers until they were forced to do so (sorry a correction, they took union dues off the Gama workers)and refused to back the campaign against bin charges. Yellow? I'll leave that up to yourselves. A yellow leadership doesn't always mean a yello membership, though"

Look Anton you hapless stinking excuse for a bureaucrat - the sentence you are quoting out of context is in black and white in context in the paragraph above. The quote ireaders will observe ends a general paragraph that is about 1) The Leadership Level of Siptu's failings 2) Shit two-tier health service after years of 'partnership' 3) Exploitation of gama Workers and SIPTU leadership inaction on same 4) Pro Privateer SIPTU bureaucrat stance on bintifada 5) Yellow union leaders.

It doesn't mention COKE or COKE Workers at all and the last line is clearly saying that just because the leaders of a union are YELLOW (sold out) doesn't necessarily mean the workers are.

I hope you continue spin till you vomit your bile on your fellow bureaucrats.

by anton Fri May 20, 2005 22:08

"Yellow? I'll leave that up to yourselves. A yellow leadership doesn't always mean a yello membership, though."

That's the bit I was referring to and the impilcation is clear as was the tone of the article. Ask anybody .

by eeeekkkkk Fri May 20, 2005 21:35

you are tip top full of bullshit

"A yellow leader doesn't always mean a yellow membership But in the caseof coke workers it does." is your 'translation' of an unspecified contribution here of G O'L's

This is what you and various other proxies for siptu bureaucracy really really wish very hard he had said. In fact you are wishing so hard that you are now hallucinating an alternate reality in which you escape the consequences of your (siptu bureaucrats) actions wrt this boycott and your absolute empty lack of action when the coke workers got shafted by coke. Yes that's the truth you are trying to hide in reams of lies bullshit and fantasy.

Siptu Bureaucrats fought and are still fighting in a cowardly and anonymous manner way harder for the good name of (killer) coke than they did for the workers they purport to represent.

Tryng to salvage the long gone scraps of respect that siptu bureaucrats may have had in the past to build a strange elitist middle class worker destroying monster out of one young activist responding to an international call for solidarity from a union facing death threats, murder and intimidation is a sad and sorry passtime for anyone who considers themselves on the side of workers.

Now go away you bureaucrat and count your dirty money (dollar denomination).

by anton Fri May 20, 2005 21:12

A yellow leader doesn't always mean a yellow membership But in the caseof coke workers it does. That is the clear implication of Gearoid's comment ,read it again ,read it how a coke worker would read it .Don't get caught out on this one eek ; it's an anti working class attack on a workers organization and on workers' rights to make independent decisions .Trade unionists have fought and died to pass those rights down to our generation and we're not going to give them up so handy . The fact that an attack is dressed up as a defence of Colombian trade unionists doesn't alter its class nature ;it just makes it a little bit harder to see. That's why they have media studies courses at all the top colleges.
Someone said that Anne Speed's name is a joke in Sinn Fein circles , but what's happening here is that Gearoid's name is now dirt amongst Irish workers .The danger is is that the good name of the Irish left is going to be dirtied by association with him.That's why I'm taking this issue up. He's going to have to retract .Stay with the workers eek,tell the consumers' gurus to go take a hike .

by eeekkkk Fri May 20, 2005 19:36

Muddying up the yellow leaders and the membership. An injury to bootlicking bureaucrats is most definitely not an injury to all whatever anton might say.

by eeekkkkkk Fri May 20, 2005 19:31

You took that quote from G O'L completely and utterly out of context you bad little bureaucrat doing overtime on behalf of the coca-cola corporation. So much so that I say you are at base a liar trying to make a cowardly bootlicking union bureaucracy look good.

Judge for yourselves readers: Is G O'L referring to Coke workers in this below quote which is the context out of which 'Anton' stripped his(?) Nugget.

Elimination of context is the first refuge of a liar.

"As for accusing people of belonging to a yellow union. There are many good people in Siptu including those delegates who voted to support disinvestment in Coke and who were narrowly defeated. However, at a leadership level. this is a union which is fully committed to Social Partnership, stands by in partnership whilst patients die on trolleys. It did nothing about the Gama workers until they were forced to do so (sorry a correction, they took union dues off the Gama workers)and refused to back the campaign against bin charges. Yellow? I'll leave that up to yourselves. A yellow leadership doesn't always mean a yello membership, though."

He is clearly talking about Siptu Bureaucrats Anton. You will have to try harder

by Pol Fri May 20, 2005 19:27

Thank god I'm not a worker at the mercy of the great minds behind the world's Labour politics. If I were I'd feel just a bit let down by all the 'defending' people are doing for me. Then again I might just treat them with comtempt and start agitating for a syndicate. Hush, hush, you know...

by anton Fri May 20, 2005 19:20

Put them in quotation marks? No Gearoid's too clever for that ,he's got a degree in media studies. That's what's so sickening about it . "Yellow ?" he poses the question in relation to the workers . Then he answers his own question with a profound shake of his head , "ask youself". Ask yourself ! Is that mealy mouthed or is it mealy-mouthed or what ? But the implication is very clear : that coke workers are a bunch of yellow bellies. As it was intended to be . Or do you think coke workers somehow took Gearoid up the wrong way ,all a dreadful misunderstanding over words.
Well , I have asked myself the question Geroid posed ,and my answer is , No- Siptu is not a yellow union ; its workers therefore have the right to be treated with respect . They also have the right to a job, and that right must be defended whether they agree with any particular tactic I might advocate or not .
Now what does everybody else say . SP< SWP, Socialist Democracy, IRSP , WSM ,Irish Socialist Network , CPI, Red Banner ,the new crowd that was along Oconnel St with the banner last week. What do they all think on the question Gearoid so adroitly ducked : SIPTU - Is it a yellow union or is it not ?

by Speed Kills Fri May 20, 2005 18:49

Probably off for a Bacardi and killer coke.

by eeekkkk Fri May 20, 2005 18:26

another dollar and another day 'defending' workers...........

by Speed Kills Fri May 20, 2005 17:46

Supporting workers who are going to lose their jobs because somebody in Atlanta (or is it Greece) decides that the law of the market is more important than the loyalty of workers is also my choice.
That said, I suppose it is better to lose your job than your life.

by eeekkkk Fri May 20, 2005 17:45

Go on - do it.

by anton Fri May 20, 2005 17:42

do you really believe that ,after reading the slanders boycotters have been throwing since Coke's attack on their jobs , Coke workers would want any assistance from those same boycotters? If you had the decency to just keep your mouths shut it would have been better than insulting them.

by Chekov Fri May 20, 2005 17:39

Anton, your argument is really starting to leave the planet behind.

"That if somebody disagrees with a tactic it doesn't make that person a scab."

You don't say. As I pointed out already, you are the only person calling Irish coke workers scabs. I certainly am not and don't consider them to be scabs.

"And ,if workers oppose the stupid tactic that a group of middle class chancers offer them on a take it or leave it basis ,that doesn't make them members of a yellow union.

So, you think that Sinaltranil is made up of "middle class chancers'? Or are you somehow suffering from the mad delusion that I have anything to do with their decision to call for a boycott? Or is it just that you are so eager to throw a schoolyard insult my way that you don't really care what you write?

"You're supposed to be the consumers friend"

That's news to me. Am I supposed to be friends with every one of them or can I pick and choose?

"why can't you allow workers to have a choice on tactics in the same as you'd insist consumers had the right to choose what product they buy?"

Are you sure that your not confusing me with a character plucked from the depths of your rabid imagination? Unless I have been leading a double life in my sleep as a champion of consumer rights and a dictator of trade unionists' tactics, I really think you are some way wide of the mark.

Anyway, in a (presumably vain) attempt to reattach your arguments to the planet, I might as well remind you of my question which you appear not to have answered.

What are you proposing to do to defend the jobs of coke workers in Ireland?
I might as well ask, how have you supported the campaign of the workers in colombia and why do you think that your tactics are more effective than the ones that the people involved have advocated?

by amanda Fri May 20, 2005 17:36

presumably the "tactic" employed by SIPTU (and I have to confess as I was not at their conference I'm not sure exactly what was or was not argued) was that they would not support the boycott in case that would threaten jobs in Ireland as Coke would pull out - clearly it didn't work.

Are we not allowed to disagree? As far as I am concerned its a matter for SIPTU to resolve vis a vis supporting the boycott - my concern was that they didn't just not support it - they then actively denounced it - are Colombian Coke workers not allowed to decide their own tactics?

by eeekkkk Fri May 20, 2005 17:31

The international boycott tactic was called for by the Union which represents workers at various coke bottling plants in Colombia - not by anyone here in ireland let alone your 'middle class chancers'. It seems too that the tactic is working unlike any Union tactics to protect the jobs of ROI coke workers.

This crap about 'middle class chancers' is just scattershot abusive drivel from someone on the scabby losing side of an argument. SIPTU bureaucrats are the real middle class chancers.

Go away and stop digging a hole for yourself.

by Speed Kills Fri May 20, 2005 17:27

"And, if workers oppose the stupid tactic that a group of middle class chancers offer them on a take it or leave it basis"

So still no word on what that 'group of middle class chancers' are doing in SIPTU to save these jobs that some of us boycotters can support?

by anton Fri May 20, 2005 17:18

That if somebody disagrees with a tactic it doesn't make that person a scab. And ,if workers oppose the stupid tactic that a group of middle class chancers offer them on a take it or leave it basis ,that doesn't make them members of a yellow union.
You're allowed to disagree on tactics Chekov . Did nobody ever tell you that ? You're supposed to be the consumers friend ,why can't you allow workers to have a choice on tactics in the same as you'd insist consumers had the right to choose what product they buy?

by chekov Fri May 20, 2005 16:12

it's a sausage.

What on earth is the point that you think you're making?

by anton Fri May 20, 2005 16:08

A tactic is it ,Chekov? Just so long as we're clear on that.

by Gypsy Davy Fri May 20, 2005 14:45

it is rediculous to try and pit the Boycott as something like a consumer campaign. it is an act of Solidarity called for by a Trade Union who had eight of its members executed for trade Union activity. It is a tactic like a strike except in this case the workers in question will die if they strike.

by Chekov Thu May 19, 2005 18:06

"The subtext to Geraoid's so -called offer of solidarity to the workers is this: " * Insert Anton's entirely unsubstantiated opinion of what his opponents are saying, which is impossible to derive from any actual words that they have used and must be based on some rare school of psycho-analysis or divination *

Anton, your analogy with a consumer boycott of Dublin Bus is typically dishonest. You know well that nobody is boycotting coke because they think that their product is crap (which it is incidentally) or because they think it is a vaguely 'bad' corporation. It is a tactic being used to apply pressure in a particular dispute over the murder and intimidation of workers in the company. In particular your claim that it is somehow a fight for the rights of consumers is nothing more than a smear.

What ways are you proposing to fight the redundancies in coke by the way? Is there any walk at all behind your talk?

by Tom Thu May 19, 2005 18:02

" Will they repudiate Gearoid's insult to Coke workers?"

As has been pointed out god knows how many times on this thread, there is NO insult to the Irish Coke workers, anywhere in the article. The only criticism is directed at the SIPTU bureaucracy. Stop pretending otherwise, Ann.

Incidentally, every Sinn Fein member I've spoken to about this regards you as an embarrassment who gives the party a bad name.

by Speedwatch Thu May 19, 2005 17:58

"Anton", everyone reading this thread knows that your name is Ann Speed. Is this what they pay you 70,000 a year to do? Your recycled Stalinist blather ("the Irish working class belongs to us, the SIPTU bureaucracy, so anyone who criticises us is anti-working class") is convincing to nobody but yourself.

Instead of demanding to know what LASC are doing to stop the shutdown of the plant, would you mind telling us what you and your union are doing? It's your responsibilty, not LASC's. It's what you are paid to do. How can LASC offer solidarity to the Coke workers, unless their union is doing something?

by Stuntman Thu May 19, 2005 17:47

I hope SIPTU respresent the coca-killer workers a bit better than the Gama workers. I suppose at least they knew they existed a few months ago, thanks to Sinaltrainal. Foreign workers ain't their strong suit. But rest assured the workers should get good representation cos they are good white folk like the fat cats in Atlanta.

by anton Thu May 19, 2005 17:31

Yes I can read Tom ; I can read between the lines as well. The subtext to Geraoid's so -called offer of solidarity to the workers is this :
"Coke workers are a bunch of yellow sheep-like scabs , but if they dress up in sack cloth and ashes and parade along the Naas Road wearing dunces' hats while Gearoid plays the Internationale on his accordion then we will offer them our support"
The intention is to insult despite the mealy - mouthed passive construction. The phoney solidarity offer tagged along at the end is just to keep the left groups sweet .
I'm still waiting to hear from the likes of Joe Higgins Brid Smith and Kevin Keating on this. Their parties have never been slow to adjudicate on workers' rights issues in the past . A group of workers jobs are under attack ;instead of supporing them Gearoid and the consumers' friend, Checkov join in . The SWP, SP, Sinn Fein , Socialist Democracy are all signed up to the Boycott campaign. Will they repudiate Gearoid's insult to Coke workers?
I'l make an analogy .If a boycott of Dublin Bus was organized after commuters decided the service was useless, would the bus drivers not have a right to publicly oppose that boycott without being villified? There's a clear principle involved here : workers have a right to decide these issues for themselves .Whether they make the right decision or not is not the issue I'm raising .
I hope I'm not being paranoid ,but I posted yesterday making these points and now my comment has gone off the wire. Maybe I hit the wrong button.Please reassure me on this Indymedia editors. < br/> There have been no comments posted by you on this thread deleted. You're not just being paranoind, you're being disrespectful and ignoring our Editorial Guidelines which explicitly forbid comment on editorial policy. If you have a complaint, query then use the Contact Us or imc-ireland-editorial@lists.indymedia.org to communicate with us. Do NOT bundle your concern into the bottom of a comment like this. The whole comment will be deleted if you do. You are using indymedia.ie, please take the time to read the guidelines (see left hand column) and respect them. You are causing unecessary work and making false allegations. - 1 of IMC Ed

by Chekov Tue May 17, 2005 17:05

"A consumer's group has come up against a group of coke workers and told them that ,if they do not support a certain tactic ,they are scabs"

As far as I can see, Anton is the only person making this suggestion and I don't think that he counts as a 'consumer group'. How many identities have you gone through in this discussion now Anton?

by Tom Tue May 17, 2005 16:49

" Would it have stuck in Lasc's craw too much to say :
"LASC sends solidarity to Coke workers facing the sack. Despite our past differences on tactics , we will support you in the event of a struggle to save jobs at the Naas Road plant. ""

EH, LOOK AT WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS:

"The victims in this situation are the workers in the Naas Rd bottling plant who were led up the garden path by the union bureaucracy who encouraged them to engage in a campaign to protect the company’s image and more importantly its market share...


...should they mount a campaign to save their jobs they deserve our solidarity. We should not turn our backs on them, as long as our support is not conditional on calling off the boycott."



Not to put too fine a point on it - can you read?

Or does the offer of solidarity not count, because of the criticism of the union bureaucracy?


LASC are not the ones who need to salvage something from this "sorry situation" - the SIPTU bureaucrats are.

by Matthew Stiles Mon May 16, 2005 23:31

In answer to Anton I don't know why USO chose that particular leaflet but there are posters entirely in Spanish:
see http://www.sinaltrainal.org/boikot/noconsumo.html
Also go to this website
http://www.45-rpm.net/colombia_cocacola.htm
There you will see photos showing what a press conference, held in Bogota, to highlight the campaign against Coke. Present is Domingo Tovar head of the Human Rights Dept of the CUT and if I am not mistaken, though not captioned, I think that Carlos Rodriguez, the President of the CUT, is also there.

by anton Mon May 16, 2005 17:37

I was asking what the positions of the SWP and SP were because I think this is a matter of extreme importance for working class democracy in Ireland . It wasn't speciffically directed at you.
A consumer's group has come up against a group of coke workers and told them that ,if they do not support a certain tactic ,they are scabs . One of the leaders of the consumer group, GOL , will not say whether the union representing this group of workers , SIPTU , is a yellow union or not.
So ,while he is unwilling to say whether the largest union in Ireland is a scab union or not , GOL has managed to convince a group of Colombian workers that he can organize a boycott of Coca Cola in Ireland . Surely Coke workers on the Naas Road are not much diferent to any other section of workers in Ireland ; if you say that they are yellow then you might as well write off the whole of the Irish working class as a bunch of scabs. In which case you are deluding the Colombian workers by telling them there is any basis for support for their plight in this country.
If ,on the other hand ,you say that Siptu is not a scab union and coke workers are not scabs , that means that you have a job of work to do to convince workers who don't see things your way that what you are saying is correct. But wasn't that what Lasc was set up for - to raise consciousness ?If , instead of insulting coke workers ,Lasc had sent them a message of solidarity ,then ,even at this late stage , something might have been salvaged from the whole sorry affair.
Would it have stuck in Lasc's craw too much to say :
"LASC sends solidarity to Coke workerss facing the sack. Despite our past differences on tactics , we will support you in the event of a struggle to save jobs at the Naas Road plant. "
Of course ,if you think Coke workers are a bunch of scabs , herded into a yellow union , there wouldn't be any point in issuing such a statement. That's why I think that left groups should make their positions clear on this issue.

by amanda allaway Sun May 15, 2005 21:58

Anton - I'm not sure why you're asking about the position of the SP or SWP in relation to my post - I'm not a member of either so I couldn't tell you - maybe somebody else could enlighten you.

As for the issues of my own union - no I don't believe we are a "scab" union as you describe it but since we don't have partnership arrangements up North then perhaps that doesn't count anyway.

The issue here is not about the position of individual coke workers as far as I can see - its about the position adopted by the union - I know that many SIPTU members were very unhappy about the union's public position on the boycott. However that is a matter for them to resolve through their own organisation's structures - it doesn't stop me seeking to persuade members from SIPTU or anywhere else for that matter to support the boycott as NIPSA, UNISON and TUI all have.

I think the point here is that Coke, obviously couldn't give a damn about the workers in Ireland or anywhere else where profits are concerned, despite SIPTU coming out very strongly against the boycott, (I suggest you read some of the previous threads on the Coke campaign to get a flavour of the arguments) - a lesson we shouldn't need to learn again.

by know152 Sun May 15, 2005 19:40

in Colombia

I was asking about what are the comparative sales figures for coke in Colombia before and after the boycott and I'm still seeing no information coming forward. I'm not talking about unions or organisations, or uni's or clubs. I'm talking about actual people, you know the workers!, not buying coke in Colombia. Can anyone give us some numbers..?

In the absence of any numbers the reasonable conclusion is that there is not an actual boycott in practice in Colombia and the whole thing is a sham.

by notna Sun May 15, 2005 16:44

is saying that the coke workers deserved the heave ho - coke gave than the heave ho - even though they had supported the company line on the boycott -

Go'L is being demonised about pointing this out. Did he fire the workers? No. Coke Did. I see precious few siptu heads on here criticising coke. Why?

by anton Sun May 15, 2005 15:59

Amanda would you agree then that coke workers who didn't support the boycot are yellow and got repaid for their loyalty to the company with the sack?
It strikes me that anybody who use that sort of language about a group of workers facing the sack in Ireland have no right to be lecturing anybody on workers rights in Colombia or anywhere else.
Gearoid thinks that there may be some good people left in SIPTU but doesn't deny that it's a yellow -i.e a scab- union . What about your union Amanda ,is that a scab union as well? Has it signed up to partnership?
I'd be interested in hearing the opinions of groups like the SWP and Socialist Party on this question and ,indeed, the position of Socialist Democracy . All these groups supported the boycott initially. Do they also agree that it's now pay back time for Coke workers ?

by amanda allaway (nipsa member) Sat May 14, 2005 19:57

I first heard about the Coke boycott at the ICTU Conference two years ago in Tralee - it was "launched" not by some "european" but by Francisco Ramirez Cuellar of the CUT who was in Ireland at the time and spoke at the Conference. As far as I and my union are concerned we support the boycott because the workers have called for it. I've heard all the stuff about Sinaltrainal being the "minority" but anyone who had bothered to find out about the union and their current situation would know that they have diminished in size because of intimidation of members to resign, workers being replaced by short term contracted staff (worsening terms and conditions even further) and new "unions" being set up - I think its even more of a testament to their campaign that they have done it despite the difficulties they face. As for production of posters etc etc - I think its a very glib comment to say "cant they produce their own stuff" - we (NIPSA) sponsored the production of Francisco's book about the effect of corporations in Colombia precisely because they have difficulites funding such activities themselves - so who cares who prints the damn poster. You either support the boycott or you don't - not just because of sinantrainal but also because of how corporations operate in Colombia - the coke boycott exposes the horrible truth about what it is like to be a trade unionist going up against a big multi national seeking decent conditions for workers - like a right to life for example - perhaps you should read Francisco's book and think about it about a bit more. And maybe the next time someone from sinaltrainal is in town go and listen to what they have to say (its not as if such events aren't advertised here!)

by anton Sat May 14, 2005 17:27

Is there no chance of getting a sinaltrainal spokesperson to clear this matter up. I 'm not saying that they didn't have anything to do with starting the campaign ,just that they have been badly advised on its chances of success by people who claim to be supporters in Europe.
Has anybody from Sinaltrainal seen the anti coca cola worker diatribe from Gearoid ?

by no153 Fri May 13, 2005 17:31

So now SIPTU are trying to deny that SINALTRAINAL had any role in calling for the boycott, have I got that right? Despite the fact that SIPTU reps met with a SINALTRAINAL leader in 2003 and listened to him explain why they were calling for a boycott.

But no, of course, this whole campaign had to be dreamt up by LASC, because how else can Ann Speed excuse her disgraceful stand?

And apparently it's shameful for Gearoid O'Loinsigh to point out the bleedin' obvious fact that Ann Speed has no intention of doing anything practical to oppose the shut-down of the Irish plant.

All we can learn from this is that trade union bureaucrats will do ANYTHING and say ANYTHING to prevent their overpaid, comfortable existence from being disturbed. Without, of course, denying themselves the right to use pseudo-Marxist language when attacking their critics. Give it up - you're not fooling anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in being convinced.

I expect in a few weeks we'll be hearing from Speed that SINALTRAINAL actually OPPOSE the boycott....

by anton Fri May 13, 2005 16:20

I'm not ignoring reality. I was astonished to see Gearroid's attack on a group of workers who had just been told they were getting the sack and had to comment .
"they were repaid for their loyalty to coke"
according to Gearroid .This calculated insult shows that Gearroid can have no connection to Irish workers - anymore than he has to Colombian workers . I don't believe for an instant that Colombian coca cola workers would use that sort of dirty language ; the attempt by LASC missionaries to speak on their behalf should be repudiated by Irish leftists.
not 153 writes:
"The campaign was launched by SINALTRAINAL and backed up by CUT"
Do these unions have no printing resources of their own then ? Why do they publish a Spanish language poster in Colombia calling for a coke boycottt that has English writing at the bottom of it calling on people to attend a rally in London? I'm supposed to be ignoring reality , but that poster gives an indication of the reality of who is running the boycott campaign and from where .

by Joe Fri May 13, 2005 15:51

"On April 9, police arrested Habtom Weldemicael, who heads the Coca-Cola Workers Union and is a member of the food and beverage workers' federation executive. According to some reports, Weldemicael was urging workers to consider industrial action to defend the catastrophic decline in workers' living standards. ...Reports indicate that they are being held in a secret security prison in Asmara."

by no153 Fri May 13, 2005 14:56

"the boycott campaign is being driven ,not by colombian Coke workers, but by a group of self righteous European publicity seekers with no connections to the workers movement."

When is it going to dawn on you, that no matter how many times you repeat your lies, you're not going to convince anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in being convinced? It has been demonstrated time and again that the boycott campaign was launched by SINALTRAINAL and backed up by the CUT. Only people who are totally committed to ignoring reality, as you clearly are, deny this.

I wish I could boast Ann Speed's connections to the workers' movement - then I'd be earning 70,000 a year, not scaraping by barely above above the minimum wage

by know152 Thu May 12, 2005 18:23

"by Matthew Stiles Wednesday, May 11 2005, 11:53pm

know 152 keeps on saying that in Colombia there is no support for the Coke boycott. "

In a mean-spirited comment from "John South"
by R. Isible Thursday, May 12 2005, 1:44am

QUOTE: "Everyone I have spoken to (apart from Gearoid O’Loinsigh) who has come back from Colombia says there is no Coca Cola boycott there. The Colombian trade union confederation, the CUT, despite what Mr O Loinsigh says, does not support it."

OK, so I (know152, not John South) was asking about what are the comparative sales figures for coke in Colombia before and after the boycott and I'm still seeing no information coming forward. I'm not talking about unions or organisations, or uni's or clubs. I'm talking about actual people, you know the workers!, not buying coke in Colombia. Give us some numbers..

Else the reasonable conclusion is that there is not boycott in practice in Colombia and the whole thing is a sham.

by anto Thu May 12, 2005 14:42

I checked that link Mathew.I bet there were a lot of Colombian workers at London's Picadilly Circus for the International Day of Action against Coca Cola.
The poster and its provenance confirm the suspicions expressed here by Irish coke workers : that the boycott campaign is being driven ,not by colombian Coke workers, but by a group of self righteous European publicity seekers with no connections to the workers movement.

by R. Isible Thu May 12, 2005 02:44

QUOTE: "Everyone I have spoken to (apart from Gearoid O’Loinsigh) who has come back from Colombia says there is no Coca Cola boycott there. The Colombian trade union confederation, the CUT, despite what Mr O Loinsigh says, does not support it."

by john Thu May 12, 2005 02:32

where was it said that there was NO support for the boycott????

by Matthew Stiles Thu May 12, 2005 00:55

I messed up the link for USO by putting a comma in it.
The link is
http://www.nodo50.org/usocolombia/

by Matthew Stiles Thu May 12, 2005 00:53

know 152 keeps on saying that in Colombia there is no support for the Coke boycott. I don't how much he knows about the union situation in Colombia but the fact is that lots of unions and left politicians support SINALTRAINAL. An example are the Oil workers, USO, one of the biggest and oldest unions in Colombia. Go to their website, http://www.nodo50.org/usocolombia/, scroll half-way down and you'll find a copy of the Boycott Coke leaflet.

by Historian Wed May 11, 2005 14:49

Those of us with a better education than you know that Churchill was a great admirer of Italian fascism and had more sympathy for Franco than for the Spanish Republicans fighting him. His hackneyed quote about democracy should be seen in that light.

I'm sure you'd prefer it if voting could be limited to "educated", property-owning folk like it once was. Hard luck.

by john Wed May 11, 2005 01:31

its not comtempt for democracy by any means.
it is in fact the most realistic acknowledgement of its failures.
after all winston churchill did say that democracy is the worst form of government except for the rest.
(he was a british prime minister for those of you who lacked an education)

one flaw of democracy is that there are sometimes stupid decisions made. like the anti EU lunatics.

by Howard Devoto Tue May 10, 2005 18:36

You're not gonna win over anyone with that attitude I'm afraid. Telling people that they're incapable of making an informed decision is not a recipe for success.

I look forward to the French people rejecting the EU constitution and giving authoritarian elitists like yourself something to chew on...

by john Mon May 09, 2005 23:30

------------------------Don't know the Trinity figures, but over 4,000 students voted in UCD - which is a helluva a lot more than voted in UL. Its "yes" vote to the boycott was based on a far more representative electorate than UL's "no" vote. So your claim that the boycott campaign can't win anyone over with their arguments is absurd--------------------------------------------

its all about percentages. If there are 1000 mindless students who dont agree with the principle of giving people the right to be presumed innocent in one college o f 10'000 , it is likely that there will be 2000 in a college of 20'000 . that is the same percentage.

there will always be people who vote without thinking . just like there are people who object to the european union and the like.

by know152 Fri May 06, 2005 18:36

or that's a bit too Radio Luxemborg for these days.

HD- Don't know the Trinity figures, but over 4,000 students voted in UCD - which is a helluva a lot more than voted in UL. Its "yes" vote to the boycott was based on a far more representative electorate than UL's "no" vote. So your claim that the boycott campaign can't win anyone over with their arguments is absurd.

Agreed. Still and all 4,000 would be just under 20%. Sadly, that is high figure in student politics these days. The no folks in UL had 3 days to get a campaign together. The Yes folks had weeks to prepare and they were the ones who needed to ensure a high vote for the result to be binding. The onus was on them to maximise the vote.

"It's all about the decks these days, man!"

"Sadly, acquiring a good record collection and learning how to mix takes a while. You would probably have only learnt how to turn the thing on and off by now. And I suspect I wouldn't want to hear your sets, no matter how hard you practiced. But let us know how you get on anyway..."

I think I learn to do that when I was working at it.

by Howard Devoto Fri May 06, 2005 18:15

"as for Trinity and UCD. They only require a simple majority of 10% of the student body to pass a referendum. Hardly a good model of decision making."

Don't know the Trinity figures, but over 4,000 students voted in UCD - which is a helluva a lot more than voted in UL. Its "yes" vote to the boycott was based on a far more representative electorate than UL's "no" vote. So your claim that the boycott campaign can't win anyone over with their arguments is absurd.

"It's all about the decks these days, man!"

Sadly, acquiring a good record collection and learning how to mix takes a while. You would probably have only learnt how to turn the thing on and off by now. And I suspect I wouldn't want to hear your sets, no matter how hard you practiced. But let us know how you get on anyway...

by Moi Fri May 06, 2005 18:02

"what is this? a p.ie invasion? Away with you."

Touche

by know152 Fri May 06, 2005 17:59

I've got no problem with people liking or disliking coke or even comparing it unfavourably to battery acid. Just let people decide for themselves whether they want to drink it or not.

and who is this "Get a life Elaine Byrne!!" with the "knobhead" sounds intriguing

I was referring to the failure of the boycott to be effective and by the promoters of it to convince the majority of people in the Irish trade union of its justness.

And as for Trinity and UCD. They only require a simple majority of 10% of the student body to pass a referendum. Hardly a good model of decision making.

As for this list of 90 plus organisations and places that support the boycott worldwide can someone point me to a list please. I've tried to find it ,on killercoke amongst other places, and can't find it. My failing perhaps. If someone could post a link to where a complete or completish list is maintained I'm sure all sides would be interested in reading it.

"As I said earlier, you'd be better off finding something productive to do with your time. In the time you've wasted on this thread already, you could probably have learnt the chords to every Oasis song from the first two albums, taught yourself to say "excuse me, where is the toilet?" in Portugese, and drunk twelve pints of cider."

It's all about the decks these days, man!

Google told me "desculpe-me, de onde seja-o o toalete?"

Not keen on cider.

"kingkane how are ya?"

what is this? a p.ie invasion? Away with you.

by Howard Devoto Fri May 06, 2005 17:17

"because you can't understand why they would be opposed you can't even begin to convince them. And so you fail."

The referendum in UL was not successful, for what seemed to me like highly contingent reasons. But the boycott has been passed in UCD and Trinity, not once but twice - in both cases with increased majorities the second time around. It's also been passed in NCAD.

Indeed, we "can't even begin" to convince people ... with the sole exception of thousands of students in those colleges. Oh, and the trade unionists who have also decided to support the boycott. Not to mention the schools, universities and other organisations in other countries who have joined the campaign.

I have no doubt that you can find a spurious argument to justify your position at every turn. I can understand why you don't want to admit to yourself that you just don't give a damn about what goes on in Colombia. Sadly, there's always gonna be people willing to perform extraordinary feats of mental gymnastics in order to wriggle out of their moral obligations. But thankfully, it's not necessary to win people like you over - it's just necessary to win over the majority of decent skins who are willing to be convinced by a sound argument. Which the boycott campaign has been doing successfully, despite the best efforts of your ilk.

As I said earlier, you'd be better off finding something productive to do with your time. In the time you've wasted on this thread already, you could probably have learnt the chords to every Oasis song from the first two albums, taught yourself to say "excuse me, where is the toilet?" in Portugese, and drunk twelve pints of cider.

Each to his own, I suppose...

by Thomas Fri May 06, 2005 16:57

I see knobhead know 152 is back from UL.

What is your problem with (1) G O Loinsigh and (2) people not liking coke

Get a life Elaine Byrne!!

by know152 Fri May 06, 2005 16:52

"No, we support the decisions of those workers involved. In the case of South Africa, the ANC called for a general boycott, in the case of Colombia, they have called for a boycott of coke. Simple really."

But the question remains about following the lead of the greater number. The union involved represents a tiny minority of the workers and if the other 90% workers believed that something was really going on and even if they didn't feel in a position to join the union, they could support the boycott by not buying coke products. Fact is they do not do that.

"The only really important thing is whether you believe the claims of the trade unionists involved. If you do, and you care about such things as workers getting murdered, you have a moral obligation to support them. Seeing as there is a well documented pile of bodies and no suggestion of a faintly plausible motive for them to fabricate the charges, I don't think it's a particularly difficult conclusion to arrive at. "

I believe that the trade unionists were most likely murdered by right wing paramilitaries and that right wing paramilitaries would have people in the business class in Colombia who support them. And might some of those in the business class work for coke's bottlers? Perhaps. Just as they probably work for pepsi and any other company in the country. That Coke Inc. have some special responsiblity that no other company in Colombia has, that I do not believe.

"I can only presume that those people who have vocally opposed the boycott campaign simply don't give a shit about colombian workers and are happy to put their own personal gain ahead of the deaths of others"
The biggest problem you have in trying to convince people that you are right is shown right here. You cannot imagine that someone might disagree with you for perfectly sensible and righteous reasons. Everyone who is opposed to this must be evil in your view. Selfish and bad, they are. And because you can't understand why they would be opposed you can't even begin to convince them. And so you fail.

by Chekov Fri May 06, 2005 14:18

"if the comparison with South Africa is to hold, shouldn't we be boycotting all Colombia products?"

No, we support the decisions of those workers involved. In the case of South Africa, the ANC called for a general boycott, in the case of Colombia, they have called for a boycott of coke. Simple really. You seem to be confusing this tactic with a moral stance. There is no suggestion that people should boycott coke as a general moral statement against the company. There is a clear request that people assist the trade unionists in their dispute with Coke by boycotting their product _until_ Coke accepts their entirely reasonable demand not to be murdered for organising.

Your other points about not all workers supporting the boycott and so on are just silly sophistry. There has never been an industrial dispute in the history of humanity which every single one of the workers supported. There have always been people who have been bought off, paralysed with fear or simply in disagreement with the dispute and lacking in solidarity.

The only really important thing is whether you believe the claims of the trade unionists involved. If you do, and you care about such things as workers getting murdered, you have a moral obligation to support them. Seeing as there is a well documented pile of bodies and no suggestion of a faintly plausible motive for them to fabricate the charges, I don't think it's a particularly difficult conclusion to arrive at. I can only presume that those people who have vocally opposed the boycott campaign simply don't give a shit about colombian workers and are happy to put their own personal gain ahead of the deaths of others.

by know152 Fri May 06, 2005 13:55

Gearoid O Loingsigh repeats a comparison that was made during the campaign in UL and doubtless was made in other colleges too.

Oddly enough for someone who claims such expertise on union activitism he seemed not know the full details of the Dunnes workers actions from the 1980s whereby a employee was suspended for refusing to handle South Africa produce mainly fruit as it happens. He seemed to think they refused to sell the products. It should also be noted that it was the policy of their union that informed that action. Their union, an Irish union.

It would seem to me that conditions in Colombia are not good for a great many people so if the comparison with South Africa is to hold, shouldn't we be boycotting all Colombia products? I for one very much doubt that Coke employees are the only people being killed for union membership.

We're told that the Colombia workers have called for a boycott in Colombia but where is that boycott? One of the best facts that could be used in this discussion would be to state that coke's sales in Colombia had fallen by x amount in the last 5 years. Yet it is never used, why? Because it must not have happened. Colombian consumers which would be Colombian workers remember aren't observing any boycott because they don't believe that coke is complicit in any of the murders.

If the Colombians don't believe it why should we?

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Wed May 04, 2005 19:55

Again we have nonsense about the boycott. The workers in Colombia call for a boycott in Colombia also. The boycott is a consumer boycott, just in teh same way the south african workers called for a boycott event though they continued to work in that country. There is no contradiction.

If it is all my fault well that doesn't say much for anyone else. But get real, what you don't like is that it is not the work of any one person but a campaign that was launched by over 200 organisations that took part in the three public hearings in Atlanta, Brussels, and Bogota. Amongst those organisations was the CUT.

As for solidarity: despite repeated attempts to get them to acknowledge that Coke has some responsibility for the killings Siptu has refused, despite the admission by the IUF that in at least one fo the killings there is some evidence against coke. We made this letter public at the time. It was cc to Siptu yet they continue to deny publicly what even the IUF privately admits.

As for the comment about support for the guerrillas, we have no interest in organising support for them. You have obviously got the wrong end of the stick.

As for not using Lasc name. No reason really. Just out of practice on this issue. If it makes you happy, I will.

by anton Wed May 04, 2005 18:31

I can't see why YFG wouldn't use this daft boycott campaign as a stick to beat the left with . They must see it as a god-sent opportunity to divide the left.
According to the pro boycotters ,coke workers are either docile sheep led by so called left republicans or else yellow union scabs in collusion with Colombian right -wing death squads .Either way they are getting their reward for not doing the bidding of GOL . But Gearoid is not gloating of course . No, despite all their sins coke workers are workers and, at the end of the day, they must be supported !
The point made by John South is perfectly valid. It is completely counter- intuitive for workers to call on consumers to boycott the product they are producing. The success of a boycott campaign would lead to workers losing their jobs ,that's the way any worker would see it .It's alright for Chekov to sound all moralistic about this ,but the reality is that Colombian workers are not boycotting coke. I wonder how many Farc members are .
And yet Dublin workers ,many of whom probably don't know much atall about the situation in Colombia are expected to fall in line with a campaign that they had no part of setting up . For all they know , LASC could be just a crowd of middle class ex student types trying to make a name for themselves at their expense .
Gearoid and Chekov : you should try putting yourselves in the shoes of Dublin coca cola workers .Imagine the reaction you'd get if you went into a pub with a friend who ordered a coke and then you started preaching to your friend about how they shouldn't be drinking the stuff . The friend would surely turn around and say something along the lines of , ' You've got a cheek ,you want me to stop drinking coke while you're churning out thousands of gallons of it a day ' Think how daft that would make you feel and then you'll have an idea how daft your campaign seems to coke workers .

by James Moriarty Wed May 04, 2005 18:01

The allegation that those who do not support the boycott are defenders of Coca Cola does not stand up (or at least there is no evidence for the allegation).

Did anyone defending the boycott comment on this article (from a linked thread), and, if so, what exactly did they find fault with - or did they invent something to find fault with?

"AP/RN on Colombia
by Scáth Shéamais Sunday, Dec 12 2004, 8:09pm

There was an article in this week's An Phoblacht/Republican News about "SIPTU rep's solidarity visit to Colombia" (it can be read here: http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/7775 )"

by wow Wed May 04, 2005 15:50

that it has no duty of care to its employees and through inaction and through washing their hands of the rights of workers in subsidiaries to work in safety, are complicit in the various murders/kidnappings etc in their bottling plants.

They are 'killers' by dint of their avoidance of a duty of care to their employees. They are not sending out koke employees to do the deeds. No-one ever said they were - they are however complicit.

The very understandable suspicion backed up by a fair amount of evidence is that they want a cowed and un-unionised workforce, or a workforce affiliated to a 'friendly' union and that tolerating this pattern of kidnapping and murder on the part of right wing paramilitaries suits their agenda far more than does protecting the rights of their workforce.

The argument against the boycott is tenuous and this is reflected in the falling back on snide comments about the use of language by contributors like me and the falling back on scapegaoting and slander on which it's proponents rely to have any chance of making an impact.

by know152 Wed May 04, 2005 15:13

" who is the person willing to try to pretend
by wow Wednesday, May 4 2005, 1:39pm

that the boycott of coke internationally as well as nationally is all to do with GOL - just makes opponents of boycott (whether siptu heads/YFG etc) look like sore vindictive bullying LOSERS who are desperate to find a bad guy.

Why are these people so willing to defend coke unquestioningly? It makes no sense to support a company that does not uphold the rights of its workers nationally or internationally."

Leaving aside the dreadful command of english on display here, why do you think that people who oppose this boycott must support coke. I'm personally very suspicious and opposed to exclusive deals done between coke and colleges or workplaces. I reckon that it is entirely likley that the Colombia government works through the AUC to ensure unions don't get a fair hearing in Colombia and that the local business community is not keen on unions either. However, that doesn't add up to Coke being actively engaged killing its employees. Which is what is alleged in the boycott campaigns. I'm not supporting coke, but I'm not going to support the boycott either. The majority of people are suspicious of big companies, but they don't really believe the the pro-boycott side either..

by wow Wed May 04, 2005 14:39

that the boycott of coke internationally as well as nationally is all to do with GOL - just makes opponents of boycott (whether siptu heads/YFG etc) look like sore vindictive bullying LOSERS who are desperate to find a bad guy.

Why are these people so willing to defend coke unquestioningly? It makes no sense to support a company that does not uphold the rights of its workers nationally or internationally.

by Anthony G Wed May 04, 2005 14:27

The reason cited as the "key factor" for the decision of Coca Cola Bottlers to move to Lisburn is - as has been previously mentioned in a comment from 'Coca Cola Worker' - that the water supply isn't of high enough quality to meet their criteria.

by John North Wed May 04, 2005 02:52

Dishonesty oozes form every line of the John South post.

The basic rationale is that in a dipute between one of the most rapacious multi-nationals on the planet and a native union under every form of attack, including physical, there is a left policy that opposes the union and supports the multi-national.

Solidarity is really ultra-leftism because it alienates powerful workers organisations like SIPTU - so powerful that when their members jobs are scrapped by the company the only strategy is to capitulate immediately !

SIPTU and the 'left' republicans' within it at the core of the coke defence project would have us believe that they have been offering solidarity. The workers haven't been able to focus in on their non-existant solidarity because of one 'ultra-left' individual. What garbage!

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together, even if ignorant of the activity of the scabs, could work out in a flash that the invisible 'solidarity' was in fact scabbing.

The 'left ' defence of coke doesn't exist. What does exist is scabbing. There is nothing to discuss with scabs.

There is however something to discuss with the invisible left audience to this debate. Their silence is linked to wistful hopes that a new left unity can be built that includes the SIPTU bureaucracy. The story of coke is that it is an urgent task is to fight against the leaderships of the social partnership unions and to clear their stench from the nostrils of the working class.

by John South Wed May 04, 2005 02:03

Everyone I have spoken to (apart from Gearoid O’Loinsigh) who has come back from Colombia says there is no Coca Cola boycott there. The Colombian trade union confederation, the CUT, despite what Mr O Loinsigh says, does not support it.

That is a fact.

Let us leave the denunciations aside for one minute and just consider the following.

The unionised Colombian workforce in Coca Cola is split over the boycott tactic – half are in a union that supports it (Sinaltrainal) and half are in unions that do not. The vast majority is not in any union - this is due to the campaign of murder of trade unionists from the right wing death squads that have links with the Colombian state, representing local business interests and the landed elite, in an alliance with the US government.

No Colombia Boycott
The boycott is not capable even of gaining the support of the majority of Coca Cola workers in Colombia. Workers in Colombia produce the stuff. Supporting a boycott locally at the same time is incoherent politically and industrially, so they do not do so.

This is a campaign aimed at ‘first world’ consumers. It is politically misconceived because it is incapable of drawing in worldwide support from the powerful unionised force of Coca Cola workers or their international and national organizations. The campaign has attacked unionised workers and shop-stewards who have taken solidarity action in spite of the boycott that they disagree with.

GUBU: Gearoid-Unbelievable-Grotesque-Unprecedented
O Loinsigh starts from the position that unions representing Coca Cola workers (apart from Sinaltrainal) are in league with Coca Cola, are ‘loyal’ to it and are bosses’ unions. This is ultra left sectarian politics incapable of winning support from organized Coca Cola workers – in fact it is guaranteed to alienate them. Efforts by SIPTU to find a way in which to make common cause with Sinaltrainal, meeting with them in Colombia, integrating them into a meeting with European Coca Cola workers, and putting their case to Coca Cola management, was spectacularly denounced by O Loinsigh (apparently and incredibly with the support of Sinaltrainal). The hysterical accusation from O Loinsigh (linked at the top of the page) about SIPTU, after these meetings in solidarity with Sinaltrainal had taken place, could have been resolved with a telephone call and the question: “Is this accusation true or is there a possibility of some misunderstanding?” This did not happen because the obvious and correct answer, “No it is not true” is an unacceptable alternative to O Loinsigh’s preference for sectarian politics. It is as though O Loinsigh is desperate to pursue only one way of fighting this issue and to reject the possibility of trade union support that does not support the boycott. Incredible as it seems, this is the only logical deduction that can be made from an otherwise unbelievable episode.

Results
The boycott does not make political sense. It is also unsuccessful. Coca Cola apparently sells over a billion soft drinks a day. This campaign has not put a dent in the sales of Coca Cola.

This is not a denial that trade unionists in Colombia are threatened with murder and torture directed by death squads that are linked to the military and the rotten reactionary state. Ultimately, US foreign policy is to blame and it carries out these actions in defence of multinational capitalism and in denial of the rights of working class and of poor people.

It also not a denial of the justice of the Sinaltrainal claim against Coca Cola.

It is a denial of the validity of the boycott campaign and of the petty moralism and vicious sectarian accusations that accompany it.

Greed?
For Geraroid to write that Coca Cola does something for reasons of “naked greed” is bizarre, but symptomatic of the view that Coca Cola suffers from a personality malfunction. All multinational companies make decisions based on the lash of competition in order to protect profitability and the capacity to continue to exploit workers efficiently. Multinational corporations are players in a competitive world economy. They benefit from globalization that forces rationalization and increased productivity, and the possibility of cutting back on gains won by workers in one locality by pitting them against lower production conditions in another place. Workers and their jobs will always play second fiddle. Workers demand the right to work and to produce, and to take back a share of the value they produce. They have the interest and the potential organizing power to make common cause and to rally the general population to the justice of their cause. Political activists can win workers to the need for common action and can push their leaders further than they may initially wish to go – but not by characterizing as reactionary every union and very union leader that does not favor the tactic of one small union.

All the boycott calls in the world will not alter this or get workers their jobs back. This campaign is a futile failure. It has nothing of value to say to Irish Coca Cola workers.

Competition
The boycott played no role in the decision to concentrate production in one plant in Ireland since it has no effect on consumption. Competition from bottlers in other parts of Europe where wages and conditions are lower than in Ireland does. Irish supermarkets sourcing Coca Cola in Georgia plays a role. The boycott plays none. It is an irrelevancy in practical terms and a giant diversion in political terms. Coca Cola wins every time - and Gearoid issues his latest ineffectual insult.

Pot Kettle Black
O Loinsigh complains of personal attacks, but his name appears at the top of this feature thread and he throws around irrelevant and inaccurate personal asides like confetti. He is a kind of Michael Mc Dowell of the (ultra) left. When confronted with an argument he resorts to stories of posters, phantoms and, incredibly, an inflation of the role of the Blueshirts in the saga of his political misfortunes. If Michael McDowell sees the IRA behind every lamppost, Gearoid sees Fine Gael. He single handedly boosts the image and effectiveness of the right because he cannot countenance or address a counter argument on the left. He cannot answer simple questions without insults, sideswipes and irrelevancies.

Gearoid has been saying this is a “worldwide” boycott campaign that emanates from one small union in Colombia. But it does not operate in Colombia itself. Workers who support the boycott produce the coloured water they (allegedly) want Colombian consumers to boycott? A non event. Since he cannot even report this accurately, it undermines other claims he makes about events in Colombia.

In fact, the Colombian state has been let off the hook. O Loinsigh has no argument to support the role of guerillas in Colombia; he has no argument in opposition to the role of the Colombian state. All he has is a boycott campaign against a multinational corporation that expends a lot of energy but that gets nowhere. The real culprits in Colombia are being ignored by this campaign. When the right put up posters about FARC, why did he not explain its role in a violent oppressive state? Instead he makes petty complaints about the right and its ability to mobilise (and about which mobilizing effort O Loinsigh inspires fear and paranoia and makes grandiose claims). Why not take on the right head-on in a way that explains the reactionary US role in Colombia and how it boosts the local reactionary elite, not the Coca Cola role (which is a diversion)? The thousands of trade unionists who were murdered there and who suffer continuing attack deserve better than this.

Solidarity
O Loinsigh and his followers are handing the right in Ireland a political victory on a plate, mis-educating students and alienating Coca Cola workers – some socialist strategy that jettisons all the history of struggle in the trade union movement in Ireland and internationally, a movement that is sympathetic to the plight of Colombian workers, that will act in solidarity with them, that has done so – but not in way that Mr O Loinsigh will accept.

Maybe he will think again and accept solidarity action that may not pass his 'boycott-or-nothing' test. He should do if, as I assume is the case, he has the interests of Colombian workers at heart.

by bobcat Wed May 04, 2005 01:30

I understand that some of what is produced in coke plants in Ireland is consumed in Ireland but the vast majority of it is for consumption in Europe. For example one of Ireland's largest exports to Germany is the syrup base for Coca-Cola products. So on that point I still do not accept the argument that the boycott in Ireland threatens Irish jobs.

On anohter point, I participated in one of the boycott campaigns in the university which I attended and the sense I got then and that I have gotten from following this thread is that the opponents of the boycott have very little actual knowledge of what is happening in Colombia. I can understand why they would not want to believe any of the 'propaganda' produced by the pro boycott side but they obviously haven't bothered to do thier homework and seem contented to rely on their parochial worldview that results in them feeling no concern for trade unionists in foreign places and even to call them terrorists. Had they even scratched beneath the surface they might have come accross stories of trade unionists and social activists all over Colombia being linked to the FARC by the government, corporations and the AUC with no basis as an excuse to discredit or kill them.

by Simon Bolivar Wed May 04, 2005 00:45

I just noticed, Gearoid O Loinsigh no longer writes under the name of the Latin America Solidarity Campaign (LASC) when insulting all around him and simultaneously denouncing personal attacks. Is there a reason? Wonder what it is?

by know152 Tue May 03, 2005 18:13

However, I'm not sure how the person you say is a troll is both part of UL and also Matt Bruton. Matt is my knowledge is safe in Maynooth not in UL.

The link is priceless. Well, worth a read.

by know152 Tue May 03, 2005 16:18

"YFG by Gearoid O Loingsigh Tuesday, May 3 2005, 1:39pm

Actually, YFG did organise the no vote. They even brought Matt Bruton down for the vote. Are you unhappy with your bedfellows? Now Niall why don't you write under your real name?

As for accepting the decision. It is the no side that have forced reruns in two universities not us.

But how about a debate on the real issues? the no side, yourself included have consistently ran away from this. cowards? Or just nothing to say?"

Who is Niall? Gerry you can check with the ULSU, none of tho No campaigner organiser is in yfg. No one has claimed that yfg didn't do leg work on this in UL. Why can't you just accept that people other than yfg find your whole campaign to be a distortion. I'm pretty sure Matt Bruton made his own way down. And if he did, why is wrong from a student to come to UL when it's ok for Gerry who is not even a student to drop by?

As for the FARC/AUC posters, they were there but they didn't last long thanks to an attack of the rippers on the night before the vote. And yes there were also posters that just said FARC OFF. Along with ones that said drink, farc, girls. And some saucy posters with dead bodies in a glass of coke but they were from the Yes side so that's ok then..

Apparently, the Yes side are committed to rerunning the campaign in UL next year, GL, are you opposed to that happening?

As for the person who screamed slander. slander is something you say, libel is something you write.

by Chekov - 1 of IMC Tue May 03, 2005 16:12

To those who want a little insight into the maturity of this debate, I can point them towards our newswire mailing list where they can find a record of all deleted material.

There you can see that somebody from the No side in UL has been spamming the newswire with abuse against people in the boycott campaign and doing so almost every night around 4 am. Don't these YFGers have anything to do in the mornings?

by Howard Devoto Tue May 03, 2005 15:57

"there were posters in UL that mentioned FARC and the AUC to demonstrate the No campaign's opposition to all paramilitary activities in Colombia"

There were no posters mentioning the AUC anywhere in Limerick. There WERE posters saying "FARC off, vote No", which were clearly meant to convey the mesage that a vote against the boycott was a vote against FARC - in other words, that the pro-boycott campaign were aligned with FARC.

For people so eager to cite the letter of the law, these folk have a rather flexible attitude to slander. Apparently it's an unforgivable smear to suggest that people who are pro-coke are "right-wing", but to call the anti-Coke campaign "pro-terrorist" is perfectly acceptable.

As Gearoid says, your inability to argue your case without degenerating into childish personal abuse speaks volumes about your own inadequacy. If this is the future of Fine Gael, then the future is bright indeed for everyone else...

In the 18 months since UCD first voted to support the boycott, over 90 universities and schools around the world have followed its example. Not to mention trade unions and other organisations in civil society who have given their support to the solidarity campaign.

I'm afraid that those of us who support the campaign aren't all that bothered by the antics of YFG and their over-privileged debating society cronies. Find something better to do with your time, would be my advice. You could learn to tap-dance, play the guitar, speak Portugese ... or just go the pub. Far more productive.

by greg Tue May 03, 2005 15:56

______Unlike Matt Bruton, I do have time and money constraints__________

and these are more important than dead trade unionists?

_____________________As for Coke and the courts. Pinochet has never been convicted either, what does that mean? Rios Montt neither. Both of the individuals have been before the courts in foreign jurisdictions and also in their own, but yet no convictions. Are we to presumet that both of these men are innocent saints?_____________________________

no-one said that. no system is perfect , but that never justifies taking action into your own hands. What you would condone it seems to me is vigilantism. how would you, Mr o Loinsigh like it if somebody decided to beat you up over something that all the evidence appears to say you did but you know you didnt? how about if your business was boycotted in the same circumstances?

and how is this not an argument?

can you begin to comprehend the consequences of what you are proposing?

do you even realise what kind of precedent that you are setting?

how will you feel if coca cola are proven innocent?

THESE ARE ARGUMENTS.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Tue May 03, 2005 14:39

Actually, YFG did organise the no vote. They even brought Matt Bruton down for the vote. Are you unhappy with your bedfellows? Now Niall why don't you write under your real name?

As for accepting the decision. It is the no side that have forced reruns in two universities not us.

But how about a debate on the real issues? the no side, yourself included have consistently ran away from this. cowards? Or just nothing to say?

by know152 Tue May 03, 2005 13:34

" by Gearoid O Loingsigh Tuesday, May 3 2005, 12:18pm

As for no YFG in Limerick. Get real!"

Typical. No one said there was no yfg in UL. It was just stated they didn't organise the no vote. Fact is Gerry can't accept losing and when he does it must be due to some vast right wing conspiracy rather than ordinary people deciding that his argument is paper thin.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Tue May 03, 2005 13:18

This thread is rapidly degenerating into a stream of personal abuse. it doesn't worry me, as that is what is to be expected from those with no arguments. Nobody has sought to justify their alliance with Coke, my absence or otherwise from the campaign in Limerick is seen as significant. Unlike Matt Bruton, I do have time and money constraints and have no money from Pepsi either again unlike Matt whose Da got thirty grand from Coke.

As for Coke and the courts. Pinochet has never been convicted either, what does that mean? Rios Montt neither. Both of the individuals have been before the courts in foreign jurisdictions and also in their own, but yet no convictions. Are we to presumet that both of these men are innocent saints?

Lastly, I wish I could take the credit for the boycott campaign,but alas it is not so. The campaign was launched formally by Francisco Ramirez the head of the mineworkers union (no stupid comments about mining and coke, use your intelligence, he launched it because he believes in solidarity).

The students in each college make the decision about the boycott campaign and we have given what help we can. it is up to each college to run their campaigns.

As for no YFG in Limerick. Get real!

by greg Tue May 03, 2005 01:25

Gearoid o loinsigh was notably absent during the whole vote and aftermath.
why was this? the man after all in this very thread accepted that he is unemployed. did he have better things to do? if he believes that these "dead trade unionists" are as important as he claims them to be, why wasnt he there?
This is not a personal attack but a question of the integrity of the entire pro-ban campaign. Why does this campaign attack others for being paid of by coke, when they themselves could just as easily be paid by pepsi? when they also misuse the logos of the ULSU? when they rip down posters in NUI maynooth? when they make an assertion in a PUBLIC meeting that any one who drinks coke is right wing?


these are important questions that do need answers.

by the first dave Tue May 03, 2005 01:02

you are asserting this as if you have evidence that has been validated by a court of law.

the fact remains... YOU DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Another Dave Mon May 02, 2005 23:45

"and let me explain to yo, very nicely: money lost in profits does affect the company, albeit in a small way but it does affect the company. this has a knockon effect which does result in jobs."

And let me explain to YOU very nicely:

Coke collude with paramilitaries, who hunt down innocent trade unionists, and shoot them, which has a knock on effect of them being dead.

Which is more important?

by . Mon May 02, 2005 23:38

the pro ban lobby cannot claim that the ban does not affect coca cola profits when that is the purpose of their campaign!!!

by dave Mon May 02, 2005 23:36

___________The sales of Coca Cola in UCD never made profits for the entire operation in Ireland and had no impact whatsoever in Coca Cola making people unemployed._____________________

you dont do economics do you?
if the sale of coca cola in ucd is not making profits... then what did they sell for.

and let me explain to yo, very nicely: now this is not rocket science, but money lost in profits does affect the company, albeit in a small way but it does affect the company. this has a knockon effect which does result in jobs.

by know152 Mon May 02, 2005 20:15

"First of all, I have no way of knowing whether the Coke worker is really a coke worker or a young fine gael student from Limerick who put up posters implying the boycott campaign was a FARC campaign.

I don't really believe that my personal circmstances are at issue, but for the record I am unemployed."

Strange kind of unemployment that allows a person enough time and money to travel the country organising boycotts and tripping off to Colombia.

And for the last time, yfg did not organise the No vote in UL. They certainly did plenty of legwork on it. But no organisation. This was discussed on the UL thread and the facts can be checked with the SU. None of the organisers were yfg. And how are we to know if GL isn't in the pay of some other soft drinks maker?

And there were posters in UL that mentioned FARC and the AUC to demonstrate the No campaign's opposition to all paramilitary activities in Colombia. Gerry would have seen them if he hadn't run away back to Dublin with his tail between his legs before the vote itself.
There were also some posters that said Drink, Farc, Girls! Am I to understand that Father Jack was all for killing trade union members too?

Of course, the misuse of the ULSU logo and the term "Dead Unionists" on posters was all par for the course for this little Gerry and the Boycottmakers.

by Don't Drink the Kool-Aid! Mon May 02, 2005 18:59

QUOTE: "There is a thing called innocent until proven guilty."

Yes, but Coke has been very keen to avoid any sort of a trial, they managed to escape the Florida court case brought under the Alien Tort Act by shifting the responsibility for the murder of the people trying to unionise onto their subsidiary bottlers. From the evidence that I've seen it's clear that Coca-Cola is doing business in a country (Colombia) which uses right-wing death squads to kill people involved in union activity. Coca-Cola's response is to say "it's not us, it's people we hire". As far as I'm concerned that's direct responsibility.

QUOTE: "There is a thing called habeas corpus which gives you, and me the RIGHT to be presumed innocent before judgment is cast on us."

Eh, no. Habea corpus is the right to see the evidence against you so that you are not arbitrarily held or detained in prison.

by anton Mon May 02, 2005 17:19

Yet another interesting fact about Anne Speed is that before she joined Sinn Fein she was a member of a group called Peoples' Democracy . When she left in the eighties she was never forgiven - least of all by Gearoid who was for, all intents and purposes, People's Democracy's youth movement at the time.
I remember about that time meeting a leading light in the organization ,saying I hadn't seen Anne around for a long time and asking how she was getting on. The leading member went puce with rage and I was given a half hour harangue on the subject of the " Renegade Speed" .
People's Democracy changed its name to Socialist Democracy a short time after this.
Although still around ,their numbers are dwindling : occasionaly they turn on and devour one of their own - as was the case with the unfortunate J.M.
Don't mess with this group of desparadoes - they are prone to pique and have very long memories

by UCD student Mon May 02, 2005 15:28

The UCDSU only run 5 shops in UCD. Of these some are only operating part-time and only one can be said to be similar to a busy newsagents (Library shop).

The sales of Coca Cola in UCD never made profits for the entire operation in Ireland and had no impact whatsoever in Coca Cola making people unemployed.

The real people to blame are the management in Coca Cola. They are the ones that are to blame for the job losses, they are the ones that are to blame for the Colombian situation.

Ann Speed is a rotten yellow Union leader as she is doing nothing to fight these redundencies and she leafleted UCD on 4 seperate occassion against workers' solidarity.

Another fact: Ann Speed is leading member of Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein receive corporate donations from Coca Cola. Co-incidence?

by michael Mon May 02, 2005 15:25

John, unforntunately you seem unable to follow another very simple logic.

There is a thing called innocent until proven guilty. There is a thing called habeas corpus which gives you, and me the RIGHT to be presumed innocent before judgment is cast on us.
you are turning that on its head.

and dont give me any of this lark about the courts in colombia being corrupt.
The certain individual who launched the campaign seems perfectly able to accept the courts judgement when it comes to aquitting workers but not when it comes to prosecuting coke.

by . Mon May 02, 2005 15:16

because what is sold in ireland is produced in ireland.
therefore when you boycott coke in UCD that is lost revenue from coke bottlers in say ballina or whichever factory in the country they get it from.

by bobcat Mon May 02, 2005 03:27

Maybe somebody from the pro coke side could clarify this for me but to my knowledge the vast majority of what is produced in the coke plants in Ireland is exported. If this is true why are Irish jobs in coca cola at risk if Irish people boycott coke?

by John Mon May 02, 2005 03:16 jmcanulty at tiscali dot co dot uk

The majority of posters seem unable to follow a fairly simple class logic. If a company threatens one group of workers then others have to choose between solidarity and fink unionism where they capitulate to the bosses. Solidarity carries a risk that not enough workers will sign up in which case the company will defeat them. Fink unionism, as practised by SIPTU, is based on the belief that if you are loyal to the boss then the boss will be loyal to you. In reality the bosses are loyal to profit and fink unionism always fails. Does no-one remember the Nottinghamshire miners?

The demands of the Columbian workers were quite simple. Stop killing us and negotiate decent wages and conditions. Once the case is put you either support this simple demand or you don't. If you fail to do so then your own ability to demand anything from the company is significantly reduced.

The tragedy of social partnership is that workers in Ireland don't even get a chance to look at the question - The union bureaucracy decide for them.

What's really interesting about this post is not the small group of rignt-wingers who don't get the question, let alone the answer, but the dogs that don't bark. The SIPTU leadership, Sinn Fein on behalf of Ann Speed, and the socialist groups in general

by Barry Sun May 01, 2005 22:14

No I'm not.

by Chekov Sun May 01, 2005 22:02

Barry, you left some important clauses out of your equation:
Coke Killing Trade Unionists = Revulsion among decent workers = Boycott Campaign = Loss of Image = Fall in Sales = Job Losses

And some more equations that you might consider:
Coke's Choice of Country to Manufacture in = Purely Decided on the Basis of Profitability = Nothing to Do with Boycott Campaign or Loyalty of Workers.

It is a most basic and obvious factor of trade unionism that all 'indirect' action in support of workers carries some risk that the action will damage the company's viability and endanger some jobs. Every worker who goes on strike knows that there is some risk to her job. The point is that you try to make the company give in - and capitalism being what it is, they invariably do if they are faced with really serious risks to their profits and property.

If you say that arguing for a boycott campaign *until coke stops killing trade unionists* is inconsistent with supporting workers in the company, then you are also implying that there is something wrong with all cases where workers take solidarity actions in labour disputes.

by Barry Sun May 01, 2005 21:47

Akrasia i think you are seeing complexities in this situation which do not exist. It is not some huge multinational conspiracy.

Jobs where lost because it is cheaper to do the job in nothern ireland.

It is a total contrdiction to boycott something yet complain when people lose jobs over it. I do not think that the boycott of coca-cola had any effect this decision to close the plant. People should make their mind up to where they stand on Coca-cola.

At least SIPTU did and they can defend the jobs of these workers with some credibilty at least. Make your mind up and stand up for what you believe in otherwise stop making noise.

by Akrasia Sun May 01, 2005 21:33

There is absolutely no contradiction between supporting the workers in Colombia by calling for a coca-cola boycott and supporting the workers in the Coke Bottling plant in Ireland who are losing their jobs because the corporation are automating everything.

There is a contradiction in Siptu condenming the boycot because it might 'threaten irish jobs' and then when Irish jobs are actually discarded by the corporation they were defending, they claim to 'welcome' the automation of their production facilities.

Siptu as a Union is as corrupt as every other political institution in Ireland. The interests of the workers are at the very bottom of their concern.

Young Fine Geal are nothing but mindless pawns who are wilfully ignorant of (or incapable of understanding) the complexities in this situation.

by Expectant Sun May 01, 2005 16:15

Anne Speed is a leading member of Provisional Sinn Fein. As a true revolutionary I expect we can look forward to her leading an all out fight against the job losses... right?

by the fog Sat Apr 30, 2005 21:53

people should realise by now that if you work for a transnational corporation, your job and livelihood is the least of the boss's worries. so much for the anti boycott argument of ' it will affect irish jobs'. rationalisation, mechanisation and probably a big bung from the northern irish industry board has cost irish jobs. not to mention the fact that coke bosses and their cronies dont give a shit about anyone else but themselves. anyway theres plenty of work in intel and other kips like that as long as bertie keeps turnin the sods in his (fanta) lemon suit. keep the boycott going and support the colombian workers.

by Patient Sat Apr 30, 2005 19:06

Gearoid O Loinsigh mentions the hospital crisis (though what it has to do with his campaign to keep factories open that produce stuff that people should not buy escapes me). Why doen't he call for a worlwide boycott of Irish hospitals? It seems to be his magic cure all.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Sat Apr 30, 2005 14:17

First of all, I have no way of knowing whether the Coke worker is really a coke worker or a young fine gael student from Limerick who put up posters implying the boycott campaign was a FARC campaign.

I don't really believe that my personal circmstances are at issue, but for the record I am unemployed.

I have never shown up at the factory gate in Dublin as the request by Sinaltrainal to meet with the workers in the Naas Rd plant was turned down and we were offered and accepted a meeting with workers reps. This meeting took place last year and was attended by Edgar Paez of Sinaltrainal.

There is no contradiction in the position of solidarity. the purpose of the boycott is to force a change in the company's behaviour. Sinaltrainal,as my article points out fought against similar reductions and restructuring in Colombia. I oppose job losses, as does Sinaltrainal. The cause of these losses is Coke's naked greed.

for the last time, people are either deliberately ignorant or choose to mislead on teh question of the boycott.IT IS A WORLDWIDE BOYCOTT THAT INCLUDES COLOMBIA AS WELL. After two years of campaigning can you not understand this basic point.

As for accusing people of belonging to a yellow union. There are many good people in Siptu including those delegates who voted to support disinvestment in Coke and who were narrowly defeated. However, at a leadership level. this is a union which is fully committed to Social Partnership, stands by in partnership whilst patients die on trolleys. It did nothing about the Gama workers until they were forced to do so (sorry a correction, they took union dues off the Gama workers)and refused to back the campaign against bin charges. Yellow? I'll leave that up to yourselves. A yellow leadership doesn't always mean a yello membership, though.

by Coca Cola Worker Fri Apr 29, 2005 23:52

I am a Coca Cola worker and I have been following this debate. I have not got involved, but Mr Gearoid O Loinsigh really takes the biscuit. Let me tell him a few home truths.
Mr O’ Loinsigh wants to campaign for our jobs when we produce something he does not want the public to buy. Is he mad or what?
We told SIPTU about this mad boycott. Not the other way around. They did what we told them. He thinks we just sit around waiting to be led by the nose. Now he wants to lead us. I bet he has never done a day’s real work in his life. I bet he just swans around telling everyone what a big expert he is.
There were two threats to out jobs. The company’s rationalisation plan and Mr O Loinsigh’s boycott. Luckily Mr O Loinsigh and his friends are useless campaigners – the boycott had no effect. We were wrong to be worried about a bunch of tossers. How many bottles or cans of the over one billion sold a day has this stupid boycott stopped people drinking? Not a single one. If it is such a good idea why are the workers in Colombia still producing it and why is there no boycott campaign in Colombia. The workers in Colombia are not stupid and neither are we. Why did Mr O Loinsigh lie about this? He said there was a boycott campaign in Colombia. We could not understand how Coca Clola workers were producing something they did not want people to buy. Why did they not go on strike? We found out the truth. There is no boycott in Colombia. That has been a big part of the problem with Mr O Loinsigh. We do not trust him. He has told lies about us and he told lies about the boycott in Colombia. We want facts and the truth. We won’t get facts from him and we do not trust him.
Our union met the union in Colombia who call for this boycott outside Colombia and outside all of South America. They brought them into discussions with Coca Cola workers in Europe and argued the toss with Coke management. We did not have to do this, but we did. After this there were more crazy lies, so there is just no point having anything to do with crazy people.
Mr O Loinsigh has called us scabs and said we are members of a yellow union. Now he wants to defend us. I’ll tell you one thing, Mr O Loinsigh is too yellow to show his face at our factory gate. I have never seen him there and I don’t expect to.
He talks about hunger strikes. Why doesn’t he go on one?
He offers to support us, I would say to Mr O Loinsigh “Thanks, but no thanks. We can’t see the slogan “ save our jobs but don’t buy what we produce” as a success. Stick to students. I see you weren’t very successful in Limerick. Some people there did not say very nice things about you.”
We will fight our own battles with people we trust. We don’t need someone who is ignorant and abusive.
Here is my take on the company decision to site the plant in the North. We in the South are seen as too bolshy. The workforce in the North are seen as accepting things more easily than we do. Our shop stewards offered a joint campaign to keep both plants open. The other union in the north did not seem interested. Secondly, the quality of the water is better in the North. Thirdly, the British government offered a better deal to this multinational company than ours did. That stuff O Loinsigh wrote about us being loyal to the company over the boycott is just rubbish. When we started we thought we were talking to sensible people, but we met a lot of people with a one-track mind. It was like talking to religious people who believe what they believe so much that they can’t see any other person’s ideas.
We will stick with people who are serious. We don’t need crackpots with crocodile tears.
Mr O Loinsigh does not need to reply. I am not interested in anything he says and neither are other Coca Cola workers.

by John Fri Apr 29, 2005 23:06

This beats everything. You're going to support a campaign to persuade Coca Cola to continue manufacturing their drinks in Kildare while simultaneously campaigning to persuade the Irish public not to purchase any drinks manufactured by Coca Cola in Kildare. Are you totally mad? As for the workers, Ireland now has the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD and is attracting 60,000 immigrants a year from mainly socialist countries, so those laid off should have little trouble finding jobs.

by Cokehead Fri Apr 29, 2005 22:50

Sales of Coke are dropping anyway because of the growing realisation that this junk is bad for bods. Sick of the sanctimonious shite of people constantly criticising workers for wanting to hold on to their jobs. Workers unfortunately have to sell their labour to American multis, whose armed wing is decimating Iraq at the moment, but they can't all risk their livelihoods by downing tools and asking for boycott in the fifty third State. Bet Gearoid has safe job and income and never had to go on strike or went hungry on the dole. Just a hunch I have! If I'm wrong I'll graciously apologise.

by . Fri Apr 29, 2005 20:53

.