UCD Coke Boycott

Sangre

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Well then, maybe you're blind. Maybe you haven't seen all posters around campus advertising the library study-ins, the anti racism campaign, the 10k charity mini-marathon, the sexual equality campaign. Maybe you haven't been following the anti-fees protests (worked for through USI). Maybe you just don't read the college press. You're incorrectly assuming things, probably because of prejudice or something.

Dont be be too hard on him for not noticing them.
He does go to Trinity after all.

DadaKopf

Haha.

In that case, he really shouldn't go thinking that just because their union might be crap (I don't know if they are) that ours is, too.

I might agree with him if the UCDSU *wasn't* doing its job but it is.

Nike_Dude

Right i Dont go to ucd but i can have an opinion considering the is not alot of difference between the two unions. I'm well aware that the SU do plenty of worthwhile things 10k walk etc. I just strongly disagree with this coke ban and the way in which it was brought about. It was a terrible waste of time and money regardless of whether it was budgeted for or not

In that case, he really shouldn't go thinking that just because their union might be crap (I don't know if they are) that ours is, too

Could you possibly show me where I said that? no? thats because i didnt say it:) TCD SU do just as many things as UCD SU. Last week they rejected putting the coke issue to a student vote. So, by your reasoning, the students are highly aware of global issues in UCD and the ones in Trinity arent, even though the colleges are only a couple of miles apart

probably because of prejudice or something

Prejudice against what? I fail to see how I can be prejudice for saying certain refernda were a waste

As reasonable as you think you sound, the SU budget allocates funds to a referendum account which is enough to hold five referenda a year

Right, and now there are two gone on the same thing, surely(and again I am aware i dont go to ucd) a more informed campaign before the first vote would have been preferable to a second referendum and you are probably going to say that there was a good campaign before the first vote, then what was the need for a second one?

Well then, maybe you're blind

I could argue the exact same point considering I've said two or three times in this thread that I go to Trinity

the campaign was predominantly run by full-time students

Was it also funded by these full-time students? So in essence it was still SU money running the referendum.

there's plenty of effort going into things that affect students - like running the shops, the health centre, the union offices, finding ways to keep the failing Forum Bar afloat

Thats true but it doesnt mean that more effort cant be put into these areas. the SU whether its in UCD, TCD, UL, DCU, etc. should realise its bounds and concentrate its full efforts on practical, relevant issues (im not saying that doesnt include foreign issues) but there is very little point in squandering what little funds the union have on issues that have very little effect on students and have very little effect on coca-cola who probably are aware of this ban, but they are certainly not worried about it. A much more effective step would have been to invite representatives from coke, national newspapers and the govenment to a debate and this way the issues would have been discussed and would have been reported in the newspapers in the right light, as opposed to the way it was reported which led many non-students to reach the conclusion that the SU were just trying to gain some publicity.

So, are you just saying you'd prefer your fellow students to just campaign for issues you personally support?

I certainly am not saying I want people to campaign only for issues that I support. All i'm saying is the whole business was wrongly handled from the start, but once more I dont go to UCD and the students are entitled to vote for what ever they want. However i'm glad the issue did not get off the ground in trinity and if it does I will strongly be opposed to it not because I have an opinion either way on the matter, but because I feel there are better ways to voice students concerns on matters like this

sceptre

Originally posted by Nike_Dude
coca-cola who probably are aware of this ban, but they are certainly not worried about it

Both aware and worried. They flew over Rafael Quiros as part of the keep Coke campaign. They're quite scared that the other colleges will follow suit. And they may - the issue is coming up in UL as well. Coke are a company that tend to protect their interests, however small, fairly aggressively.

(how agressively was of course the reasoning behind the referendum in the first place)

Woden

i wonder has anyone tried to do an accurate calculation for the revenue coke would lose if the su's in all major colleges stopped selling coke? and then compared it to coca-cola's ireland annual revenue?

DadaKopf

I'm sure it'd be tiny. However, the reason Coke is worried, I presume, is because the effect of SU boycotts would affect consumers' preferences outside of college, even affecting those who don't go to college.

This is why Coke is scared.

But, like, that's the whole reason for the boycott.

DArcy

To start the discussion up again....

Coke were supplying over 2 million cases of soft drinks a year to UCD SU shops. So they're losing quite a bit of profit due to this ban.

DadaKopf

If you read what I said, you'd already know that SU shop takings, with the exception of the Student Centre (which is struggling in general), rose following the ban.

I understand what you're implying but it's fallacious.

DArcy

What I was implying was that Coca Cola were losing profit due to the ban, not the SU shops.

DadaKopf

Pardon me. Still, then it's a matter of scale. As a proportion of all sales in the Republic, it's miniscule. Of course, it wouldn't be if the boycott spread. Which is the whole point.

Woden

i find it hard to relate to the fact that the su shops profits rose by coke not being there perhaps its just coincidence

DadaKopf

It doesn't offer any reasons, just figures. The figures prove that, despite at least 5 products having been removed from SU shops, total revenue was unaffected. The scare tactics were wrong.

Nike_Dude

Didnt think it was worth starting a new thread, does anyone know which side won in the Trinity referendum?

imp

YES - 1816
NO - 1680

This will only fuel my growing Red Bull problems...

}:>

Nike_Dude

It was banned :eek: I cant believe that I was sure the no campaign had done enough to take it. What about the other referendum

imp

The constitutional refurendum was passed too, but I don't know what it was actually for

}:>

DadaKopf

The wha? The Constitutional Review referendum?

Last I read that was on hold. That Farrell eejit asked me if I wanted to be on his committee some random evening in the library entrance. I said "EFFF off! I'm not the least bit interested in your hackery! I'm not like you! I'm busy studying! And I don't care!"

That's the last I cared about it.

Anyone know how the Coke referendum went in Trinners?

imp

Originally posted by imp
YES - 1816
NO - 1680

This will only fuel my growing Red Bull problems...

}:>

}:>

Töpher

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Anyone know how the Coke referendum went in Trinners?

AFAIK they voted to keep it.

Nike_Dude

YES - 1816
NO - 1680

Apparently this was the result. I thought the no side would win but id say the voter apathy was the reason. a lot of people who would have voted no just didnt bother voting. There wasnt really much campaigning on the coke issue people were more interested in the SU elections. That constitutional change was so that the USI can put up their fees to € 5 next year (I think):dunno:

gsand

sssshhhhh the soci...communists can hear u

DadaKopf

Just published on www.indymedia.ie, that paramilitaries attempted to kidnap the son Luis Eduardo Garcia, the Sinaltrainal representative who came to press the case for the Coke ban in Ireland last year.

Not wanting to flog a dead horse, the possibility of this, and significance of Garcia's visit, was something that was categorically dismissed by the pro-Coke side.

Luckily, Garcia's visit wasn't in vain.