Should Coke Be Back In The SU Shops?

Kevin_rc_ie

but isnt it annoying to fit so snugly into a demographic.

ApeXaviour

atari jaguar

John2 wrote:

Let's make our own clothes and our own cola and live in a squat. Go whole hog or don't do it at all.

Well that's a load of drivel.. We could also save up, get a plane to columbia/indonesia, hold a sitting protest outside said factories and get shot. There are levels of participation, no need to get ridiculus.

And (sky) did we feel the same (if any of us can remember? or if you've maybe watch reeling in the years) when we began boycotting south african products? The Dunnes girl got fired or suspended for refusing to sell something south-african. So the whole staff went on strike and brought Dunnes to a complete standstill. They had to stop selling south-african goods. This set off a landslide in Ireland that brought the situation into the mainstream. It was very admirable IMO. Now directly, these fruit companies had very little to with the government implemented apartheid. Yet they took immense advantage of it, used it to make themselves some serious profit and hence their **** of a government profited too. Though on a smaller scale this bears many similarities to the current situation.. I'm sorry for these bottle companies, but that's what you get for being a henchman. And hey sure as I said, any loss for them is a gain for other irish bottling companies, do you not agree?
That's the nature of business my friend. If coke tomorrow bring out a bad marketing strategy, irish coke jobs will be lost and irish (lets just say) pepsi jobs will be gained. Coke's (lack of?) action in Columbia could be construed as a bad marketing strategy..


EDIT: Kev. I______don't______care...

Crash

No

ApeXaviour wrote:

I agree with you on principal, but that's about as effective as voting for Nader. We had a college referendum whether to ban it, it was well advertised. The majority have spoken, it's the next fairest thing IMO. The choice is still there, merely made less convenient.

actually iirc the voting student body for that was insanely low, so actually its a case of the minority speaking for the majority....so actually the majority havent spoken at all at all at all.

now i have a quick question - did i miss something or when did blankcanvas and apexaviour and you others become my moral conscience? i seem to have missed the point where we go to a college where people are supported to be free thinking and open-minded - except through the ethical trading comittee's ban on coke (and the ban on nestle which is 6 years old and DEFINITELY long overdue to be removed as the situation that induced the ban is no longer relevant or happens at all) we're dictating to the students how they should think and feel - hell originally the coke thing wasnt even supposed to go to referendum - so i ask you - how the hell do you feel you have the right to act as my moral conscience?

people will vote with their feet, and a lot of people do - a lot of people dont as well and all that ends up doing is making the SU shops lose out more.

ApeXaviour wrote:

I'm sorry for these bottle companies, but that's what you get for being a henchman. And hey sure as I said, any loss for them is a gain for other irish bottling companies, do you not agree?

...interesting, so what your saying is the people who were encouraged msot likely during the celtic tiger boom by the government to set up such factories, provided irish jobs by the barrelfull now deserve to suffer because "we dont like who they bottle for" anymore? so what you'resaying is that if worse comes to worse and irish jobs are lost, you wont think thats at ALL wrong? ...thats a ****ed up attitude to have dec.

ApeXaviour

atari jaguar

crash_000 wrote:

actually iirc the voting student body for that was insanely low, so actually its a case of the minority speaking for the majority....so actually the majority havent spoken at all at all at all.

That's right, turnout was very low BUT it was well advertised, everybody had a chance to vote. Anyone who felt strongly about it had the right to go and make their opinion count. If someone actually gave a crap but were overcome with apathy I have no sympathy for them. They have no right to complain. Now I realise that you in particular were not in the college and thus could not vote for this. Well that's the nature of the undergrad system, it's rotational. If you feel strongly enough, lobby it (you're a class rep right?) and get another referendum going.

crash_000 wrote:

...we're dictating to the students how they should think and feel - hell originally the coke thing wasnt even supposed to go to referendum - so i ask you - how the hell do you feel you have the right to act as my moral conscience?

Crash come on.. I expected more from you man. Firstly you realise you're challenging the whole concept of a referendum? When we have an abortion, divorce, nice treaty referendum or vote of any sort do you dispute the outcome of that merely because you disagree with it?
Secondly the moral conscience thing, could you spout any more gibberish please? We are not dictating to students how they should think, that's crazy talk! The reality is quite the opposite. Now listen, and listen carefully: the student's (being members of TCDSU) had a vote on whether the SU should make a statement by banning coca-cola from the SU shops. Plain and simple, there is no infringement on your human rights here man. It's like we are all members of a board, we have a vote on whether or not a motion should pass. We did, and it did. Nobody is telling you how and/or what to think, nobody is acting as your "moral conscience"... christ's sake neil don't be so dramatic.

crash_000 wrote:

people will vote with their feet, and a lot of people do - a lot of people dont as well and all that ends up doing is making the SU shops lose out more.

I don't really get what you're saying? Are you trying to imply that if there was a higher voter turnout that the coke referendum "wouldn't" have passed? How can you possibly know that!? If anything I would have thought the opposite true. Laziness not being something I usually attribute to caffeine/sugar junkies

crash_000 wrote:

...interesting, so what your saying is the people who were encouraged msot likely during the celtic tiger boom by the government to set up such factories, provided irish jobs by the barrelfull now deserve to suffer because "we dont like who they bottle for" anymore? so what you'resaying is that if worse comes to worse and irish jobs are lost, you wont think thats at ALL wrong? ...thats a ****ed up attitude to have dec.

Now hold on..That quote was taken out of context. If you'd read the next paragraph I think I explained myself nicely. Rather than repeat it I'll elaborate. It's not our fault if their profits drop, it's coca-cola's fault. Same if they were to have any other type of "bad marketing strategy" that would lower the sales of their drinks. It's not about attitude neil, I'm just being pragmatic.

John

No

ApeXaviour wrote:

Well that's a load of drivel..

I know

Milo

atari jaguar

Could you people not just drink something else?! If we're talking Irish jobs here why not buy Club?????

As for the whole "the SU shop is losing money" argument...if they're not stocking coke then they don't have any coke over-heads therefore they are not losing "coke money". As far as I can see the fridges are as empty without coke as they were when it was there.

Also, for all those who find, for some unknown reason, they need a coke fix -because they can't think for themselves and so let large corporations and their advertising agencies denote what they think/say/do - why not just go into the many cafes around campus (who will charge you through the nose) for a bottle? But hey - at least there'll be product loyalty!

Lets face it, large multinational corporations like coke and nike (neither of which I would support by buying their s**te) don't, as a rule, treat their workers (in south america or other developing regions) with much respect. This is evident in the amount of money they pay them as compared with what they charge us! It's all about the MONEY!!!!!!!! So lets sell our souls -bring back coke and start selling nike runners in the SU shops aswell and when we see the next channel 4/BBC documentary about slave labour in these countries at least we can say that we helped support the situation.

Enjoy coke!
:mad:

sleepingbeauty

atari jaguar

crash_000 wrote:

now i have a quick question - did i miss something or when did blankcanvas and apexaviour and you others become my moral conscience? i seem to have missed the point where we go to a college where people are supported to be free thinking and open-minded - except through the ethical trading comittee's ban on coke (and the ban on nestle which is 6 years old and DEFINITELY long overdue to be removed as the situation that induced the ban is no longer relevant or happens at all) we're dictating to the students how they should think and feel - hell originally the coke thing wasnt even supposed to go to referendum - so i ask you - how the hell do you feel you have the right to act as my moral conscience?

oh honestly, talk about dramatic hun! everything i said i made the point of saying 'imo' and thats what it was, only my opinion. Im not pointing a gun at ye and telling ye to support my views, of course im not- im a big believer of everybody having their own opinion! sure thats what debating is all about, how boring would life be if everyone thought the same thing! anyway all that drivel was just about letting you know that if i came across as forceful in any way about my opinons (which i dont think i did since half way through this thread i got vry bored and sorta gave up ) then im sorry....
...wow i must be awake today if i was able to write all that, hrm maybe because i had 8 hrs sleep last night for the first time in like 3 weeks...note to self- must go to bed more often

Nietzschean

No

Was away yesterday so a little delay in reply'n to yer rants

ApeXaviour wrote:

And (sky) did we feel the same (if any of us can remember? or if you've maybe watch reeling in the years) when we began boycotting south african products? And hey sure as I said, any loss for them is a gain for other irish bottling companies, do you not agree?

Right firstly, uhhh just about remember that twas yearss ago. And well was the outrage over the actual events in south africia or the fact that an employee was suspended for having a concience? These events were happening for quite some time if i recall, the magic tap of public outrage was only turned on when it actually effected someone here

That's the nature of business my friend. If coke tomorrow bring out a bad marketing strategy, irish coke jobs will be lost and irish (lets just say) pepsi jobs will be gained. Coke's (lack of?) action in Columbia could be construed as a bad marketing strategy.

Uh huh, i see your point, but i'm not sure all coke's employee's here would be such in favour of it. They all have jobs at the moment, do you think pepsi would employ those people if coke did have layoff's?

And thats Coke's bottlers in columbia as i previously pointed out, which Coke itself has no direct control over. Its like dell telling u how to run your life cause you bought one of their pc's, you'd just laugh at them.

Nietzschean

No

Milo wrote:

Could you people not just drink something else?! If we're talking Irish jobs here why not buy Club?????

Freedom of choice? i rather coke than club.

As for the whole "the SU shop is losing money" argument...if they're not stocking coke then they don't have any coke over-heads therefore they are not losing "coke money". As far as I can see the fridges are as empty without coke as they were when it was there.

Ummm for one, coke overheads? coke was by far the highest volume selling product in the hamilton su shop anyway, they never managed to keep it in stock both the 2 times i've been in the su shop in recent months all the shelves have been full. During coke times this would have been rare. You also have to factor in that coke 'lent' the shops fridges aswell which cuts down on capital expenditure.

Also, for all those who find, for some unknown reason, they need a coke fix -because they can't think for themselves and so let large corporations and their advertising agencies denote what they think/say/do -

Thats not debtaing the issue thats just plain insulting some of us, so enough of that. I for one can think for myself, and actually like the flavour of coke. So keep your narrow minded comments to yourself.

why not just go into the many cafes around campus (who will charge you through the nose) for a bottle? But hey - at least there'll be product loyalty!

Why would one pay over the odds in a cafe to buy a product when you are heading somewhere else?

Lets face it, large multinational corporations like coke and nike (neither of which I would support by buying their s**te) don't, as a rule, treat their workers (in south america or other developing regions) with much respect.

Ummm you never bought nike or a coke product? And yes we are aware of this, no need to state the obvious

This is evident in the amount of money they pay them as compared with what they charge us! It's all about the MONEY!!!!!!!!

Umm well nike do make mad profits but you know shops add like 100% margin to products anyway ye?

So lets sell our souls -bring back coke and start selling nike runners in the SU shops aswell and when we see the next channel 4/BBC documentary about slave labour in these countries at least we can say that we helped support the situation.

Not even going to dignify that dribble with an answer.

Nietzschean

No

blankcanvas wrote:

...wow i must be awake today if i was able to write all that, hrm maybe because i had 8 hrs sleep last night for the first time in like 3 weeks...note to self- must go to bed more often

lol, sleep bad...drink good

Crash

No

essay bad - watching everyone get stirred up by the argumentative stance i took - stress relieving

The Shol'va

No

I demand Dr Pepper!

Plunky

No

The Shol'va wrote:

I demand Dr Pepper!

I'd have to agree with ya on that one, the only thing is that Dr Pepper is affiliated with Coke...

The Shol'va

No

Plunky wrote:

I'd have to agree with ya on that one, the only thing is that Dr Pepper is affiliated with Coke...

So? *ignores previous pages* :P

Kevin_rc_ie

ooh the polls are tied 50-50 which way shall i vote.

The Shol'va

No

Kevin_rc_ie wrote:

ooh the polls are tied 50-50 which way shall i vote.

Damn you! I want my sweet sweet Dr Pepper!

Plunky

No

The Shol'va wrote:

So? *ignores previous pages* :P

Okay okay, good call! Bring in Dr Pepper! wooh!

Nietzschean

No

desertcircus wrote:

Surely the principle behind it is that as long as there is strong suspicion about Coke's role, it would be better not to sell the product and so avoid the finances of the union being held up by the possible killing of trade unionists.

no funding goes from coke sales here to those bottling plants, would be a little illogical.

John

No

desertcircus wrote:

People do switch from Coke to Pepsi. I've done it...

Only because you'd get noogies from your colleagues if you didn't

Time Magazine

atari jaguar

John2 wrote:

Only because you'd get noogies from your colleagues if you didn't

Or a Christmas Hedgehog. Speaking of which, is DURNS's room still always completely deserted?

Pet

atari jaguar

Angry Banana wrote:

Or a Christmas Hedgehog. Speaking of which, is DURNS's room still always completely deserted?

no twas full 2day

John

No

Yes, quite busy today

Agent Smith

all 3 members were there

Thraktor

No

Since 1986, over 3,800 trade unionists have been murdered in the country, making it the most dangerous place to organize in the world.

Given that this is apparently such a widespread problem, and there is little to no evidence that Coca-Cola or their bottling companies have anything to do with these union assasinations, why is everyone jumping to the conclusion that Coca-Cola is to blame? Wouldn't it make far more sense to assume that the columbian drugs trade is organising these killings because the proliferation of protective trade unions in legitimate industries undermines their ability to keep the lower classes in exploitative and illegal working conditions through use of fear?

Besides, what ever happened to that notion we once had that a company, like a person, is presumed innocent until proven guilty? Doesn't conducting a democratic boycott based on hearsay and rumours completely undermine any form of logical and fair justice? Meh, I digress, it really doesn't make a huge difference to myself, though, just an extra 20 second walk outside campus, might even burn off a couple of the calories i'm getting from the coke itself.

sleepingbeauty

atari jaguar

theres an article about the coke thing in the new edition of the trinity news btw..


oooohhh look at the new smileys!!! quite impressive

blankcanvas

blankcanvas wrote:

theres an article about the coke thing in the new edition of the trinity news btw..

Yeah, tis funny allright

Spacedog

atari jaguar

SkyLynx wrote:

no funding goes from coke sales here to those bottling plants, would be a little illogical.

OK then, where exactly did the funding come from for the first CocaCola plant in Columbia? how do you know exactly where irish euro spent on CocoCola goes? I can't be sure myself, but it is safe to assume that sharesolders of the CocaCola company lose little sleep about the social/envornmental consequences of their investments.

Fair play to you though SkyLynx for your customer loylity, companies like CocaCola pay marketing companies billions of euro per year to gain the kind of loylity you demonstrated here by defending your right to buy can of carbonated sugar water (thought you were working for Coke at first, hope there paying you at least j/k). However the idea of company disloylity demonstrated by the ban on CocaCola products in Trinity sends a clear message to that everyone is not as indiffrent to social as your good self.

Fun Fact: CocaCola collaberated with the Germans during the 2nd world war (Fanta was invented due shortage of an igredient for CocaCola in Germany during the war)

ApeXaviour

atari jaguar

Though i agree with you I think the nazi fact is unfair. Many of todays companies were associated with the nazis. Though remember that history is written by the winners and nobody knew crap about the holocaust then.

Time Magazine

atari jaguar

Spacedog wrote:

Fun Fact: CocaCola collaberated with the Germans during the 2nd world war (Fanta was invented due shortage of an igredient for CocaCola in Germany during the war)

"Woodruff [Robert, CEO Coca-Cola] also developed Coke's international business. In the onset of World War II, at the request of General Eisenhower, he promised that 'every man in uniform gets a bottle of Coca-Cola for five cents whether he is and whatever it costs the company.' Beginning in 1942, Coke was exempted from wartime sugar rationing whenever the product was destined for the military or retailers serving soldiers. Coca-Cola bottling plants followed the movements of American troops; 64 bottling plants were set up during the war--largely at government expense. This contributed to Coke's dominant market shares in most European and Asian countries."
Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century, Yoffie, D. B.

Fascist pigs eh?

Spacedog

atari jaguar

Angry Banana wrote:

"Woodruff [Robert, CEO Coca-Cola] also developed Coke's international business. In the onset of World War II, at the request of General Eisenhower, he promised that 'every man in uniform gets a bottle of Coca-Cola for five cents whether he is and whatever it costs the company.' Beginning in 1942, Coke was exempted from wartime sugar rationing whenever the product was destined for the military or retailers serving soldiers. Coca-Cola bottling plants followed the movements of American troops; 64 bottling plants were set up during the war--largely at government expense. This contributed to Coke's dominant market shares in most European and Asian countries."
Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century, Yoffie, D. B.

Fascist pigs eh?

Yep, What's that got to do with CocaColas operations in Germany which had 43 bottling plants and over 600 local distributors by 1939?