How would you vote on the boycott?

panda100

Byrno wrote:

What do you not agree with about the way the SU handle referenda? I agree that it is unfortunate that 80-odd% of the student population chose not to use their sufferage rights and there is a lot that the SU can do. But everyone in college knew about the referendum at the time and there comes a stage where students have to take reponsibility for not voting. It is my opinion that if you have the opportunity to vote and you don't avail of that opportunity then you have no right to turn around and complain about the decision that the students who bothered to vote came to. At some stage you have to take reponsibility for your own laziness.

In regards to this we came to decision 3 years ago on the coke issue, twice. Both times it was quorate and both times the majority voted for the boycott. If you weren't around at the time, sorry, and there could well be a case for another referendum on this in a couple of years when nearly all off us that were around are gone. Similarly there is a case for re-running the Néstle referendum. However if you do not use your right to vote, I'm sorry but you have no right to complain about the outcome.

Just to clarify I am not complainig about the outcome of the referendum. I used my vote to ban Coke as Zane said it rots your teeth
I dont know why if people so feel passionatly about the coke ban that they didnt use their vote to vote against the ban. There are many reasons why people dont vote in UCD elections. They may not be on campus the day of voting,they may forget about it,they may be on peripherals,they may be rebelling against the union etc etc. All im saying that its not fair for students that in order for a referendum to be passed only 2500 students needed to vote in favour of it.The quotom for a UCDSU referendum to be passed should be half of the students i.e 11,00 students or however many half of 22,00 is. 2,500 students just isnt fair to pass a referendum.

(On a side note Bryno how hot was our lecturer today..where did he come from )

AngelofFire

Im glad this thread was brought up, its very important that those new to UCD are aware of the situation surrounding the coke boycott. Since 1989 at least 9 trade unionists from Sinaltrainal the union representing workers in coca cola bottling plants in colombia have been murdered by paramiltaries for their activity, others have recieved threats and some have had their family members kidnapped and tortured. This is part of an agenda orchestrated by the coca cola company to clamp down on union activity and to keep wages low. On the 5th of December 1996 Isidro Gil was murdered by paramilitaries whilst working in a Coca-Cola bottling Plant. Isidro was a married man with two children who were killed for Trade Union Activity. Two days later they returned to the plant and forced the workers to resign from the Trade Union under threat of execution. Without a Union, the workers were fired and replaced by labourers earning $250 less per month ($130 per month).

In response to the repression of colombian workers the trade union Sinaltrainal called for a worldwide boycott of coca cola products, in 2003 before i came to college a group of students called a referendum to stop stocking coca cola products in all SU run shops on campus, the referendum was passed. A few weeks later a referendum to overturn the ban was called, however the ban was upheld by a greater margin. UCD became the first university in the world to boycott coca cola, as a result it gave activists in other universitys the confidence to follow suit, the boycott has also been adopted by Trinity College Dublin SU, Queens University Belfast SU, the Union of Students of Ireland, the Labour Party of Ireland, Labour Youth, SDLP Youth, the national Union of Students in the UK, New York University, the University of Rome and many Student Organisations, Trade Unions and retail firms across the globe. As a result of the campaign the coca cola company have eased their repression of Sinaltrainal and have made some concessions, however there is still a lot to fight for, the Campaign launched by Sinaltrainal has resulted in a great display of solidarity and concern for human rights and as UCD Students we should be very proud that our union was the frist to endorse it.

Opponents of the boycott have always questioned the extent of the coca cola company's involvement in the murdering of trade unionsts. Research from the Universtiy of Berkeley has outlined details of clear and blatant collussion between the coca cola company and paramilitaries, this includes bottling plant managers socialising with paramilitaries, offering them coke products, death threats being issued on the premises of the bottling plants and the coca cola company transferring money into the bank accounts of paramilitaries.

On the issue of choice there is no intention to coerce people into not drinking coca cola, one can still avail of coca cola products from non union outlets on campus. It is the right of any firm to choose which products they wish to stock, the SU shops are collectively owned by the membership of the SU ie every student in UCD, the membership have voted to stop stocking coca cola in the shops which they own, it is within their right to do so and no individual or organisation has the right to flout the will of the students.

Mloc there is nothing preventing you or any other student from voting in a referendum, thats when you register your opinion on the matter im a firm believe in the concept that if one doesnt us their vote one abdicates their right to complain, you refer to the people who voted for the boycott as ''lefty muppets'' thats a nice way to refer to thousands of students in this university. on a side note i find it very encoraging that those who i wouldn't see eye to eye with on every issue and those who wouldn't describe themselves as left wing are very supportive of the boycott.

Sangre

singingstranger wrote:

For the benefit of those unclear on the *alleged* (because it's gotta be done) of Coca-Cola or Nestle in the cases in question:...

www.babymilkaction.org
www.killercoke.org

Just so all can make their own minds up. I'll also point to the excellent bit on the Coke referendum written by (I think) Colin Gleeson in the first edition of the College Tribune.

Killercoke? Sounds impartial.

Bring back coke! I need my diet coke for study

Scraggs

Sangre wrote:

Bring back coke! I need my diet coke for study

Main restaurant, Arts Café or the vending machines in the Arts block;)

arbeitsscheuer

Keep em both banned.

beanyb

I know this isnt really on topic but reading through the thread I couldnt help but wonder if people had similar opinions on the Fair Trade campaign as they do surrounding coke and nestle.

As some of you know I'm secretary of World Aid Soc and for the last year (with some support from the SU) we've been running a campaign to make UCD a Fair Trade university. This has involved campaigning on our part to make the many restaurants and shops on campus sell fair trade tea and coffee. The SU shops and bars now sell Fair Trade tea and coffee exclusively as do Insomnia and the restaurant. Everywhere else now offers an option that just has to be asked for.

Offering an option isnt enough to become a Fair Trade University, but since many of the restaurants on campus are franchises and we dont really have the power to change their policies we're having to make do with what we've got. All that is left to do in order for UCD to become a Fair Trade University is getting the Governing Authority to agree to write it into their contracts that Fair Trade products must be served at all university functions (easier said than done I know.)

Anyway that's all mainly just background to what I'm interested in knowing. Do people consider the fact that the SU shops only stock fair trade drinks as something preventing them from making a choice as to what they wish to drink as they do with Coke? Or is it in some way different? Clearly I dont want to alienate people from the Fair Trade campaign, but if you dont, isnt this a slight double standard? I'm just genuinely interested to know people's views on this!

OT: this could be clear from the rest of the post but in case it isnt I support both of the boycotts.

Byrno

panda100 wrote:

Just to clarify I am not complainig about the outcome of the referendum. I used my vote to ban Coke as Zane said it rots your teeth
I dont know why if people so feel passionatly about the coke ban that they didnt use their vote to vote against the ban. There are many reasons why people dont vote in UCD elections. They may not be on campus the day of voting,they may forget about it,they may be on peripherals,they may be rebelling against the union etc etc. All im saying that its not fair for students that in order for a referendum to be passed only 2500 students needed to vote in favour of it.The quotom for a UCDSU referendum to be passed should be half of the students i.e 11,00 students or however many half of 22,00 is. 2,500 students just isnt fair to pass a referendum.

Well first of all to clarify the numbers situation if my memory serves me correctly there were roughly 18,000 members according to the IAB last year. For a policy decision a 10% quorum is needed, constiutional changes require 15%. When you consider that on any given day only about half of students are in it makes it very difficult to get a quorum. Also suggestions of e-voting are ludicrous and would be unworkable. The security of the voting process would be in jeopardy firstly. Also I'm a great fan of the fact that you have to take a couple of minutes to go down and cast your vote. It means you put thought into voting and didn't just click a button.

panda100 wrote:

(On a side note Bryno how hot was our lecturer today..where did he come from )

Wasn't in lectures (well lecture) today, stayed at home and tried to study. I think I may have worked in the same lab as him in the Conway a couple of years ago though. Actually yes, looking at the lecture notes, I did work with him. Well if he floats your boat I could intoduce ye! Anyway sorry mods completely Off Topic!

singingstranger

Just to take on the point about the decision being made three years ago and the transience of the student body - it happens all the time. By this logic, Ireland becoming a republic by referendum in 1948 is now a void decision because most of the voting citizens of the Republic of Ireland no longer, er, live. Obtuse example to use, sorry for that, but I think it illustrates a point.

boneless

Firstly, I object to being called a 'Leftist muppet'... I take stances on issues because I care! I believe that all students should be encouraged to vote in all elections and referenda.

Now, on topic... keep the ban on both sets of products... if people want the decision democratically arrived at reversed, let them campaign for a new vote. I would not support them but neither would I term them muppets for exercising their democratic rights.

Blush_01

boneless wrote:

...neither would I term them muppets for exercising their democratic rights.

Too bloody right. Look, we're all entitled to believe what we believe, and name calling is childish and unnecessary.

Sangre

Scraggs wrote:

Main restaurant, Arts Café or the vending machines in the Arts block;)

Oh I know them all, from roebuck to the sports centre, and which are the cheapests.

Notorious

Don't get me started on this one. Possibly the biggest waste of funds going, heard it was something like €3,000? And its not like either product is unavailable on campus, just check out the vending machines around three metres from the SU shop under the library.
Also I doubt either Coke or Nestle saw a fall in profit once this referendum was imposed.
The people who brought this one in ought to be lined up against a wall and shot for such a waste of money. Why couldn't the people opposed just not purchase products from either company, instead of forcing all of UCD's students to take part in this bulls**t too?

Sangre

People like thinking they make a difference, they know they won't be able to in real world so they like to impose these changes in the closed constituency of UCD.

Riamfada

Sangre wrote:

People like thinking they make a difference, they know they won't be able to in real world so they like to impose these changes in the closed constituency of UCD.

I admire the spirit and intention of the people who wish to have these products banned and the validity of their reasons but making a difference cannot include forcing changes on people who dont hold the same views.

Stabshauptmann

Grimes wrote:

I admire the spirit and intention of the people who wish to have these products banned and the validity of their reasons but making a difference cannot include forcing changes on people who dont hold the same views.

lol.
Thats an excellent reason not to clamp down on say, drug dealers. That is one of the worst examples of logic Ive ever seen.

Its also an incredible simplification of the issue. Nobody is being forced to do anything. Nobody is being restricted in what they can do, broadly speaking.
In fact, I bet nearly everyone who advocates the "freedom of choice" line doesnt believe it themselves. Its untrue, and has been explained how it is untrue.

1) Do you believe grimmes that there is nowhere on campus you can buy coke anymore?
2) Why doesnt the shop have a right not to stock an item it doesnt want to?

boneless

Notorious wrote:

Don't get me started on this one. Possibly the biggest waste of funds going, heard it was something like €3,000? And its not like either product is unavailable on campus, just check out the vending machines around three metres from the SU shop under the library.
Also I doubt either Coke or Nestle saw a fall in profit once this referendum was imposed.
The people who brought this one in ought to be lined up against a wall and shot for such a waste of money. Why couldn't the people opposed just not purchase products from either company, instead of forcing all of UCD's students to take part in this bulls**t too?

Nobody was 'forced' to do anything. There was a free vote on the issue on two occasions. As I stated above, if people are really concerned they should go through the proper proceedures to get the decision reversed. If that happens I will again campaign to retain the boycott.

It is impossible to force people to vote... putting them against a wall and shooting them because you do not agree with them; well, I hope that was said in jest. I cannot see it encouraging a free exchange of ideas either. In fact, it reminds me of how the boycott came about in the first place... Coke workers in Columbia being murdered because they are not 'compliant' enough...

The_Minister

69 people have voted on the poll, I didn't think that many used the UCD forum? Are people from other colleges voting?

Stabshauptmann

The_Minister wrote:

69 people have voted on the poll, I didn't think that many used the UCD forum? Are people from other colleges voting?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054890450&referrerid=59211

A little census last year, in which 80 people voted.

fish-head

You know, I really don't give a flaming bollock. I know I won't be buying either any time soon, but I don't want to stop other people. It's their own decision.

Stabshauptmann

fish-head wrote:

You know, I really don't give a flaming bollock. I know I won't be buying either any time soon, but I don't want to stop other people. It's their own decision.

Thanks, its good to know there are people out there who support my right as a shop owner not to buy certain products. If only more people agreed with you

The_Minister

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Thanks, its good to know there are people out there who support my right as a shop owner not to buy certain products. If only more people agreed with you

But, we are the shop owners, through the Union and the majority of people don't care about the alleged goings-on in Columbia. The decision was taken based on misinformation that was circulated on campus.

Vainglory

The_Minister wrote:

But, we are the shop owners, through the Union and the majority of people don't care about the alleged goings-on in Columbia. The decision was taken based on misinformation that was circulated on campus.

Exactly. WE are the shop owners. So how do WE decide what to sell? We ASK ourselves. Which WE did. And WE decided that we didn't want to sell it, and that WE didn't think it was "misinformation". You might, and that's your prerogative.

Plus, how do you know the majority of people don't care. How many did you ask? Probably less than the referendum did, I'd wager.

themole

10% is enough for a quorum, in my opinion.

What i would change however is that is a decision is being made to ban something then more than half of the people should need to vote for the ban. possible 55/45. There were a lot more people who made the don't ban and don't care group than the ban group.

Even in the pole here 62.32% voted to bring back coke.

I would be in favour of posters in the SU shops explaining the bans. The section in the freshers guide was good.

The_Minister

Vainglory wrote:

Exactly. WE are the shop owners. So how do WE decide what to sell? We ASK ourselves. Which WE did. And WE decided that we didn't want to sell it, and that WE didn't think it was "misinformation". You might, and that's your prerogative.

And we the people can decide to unban it if we should choose to do so. If you think that your cause is just then you shouldn't need to rely on student inertia to keep it going.

Vainglory

The_Minister wrote:

And we the people can decide to unban it if we should choose to do so. If you think that your cause is just then you shouldn't need to rely on student inertia to keep it going.

Not sure what your point is. Of course you can decide to unban it if you should choose to do so. I don't think I've ever, ever argued that the decision shouldn't be reversed if a majority of people voting on it think that it should.

And I'm not relying on student inertia. It's not my fault that nobody feels strongly enough about it to want to change it. Surely that points towards a general satisfaction with the availability of Coke combined with a united stand against human rights abuses rather than loads of people being really pissed off with the boycott (so much so that they'd thus try to change it) ?

Vainglory

themole wrote:

10% is enough for a quorum, in my opinion.

What i would change however is that is a decision is being made to ban something then more than half of the people should need to vote for the ban. possible 55/45. There were a lot more people who made the don't ban and don't care group than the ban group.

Even in the pole here 62.32% voted to bring back coke.

I would be in favour of posters in the SU shops explaining the bans. The section in the freshers guide was good.

What? More than half of the people did vote for the "ban", as you call it. That's why it was brought in.

Note - as I've said before, nobody voted for a ban. People voted that their shops shouldn't stock a certain product.

I don't know how you can say that there were "a lot more people who made the don't ban and don't care group than the ban group". Did you do a poll? Were MRBI involved?

Agree that posters would be a good idea, and more awareness of the reasons for the referendum being carried in general.

Royale with Cheese

Vainglory wrote:

And I'm not relying on student inertia. It's not my fault that nobody feels strongly enough about it to want to change it. Surely that points towards a general satisfaction with the availability of Coke combined with a united stand against human rights abuses rather than loads of people being really pissed off with the boycott (so much so that they'd thus try to change it) ?

You seriously underestimate the apathy of the college student. If everyone was forced to vote in the boycott, even 50% of the students were forced to make a decision one way or the other... the ban would be lifted. Just look at poll here. Fact of the matter is that only the pro-ban people feel strongly enough about the issue to go out and vote on such a non-relevant referendum. Hide behind your democracy if you want. As I've stated many times before in this thread democracy is far from flawless and wasn't needed in this case. If you want to boycott coke just don't buy it. There is no 1 shopkeeper so by not stocking coke you are forcing people not to buy it because of your beliefs. Why you should force people one way or the other... if you lift the ban on coke you would still have the right not to buy it from an su shop right?

themole

Vainglory wrote:

What? More than half of the people did vote for the "ban", as you call it. That's why it was brought in.

What i meant was in my opinion when you are voting whether or not to bad something you should require a percentage more than half. Not ie 1 vote over.

Thats why I said 55/45. As in 55% of the voters would need to vote for the ban to overturn the 45% who voted against it. ie a 10% difference being required.

What i was talking about was requiring a qualified majority.

Byrno

Royale with Cheese wrote:

Hide behind your democracy if you want. As I've stated many times before in this thread democracy is far from flawless and wasn't needed in this case. If you want to boycott coke just don't buy it. There is no 1 shopkeeper so by not stocking coke you are forcing people not to buy it because of your beliefs.

I'm going to repeat the point that Kaptain Redeye has been repeating over and over again, we are the shopkeepers - the SU members as a whole - we in a sense are one shopkeeper. We decided not to stock certain products by a referendum, just like a company would ask their shareholders. If you want the decision that we voted on twice overruled, hold another referendum.

Royale with Cheese wrote:

You seriously underestimate the apathy of the college student. If everyone was forced to vote in the boycott, even 50% of the students were forced to make a decision one way or the other... the ban would be lifted. Just look at poll here. Fact of the matter is that only the pro-ban people feel strongly enough about the issue to go out and vote on such a non-relevant referendum.

It is my opinion as I've said before that if people knew that a referendum is going to take place and they don't vote, well tough luck on them if they disagree with the outcome. They had an opportunity to have their voice heard and they didn't exercise it.

Also there have only been two proper polls carried on the opinions of the students. In both referenda the students decided that they wanted Coke to be banned. Similarly on the Nestlé ban. Where is your poll of 50% of the students that leads you to come to the conclussion that they would vote any differently?

Btw, how do you propose "forcing" students to vote?

Royale with Cheese wrote:

There is no 1 shopkeeper so by not stocking coke you are forcing people not to buy it because of your beliefs. Why you should force people one way or the other... if you lift the ban on coke you would still have the right not to buy it from an su shop right?

No one is forcing anyone not to buy Coke, it is just not for sale in the SU shops. It is still available on campus. There is no gun against anyone's head saying you cannot buy Coke.

Stabshauptmann

Always nice to see someone actually reads what I write