nestle on campus?

dajaffa

humbert wrote:

Emm, what now?

Well lobbying government, grants, access to education, there's a hell of a lot of politics involved

humbert

the function of a union is to look after it's members. to give them a louder voice by joining together. though it often happens that the senior members/leaders intentions become corrupt and they put their own goals before those of the majority of the members. we're lucky that that would never happen here in UCDD though.

Red Alert

So if superquinn don't stock porn videos I can go to court and make them?

FionnMatthew

Dontico wrote:

the SU should be non-political.

A union is, by definition, a political body.

Decisions affecting large numbers of people happen at the political level.

A union is a body to represent a large group of people at the political level.

A union can never be apolitical.

Dontico

gubbie wrote:

Well you're free yourself to go out, collect the signatures, get the referendum going and then campaign against the ban

But unions are all about politics.

And machines are only about 5c more expensive


If this is your belief then you are completely free to come along and express your opinion at council by getting speaking rights. Stop blaming others for things you are too lazy to do yourself

what am i too lazy to do?
i put up this thread to see agruements against the lifting of the ban before i try to campaign. i need a group of people to help. which i've found. a posible 400, maybe 70 more soon. but i need 900.


again nobody has addressed my main point. why not all american products? israeli or chinnese? why only nestle?

humbert

Well directly associating the company with the country I would see as being flawed.

Riamfada

Dontico wrote:

what am i too lazy to do?
i put up this thread to see agruements against the lifting of the ban before i try to campaign. i need a group of people to help. which i've found. a posible 400, maybe 70 more soon. but i need 900.


again nobody has addressed my main point. why not all american products? israeli or chinnese? why only nestle?

I look forward to asking you do you condone corperate negligence and direct exploitation of 3rd world countries in the public forum. Dont be stupid Donico . There is no way you will come off clean if your only arguement is "we want to eat yorkies and damn the dead children"

Riamfada

Dontico wrote:

why only nestle?

and Coke. You should brush up on that one aswell

AND THE REASONS THEY ARE BANNED which I stated above. Thats why we ban then.

Dontico

Grimes wrote:

I look forward to asking you do you condone corperate negligence and direct exploitation of 3rd world countries in the public forum. Dont be stupid Donico . There is no way you will come off clean if your only arguement is "we want to eat yorkies and damn the dead children"

again missing the point completely.

why only nestle? why not other companies that have simular records? or american/israeli/chinese products?

ucd isnt a country. its an organisation with in a country. ucd shouldnt be involved in issues not involving ucd.

Dontico

Grimes wrote:

and Coke. You should brush up on that one aswell

AND THE REASONS THEY ARE BANNED which I stated above. Thats why we ban then.

if they were going to ban coke, i would prefere that they ban all soft drinks. too much sugar. i usually only drink juice.

Riamfada

Currently regions of Africa are in the grips of what is likely history’s greatest health crisis. HIV/AIDS is decimating communities throughout the continent, and indeed in many other areas of the world. Millions of people are infected, among them thousands of new and expectant mothers. HIV/AIDS can be, but is not always, transmitted through breastmilk (the rate of transmission is about 15%), and as such, many people have advocated that any mothers in areas of high prevalence should resort to artificial feeding. In many parts of the world, this is sensible, but in many areas of Africa, IT IS HIGHLY DANGEROUS. As outlined in the British Medical Journal (link below), for many African children the risk of bottle feeding is higher than the risk of HIV mother to child transmission (MTCT). Artificial feeding should only be implemented if it is completely feasible, safe, sustainable, and affordable. In areas of high poverty, poor healthcare, and inadequate sanitation, bottle-feeding does not meet any of these criteria, and as such the decision to breastfeed must be made on a case-by-case basis. Despite this fact, Nestle can now capitalize on the anxiety surrounding breastfeeding to promote their product successfully, putting more children at risk. To this end, Nestle has recently set up the Nestle Nutrition Institute for Africa, which is nothing short of an abomination that disguises brand promotion for medical advice.

The Institute is made up of supposedly impartial doctors who, according to Nestle officials, will not promote Nestle products to Africans. But there is a list of Nestle products on the NNIA website and the doctors are paid by Nestle! Who would believe they are impartial? Nestle has been losing ground to breastfeeding mothers in most areas of the world, but is looking to gain a foothold once more through exploitation of the HIV/AIDS crisis. The time is ripe for the company to open up a new market: communities battling AIDS. Promotion of artificial feeding in these areas is dangerous not only to HIV/AIDS infected families, but to other families if the community becomes flooded with formula products. Are not these communities in enough danger already, without having to experience the tragedy of Baby-Bottle Death as well? Only a company such as Nestle would see a profit among such human catastrophe.



Im no leftie but I will oppose such a move Don and Im sure the Students Union will back a No campaign if you get your referendum.

Riamfada

Dontico wrote:

if they were going to ban coke.

they have banned coke

The Aim of the ban is to highlight the issues surrounding Nestle and Coke. Yes you have the right to buy what you want , the shop also has the right to stock what it wants. However with the Ban people are becoming aware of these humanitarian crisis which is more important in the grand scheme of things than wether we can get Nestle / Coke in the SU shops.

And re:sangre. Hes a Law student . He dosnt care about the world outside himself

Dontico

Grimes wrote:

they have banned coke

The Aim of the ban is to highlight the issues surrounding Nestle and Coke. Yes you have the right to buy what you want , the shop also has the right to stock what it wants. However with the Ban people are becoming aware of these humanitarian crisis which is more important in the grand scheme of things than wether we can get Nestle / Coke in the SU shops.

And re:sangre. Hes a Law student . He dosnt care about the world outside himself

again ignoring points being made.

how is the shop being run? isnt it suppose to be run by the students? dont we get to decide what is/isnt being sold?
look at my sig, or the point Sangre made earlier.

humbert

Dontico wrote:

again ignoring points being made.

how is the shop being run? isnt it suppose to be run by the students? dont we get to decide what is/isnt being sold?
look at my sig, or the point Sangre made earlier.

I'm not really taking sides on this one but there was a referendum, I think the required turnout for a decision to be made should be higher but none the less it wasn't the SU acting without some consent.

Riamfada

No offence to sangre but I usually skip over his posts

And with regards your sig. The SU is political. It has been controlled by the Righties for a long time. You dont get voted in or in with the SU gang unless you know the right people. Its just the way it is. However on this point the SU are making a stance, not a political stance but a humanitarian stance.

pretty*monster

Dontico wrote:

how is the shop being run? isnt it suppose to be run by the students? dont we get to decide what is/isnt being sold?
look at my sig, or the point Sangre made earlier.

The shops are owned by the union and it's membership in their entirity.
They are run by managers with the union president (I think) having a (rarely used)final say over the running.
Students do get to decide what is/isn't being sold. There was a referendum passed to the effect that we would not sell nestle products in our union owned shops. Thus out SU shops do not sell Nestle products.
So far so simple.

Yes the referendum was voted on befor most of us were students. But that's the way these things happen. It's simply not practicle to re run elections every year.

If you think it is a reasonable measure to collect 900 signatures, to spend students money (I think an election campaign costs the union well over €1000) just so that they can buy a certain brand of chocolate in a certain shop then be my guest. But I think it's a gratuitous waste.

Dontico

Grimes wrote:

No offence to sangre but I usually skip over his posts

And with regards your sig. The SU is political. It has been controlled by the Righties for a long time. You dont get voted in or in with the SU gang unless you know the right people. Its just the way it is. However on this point the SU are making a stance, not a political stance but a humanitarian stance.

its still swaying to left-wing idealology. some us/more than there is socialists, consider socialism to be destructive to ireland.

still you're missing the point.
ban one than ban them all.

hullaballoo

You would choose to ban all American/French/British/Isreali produce from UCD? You're crazy.

Dontico

pretty*monster wrote:

The shops are owned by the union and it's membership in their entirity.
They are run by managers with the union president (I think) having a (rarely used)final say over the running.
Students do get to decide what is/isn't being sold. There was a referendum passed to the effect that we would not sell nestle products in our union owned shops. Thus out SU shops do not sell Nestle products.
So far so simple.

Yes the referendum was voted on befor most of us were students. But that's the way these things happen. It's simply not practicle to re run elections every year.

If you think it is a reasonable measure to collect 900 signatures, to spend students money (I think an election campaign costs the union well over €1000) just so that they can buy a certain brand of chocolate in a certain shop then be my guest. But I think it's a gratuitous waste.

i didnt get to vote on it, neither did thousands of UCD students.

yes it is impratical to re-run campaigns ove rand over again. hence the SU shouldnt be involved in non-UCD matters.

again people missing valuable points being made. check my sig/check what Sangre posted.

Dontico

hullaballoo wrote:

You would choose to ban all American/French/British/Isreali produce from UCD? You're crazy.

it would be very difficult. hence i'm against the idea of such way of thinking. i believe in a mostly free market.

what war is france currently involved in?

Riamfada

Look dont quote Sangre ffs

Its nothing to do with CVs or middle class guilt. Its to do with standing up for whats right and trying to help your fellow human beings by whatever means we have at our disposal and by members of the largest university in ireland we can create awareness and all it costs is your ability to buy a yorkie. Sangre was taking the piss. Please dont be so literal

pretty*monster

Dontico wrote:

yes it is impratical to re-run campaigns ove rand over again. hence the SU shouldnt be involved in non-UCD matters.

again people missing valuable points being made. check my sig/check what Sangre posted.

How is what we sell in shops that we own not a matter we should be intimatly involved in?

The only responsible thing we can do is be as informed as possible about the products we sell. Ineveitably some ethical dilemas will arise, the world ain't no squeeky clean place. And sometime we have to make decisions about things.


What you seem to be arguing in favour of is ignoring basic responsibility.
It's actually quite sickening.

Dontico

Grimes wrote:

Look dont quote Sangre ffs

Its nothing to do with CVs or middle class guilt. Its to do with standing up for whats right and trying to help your fellow human beings by whatever means we have at our disposal. Sangre was taking the piss. Please dont be so literal

the point is still valid. ordinary students didnt get to vote on it.

when was the ban voted on? 4 years ago? 3?
thats 3 or 4 years of students leaving and being replaced. probably half the college didnt get to vote on it.

pretty*monster

Dontico wrote:

i believe in a mostly free market.

But for some reason you don't believe that shop owners should be allowed to sell or not sell goods at their own discretion lest they be motivated by their blasted politics?

Dontico

pretty*monster wrote:

How is what we sell in shops that we own not a matter we should be intimatly involved in?

The only responsible thing we can do is be as informed as possible about the products we sell. Ineveitably some ethical dilemas will arise, the world ain't no squeeky clean place. And sometime we have to make decisions about things.


What you seem to be arguing in favour of is ignoring basic responsibility.
It's actually quite sickening.

again missing the point.
about half the current students didnt get to vote on it.

humbert

just for the sake of clarity are you saying that banning nestle for the reasons grimes stated earlier and banning products from a company based in any country who's policies, for want of a better word, are unethical are equivalent?

pretty*monster

Dontico wrote:

the point is still valid. ordinary students didnt get to vote on it.

when was the ban voted on? 4 years ago? 3?
thats 3 or 4 years of students leaving and being replaced. probably half the college didnt get to vote on it.

I didn't vote on any of the refurendums that dictate how the Irish state is run.
And yet those laws still apply to me.
We don't re-run the divorce refurendum, the abortion refurendum, etc every year when a new batch trun 18.
That's not the way it works.
Similarly with ucd.

Dontico

pretty*monster wrote:

But for some reason you don't believe that shop owners should be allowed to sell or not sell goods at their own discretion lest they be motivated by their blasted politics?

if shop keeper is suppose to be the students. then the shop keeper dramatically changes every 2 years.
we should the new shop keeper do what the old one tells him?

pretty*monster

Dontico wrote:

again missing the point.
about half the current students didnt get to vote on it.

Well what is your bloody point since anyone who has destroyed your piss-poor arguments has apparently 'missed' it.

Dontico

humbert wrote:

just for the sake of clarity are you saying that banning nestle for the reasons grimes stated earlier and banning products from a company based in any country who's policies, for want of a better word, are unethical are equivalent?

companies benifit from thier countries going to the war. in ireland(i think, but i'm a lawyer), making money from war is illegal. hence recent trouble over micheal mcdowells company profiting from the iraq war. not know about that though.