nestle on campus?

Spectator#1

Dontico wrote:

today i was buying a coffee in the su shop. i wanted to buy a chocolate bar. i forgot they didnt sell yorkies. i couldnt buy a yorkie cause a group of people who are no longer in ucd, already decided for me that i couldnt.

OH! The oppression of it all!

Yorkies aren't for girls.

PS. You have a point. You should see about perhaps getting another referendum going, or at least put it to someone who would. I don't think it's undemocratic, I can see the worth in the boycott, but I think the new students need to be able to have a say in it now.

PPS. Forget about Yorkies. Galaxy Caramel or Milky Way sticks all the way.

PPPS. Penis.

Blush_01

I still feel that the biggest issue here is awareness. Grimes said that the ban is there to make people aware - I think that's a load of bollox. People might be aware that certain products aren't stocked, but as they're available in the vending machines all the ban is doing is pushing revenue (granted it's limited) away from the SU shops and costing students more. A basic lack of information on the matter is the real problem - which I believe should come from the SU and should be visibly displayed in the SU shops so people know that a humanitarian effort is being made and so they can realise the purpose of the ban, decide whether they agree with it or not and therefore decide whether or not to support their union (and their own pockets) in an informed manner. It might even show the commitment of the SU to the boycott they're enforcing. If they can stick up suggestion boxes, they can make up a bloody placard/poster/banner for each shop. All it need say is that the products are being boycotted and give a website address where people can find further information (preferrably the SU site considering the issue is an SU one, and preferrably allowing people to access information that is as unbiased as possible, but we can dream, eh?). It's not a big job, but I can't help wondering why it STILL hasn't been done.

humbert

Well I think the point of the ban was to make a public statement at the time but if you are going to ban(boycott, whatever) something on ethical grounds you'd think anyone with a hint of common sense(every time i use this phrase i stop and look at it and scratch my head) would make it very clear why it's banned and for the full duration of the ban. Not just while the issue is in vogue.

FionnMatthew

terrymac wrote:

Please tell me this is a joke!! The whole Champion Sports not selling sandwiches because they mainly concentrate on sportswear and not the general deli/sandwich market wouldn't have a bearing on the Champion Sports Managers dismissal of you.

ninjawombat wrote:

As for your example...
I think you'll find the Champion Sports example has no bearing on this situation whatsoever. Please, try not to be so ridiculous. If Champion Sports stopped selling Nike trainers because Nike use child labour, *that* would be like the on-campus sweet shop not selling sweets. If O Brien's stopped selling chicken rolls because they didn't want to "buy in" chicken that wasn't free range 15 years ago, *that* would also be like the argument in question. UCD have banned Nestle because of a scandal that emerged more than a decade ago, concerning the products that they sell in their shop. NOT concerning a completely unrelated set of products that have nothing to do with the shop. I'm not saying they're denying me my rights because they're not selling petrol or something. I am, in fact, protesting at the fact that they are not supplying what all basic sweet/paper shops supply. Ergo, The Champion Sports thing - yeah, it makes no sense.

The point of the analogy is to demonstrate that the stock that a proprietor buys in remains the choice of the proprietor in question, not the customers.

The fact that there is consumer demand for a product does not necessitate that the proprietor provide it.

Consumer demand can be an influence in his decision:~ The proprietor can choose to buy in the things that his customers want to buy. Or he can choose not to ~ for whatever reasons, be they ethical, aesthetic, or whatever. Reasons don't come into it. The proprietor decides ultimately, not the consumers. If I own a shop, I can choose not to sell anything.

So, I might have used any examples. I might have used Champion Sports and sandwiches, or Champion Sports and Nike, or Tesco and salads - it makes no difference.

I chose CS and sandwiches just to demonstrate that consumer demand isn't the be all and end all of decision-making for buying in stock. A ridiculous example makes the situation clearer.

terry mac wrote:

this ban annoy's me (sic)

funky penguin wrote:

Banning products seems a bit harsh,

Ninjawombat wrote:

Gee, the SU shop should put that up on the wall: "This is a boycott, folks, not a ban. Just because it's not available, doesn't mean we're saying you can't buy it."

It isn't a ban. You don't stand to get fined for eating Nestle or drinking Coca Cola. It isn't a ban. It isn't even an effective ban. You don't have to smuggle these products onto campus. The mechanics of the situation are that the SU simply don't buy in those products. It's not a ban. It's not anything so aggressive or prescriptive.The word "ban" simply doesn't apply to the situation. It's sloppy thinking to pretend it's a ban at all.

terry mac wrote:

And whatever about the role of the SU, the main one should be providing services to students, and making moral decisions on behalf of students should be secondary in my opinion.

It's not simply "on behalf" of students. The decision was made, as accurately as is discernibly possible, by the students.
If it is the student consensus, as we are assured it was when the referendum was passed, that that moral decision be made, then the SU is enacting the moral decision of the student body, not making that decision on its behalf.
To the best of our knowledge (democratically) the SU is doing what the students, as a whole, want.
And that, by definition, satisfies your first requirement, that the SU provide services to the students.

funky penguin wrote:

Still, I think the majority of students don't care.

If this were true the decision would be, in this case, largely unobjectionable.
But I think there a good deal of people who are unhappy with the boycott.

funky penguin wrote:

Let people make up their minds by themselves - give them choices, don't restrict them.

But that wouldn't be nearly as significant a statement. This is all about making statements. This decision raised a large amount of awareness at the time it was made. It provoked national awareness of the situation in Columbia, and made small waves on an international scale too. It was a significant gesture that the UCDSU had decided to boycott CocaCola.

That sort of thing isn't generated by individual actions, by individual boycotts. That sort of thing takes a long time to make any ripples at all, and then only in CocaCola's sales statistics, and without any specific indicator of why it happened.
If the intention is to make a statement, this was probably the best way to do it.

NinjaWombat wrote:

First off, we *are* being prevented from doing something - we're being prevented from buying Nestle and Coca Cola because it is not available. That is the entire point of this thread. So, not quite sure what you're talking about there.

That's because you're not thinking very clearly about this. You are not being prevented from doing anything. This isn't about you. The proprietor of the SU shop (the union) made up its mind (by popular vote) not to stock particular products.
This means that you can't buy them. Sure. But the lack of availability isn't directed at you. You're not being prevented from buying this stuff, it just isn't being provided. The SU fully acknowledges your right to buy whatever you want. It simply doesn't provide it.
You are only being prevented from buying these products in SU shops in the same way that you are prevented from hunting antelope in Wexford. The products (and antelope) simply aren't available. It's nothing to do with you, personally.
Suggesting you're being prevented from buying them implies that the SU has a personal agenda in thwarting your consumer interests. You have to stop taking it personally. It's nothing to do with you, except insofar as you register your dissent/assent democratically.

NinjaWombat wrote:

It still comes down to this; the shop that is provided for students to buy products is not selling some products, because "the student body" have a problem with that. *I* have a problem with "the student body" replacing individual conscience and personal ethics.

And, democratically, *YOU* having a problem with "the student body" is a drop in the sea.

The "shop that is provided for students" is actually provided by the same body that boycotts those products. It's not "provided" out of thin air. It's not as if the SU is intervening on a pre-existing shop and screwing up the natural order of things. The shop wouldn't be there without the SU. You're indicting, on the one hand, a decision made by the student body, and, on the other hand, taking for granted the provisions made by that body, ie. that there is a shop. The "student body", as you reservedly refer to it, isn't interfering where it's not welcome. It is within the mandate of the "student body" to administer to the ethical decisions of the shops that are there by its own will. It is, indeed, its responsibility.

NinjaWombat wrote:

If we want to be "mindless conscienceless consumers" that's our right, and really not the SU's place to make that decision for us.

You raise an important issue here: as to whether civil freedoms should be open to be impinged by popular vote. Should there be certain things that are immune to ammendment by the majority of voters? Should a minority of people be allowed to continue, for instance, to be "mindless conscienceless consumers", even though the majority of the electorate don't think so?

But on that general case, I think, the only way to find out, one way or another, is through a democratic mandate - I think it's the type of decision that is suitable for democratic vote, whether or not the issues it touches on are. And the best way to register a "no" on that for this particular issue would have been to vote "no" in 2003/2004.

NinjaWombat wrote:

Now, if you'll excuse me I've got some puppies to kick elsewhere. Soulless, capitalist drone that I am.

This is a presumptuous sentence. You're assuming that anyone who takes the opposite side of this argument to you is a "leftie", and that by taking your particular position, you're seen by such as "capitalist scum". This is naive.

This isn't about capitalism VS something else. There's a difference between unethical capitalism and ethical capitalism. There is nothing contradictory or strange about demanding an ethical conduct in commercial activity - it's the same as demanding an ethical conduct in everyday life. We need to be able to differentiate. The decision to boycott is actually a quintessentially capitalist decision - the message is made in commercial terms. "We don't condone your actions, so we won't buy your products." That is the kind of protest made by an ethical capitalist against unethical commercial behaviour.

This argument isn't illuminated by seeing it in terms of any tired, unsubtle capitalist/subversive dichotomy.

Dontico wrote:

today i was buying a coffee in the su shop. i wanted to buy a chocolate bar. i forgot they didnt sell yorkies. i couldnt buy a yorkie cause a group of people who are no longer in ucd, already decided for me that i couldnt.

Again, they didn't decide for you that you couldn't, but that they simply wouldn't buy it in. They weren't thinking of you. You might think that that was insensitive. That may be true. But it does seem rather petty. That you would think your attachment to Yorkies more important than someone elses ethical choice, for whatever reasons they made it.

Really though. It's a sad life in which Yorkies are that important. It's like throwing a fit over finding out that someone put sugar in your tea. It's not really that important, is it?

humbert wrote:

Well I think the point of the ban was to make a public statement at the time but if you are going to ban(boycott, whatever) something on ethical grounds you'd think anyone with a hint of common sense(every time i use this phrase i stop and look at it and scratch my head) would make it very clear why it's banned and for the full duration of the ban. Not just while the issue is in vogue.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. It did generate a lot of publicity, back when the decision was made. It is, perhaps, less topical now, less immediate, and only conspicuous by the imposition it presents for our more gastronomically fastidious colleagues.

It is, perhaps, time for another referendum.

FionnMatthew

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

What is of use is lobbying. Rants voiced on boards.ie are often seen by those in a position to fix them

Dan Hayden reads boards and immediatly responded to criticism of the SU shop opening hours around exam time and referred to the thread on boards about it.

Hes not alone, Id be surprised if anyone running for an office doesnt have somebody on their campaign team who reads boards.

I know of lecturers, tutors, RAs, and Programme Officers who read boards.

Ranting can get things done.

Any more than dropping Dan Hayden a line personally, and letting him know your mind? Or sending him an email? Or even saying it to him next time you see him.

And, if you must take the indirect route, there are better ways to voice concern about it on a forum like this than to rant, or, as I believe this poster has done, whine. You could just suggest the issue for discussion, and attempt not to sound so persecuted.

Dontico

FionnMatthew wrote:

non-sence.

it would be better if you actually read my posts.

you are ignoring the fact that the current student body isnt that same student body that banned it. thus you silly champion sports analogy is void.

capitalism is about freedom. the more controled you get, the closer you are to socialism.

Ninjawombat

Actually, the capitalist thing was just me being a smartass.... :P I'm not actually implying the SU are socialists or anything. Also, I wasn't in college in 03/04 so I couldn't vote then.

I do understand exactly what you're saying, FionnMatthew, and it's a fair point; my opinion *isn't* a huge issue in the grand scheme of things. And yeah, I can buy my coke in 911 if I really want it. I was just posting how I feel about the whole issue, though in reality I'll be the first to admit I wouldn't be bothered actually protesting it. Maybe that's part of the problem with lots of people. Hehe...

Anyway, some people have said that the SU needs to remind everyone why the boycott is in place, and I do agree wholeheartedly with that. If people don't know why they can't buy what they want in the shop, it's only going to annoy them.

Apologies this wasn't longer/better/more eloquent but I'm late for class and still have to drag myself out of bed and into the shower. So I must run!

funky penguin

FionnMatthew wrote:

If this were true the decision would be, in this case, largely unobjectionable.
But I think there a good deal of people who are unhappy with the boycott.

True, I don't have figures on the majority of students who don't care. But a 22.3% turnout for the coke referendum shows the majority didn't even care then (2003).

FionnMatthew wrote:

But that wouldn't be nearly as significant a statement. This is all about making statements. This decision raised a large amount of awareness at the time it was made. It provoked national awareness of the situation in Columbia, and made small waves on an international scale too. It was a significant gesture that the UCDSU had decided to boycott CocaCola.

That sort of thing isn't generated by individual actions, by individual boycotts. That sort of thing takes a long time to make any ripples at all, and then only in CocaCola's sales statistics, and without any specific indicator of why it happened.
If the intention is to make a statement, this was probably the best way to do it.

Making a statement is great, I agree. But I will NOT let someone make one for me.

If you disagree with coke, you campaign to make people aware of the situation, and get them to make a decision by their own free will - to buy or not to buy?

This is the indicator you speak of. A continious, well structure campaign creates better awareness than advertising a referendum as “The last stand for human rights” (taken from the above link), and dropping everything once your ban is in place. The statement was made, and then forgotten. Furthermore, it didn't become a public disaster for coke's reputation. It did nothing except restrict peoples choice in UCD.

Spectator#1

Dontico wrote:

capitalism is about freedom. the more controled you get, the closer you are to socialism.

No.

Sangre

No is the answer to question spectator.

Blush_01

FionnMatthew wrote:

Any more than dropping Dan Hayden a line personally, and letting him know your mind? Or sending him an email? Or even saying it to him next time you see him.

And, if you must take the indirect route, there are better ways to voice concern about it on a forum like this than to rant, or, as I believe this poster has done, whine. You could just suggest the issue for discussion, and attempt not to sound so persecuted.

It's well known that complaints made here get noticed and dealt with, and usually pretty efficiently too. The footpath in Glenomena, for instance, is now fixed - they mended it about a week/week and a half after I complained about the state of it here, whereas complaining in the office got me little more than a picture of how frustrated the people working in the office were with the inaction of the company who were responsible for it. Don't knock it until you've tried it. Dan reads these boards and has been known to comment on/ act on things he's seen here.

humbert

I'm not really advocating ranting as a means of getting things done but any person in charge will be less inclined to ignore a complaint made publically than one made privately.

FionnMatthew

Dontico wrote:

FionnMatthew wrote:

non-sence.

it would be better if you actually read my posts.

you are ignoring the fact that the current student body isnt that same student body that banned it. thus you silly champion sports analogy is void.

capitalism is about freedom. the more controled you get, the closer you are to socialism.

You misquote me, Dontico. I would never have spelled "nonsense" that way.

Dontico

FionnMatthew wrote:

You misquote me, Dontico. I would never have spelled "nonsense" that way.

i wasnt quoting you. your rant was too long. i was refering to your post as being pointless to the dicusion on the basis you clearly havent been reading the posts. i shouldnt have to repeat myself over and over again.

cast_iron

Dontico wrote:

i shouldnt have to repeat myself over and over again.

Then for the love of God, spare us.

FionnMatthew

Dontico wrote:

i wasnt quoting you. your rant was too long. i was refering to your post as being pointless to the dicusion on the basis you clearly havent been reading the posts. i shouldnt have to repeat myself over and over again.

1. I have been reading the posts.
2. What I posted wasn't a rant. I know how to avoid that. I also appear to know better than you what a rant is.
3. "too long"? I think I was obliged to write that length of response, to give each person their due - a cursory dismissal would have been rude and disrespectful.
4. Your understanding of capitalist and socialist ethics leaves a lot to be desired.

True, capitalism is about freedom. But out-and-out freedom can mean that a very rich person is free to exploit a very poor person.
If we are to stay true to the ideal of freedom; freedom for all, we must ensure that one person's freedom cannot impinge on the freedom of anyone else. That's where a socialist philosophy comes in.
Our freedoms should be compatible.

The idea that a huge multi-national corporation should be free to abuse and restrict the freedom of individuals is a notion that is insulting to the capitalist ideal of freedom. It's capitalism gone wrong, made unethical. Good capitalism acknowledges twin goals - freedom & equality in balance.

Being able to differentiate between cavalier, profit-driven abuse of human beings and ethical capitalism isn't a mark that you're "controlled" by socialism. It's a positive choice to forego freedoms nobody should rightly want, to ensure that one doesn't fall foul of those same undesireable freedoms in others.

Hence, I am not free to abduct homeless people and farm their organs for profit. My freedom to do that would be an infringement on their freedom not to be captured and vivisected. That freedom takes precedence over my freedom to profit from the misfortunes of others, because the former is something we can all agree with, whereas, hopefully, only a villain would want to vivisect homeless people for profit.

Socialism isn't the antithesis of capitalism. It's its conscience. We live in what many would consider a socialist state, where there are restrictions on the actions that can be made in a commercial venture. We have social welfare, a paltry health service, anti-monopoly laws, a judicial system that recognises the rights of individuals etc., Even in America, considered capitalist centrale, it is corruption that circumvents good, capital-compatible socialist provisions, like anti-trust laws and human rights.

The SU shops are there by provision of a synthesis of capitalist and socialist philosophies. The student body, as a group, provides that there be commercial outlets on campus that sell commodities at a reasonable level, rather than driving up the prices in order to exploit us. It's a capitalist outlet - it charges for products, but those prices are regulated to a reasonable level, not exploitative, as they would be if capital was the only goal. Nobody should be free to take advantage of us. There's a level of fairness there. I know that I don't object to that restriction on commercial freedom - it protects me.

You need to stop seeing things in terms of black and white; the world will only ever frustrate such an outlook, and you'll only ever partially understand anything.

Spectator#1

Sangre wrote:

No is the answer to question spectator.

Yes.

arbeitsscheuer

Brilliant, informed, intelligent, balanced post from Fionn.

If only such posts were the norm, and not the exception, on boards.ie...

*sigh*

boneless

^^ wha' he says...

hullaballoo

arbeitsscheuer wrote:

Brilliant, informed, intelligent, balanced post from Fionn.

If only such posts were the norm, and not the exception, on boards.ie...

*sigh*

Agreed.

FionnMatthew, your point about political compasses being multidimensional sits well with me. Very well put. Dontico, rather than getting all steamed up about people disagreeing with you, take a look at FionnMatthew's post again. It really is a very good post. In fact, it's taking over from my old UCD best post in my sig.

One thing that I will add is that this thread has become more suited to the Political Theories forum.

robnubis

Grimes wrote:

Yeah it does. But as third level students you think most would care about an injustice rather than their sweeites

Hah, wonder how many ppl who think like you do go off and become hypocrites by buying coca-cola or using shell...

FionnMatthew

Thanks, Arbeitsheuer and Hullaballoo. Thanks, too, for the sig-add. It's always nice to know that people agree.

lizzyvera

Dontico wrote:

the issue is really about freedom from being forced on by someones left-wing agenda. the SU should be non-political.

Coke and Nestlé have committed serious human rights abuses so it's nothing to do with left or right. "Left" and "right" are practically buzzwords in the SU now!

Dontico

lizzyvera wrote:

Coke and Nestlé have committed serious human rights abuses so it's nothing to do with left or right. "Left" and "right" are practically buzzwords in the SU now!

read the posts.

FionnMatthew

Dontico wrote:

read the posts.

Dontico, I don't want to insult you about this, but surely you should be discussing this at a more sophisticated level than you are?

You're in a University. You can't get away with just "read the posts". What's alarming is that this isn't even a very elevated level of discourse, but you're just refusing to engage.

We've read the posts. We get it. We disagree. At least do us the courtesy of assuming that we do get it, but that we just don't see eye to eye. It's mildly insulting that you would insist that we just don't understand you.

Come on.

Sangre

Dontico, some constructive comments please.

If you're going to disengage from the discussion then stop posting. Stop saying 'read the posts'. There are currently 176 posts in this thread? Do you expect him to keep reading them until he gets your point? Do you realise that if he disagrees with you reading over all the posts isn't going to change anything? Perhaps you'd like to point out which points you disagree with and why? Or even point out exactly why your points contradict his.

Add something more to the debate or don't add anything at all.

funky penguin

FionnMatthew wrote:

Dontico, I don't want to insult you about this, but surely you should be discussing this at a more sophisticated level than you are?

You're in a University. You can't get away with just "read the posts". What's alarming is that this isn't even a very elevated level of discourse, but you're just refusing to engage.

We've read the posts. We get it. We disagree. At least do us the courtesy of assuming that we do get it, but that we just don't see eye to eye. It's mildly insulting that you would insist that we just don't understand you.

Come on.

I wouldn't disagree completely.

I agree the ban should be lifted, but for different reasons.

panda100

funky penguin wrote:

I wouldn't disagree completely.

I agree the ban should be lifted, but for different reasons.

Me aussi. Dont generalise FionnMatthew 'we' dont all disagree with dontico.
I think its safe to assume that 'we' all agree that your definition and explanation of socialism is a bit better then poor donticos. However I still beleive the Nestle ban is doing more harm then good.

hullaballoo

panda100 wrote:

Me aussi. Dont generalise FionnMatthew 'we' dont all disagree with dontico.
I think its safe to assume that 'we' all agree that your definition and explanation of socialism is a bit better then poor donticos. However I still beleive the Nestle ban is doing more harm then good.

I support the ban from first principles. I fail to see how it's doing any harm to us. We can still get Nestlé and coke on campus, and it's not that difficult. There are loads of places that stock it: Arts Café, Centra, all of the vending machines in the Arts Block, the Sports Centre, Roebuck and presumably most other faculties, on- and off-campus.

In reality, there are only three places I can think of where they expressly don't stock coke/nestlé: the Kiosk, the Library Shop, the Science Shop (if this is even still there).

So, although the SU (the biggest Union of Students in Europe) has banned Coke and Nestlé, which gets the point accross, the students' ability to get Coke/Nestlé products on-campus is barely restricted.

panda100

hullaballoo wrote:

I support the ban from first principles. I fail to see how it's doing any harm to us. .

The nestle ban is not doing any harm to us students, but It is doing harm to the people of Africa as I have explained before. Those are the people we banned it for in the first place If you can think back to when the nestle ban was first suggested in the 1970's.

hullaballoo wrote:

So, although the SU (the biggest Union of Students in Europe) has banned Coke and Nestlé, which gets the point accross, .

The coke ban still has relevance for today and as you said we are getting a point across. We are getting no point across with the nestle ban,unless you can explain to me exactly what point we are still trying to get across?