The Coca Cola Boycott Committee

Stabshauptmann

PaddyofNine wrote: »

I would personally like to be able to make my own decision over whether to purchase a company's product or not, based on my own feelings toward said company, and not have that choice taken away from me because some SU hacks wanted to massage their ego and feel good about themselves five years ago

And this is where the tread just loops around, over and over, like a broken record, as it has umpteen times before.

People who reply to threads with points that have been answered before (with no reference to or retort to that answer) are either:

• ego stroking twats
• too lazy
• or too stupid to understand the other post

Either way, like the charter says, is your post adding anything to the thread?


The facts that no one can dispute.
The ban was a commercial decision by a commercial entity in lines with its decision making process, and is reversible by the same means. It is no different to any other commercial decision

The owners of the entity made the decision and it only effects their entities.
Coke and Nestle are freely available on campus, the only difference is that they are not subsidised by the union.

Het-Field

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

And this is where the tread just loops around, over and over, like a broken record, as it has umpteen times before.

People who reply to threads with points that have been answered before (with no reference to or retort to that answer) are either:

• ego stroking twats
• too lazy
• or too stupid to understand the other post

Either way, like the charter says, is your post adding anything to the thread?


The facts that no one can dispute.
The ban was a commercial decision by a commercial entity in lines with its decision making process, and is reversible by the same means. It is no different to any other commercial decision

The owners of the entity made the decision and it only effects their entities.
Coke and Nestle are freely available on campus, the only difference is that they are not subsidised by the union.

In fairness, I think you could classify the majority of the 2003/2004 electorate as "former owners". Furthermore, it was the owners from 1994/1995 which rendered the Union unable to sell Nestle products. When I was part of the "ownership", I was not in a position to have that commercial decision overturned. Yes, I could call another referendum, however, that takes time and effort, and I had other things on the agenda. There also needs to be an appetite for such a referendum.

PaddyofNine

I was about to reply what my post added and realised I'd forgotten to add the link to the article I first saw this in! :rolleyes:

So is this ban a lifetime thing or does it have some kind of time limit attached, i.e. is it up for review in ten years or something? Because I'd wager it's much easier to get Coke banned than to get it reinstated...

Tom65

Het-Field wrote: »

In fairness, I think you could classify the majority of the 2003/2004 electorate as "former owners". Furthermore, it was the owners from 1994/1995 which rendered the Union unable to sell Nestle products. When I was part of the "ownership", I was not in a position to have that commercial decision overturned. Yes, I could call another referendum, however, that takes time and effort, and I had other things on the agenda. There also needs to be an appetite for such a referendum.

You could say that about all constitutional referendums at a state level though - the electorate that took part in referendums in the 1970s would be completely different today's.
If the ban completely removed it from campus, then I'd have more of an issue with it. Assuming the grievances are valid, the fact there's no coke or nestle at certain shops doesn't bother me at all.

Stabshauptmann

Het-Field wrote: »

In fairness, I think you could classify the majority of the 2003/2004 electorate as "former owners".

Thats not how a business or a government works, there are principals of continuity.

Though my post wasnt aimed at you, I do have some reply Id like to make, but busy-busy today

Tayto2000

PaddyofNine wrote: »

I was about to reply what my post added and realised I'd forgotten to add the link to the article I first saw this in! :rolleyes:

So is this ban a lifetime thing or does it have some kind of time limit attached, i.e. is it up for review in ten years or something? Because I'd wager it's much easier to get Coke banned than to get it reinstated...

One of the the things the coca cola committee is supposed to do is examine the relevance of the ban. I wouldn't hold my breath on getting it overturned though, the current situation suits everyone just fine. Coke is readily available across campus for those who can't go without and the SU gets to keep the moral high ground by retaining the ban.

Tayto2000

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Thats not how a business or a government works, there are principals of continuity.

True. How many students paid for the student centre that they never got to use? How many are paying for the extension that they won't be here to use when it's finished? All decisions taken by that will be affecting students long after the administration that took them is gone.

rainbow kirby

Tayto2000 wrote: »

One of the the things the coca cola committee is supposed to do is examine the relevance of the ban. I wouldn't hold my breath on getting it overturned though, the current situation suits everyone just fine. Coke is readily available across campus for those who can't go without and the SU gets to keep the moral high ground by retaining the ban.

An Irish solution to an Irish problem tbh. >.>

Stabshauptmann

Tayto2000 wrote: »

True. How many students paid for the student centre that they never got to use? How many are paying for the extension that they won't be here to use when it's finished? All decisions taken by that will be affecting students long after the administration that took them is gone.

I think I know the point your getting at, but for the sake of clarity can you articulate it please?

Tayto2000

Apologies, mistyped towards the end there.

I was agreeing with you regarding the fact that there are principles of continuity involved regarding the decisions taken by governments and administrations. Those affected by these decisions long after the fact have no say in the matter save lobbying to persuade the current administration to change things.

I was pointing at the student centre(s) as an example of this. The intake of freshers for the next couple of years will have no say in whether or not they want to pay for a student centre, that decision has been taken for them.

33% God

Tayto2000 wrote: »

Apologies, mistyped towards the end there.

I was agreeing with you regarding the fact that there are principles of continuity involved regarding the decisions taken by governments and administrations. Those affected by these decisions long after the fact have no say in the matter save lobbying to persuade the current administration to change things.

I was pointing at the student centre(s) as an example of this. The intake of freshers for the next couple of years will have no say in whether or not they want to pay for a student centre, that decision has been taken for them.

Kind of like how I have no say in matters like whether or not Ireland should be in the EU or divorce.

Tayto2000

33% God wrote: »

Kind of like how I have no say in matters like whether or not Ireland should be in the EU or divorce.

Exactly. These issues were decided by your fellow citizens before you were enfranchised. To change the status quo, your options are to throw your efforts behind one of the groups seeking to change the situation in relation to either of these issues or perhaps start something yourself.

It takes a real effort and a popular desire for change to alter the staus quo in any situation. That is present in relation to the the issues you mention, witness the ongoing drama with the Lisbon Treaty and marriage is still very contentious here with the church hinting at a challenge to same sex rights etc etc.

In relation to the Coke boycott, I personally think it's a waste of everyone's time but I don't think that there's anyone in UCD who cares enough about it to make the effort to try to get it reversed.

Red Alert

The coke boycott should go, people are big enough to decide to what they wish to purchase or boycott.

Stabshauptmann

Which of the three is Red Alert I wonder...

Blush_01

I still maintain that if it was an effective boycott there would be no need for the shops to stop stocking the product. To gauge how many people are aware/actually care the products should all be readily available everywhere and the boycott should be an active one, not a bloody passive hand-holding exercise that achieves nothing more than increased prices for students and increased profits for Hilpers and 911, because the majority of people don't even know about the ban, nevermind care.

I'm still baffled. Has it really done more than stop the socialists and the hacks from drinking Coca Cola products when in the presence of other socialists or hacks?

Besides, whiskey tasted crap with Pepsi. I couldn't understand that at all.

33% God

Blush_01 wrote: »

I still maintain that if it was an effective boycott there would be no need for the shops to stop stocking the product. To gauge how many people are aware/actually care the products should all be readily available everywhere and the boycott should be an active one, not a bloody passive hand-holding exercise that achieves nothing more than increased prices for students and increased profits for Hilpers and 911, because the majority of people don't even know about the ban, nevermind care.

I'm still baffled. Has it really done more than stop the socialists and the hacks from drinking Coca Cola products when in the presence of other socialists or hacks?

Besides, whiskey tasted crap with Pepsi. I couldn't understand that at all.

You could always drink it like a man instead of diluted with coke like a wee girl

Stabshauptmann

Blush_01 wrote: »

I still maintain that if it was an effective boycott there would be no need for the shops to stop stocking the product.

If the SU were organising an effective boycott then they would be buying coca-cola for their shops.

What retarded dribble.

To gauge how many people are aware/actually care the products should all be readily available everywhere and the boycott should be an active one, not a bloody passive hand-holding exercise that achieves nothing

Why all the song and dance, your argument is very transparent.

[The ban does nothing] more than increased prices for students and increased profits for Hilpers and 911, because the majority of people don't even know about the ban, nevermind care.

increase prices :rolleyes:

Besides, whiskey tasted crap with Pepsi. I couldn't understand that at all.

For the record, whiskey should be drank with TK red, that is if you're not drinking it straight.;)


Your entire post reeks of BS. Just tell the truth and stop all this pussy footing around.

You say the ban hasnt effected anyone, yet you had to drink Pepsi with your whiskey. You say nobody knows theres a ban, but yet its a constant point of conversation. And you say you have a right to choose what to buy, but ignore that so too do the owners of the SU shops.

What this boils down to, plain and simple, is that you believe you are some how entitled to have your choice of drink subsidised for you. That you'd have to pay the market price for something is a grave injustice.

Blush_01

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

If the SU were organising an effective boycott then they would be buying coca-cola for their shops.

Does Coca Cola sell on campus? If it sells anywhere then the boycott fails. How is that so hard for you to understand? The revenue the SU shop could be making from selling Coca Cola is instead going to 911, Hilpers and Centra. Why? Well... a group of students decided that an Irish produced product HAD to be causing issues for people in Columbia (and subsequently India) so, with all that extra time they had on their hands they decided to fight the good fight, and attempt to ban the stuff on campus, incase Ireland got magically transported to Columbia or India, 'cos that sh!t happens ALL the time.

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

What retarded dribble.

I assume you mean drivel. If you're going to use a stock phrase you may as well use the correct one, before you start throwing the word retarded around.

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

For the record, whiskey should be drank with TK red, that is if you're not drinking it straight.;)

For the record, whiskey should be taken whatever way the drinker wants it. Your arrogance can't taint my penchant for Jameson and Red Bull.

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

What this boils down to, plain and simple, is that you believe you are some how entitled to have your choice of drink subsidised for you. That you'd have to pay the market price for something is a grave injustice.

No Kaptain, that is not what I said. What I did say is that the boycott achieves nothing. It had a limited impact at the time of the initial boycott. The reason this is still a topic of conversation is because the hacks in the Union (like yourself - former hack, current hack, what's the difference ) are trotting it out to cause a stir, a little storm in a teacup to distract people looking for some entertainment that allows them to massage their own egos while "defending other people's human rights". That BS sickens me. There are plenty of items not stocked in the SU shop, I don't believe that they should stock every item under the sun. However the issue I have is that the student body at large is either misinformed or uninformed about the boycott. If the boycott is to exist as something more than a hand-holding exercise to make a small group of people feel better about themselves then INFORMATION is what's needed. Be as obtuse about it as you like, but you know that that's what I'm getting at. A boycott by default is stupidity. People need to know that they're boycotting something and understand why, not just be fed one article and a healthy dollop of bias to be regurgitated ad infinitum.

Red Alert

Simple fact of all that is that if the boycott actually worked, then nobody would be buying it, so the other non-SU shops wouldn't stock it. It's quite ridiculous when you think about it that the SU isn't getting the profit off the vending machines beside their shops every time someone buys a coke from them.

rainbow kirby

Red Alert wrote: »

Simple fact of all that is that if the boycott actually worked, then nobody would be buying it, so the other non-SU shops wouldn't stock it. It's quite ridiculous when you think about it that the SU isn't getting the profit off the vending machines beside their shops every time someone buys a coke from them.

Nobody ever said UCDSU was logical though.

Stabshauptmann

Both Blush and Red Alert make the point that the SU is losing money. The SU shops aren't run to make profit so that point is moot.

Some posters feel that if the Boycott were effective then it wouldn't be sold anywhere on campus. I thought the point of removing coke from SU shops was to raise awareness of an incident in Colombia, and to make a point to a company that consumers care about ethical considerations. Id say it has been successful on both fronts.

Tbh, Id have more respect for people if they came out and just said truthfully why they hate the SU coke position. Blush came closest "that achieves nothing more than increased prices for students". If by increased price she means the market price.

mad lad

Students were asked twice if they wanted Coke to be sold in the Union owned shops. The majority who voted decided that they didn't, twice.

Whats the fukking problem? If you want coke instead of pepsi go and buy one somewhere else.

Blush_01

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Both Blush and Red Alert make the point that the SU is losing money. The SU shops aren't run to make profit so that point is moot.

Some posters feel that if the Boycott were effective then it wouldn't be sold anywhere on campus. I thought the point of removing coke from SU shops was to raise awareness of an incident in Colombia, and to make a point to a company that consumers care about ethical considerations. Id say it has been successful on both fronts.

Tbh, Id have more respect for people if they came out and just said truthfully why they hate the SU coke position. Blush came closest "that achieves nothing more than increased prices for students". If by increased price she means the market price.

It only makes that point if the people who would have made the choice to buy Coca Cola products in the SU shop deliberately avoid it on that basis. You can go to the machine, 911, Hilpers, The Restaurant etc. and still get Coca Cola branded drinks - way to stick it to the company.

Kaptain, you did a business degree, this is very basic stuff. The drinks sold in the SU shop are sold at a subsidised price to the students because they are effectively subsidising the drinks themselves, being SU members. If someone chooses to go to one of the stockists of Coca Cola on campus they are paying a premium price for that product, which is profit for the company they purchase that product from. Coca Cola still get a unit sale. The student loses out, because not only are their own union subscriptions not being used to subsidise the product they choose to consume, but also the SU shop loses a sale. Yes, the goal of the SU shop may not necessarily be profit, but surely that revenue in the coffers of the SU is more valuable to the student body? Particularly in light of the huge mortgage that will be required for the additions to the Student Centre, the constant issues with underfunding of the health service and counselling services, or if nowhere else the SHF... I can see plenty of places for additional union funds to go in order to make a significant difference to students who need it.

Now, (excuse this gross generalisation) if the student body was having the boycott reinforced and there was widespread agreement with the boycott then that would automatically lead to increased sales for the SU shop because people would (logic prevailing) choose to buy their drinks in the SU shops where the prices are reduced, with the product lines being more or less equal.

You can continue to confuse apathy and accession but if the boycott was met with the latter rather than the former Coca Cola would not be stocked anywhere on campus because it would not have a market. Faint awareness is like faint praise - there's nothing quite as damning.

I would have thought that my previous posts made my opinion of the boycott completely clear. Obtuse, again. Oh well.

rainbow kirby

mad lad wrote: »

Students were asked twice if they wanted Coke to be sold in the Union owned shops. The majority who voted decided that they didn't, twice.

We voted, 5 years ago. The ban should at least be reviewed again, and today's students should be given the choice of whether they want to retain it or not.

And I'd vote against a ban for a third time given the chance.

mad lad

We voted, 5 years ago. The ban should at least be reviewed again, and today's students should be given the choice of whether they want to retain it or not.

And I'd vote against a ban for a third time given the chance.

If you take that logic we'd have to vote on the Irish constitution and every other referendum issue yearly as a new generation of 18 year olds, who didn't originally have a say, emerges.

Twice in UCD, three times in Trinity, the pro-coke side have lost everytime...get over it.

anonymous_joe

What I've found moronic would be two factors:

One: I can buy Coke on campus. And mmmm, it tastes so much better knowing it's 'banned.' :pac:

Two: What possible effect will reduced sales of the Irish run branch of the company have on some South Americans? Seriously? Do you think anyone in Colombia gives a flying fúck that Irish students have to pay 30 c extra if they fancy a Coke? It's a load of shíte, a meaningless ban that serves no purpose only to allow people to stick it to the proverbial ban. Worse, it's that most offensive kind of morality, where instead of encouraging people to follow your lead, you give them no choice whatsoever. If people don't want to buy Coke for moral reasons, let them drink something else.

peanuthead

christ....is this still going on??????

mad lad

you give them no choice whatsoever.

People were given the choice twice on whether or not to have coca-cola products on sale in the union shops. On both occassions the majority of students who voted, voted not to stock the product. This is called democracy. When the majority of members in a union vote on something, the union follows the mandate.

You still have the choice to purchase and drink coke on campus.

You still have the choice to collect signatures and hold another referendum, though given the outcomes of previous referenda, it would be unlikely that you would win.

Red Alert

Whether specific products are bought and sold in shops should be left to being a business decision. What happens when the SU and the self-selecting non-free-market people decide they don't want to sell the Irish Times because of what's printed in it?

mad lad

Whether specific products are bought and sold in shops should be left to being a business decision.

The union runs the shops. Students are the union. Students voted not to sell coke. The people who own and run any business have the right to decide what products they sell - thats exactly what the union did, twice.

Het-Field:

Are Irish people in a better place to understand the internal workings of a Colombian Coca Cola plant ?

No. The union in the bottling factories themselves, Sinaltrainal, called for a boycott, which is unsurprising when it members have been assasinated and their union offices have been burnt to the ground. We also brought out a member of Sinaltrainal, Luis Eduardo Garcia to UCD to talk about the situation in Columbia and how his friends & workmates were murdered.