The Coca Cola Boycott Committee

Het-Field

mad lad wrote: »

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:
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.

And SIPTU are never biased ??? I would not be willing to take everything a Union member has to say as law

Stabshauptmann

Red Alert wrote: »

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?

It was a business decision. It was made in accordance with the business' operating procedures. You are also trying to imply that the ban was the work of an unelected minority, when infact there were 2 referenda

Stabshauptmann

Het-Field wrote: »

And SIPTU are never biased ??? I would not be willing to take everything a Union member has to say as law

but dont you see it as hypocritical that you're one random Columbian should be treated as a definitive source instead?

Het-Field

mad lad wrote: »

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.

I would like to remind you that, while the turnout was a rise on the usual turnout within the SU, it was still a minority of the Student Population who voted. I recall many people bitching about the boycott, before informing me that they never voted. I had a go at them for not making their voice heard. However, it becomes clear that the, questionable, boycott is not properly representative of the Student Population. This is particularly indicated by the terrible turnouts in 2003.

mad lad

Great, so your original complaint was that you didn't think we should listen to Irish campaigners because we don't know the "the internal workings of a Colombian Coca Cola plant ".

When it's pointed out that its the people from the plant themselves who've instigated the boycott you then say we can't trust them. Apparently the people we can trust is your unamed "aquaintances" with " a number of Colombians"? Ah Jaysis...

The majority of UCD students didn't vote, like any other election (like a general election or a sabbat one) theres not much you can do about that - you have to go with the the majority decision of those that wanted to have a say.

However, it becomes clear that the, questionable, boycott is not properly representative of the Student Population.

How 'representative' is the irish constitution if the majority of people never got to vote on it?

I'd have more respect for people if they actually stated what their genuine opinion was. Its an anti-left wing rant, tinged with bitterness that the majority of students who were interested, voted in favour of the boycott, twice.

Stabshauptmann

anonymous_joe wrote: »

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:

I dont think its moronic, I think its good that a free market exists. I would be against the SU trying to force 911 or centra not to sell something.

Though that someone would consider themselves a rebel for drinking coke, yup Id agree with you that thats moronic.

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.

What effects Coke in one country effects it globally, its a global company.

It caught Coke's attention, I remember Coke making quite a stir in the media. They even sent a rep into UCD to one of the debates who started making threats, Coke took this quite seriously - and for good cause; the decision to stop stocking coke was copied by a number of other entities.

I was talking to someone about the Nestle ban and they had a long list of things Nestle did to improve their public image.

Consumer pressure definitely works. Businesses must respond to consumer needs.

Worse, it's that most offensive kind of morality, where instead of encouraging people to follow your lead, you give them no choice whatsoever.

Lies. Pure, simple lies. You want to talk about offensive morality? Hypocrite. Coke is widely available in UCD, its actually available for free in some places . AFAIK the SU never tried to force 911 or centra to stop selling coke, they simply choose through referenda not to stick in in their shops.

If people don't want to buy Coke for moral reasons, let them drink something else.

Agreed, and if businesses choose not to sell it, well then thats their call too. Freedom of choice.

Stabshauptmann

Het-Field wrote: »

I would like to remind you that, while the turnout was a rise on the usual turnout within the SU, it was still a minority of the Student Population who voted. I recall many people bitching about the boycott, before informing me that they never voted. I had a go at them for not making their voice heard. However, it becomes clear that the, questionable, boycott is not properly representative of the Student Population. This is particularly indicated by the terrible turnouts in 2003.

You might have a point were it not for the fact that there were 2 referenda, and iirc the turnout and victory margin grew the second time

Stabshauptmann

rainbow kirby wrote: »

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.

The ban is continuously reviewed. Anyone, at anytime, is free to organise another referendum

Het-Field

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

You might have a point were it not for the fact that there were 2 referenda, and iirc the turnout and victory margin grew the second time

True, but the increase was minor. I would encourage the Union to carry out an independent poll, and see what results transpire.

Stabshauptmann

Blush_01 wrote: »

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.

Im not being deliberately obtuse, I simply dont believe you. While your arguments are logical you omit or disregard the facts that dont support you position.

The shops are a business and have a right to decide what to stock.
The point of the boycott wasnt to make coke bankrupt.
There were 2 referenda, and nothing is stopping a third. The hypothetical silent majority is just that, hypothetical.
The SU shops dont sell any products at a loss afaik, just close to cost so the point about students who paid their subs not getting their money's worth is also moot.
And while we're on about basic business, it is undeniable that A)Reducing the number of outlets that sell a product or B)Having a substitute available at a lower price will have an impact on sales.

Stabshauptmann

Het-Field wrote: »

True, but the increase was minor. I would encourage the Union to carry out an independent poll, and see what results transpire.

Why bother with a poll, just hold a ****ing referendum

mad lad

I would encourage the Union to carry out an independent poll, and see what results transpire.

collect signatures and hold a referendum if you believe that the majority of students are against the boycott...rather than hiding behind nonsense about independent polls, Irish campaigners claiming they know more than Columbian workers themselves, how democratic referenda are, whether a business has a right to decide what it stocks etc.

I bet that even if the union did a poll and it found that the majority of students favoured the boycott, you would claim that the union can't be trusted because some sabbats are pro-boycott or that the sample size wasn't large enough or that the methodology was dodgy. Just hold a referendum if you're so intent on being able to buy coke from an SU shop rather than a vending machine or any of the other places on campus, I dare you

anonymous_joe

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

I dont think its moronic, I think its good that a free market exists. I would be against the SU trying to force 911 or centra not to sell something.

Though that someone would consider themselves a rebel for drinking coke, yup Id agree with you that thats moronic.

Free market ftw alright.

The rebel bit was a tad sarcastic.

What effects Coke in one country effects it globally, its a global company.

Sort of. But not entirely.

Without wanting to get too indepth, Coca Cola manufactures a syrup, which is sold to franchisees. (the parent company usually owns a quite substantial percentage of these companies shares.)

Thus, the company in Ireland that you boycott is seperate to the one which makes the stuff in Colombia however one of its parent companies would be the Coca Cola Company which would also be one of the parent companies of the bottler of Coca Cola in Colombia. (Coca-Cola FEMSA for the record.)

It caught Coke's attention, I remember Coke making quite a stir in the media. They even sent a rep into UCD to one of the debates who started making threats, Coke took this quite seriously - and for good cause; the decision to stop stocking coke was copied by a number of other entities.

I was talking to someone about the Nestle ban and they had a long list of things Nestle did to improve their public image.

Consumer pressure definitely works. Businesses must respond to consumer needs.

Absolutely. It's good business sense to respond to these accusations. I don't doubt the truth of them, but I was not a UCD student at the time, and have no idea at what the current situation is in Colombia. Does anyone?

Lies. Pure, simple lies. You want to talk about offensive morality? Hypocrite. Coke is widely available in UCD, its actually available for free in some places . AFAIK the SU never tried to force 911 or centra to stop selling coke, they simply choose through referenda not to stick in in their shops.

Meh, agree to disagree. I don't like the idea of a boycott I didn't vote for still being in place. Would it not make sense to have the boycott again every three years, which would mean most students would get a chance to vote on it at least once in their time in UCD?

Add to that, if you asked most students in UCD if they knew Coke was banned, they'd reply in the negative. Given that I asked my sister and a few of her friends who are all in UCD and had no idea, I doubt you'd find many first second or third years with much knowledge of the ban, although they might have noticed there was one. Then again, given that the only place you can't get Coke is the Student Union shop (that I'm aware of? The one in the student centre doesn't sell it either does it?) many will never notice the ban.

Agreed, and if businesses choose not to sell it, well then thats their call too. Freedom of choice.

The ultimate freedom of choice would be to have no boycott, and to provide students with all the requisite current information to make an informed choice as to what products they want to purchase.

For the record, I avoid products manufactured by the Gap, Nike, Penney's and plenty of others who are rumoured to make use of near slave labour. I would also avoid Nestlé products.

However, given that the Coca-Cola manufactured in Ireland was manufactured in Ireland. Independantly of that in South America, and that I haven't heard of any abuse of staff in the Irish company (and haven;t heard much about SA lately, but I'll leave myself open to correction) I don't see any reason for it to be boycotted in UCD.

micf

I was not in UCD for the vote on the banning of Coca Cola in SU shops. However, if another vote was to be held today I would vote for the continued ban of this product. The company which produces it has no regard for the lives of millions of citizens around the world. All it cares about is profit at any lengths.

I am a Christian and a believer in human rights. Not a left wing headbanger.

bnt

If I sounded cynical in my previous post, well... Coca Cola may be banned, but the SU still sells PepsiCo products, despite that company's record in e.g. Burma. They officially pulled out in 1997, after a worldwide series of boycotts: did the UCD SU get involved back then? PepsiCo also owns Tropicana, whose citrus-growing labour has been the subject of some scrutiny. Coca Cola and PepsiCo are huge conglomerates with dodgy human rights records, so I don;t get why this "socially aware" SU appears to favour one over the other. :rolleyes:

Stabshauptmann

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Meh, agree to disagree. I don't like the idea of a boycott I didn't vote for still being in place. Would it not make sense to have the boycott again every three years, which would mean most students would get a chance to vote on it at least once in their time in UCD?

Add to that, if you asked most students in UCD if they knew Coke was banned, they'd reply in the negative. Given that I asked my sister and a few of her friends who are all in UCD and had no idea, I doubt you'd find many first second or third years with much knowledge of the ban, although they might have noticed there was one. Then again, given that the only place you can't get Coke is the Student Union shop (that I'm aware of? The one in the student centre doesn't sell it either does it?) many will never notice the ban.

The ultimate freedom of choice would be to have no boycott, and to provide students with all the requisite current information to make an informed choice as to what products they want to purchase.

Great Post Joe with the exception of the above quote.

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Meh, agree to disagree. I don't like the idea of a boycott I didn't vote for still being in place. Would it not make sense to have the boycott again every three years, which would mean most students would get a chance to vote on it at least once in their time in UCD?

You said removing coke from SU shops "give [students] no choice whatsoever" whether to buy coke.
I pointed out that Coke is widely available in UCD. This is not something that we can agree to disagree on, its a statement of fact that is true or not true. It is not an opinion whether 911 or Centra or the numerous vending machines stock coke; either they do or they dont.

Whether or not you voted in the referenda is a moot point, as someone of your intelligence well knows. In fact I think it would be insulting to your intelligence to repeat the many well articulated arguments in this thread countering that stance.

Add to that, if you asked most students in UCD if they knew Coke was banned, they'd reply in the negative. Given that I asked my sister and a few of her friends who are all in UCD and had no idea, I doubt you'd find many first second or third years with much knowledge of the ban, although they might have noticed there was one. Then again, given that the only place you can't get Coke is the Student Union shop (that I'm aware of? The one in the student centre doesn't sell it either does it?) many will never notice the ban.

I didnt know any sabbat other than Fergal in my first year (think he was the president, dont know his surname), I cant name any sabbats from my second year either. I've no doubt that there are people out there insulated from the world around them, but I fail to see the relevance of that point.

The ultimate freedom of choice would be to have no boycott, and to provide students with all the requisite current information to make an informed choice as to what products they want to purchase.

No it wouldn't, that would be removing the rights of the business. The shops have a right to choose what to stock.

Het-Field

micf wrote: »

I was not in UCD for the vote on the banning of Coca Cola in SU shops. However, if another vote was to be held today I would vote for the continued ban of this product. The company which produces it has no regard for the lives of millions of citizens around the world. All it cares about is profit at any lengths.

I am a Christian and a believer in human rights. Not a left wing headbanger.

So your a "Right Wing Headbanger"

PaddyofNine

But this isn't the sort of crap the SU - OUR SU - should be preoccupying themselves with in the first place!

It seems to me their time would be far better spent, for example:

• Doing something about the complete lack of food options on campus after 6.30-ish. It's a joke, and a sad state of affairs that the best you can do when you want food in the library after 7 or on a Sunday is walk up off campus to Supermacs for a delicious and nutritious bag of chips.
  
• Sorting out the car parking crisis - and that's what it is, a crisis - on campus. I spent forty five minutes driving round looking for a spot at lunchtime today. The two 'carparks' (i.e. fields) beside the water tower and behind the Ag building are law suits waiting to happen. No markings, and cars just abandoned everywhere - you can barely make your away around it, I nearly hit someone twice and I have a small car. It's a bloody disgrace, and somebody needs to get a campaign going or sort out a committee to get on top of that.

Now, if those two things were top of the Student Union's to-do list, how far down do you think the Coca Cola Boycott Committee should be, ffs?

anonymous_joe

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Great Post Joe with the exception of the above quote.



You said removing coke from SU shops "give [students] no choice whatsoever" whether to buy coke.
I pointed out that Coke is widely available in UCD. This is not something that we can agree to disagree on, its a statement of fact that is true or not true. It is not an opinion whether 911 or Centra or the numerous vending machines stock coke; either they do or they dont.

Whether or not you voted in the referenda is a moot point, as someone of your intelligence well knows. In fact I think it would be insulting to your intelligence to repeat the many well articulated arguments in this thread countering that stance.



I didnt know any sabbat other than Fergal in my first year (think he was the president, dont know his surname), I cant name any sabbats from my second year either. I've no doubt that there are people out there insulated from the world around them, but I fail to see the relevance of that point.



No it wouldn't, that would be removing the rights of the business. The shops have a right to choose what to stock.

Ah I know, I know. I can see why there's a ban, and can respect the reasoning behind it, I just wish those of us here nowadays would get a chance of our own to vote on it, but c'est la vie. ^^

And yeah, it is pretty easy to get Coke on campus. I do agree with some that there are bigger problems facing the Union at the moment, and things that'd matter more, fees, security on campus, availability of food...

PaddyofNine wrote: »

But this isn't the sort of crap the SU - OUR SU - should be preoccupying themselves with in the first place!

It seems to me their time would be far better spent, for example:

• Doing something about the complete lack of food options on campus after 6.30-ish. It's a joke, and a sad state of affairs that the best you can do when you want food in the library after 7 or on a Sunday is walk up off campus to Supermacs for a delicious and nutritious bag of chips.
  
• Sorting out the car parking crisis - and that's what it is, a crisis - on campus. I spent forty five minutes driving round looking for a spot at lunchtime today. The two 'carparks' (i.e. fields) beside the water tower and behind the Ag building are law suits waiting to happen. No markings, and cars just abandoned everywhere - you can barely make your away around it, I nearly hit someone twice and I have a small car. It's a bloody disgrace, and somebody needs to get a campaign going or sort out a committee to get on top of that.

Now, if those two things were top of the Student Union's to-do list, how far down do you think the Coca Cola Boycott Committee should be, ffs?

Some decent points. I walk to UCD for the exercise, but my sister drives and ended up missing a lecture because she couldn't find a space. Irony's funny as fook, but still a pain.

Raphael

PaddyofNine wrote: »

But this isn't the sort of crap the SU - OUR SU - should be preoccupying themselves with in the first place!

It seems to me their time would be far better spent, for example:

• Doing something about the complete lack of food options on campus after 6.30-ish. It's a joke, and a sad state of affairs that the best you can do when you want food in the library after 7 or on a Sunday is walk up off campus to Supermacs for a delicious and nutritious bag of chips.
  
• Sorting out the car parking crisis - and that's what it is, a crisis - on campus. I spent forty five minutes driving round looking for a spot at lunchtime today. The two 'carparks' (i.e. fields) beside the water tower and behind the Ag building are law suits waiting to happen. No markings, and cars just abandoned everywhere - you can barely make your away around it, I nearly hit someone twice and I have a small car. It's a bloody disgrace, and somebody needs to get a campaign going or sort out a committee to get on top of that.

Now, if those two things were top of the Student Union's to-do list, how far down do you think the Coca Cola Boycott Committee should be, ffs?

Elements in science is open till 10.

Stabshauptmann

PaddyofNine wrote: »

But this isn't the sort of crap the SU - OUR SU - should be preoccupying themselves with in the first place!

It seems to me their time would be far better spent, for example:

• Doing something about the complete lack of food options on campus after 6.30-ish. It's a joke, and a sad state of affairs that the best you can do when you want food in the library after 7 or on a Sunday is walk up off campus to Supermacs for a delicious and nutritious bag of chips.
  
• Sorting out the car parking crisis - and that's what it is, a crisis - on campus. I spent forty five minutes driving round looking for a spot at lunchtime today. The two 'carparks' (i.e. fields) beside the water tower and behind the Ag building are law suits waiting to happen. No markings, and cars just abandoned everywhere - you can barely make your away around it, I nearly hit someone twice and I have a small car. It's a bloody disgrace, and somebody needs to get a campaign going or sort out a committee to get on top of that.

Now, if those two things were top of the Student Union's to-do list, how far down do you think the Coca Cola Boycott Committee should be, ffs?

the SU per se didnt ban coke, that is to say that it wasnt a decision at council or by a sabbat, it was the result of a petition started by students afaik

rainbow kirby

Raphael wrote: »

Elements in science is open till 10.

Elements is also extremely expensive.

Stabshauptmann

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Elements is also extremely expensive.

I wish Im there with a camera the day you have to fend for yourself in the real world.

Raphael

Yes, but it's very good. Wheras the cheap options tend to be a bit crap.

Also, Tacozony for 5.50 is very reasonable, and wonderfully delicous. Mmmm...

Shazbot

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Elements is also extremely expensive.

It's not really that expensive. Less than €8 for a dinner is very good considering the portions you get and how quickly you get it, Doesn't taste all that bad either. Also some great specials on in the evenings. You won't find anywhere else with that quality food for that price.

PaddyofNine

Raphael wrote: »

Yes, but it's very good.

I don't know which Elements you're on about but the food in there is pure s*it in the evenings. Been sitting in the kitchen for ages, not to mention the fact that they certainly don't open until ten, I've stood outside it in disbelief at ten past eight. Plus, according to their own website they close at four (although I think they close a bit later than that, to be fair).

And by the by, I don't think it's too much to ask to hope for subsidised healthy food options on campus - these companies are, after all, making a fortune off us, before we head into the "real world".

Raphael

The ones on the website say subject to change. They must have changed, since the signs in there say that it's open till 10, and I've seen it open quite late, though I don;t know what time exactly.

And I've never had any problem with the food there.

Tayto2000

They change their opening hours all the time, it was originally meant to be open 24 hours, that got scaled back and I've noticed that they seem to be pulling in the hours even further... I'm guessing there's not enough business in the evenings to be worth their while staffing the place...

If I'm staying late, I just go to 911 for a sandwich to have later. Bit of planning is all it takes. Also, Centra in Merville is open on Sundays, they do a mean roll and not too expensive either...

None of the food outlets except the main restaurant are interested in subsidising food because they are already paying through the nose for the privilege of selling overpriced food and drink to an essentially captive market...

Stabshauptmann

Where did you hear it was supposed to be open 24hr a day, that sounds very strange, I cant think of any reason why it would be.

PaddyOfNine wrote:

And by the by, I don't think it's too much to ask to hope for subsidised healthy food options on campus - these companies are, after all, making a fortune off us, before we head into the "real world".

Your logic is that because these businesses are profitable they should reduce their profit margins?! Congratulation; in a thread full of poor logic and bad arguments you've managed to lower the bar yet again.

The way I think it works is that the university puts running the restaurants out for tender, and the winning bid is decided on based on, inter alia, variety and price. 911 and Centra on the other hand are just charged an exorbitant fee for retail space rather than being picked.

Tayto2000

From the publicity material that was circulating before they opened, they were going to be open 24 hours and serving beer (The taps are still there at the coffee station). That got dropped pretty quickly :pac: