Coca Cola Referendum

delta_bravo

Was reading in the observer today that there will be a referendum on the return of Coca Cola. Not sure who organised the signatures but it will be interesting to see how this one pans out. How would you vote?

c-note

By all means, if somebody has a problem with any product or company on ethical grouds, and feel like taking a stand, then bring attention to the issue, with SU approval and within any rules: hand out fliers, put up posters, organise a rally, bring in speakers from columbia, chain yourself to the rails, go on hunger strike... take the measures you feel you need to...

But
you cant FORCE anyone to read your fliers, read your posters, go to your rallies or events or take any notice of you protests.

I'm not making any call on how ethical or not any company is, but you have to educate people and then give them a choice... instead of choosing for them. put coke back on the shelves. mount an awareness campaign if you wnat to, but let the people decide for themselves.

KeyLimePie

i miss diet coke..............

delta_bravo

I think part of the article stated that work practices and safety has greatly improved in the coca cola plant in Columbia which was the stimulus for this boycott so as this has improved the ban should be lifted.

Pride Fighter

No way should that rubbish be sold in SU shops. It tastes muck.

dhaddock

If you don't like it, don't buy it. If the article is true it should definately be reintroduced.

rainbow kirby

*swears*

After all these years of vending machine prices, they FINALLY talk about lifting the ban when I'm right at the end of final year? Time for me to vote against the ban for a third time.

Stabshauptmann

c-note wrote: »

but you have to educate people and then give them a choice... instead of choosing for them. put coke back on the shelves. mount an awareness campaign if you wnat to, but let the people decide for themselves.

For the sake of anyone who wasnt around when the first and second referenda were held. Thats exactly what happened; there was an awareness campaign, some Columbian trade unionists came over and a coca cola manager in Ireland gave a talk then the owners of the shop collectively decided not to stock coke in their shops.

Now I'm not giving any opinion on coke, but nobody was forced to do anything, or prevented from doing anything. The decision not to stock coke was very open and democratic and wasnt taken solely by management, every stake holder had a say.

Those who talk about the right to choose must accept that a business has a right to make a choice too, and that the coke decision was made by the owners as is their right, in the most democratic and transparent way possible.

Now that thats been explained, anyone who posts anything from this point on about having views forced on them, or their right to choose, is a twat.

Brimmy

I gave up Coke (and all fizzy drinks) for lent and haven't broken it yet so I can honestly say I don't care

Haven't read the article yet, if the working improvements have been improved there's no need for the ban really. Though I doubt the company have really noticed the major loss in profits that is the SU shop :pac:

griffdaddy

i believe it's the choice of a new generation :pac:

Riamfada

Please people, whether you like or dislike coke, the man, commercialism or anything that anyone who does things that normal people do which makes them "uncool" and a slave to modern degenercy is not the topic of this thread.

Ill vote no on the return of coke.The fact that there is a Coke/Nestle boycott highlights the issues rather than attempts to bring down the coke empire. Without this boycott these issues would never have come to my attention at least. Now I am aware of the contention and buy my coke 20 yards from the SU shop in 911 or in the restauraunt.

So Brimmy its about highlighting awareness , not taking down Coke. Please buy your coke somewhere else on Campus and let the SU and third level students do something positive in the world rather than another self gratifying fees rally.

How about switching the ban to Red Bull.. That stuff messes with people

Stabshauptmann

griffdaddy wrote: »

i believe it's the choice of a new generation :pac:

I agree.

I'd be interested to read that article, a swiss person was telling me about all the good nestle has done recently too

Brimmy

Grimes I know what it's about. I just see it as rather futile when it's so easily accessible through out the rest of the campus.

It's a rather futile effort to ban it from 2 shops out of how many on campus? I think people should have the choice on where to buy it if they want, when they want.

If the SU want to highlight awarness they should continue to bring the likes of Mark Thomas over who was here at the start of the year. Which allows for students to gain an understanding and chose from themselves as many just walk out of the SU and into Elements or the Arts Cafe or wherever to buy it instead.

Stabshauptmann

Brimmy wrote: »

to ban it from 2 shops

Where is it banned? Who banned it? Is there a conspiracy I'm not aware of?

Its not "banned" from anywhere. Some people have chosen not to buy it, nothing more.

I think people should have the choice on where to buy it if they want

rofl

bnt

Let them back in, if only to spark off a competition between them and PepsiCo. I'm sure either of those would love to have an exclusivity deal with UCD, and discount wholesale prices for the privilege.

That's what they do in schools in the USA, which explains a few things about the students at schools in the USA. Sugar x Caffeine => attention span of a moth. :cool:

I'm assuming that folks supporting this boycott don't have anything in the wardrobe by Abercombie & Fitch, Calvin Klein, Levi Strauss etc., far less any cheap clothes from Penneys. Royshe?

Brimmy

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Where is it banned? Who banned it? Is there a conspiracy I'm not aware of?

Its not "banned" from anywhere. Some people have chosen not to buy it, nothing more.

Your debating terminology of the word? The point still stands.

If you have nothing better to contribute than a petty remark over a word when you know what I was getting at then don't bother posting.

mad lad

I'm assuming that folks supporting this boycott don't have anything in the wardrobe by Abercombie & Fitch, Calvin Klein, Levi Strauss etc., far less any cheap clothes from Penneys. Royshe?

The call for a boycott came from people who work in the bottling factories themselves. There are 9 corpses of SINALTRAINAL trade union members lying in graves.

I'm not sure if any of them or the other workers in the factories had clothes from Pennys. Royshe.

If the shareholders of Pennys decided to withdraw a line of clothes from outlets, nobody would claim that they were being undemocratic.

The members of a business made a decision on whether or not to stock a product. They did this by allowing anyone who wanted to have an input, vote. Irrespective of the merits of a boycott, I don't see why people have a problem with this.

Stabshauptmann

Brimmy wrote: »

Your debating terminology of the word? The point still stands.

If you have nothing better to contribute than a petty remark over a word when you know what I was getting at then don't bother posting.

you dont have a point thats whats so funny. you know there is no ban, thats whats so funny.

You dont have a leg to stand on, thats why you twist words. You dont like a choice someone made because you have a right to choose what they choose. What utterly rediculous tripe.

Brimmy

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

you dont have a point thats whats so funny. you know there is no ban, thats whats so funny.

You dont have a leg to stand on, thats why you twist words. You dont like a choice someone made because you have a right to choose what they choose. What utterly rediculous tripe.

I don't have a point that's why there's a referendum on the issue...makes sense.

When you google 'ban' it brings you to the answers.com definition. The first one being, "To prohibit, especially by official decree". Students voted to PROHIBIT the sale of Coca Cola from the shops which they can control. It being removed effectively bans it from those areas of campus.

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

You dont like a choice someone made because you have a right to choose what they choose.

That is not what I said and I never even implied anything that could remotely be linked to that. I'm all for the vote, I'm for Coca Cola being sold again. If the CURRENT students vote that it shouldn't be that's fine, but the reason for the referendum is because most of the CURRENT student body have never had their say on this issue aired.

So yes I have no leg to stand on. Seriously contribute something worthwhile or just don't bother.

c-note

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

For the sake of anyone who wasnt around when the first and second referenda were held. Thats exactly what happened; there was an awareness campaign, some Columbian trade unionists came over and a coca cola manager in Ireland gave a talk then the owners of the shop collectively decided not to stock coke in their shops.

Now I'm not giving any opinion on coke, but nobody was forced to do anything, or prevented from doing anything. The decision not to stock coke was very open and democratic and wasnt taken solely by management, every stake holder had a say.

Those who talk about the right to choose must accept that a business has a right to make a choice too, and that the coke decision was made by the owners as is their right, in the most democratic and transparent way possible.

Now that thats been explained, anyone who posts anything from this point on about having views forced on them, or their right to choose, is a twat.

kewl, didnt know the details, wasnt trying to be a twat:D

but if the owners of the two shops decided themselves not to stock it... then what use is a referendum to bring it back, surely thats for the owners themselves to decide?? why should students have a say... and if they vote "bring it back" why should the shop owners listen to them?

mad lad

It's a students union shop - students are the owners.

Stabshauptmann

Brimmy wrote: »

I don't have a point that's why there's a referendum on the issue...makes sense.

Your point is that the decision not to stock coke effects your right to choose, Ive explained why this is a ridiculous point before, and will again in this post.

Theres a referendum on whether or not as the collective owners of the SU shop want to stock coke in our shops.

Your point about being denied your freedom to choose is retarded.
You're attempt to back track is even more retarded.

When you google 'ban' it brings you to the answers.com definition. The first one being, "To prohibit, especially by official decree". Students voted to PROHIBIT the sale of Coca Cola from the shops which they can control. It being removed effectively bans it from those areas of campus.

Ah so you do understand, people made a choice.

KR wrote:

You dont like a choice someone made because you have a right to choose what they choose. What utterly ridiculous tripe.

That is not what I said and I never even implied anything that could remotely be linked to that.

A)You dont like a choice someone made.
You dont like that the owners of the SU shops have decided not to stock coke.

"I think people should have the choice on where to buy it if they want, when they want."
You think that you're choice to buy coke overrides the shop owners choice whether or not to sell it.

C)That is utterly ridiculous tripe.
What your saying is stupid because its a complete contradiction.

Have I broken that down into simple enough little pieces for you?

I'm all for the vote, I'm for Coca Cola being sold again. If the CURRENT students vote that it shouldn't be that's fine, but the reason for the referendum is because most of the CURRENT student body have never had their say on this issue aired.

Yay, you found an actually point. Well done. We'll give you a silver star. You cant have a gold one, because if you look up, that points already been made by griffdaddy.

So yes I have no leg to stand on. Seriously contribute something worthwhile or just don't bother.

Oh but it is worthwhile .
Knowing that some twat would come along and spew nonesense, either through ignorance or just being a gob****e who cant think of any legitimate reason for their stance (not saying there aren't any, just some people are too idiotic / lazy to think of any) I gave a very clear explanation of the current situation, and how that decision was made.

And take my little discussion with you. You were talking nonesense, and with just a little gentle prodding you're now making a legitimate point. How can that not be worthwhile?

Stabshauptmann

c-note wrote: »

kewl, didnt know the details, wasnt trying to be a twat:D

but if the owners of the two shops decided themselves not to stock it... then what use is a referendum to bring it back, surely thats for the owners themselves to decide?? why should students have a say... and if they vote "bring it back" why should the shop owners listen to them?

Hi c-note,

I wasnt saying you were being a twat. I dont think you were / are.
This is a very interesting topic, and there are many facets of the "ban" that make for interesting discussion.

You're misunderstanding was quite natural, I just wanted to offer some explanation so that others didnt make the same erroneous claims.

When people say the student union they sometimes only mean to talk about the current sabbatical officers, or a particular officer.
Sometimes they mean all the reps (everyone that makes up council).

The decision not to stock coca cola (and nestle) in SU shops was made by referendum. Every student at the time had the opportunity to vote.

The reason the students made this collective decision is that in theory they are the collective owners of the SU shops and Student Club (to a certain extent).

So it needs to be made clear, that the students, collectively, as collective owners, decided not to stock certain products in their shops.
There was/is no external force prohibiting these shops from choosing whether or not to stock coke

At no time did the SU (whatever meaning you want to attach from above) force this decision on other shops / operators in UCD.

Whatever arguments anyone wants to make, noone has been denied freedom to choose.
This "ban is a great and rare example of people exercising their right to choose.

Brimmy

Ok so you do realize that you're agreeing with me now? You said yourself that "every student at the time had the opportunity to vote". That was my point, at the time, not the current students that's why I'm for the referendum.

I'm sorry if you got confused with the wording but there was no need to be so indignant in your response for what was a simple misunderstanding.

rainbow kirby

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

The decision not to stock coca cola (and nestle) in SU shops was made by referendum. Every student at the time had the opportunity to vote.

The reason the students made this collective decision is that in theory they are the collective owners of the SU shops and Student Club (to a certain extent).

This decision was made back in the 2003/04 academic year, where there was a referendum early in the year, and then a second (very confusingly worded - a vote for the ban at this one was a NO vote) referendum later in the year. Considering most final year students now started in UCD in 2005 or 2006, there should have been a referendum on it LONG before now. There aren't many of us at all who will have had the chance to vote against it 3 times.

The_Minister

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Knowing that some twat would come along and spew nonesense, either through ignorance or just being a gob****e who cant think of any legitimate reason for their stance (not saying there aren't any, just some people are too idiotic / lazy to think of any)

Careful now.

33% God

rainbow kirby wrote: »

This decision was made back in the 2003/04 academic year, where there was a referendum early in the year, and then a second (very confusingly worded - a vote for the ban at this one was a NO vote) referendum later in the year. Considering most final year students now started in UCD in 2005 or 2006, there should have been a referendum on it LONG before now. There aren't many of us at all who will have had the chance to vote against it 3 times.

So, when's the next divorce referendum?
I never had a chance to vote on that.

mad lad

So, when's the next divorce referendum?
I never had a chance to vote on that.

You think thats bad? I never got to vote on adopting the Irish constitution. Perhaps every year we should vote on everything thats been voted on before in the history of irish politics because a new group of people turn 18.

Kat Slater

They should treat students like adults and let them make the choice whether to purchase it or not. If you're going to ban Coke, there's a lot of things in your life you shouldn't consume.

It's things like this that mean I don't have a huge amount of time for the SU.

The_Minister

33% God wrote: »

So, when's the next divorce referendum?
I never had a chance to vote on that.

In fairness, the issues surrounding divorce have not changed in the past few years because it is a long-running social policy, but the Coke situation has, as it is a temporary phenomenon.
The whole point of the ban, IMO, is that someday it is lifted, otherwise, why would Coke change?

Raphael

Kat Slater wrote: »

They should treat students like adults and let them make the choice whether to purchase it or not. If you're going to ban Coke, there's a lot of things in your life you shouldn't consume.

It's things like this that mean I don't have a huge amount of time for the SU.

The boycott was initiated based on a referendum. THe student body voted to stop selling Coke in the SU shops. It was not the big bad SU forbidding you from buying coke. Please consider the facts next time you try to make a point.