Referendum on Coca-cola ban to be held on 3rd and 4th March.

The_Minister

http://www.universityobserver.ie/2010/02/16/su-confirms-referendum-to-overturn-coca-cola-boycott/

SU confirms referendum to overturn Coca-Cola boycott
Submitted by Gavan Reilly, Deputy Editor on Tuesday, 16 February 2010

STUDENTS in UCD will be asked to vote on whether to overturn the boycott on Coca-Cola products in all Students’ Union shops, it was confirmed tonight, Tuesday 16th February.

The confirmation came after the Union’s Council voted to hold a referendum asking students whether they wished to uphold the current boycott, which was instituted in 2003 after two college-wide ballots.

The ballot must be held within two to four weeks of tonight’s meeting – meaning that the referendum will take place alongside the Students’ Union’s annual sabbatical elections, which take place across the University in two weeks’ time, on Wednesday 3rd and Thursday 4th March.

The motion to hold the referendum reviewing the decision was proposed by Gary Redmond, Students’ Union President, who noted that the vast minority of the Union’s current membership were not members of the Union when the original boycott was approved seven years ago, and called for the boycott to be reconsidered and decided upon “in the court of public opinion”.

The motion was opposed by class rep and former SU Women’s Officer, Isobel O’Connor, who proposed that the motion be deferred to a later Council meeting – meaning that the referendum, if called, would be delayed until after the mid-term break. O’Connor claimed that the decision to hold the ballot alongside the sabbatical elections was a deliberate tactic on the part of the current officers to stifle a full and open debate on the issue, while many class reps would be distracted by campaigning for the elections.

The ballot was comprehensively passed by 47 votes to 6. Voters in favour included all five of the current sabbatical officers, as well as sole Presidential candidate Paul Lynam.

The Coca-Cola Boycott was introduced in 2003 in response to claims that Coke’s Columbian operations were complicit in the paramilitary murders of several of its staff who were active in the trade union SINALTRAINAL. UCD Students’ Union was the first institution in the world to institute such a boycott; other students’ unions, including that in Trinity College, and the National Union of Students in the UK, have since instituted similar boycotts.

Elsewhere in the meeting, a motion calling for a preferendum on whether students would support a mandatory health insurance contribution or a universal €40 annual levy in contribution to the Student Health Service, intended to replace the current model of pay-per-visit funding for the service, was deferred until a council meeting to be held in the last week of March. If called, a preferendum on the issue would be held alongside the Union’s executive elections in the first week of April.

I think it's great that this ban is being reconsidered.

If you feel strongly about the issue, then don't buy Coke, and feel free to try and convince me that I shouldn't, but don't try and stop me doing what I want.

delta_bravo

Your poll options dont make much sense

Korvanica

Pepsi all the way!!!

RandolphEsq

Fcuk sake I voted yes because I was only half reading the question. I meant to vote to bring back Coke!
WTF kind of option is "yes-freedom is the only way" for supporting the ban. I saw that and thought it meant freedom to buy coke or not buy it.

Start the poll again kthx

EDIT:actually those poll options are most definitely stupid. None of them say to unban coke

The_Minister

delta_bravo wrote: »

Your poll options dont make much sense

/slapforehead.

The_Minister

Poll fixed.

Sorry about that -

Teach me not to reread my polls.

dyl10

No, keep the Coke ban.
If only on the basis that the current regime want the ban overturned.

sceptre

who noted that the vast minority of the Union’s current membership were not members of the Union when the original boycott was approved seven years ago

Majority rather than minority I hope:)

a preferendum

Hmmmm.


Is the ban everywhere in UCD or is it like UL's Nestle ban, where I can't buy a Kit Kat in the SU shop so I go to the college bar instead to get one?

WeeBushy

You think buying coke is evil? Then don't buy it. Simples.

Doesn't make much of a difference either way though, you can buy it in any other shop in UCD or in vending machines right outside the SU shop under the library...

Fad

I dont like Coke, the taste or the company (It has to do sometimes), it's available in SO MANY places on campus though. Dont understand the boycott if they allow coca-cola branded vending machines on campus.....

My main concern is it will limit pepsi supplies on campus >_<

WeeBushy

sceptre wrote: »

Is the ban everywhere in UCD or is it like UL's Nestle ban, where I can't buy a Kit Kat in the SU shop so I go to the college bar instead to get one?

You don't even have to go that far in UCD, there are vending machines selling it right outside the SU shop.

Pigwidgeon

If they're going to do it, do it right and ban it everywhere, as said above you can get it in the vending machines outside the SU shops.
Pepsi > Coke anyway.

WeeBushy

kateos2 wrote: »

If they're going to do it, do it right and ban it everywhere, as said above you can get it in the vending machines outside the SU shops.
Pepsi > Coke anyway.

I'm not up to speed on Coke's current standing, but have they not cleaned up their act since their treatment of employees first came to light? Is the reason why it was banned in the first place not now outdated?

They couldn't ban it everywhere as the SU only have control of the SU shops.

Pigwidgeon

WeeBushy wrote: »

I'm not up to speed on Coke's current standing, but have they not cleaned up their act since their treatment of employees first came to light? Is the reason why it was banned in the first place not now outdated?

They couldn't ban it everywhere as the SU only have control of the SU shops.

Hmm, I'm not sure, I'd say they'd have to have. I really don't care if it's banned or not, it just didn't make sense to me to have it only partially banned, but as you've pointed out to me now, that would be impossible.

Red Alert

It's mad that you can buy coke in the vending machine but not from the SU shop 2 metres away from it. Everyone in UCD is an adult and should be left to make choices in their purchasing habits themselves. This is not East Germany.

dyl10

WeeBushy wrote: »

You think buying coke is evil? Then don't buy it. Simples.

I was thinking the same about human trafficking and the sex trade

The_Minister

dyl10 wrote: »

I was thinking the same about human trafficking and the sex trade

Buying Coke < Human Trafficking.

WeeBushy

dyl10 wrote: »

I was thinking the same about human trafficking and the sex trade

Are you actually comparing coke to human trafficking and the sex trade?

dyl10

The_Minister wrote: »

Buying Coke < Human Trafficking.

Yeh, one causes diabetes the other can give you AIDS:)

actuallylike

Typical student attitudes, wanna change the world regardless of what, how , why and any consequences incurred. All they have to go on are allegations about Coca Cola but sure that's enough isn't it? :rolleyes:
Who do they think they are telling, no sorry, forcing people to not do something. If they feel that strongly, then educate people, it's a harder path then simply banning something but it is the better route. These students will look back at their policies in years to come and be pretty embarassed hopefully, they're not Baader or Meinhoff for jaysus sake!

dyl10

WeeBushy wrote: »

Are you actually comparing coke to human trafficking and the sex trade?

No, I'm comparing your right to choose.

dyl10

actuallylike wrote: »

Typical student attitudes, wanna change the world regardless of what, how , why and any consequences incurred. All they have to go on are allegations about Coca Cola but sure that's enough isn't it? :rolleyes:
Who do they think they are telling, no sorry, forcing people to not do something. If they feel that strongly, then educate people, it's a harder path then simply banning something but it is the better route. These students will look back at their policies in years to come and be pretty embarassed hopefully, they're not Baader or Meinhoff for jaysus sake!

You are aware that the referendum is to remove the boycott, that was voted on years ago by students?
I actually think the point of the referendum is that the current students aren't making these "allegations" any more.

33% God

actuallylike wrote: »

Typical student attitudes, wanna change the world regardless of what, how , why and any consequences incurred. All they have to go on are allegations about Coca Cola but sure that's enough isn't it? :rolleyes:
Who do they think they are telling, no sorry, forcing people to not do something. If they feel that strongly, then educate people, it's a harder path then simply banning something but it is the better route. These students will look back at their policies in years to come and be pretty embarassed hopefully, they're not Baader or Meinhoff for jaysus sake!

They're not forcing you to do anything, they're simply refusing to stock a product in the stores that they own and control.
They got the mandate to make this decision by asking for the opinion of the majority of the student body. They did this by educating them.

WeeBushy

dyl10 wrote: »

No, I'm comparing your right to choose.

One is illegal so you have no right of choice. Another is legal so you do have a right of choice.

actuallylike

dyl10 wrote: »

You are aware that the referendum is to remove the boycott, that was voted on years ago by students?
I actually think the point of the referendum is that the current students aren't making these "allegations" any more.

I know it is, it just made me remember when the ban was first implemented, made me angry. Hope it gets changed.

33% God wrote: »

They're not forcing you to do anything, they're simply refusing to stock a product in the stores that they own and control.
They got the mandate to make this decision by asking for the opinion of the majority of the student body. They did this by educating them.

If they educated them, and they felt the same then they wouldn't buy it so why do they have to get rid of it? If 90% didn't want Coke in UCD, well to get rid of it is unfair on the other 10% (who do want it).
Just having it on the shelf isn't going to do anything to the people who want it banned, Coca Cola hasn't done anything illegal (definitively prooven) so they shouldn't be able to get rid of it simply because the majority of their survey wanted it gone.

rainbow kirby

I've already voted against the boycott in the 2 previous referendums, I will vote against the boycott a third time. Boycott is a waste of time and effort and is costing the SU money that the vending machine companies are making instead.

SU should be focusing its efforts on things which actually affect UCD students directly rather than trying to make a difference in Colombia.

Pride Fighter

WeeBushy wrote: »

I'm not up to speed on Coke's current standing, but have they not cleaned up their act since their treatment of employees first came to light? Is the reason why it was banned in the first place not now outdated?

They couldn't ban it everywhere as the SU only have control of the SU shops.

They have not cleaned up their act, they murdered a load of their workers in Columbia for being in a union.

actuallylike

Pride Fighter wrote: »

They have not cleaned up their act, they murdered a load of their workers in Columbia for being in a union.

When was this?

WeeBushy

Pride Fighter wrote: »

They have not cleaned up their act, they murdered a load of their workers in Columbia for being in a union.

Was that before the SU put forward the original referendum to ban coca cola?

Also AFAIK, that case was to do with Columbia being a country rigorously opposed to unions in general, and they were the ones who actually killed them, because they were union leaders. There was, and still is, no proof that Coca Cola were involved in the murders.

I could be wrong, as I said I'm not up to speed with the whole affair.

actuallylike

WeeBushy wrote: »

Was that before the SU put forward the original referendum to ban coca cola?

Also AFAIK, that case was to do with Columbia being a country rigorously opposed to unions in general, and they were the ones who actually killed them, because they were union leaders. There was, and still is, no proof that Coca Cola were involved in the murders.

I could be wrong, as I said I'm not up to speed with the whole affair.

From what I gather, these events took place some time in the 80's? Or maybe 90's, either way there's been plenty of time to clean up their act (not that there's proof of them actually doing anything).

1968

An article published in a student paper in the Mount Allison University in Sackville, California on February 11th 2010. A group there is trying to make the campus Coke free. Shows the issue hasn't gone away.

The Coca-Cola Company is a massive multinational corporation, earning $6 billion profits in the year 2008 alone. Coke has worked to maintain a wholesome image by associating itself with everything from a rosy-cheeked Santa Claus to supporting Canadian Olympic athletes.

However, opposition to the company is growing in the wake of vast amounts of substantiated evidence that Coke is violating human rights and destroying the environment across the globe. Coke has been accused of supporting groups responsible for the intimidation, torture, and even murder of union members in Columbia and abroad. Coke’s open hostility toward unions has led to mass terminations of employees involved with unions in Turkey and Indonesia.

Studies have confirmed that Coke is responsible for draining entire water sources in over fifty communities, polluting the area surrounding its bottling plants, and even selling toxic waste marketed as “fertilizer” to farmers. Government tests showed that Coke products contained high levels of pesticides, provoking the Indian government to ban Coke from the parliamentary cafeteria. Coke’s justification has been that small levels of DDT and other pesticides are “not harmful to the health of the consumers.”

Increased awareness of the realities of Coke’s international practices has prompted many universities to impose an outright ban on the selling of Coke products on campus, and many others are currently in the process of doing so.

http://www.argosy.ca/view.php?aid=42365