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

thirtythirty

actuallylike wrote: »

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).

I was there when the ban came in about 4 or 5 years ago. It was because of some allegations of coco cola workers having bad working conditions in some rubbish country (shock horror!), and a few high-horse hippies started the campaign to ban coke.

On the day of the vote, those self-righteous hippies turned out in force to ban it, while 90% of college body thought to themselves "pff, it obviously won't happen", and didn't bother voting!

Glad to see it's under review. Can't stand "those" people dictating what normal people can and can't do because of their own morals which they think are really important.

WeeBushy

Allegations and hearsay.

I'd like to see these "vast amounts of substantiated evidence" and studies.

Jev/N

You can buy it in various places in UCD, just not in the SU shops :rolleyes:

dr gonzo

Jev/N wrote: »

You can buy it in various places in UCD, just not in the SU shops :rolleyes:

Ah, just what i was about to ask, i was a bit confused because ive never had a problem getting a can of coke. Restaurant, vending machines etc.

noodler

spottyelephant wrote: »

On the day of the vote, those self-righteous hippies turned out in force to ban it, while 90% of college body thought to themselves "pff, it obviously won't happen", and didn't bother voting!

Glad to see it's under review. Can't stand "those" people dictating what normal people can and can't do because of their own morals which they think are really important.

You really should have voted.

Davidius

So would it be cheaper than that in the vending machines or what? Those things are both sentient and evil. By which I mean they're crap.

RandolphEsq

Why is it Coke that is specifically targeted? Surely the other global companies are equally unethical in their own way. It's like the big campaign to scare people away from McDonalds a few years ago when the other global fast food chains were ignored.

Although, that being said, if the allegations against Coca Cola are in fact true then it is an outrage and of course the way to prevent it is to stop buying their products. Every Coke product sold only ensures the maintaining of the alleged status quo which no decent human being can say they support. I will research the allegations so as to make an informed vote, instead of saying "Uh, stupid ban, uh, I can just go get Coke in the Arts cafe, uh, who cares about Columbia"

dyl10

spottyelephant wrote: »

I was there when the ban came in about 4 or 5 years ago. It was because of some allegations of coco cola workers having bad working conditions in some rubbish country (shock horror!), and a few high-horse hippies started the campaign to ban coke.

On the day of the vote, those self-righteous hippies turned out in force to ban it, while 90% of college body thought to themselves "pff, it obviously won't happen", and didn't bother voting!

Glad to see it's under review. Can't stand "those" people dictating what normal people can and can't do because of their own morals which they think are really important.

:rolleyes:
God help our university.

WeeBushy

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Why is it Coke that is specifically targeted? Surely the other global companies are equally unethical in their own way. It's like the big campaign to scare people away from McDonalds a few years ago when the other global fast food chains were ignored.

Although, that being said, if the allegations against Coca Cola are in fact true then it is an outrage and of course the way to prevent it is to stop buying their products. Every Coke product sold only ensures the maintaining of the alleged status quo which no decent human being can say they support. I will research the allegations so as to make an informed vote, instead of saying "Uh, stupid ban, uh, I can just go get Coke in the Arts cafe, uh, who cares about Columbia"

I've done a bit of research myself and have found accusations but no actual evidence.

If any one does, please share it. Wouldn't buy Coca Cola products if there was any.

RandolphEsq

WeeBushy wrote: »

I've done a bit of research myself and have found accusations but no actual evidence.

If any one does, please share it. Wouldn't buy Coca Cola products if there was any.

Exactly! I like Coke products (Lilt being my favourite) but I'll vote to keep the ban if the serious allegations are true

WeeBushy

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Exactly! I like Coke products (Lilt being my favourite) but I'll vote to keep the ban if the serious allegations are true

If real evidence does arise, Coke will have more worries than being banned in UCD student shops. They'd be facing a worldwide ban.

Pride Fighter

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Exactly! I like Coke products (Lilt being my favourite) but I'll vote to keep the ban if the serious allegations are true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca-Cola#Colombia

Panamerican Beverages (Panamco), Coca-Cola's main bottler in Latin America, has been criticized for its relationship with unions. In Colombia, it has been alleged that the bottling company hired paramilitary mercenaries to assassinate union leaders. These charges have resulted in several court cases and boycott actions against The Coca-Cola Company.

In July 2001, the United Steelworkers of America and the International Labor Rights Fund filed suit in US court against Coca-Cola and some bottlers in Colombia on behalf of their workers.[32] This lawsuit was titled Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola. According to the plaintiffs, the companies "hired, contracted with or otherwise directed paramilitary security forces". The companies denied the charges. In April 2003 District Judge Jose E Martinez in Miami excluded The Coca-Cola Company and its Colombian unit because its bottling agreement did not give it "explicit control" over labor issues in Colombia.

In January 2004, a New York City-based fact-finding delegation, a self-initiated group that included some city officials in a personal capacity, [33] confirmed the workers' allegations. They found:

To date, there have been a total of 179 major human rights violations of Coca-Cola's workers, including nine murders. Family members of union activists have been abducted and tortured. Union members have been fired for attending union meetings. The company has pressured workers to resign their union membership and contractual rights, and fired workers who refused to do so.

Most troubling to the delegation were the persistent allegations that paramilitary violence against workers was done with the knowledge of and likely under the direction of company managers. The physical access that paramilitaries have had to Coca-Cola bottling plants is impossible without company knowledge and/or tacit approval....

Will you vote to keep the ban now?

Kournikova

On some level the Colombian Government also has to be held responsible for what happens there regarding Coke and other multinationals. This crap wouldn't happen in Venezuela.

I don't see the point of this ban really. TBH I didn't really know there was a ban, I always get my coke in the Centra.

RandolphEsq

Pride Fighter wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca-Cola#Colombia



Will you vote to keep the ban now?

Hmm . . . well the individuals acted in their personal capacity so they obviously don't want a result which is favourable to Coca Cola, and also the District Court Judge threw out the case against Coke, so at the moment I'm not sure what to vote. That evidence doesn't say much

The_Minister

Everyone realises that the factory in question was not actually directly controlled by Coca-Cola, right?

It was run by a local firm who had a contract with Coke.

Oh look at us, we are loike doing our bit for loike the minorities by loike yano not selling Coca Cola (coke viewed differently in D4) on our campus...

vs

Its a drink and no one influential actually cares.

RandolphEsq

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh look at us, we are loike doing our bit for loike the minorities by loike yano not selling Coca Cola (coke viewed differently in D4) on our campus...

vs

Its a drink and no one influential actually cares.

That is completely wrong. Neither side is anything like those two

The_Minister wrote: »

Everyone realises that the factory in question was not actually directly controlled by Coca-Cola, right?

It was run by a local firm who had a contract with Coke.

That seems to be the case though how much Coke are actually involved is the issue that needs to be clarified

ghostchant

Cigarette companies aren't exactly squeaky-clean entities, and considering the motivation for the coke ban, has anyone ever considered banning cigarettes from SU shops? (for the record I'm not saying that's a good idea, I'm just curious)

thirtythirty

dyl10 wrote: »

:rolleyes:
God help our university.

Ye I know. WAY too many hippies

Ginja Ninja

this is why I think the SU have their priorities mixed up:

referendum on the supply of coke that will take a fair bit of organising and time

vs.

gary letting fees for the health centre slip by without asking any other poinions and breaking his own mandated position.

hmm,which one would make more sense to get this much hype? oh yeah,that's right coke is more important than sti screening and student health

actuallylike

I'd imagine that quite a bit of the people that voted for the ban dabble in other Colombian products at the weekend that have resulted in quite a few more deaths.
Obviously I can't prove this, it's just an allegation but hey, this is the place for allegations, isn't it?

errlloyd

I think the issue here isn't that occassionally when I'm lurking in the SU centre I need to walk further for coke. The real issue is that pepsi cans in the SU centre are 80 cent, thats 20% less than coke is most places (In Roebuck its 90c I think its the same in Eng) With the amount of the stuff I drink that 20% is important to me.

WeeBushy

Pride Fighter wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca-Cola#Colombia



Will you vote to keep the ban now?

As The Minister said, they worked for a different company, not Coca Cola. This also happened in a country where anyone in Unions was (is?) persecuted, blaming it on Coca Cola is a cop-out imo.

WeeBushy

Ginja Ninja wrote: »

this is why I think the SU have their priorities mixed up:

referendum on the supply of coke that will take a fair bit of organising and time

vs.

gary letting fees for the health centre slip by without asking any other poinions and breaking his own mandated position.

hmm,which one would make more sense to get this much hype? oh yeah,that's right coke is more important than sti screening and student health

Are we converting you against the SU?

One wont rock the boat in any real sense while the other is actually an important issue.. We all know which one the SU is going to hype up :rolleyes:

Ginja Ninja

I've never been a huge fan of the SU,just that it is the best way to get things done[unless you're gary]

mad lad

Coke controls the bottling factories by maintaining large equity stakes & a heavy presence on their boards, and by being their main source of business. Coke keeps its stakes in the bottlers below 50% to avoid any liabilities

FEMSA is Coke's largest Latin American bottler. FEMSA's website lists The Coca-Cola Company as owning 31.6% of its capital stock and 46.4% of its capital voting stock. Many of Cokes top executives serve as directors and alternate directors on Coca-Cola FEMSA's board.

spottyelephant wrote: »

On the day of the vote, those self-righteous hippies turned out in force to ban it, while 90% of college body thought to themselves "pff, it obviously won't happen", and didn't bother voting!

Lets say that that was true, those people actually had a second chance to come out and vote - the pro-boycott side actually got a higher percentage in the second vote.

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Why is it Coke that is specifically targeted? Surely the other global companies are equally unethical in their own way. It's like the big campaign to scare people away from McDonalds a few years ago when the other global fast food chains were ignored.

Coke was specifically targeted because the employees in the bottling factory (through a union called SINALTRAINAL) put out an interrnational call for a boycott.

As students run the SU shops, they are entitled to make decisions on what products are stocked.

Nebit

The ban is pointless, coka cola couldn't give a crap if we stocked their products or not. The whole reason for the ban is based on speculation, all its causing is inconvenience to other students.
I put time and resources into something worthwhile.

RandolphEsq

I didn't realise the vote was during the week. What was the result?

WeeBushy

RandolphEsq wrote: »

I didn't realise the vote was during the week. What was the result?

It was at the same time as the SU elections.

The results were: Yes 2152 - No 1991

Columbian workers may shed a tear that we are no longer standing strong against their oppressors, but I can now buy coke slightly more conveniently so I happy

PeterIanStaker

WeeBushy wrote: »

It was at the same time as the SU elections.

The results were: Yes 2152 - No 1991

Columbian workers may shed a tear that we are no longer standing strong against their oppressors, but I can now buy coke slightly more conveniently so I happy

In your face hipppies!