Forum bar & coke....?

Johnmb

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

From http://www.colombiasolidarity.org.uk
However, in the USA, in a court case brought in solidarity with Sinaltrainal by the United Steel Workers Union, a judge has ruled that there is enough evidence for a case to continue against Coca Cola’s Colombian subsidiaries. However, the multinational refuses to cooperate with the union


I believe because Im hearing this from so many quaters that it is true. Now I do accept that this is exactly how proparganda works, you hear it enough you accept it. What do you know about the said court case that would imply the above quote is untrue

Back at the time this was going on in UCD, I was a student, and I felt that the person instigating it was just looking for a bit of notice, and I still do feel that way as I agree with the poster above that if he really wanted to support Sinaltrainal he would have looked for the Union to publicise things and tried to convince people to actually boycot Coke, rather than simply have them buy it somewhere other than the Union shops (rightly or wrongly is irrelevant, it is simply what I think). So I looked into it myself then, rather than taking his word for it. Yahoo's news page turned up several stories by independent news sources about the US court case, and they all reported that the US court sympathised with the families of the murdered victims (note, the families, not Sinaltrainal), but did not consider any of the evidence presented to be relevant to the US court. Basically, they decided that it was a local issue, and that Coca Cola was not involved as a multi-national company (or something to that effect). What a judge did rule was that the case could go ahead, as if it was proven, it would have had the authority to take action. But during the case, there was a lack of evidence actually presented. That's why all most search engines will pick up are the propaganda sites, as the case itself did nothing to provide evidence in support of either side. Whether or not anyone else believes that Sinaltrainal are linked to the left wing terrorists doesn't really matter, the fact is that the AUC believe that they have links, and therefore consider them to be legitimate targets, regardless of the factory in question (which is a bottling company, not Coca Cola, although Coke usually own shares in it's bottling companies AFAIK, but I haven't seen a list of the shareholders of the bottling factory in question).

Stabshauptmann

That all sounds fair enough and quite reasonable.

So what you are saying is that the organisations listed as backing the union arent the equivilant of the ICTU and that the court case in question was followed by another more inconclusive one.
Thats given me much to chew on.

However Coca Cola still owed a duty of care to those workers. If the plant were in Ireland and I died while on the job my family would recieve some sort of payment from Coca Cola AFAIK
Lots of papers are alledgeing Coca Cola hired the AUC to sort out their labour problems, but you point out that the AUC just hate Sinaltrainal. What do you say to the fairly widespread charges against Coke and the relations between the leadership of Coca Cola in Colombia with the paramilitary groups; a fact that was denounced by Cambio magazine (No. 296 of December 1996) and by the international magazine of the Swedish unions.

The multinational based its defence on press communiques by the Intrenational Union of Foodworkers and by Sinaltrainbec (a Colombian union that was destroyed recently by the same corporation). Coca Cola hid behind the impunity of the Colombian justice system which, as stated in reports by the UN High Comissioner and NGOs, provides guarantees for perpetrators of human rights violations

IMO Cokes response to these allegations are evasive and bully boy tactics.Plus the fact that Coca Cola have benifited enormously from the weakining of the union. IMO that detracts from their credibility and I tend to believe their accusers.

Stabshauptmann

Also the whoole we dont own the plants, were just their sole customers and large shareholders line sounds a lot like the plants are dealing with the AUC and Coca Cola are powerless to stop them :rollseyes:

Johnmb

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

That all sounds fair enough and quite reasonable.

So what you are saying is that the organisations listed as backing the union arent the equivilant of the ICTU and that the court case in question was followed by another more inconclusive one.
Thats given me much to chew on.

There was only one court case, it was thrown out. What is being quoted as a victory in a court case was simply a preliminary hearing that decided to allow a court case.

However Coca Cola still owed a duty of care to those workers. If the plant were in Ireland and I died while on the job my family would recieve some sort of payment from Coca Cola AFAIK

Unlikely if you were shot by a terrorist organisation, and were a high up member of another organisation thought to have links to other terrorists. I'm sure there's a precedent up north with all the paramilitary activity that has gone on over the years.

Lots of papers are alledgeing Coca Cola hired the AUC to sort out their labour problems, but you point out that the AUC just hate Sinaltrainal. What do you say to the fairly widespread charges against Coke and the relations between the leadership of Coca Cola in Colombia with the paramilitary groups; a fact that was denounced by Cambio magazine (No. 296 of December 1996) and by the international magazine of the Swedish unions.

I ask for actual evidence, not hearsay. So far, I have seen no more evidence produced to support the claims against Coke than I've seen to support the claims against Sinaltrainal.

The multinational based its defence on press communiques by the Intrenational Union of Foodworkers and by Sinaltrainbec (a Colombian union that was destroyed recently by the same corporation). Coca Cola hid behind the impunity of the Colombian justice system which, as stated in reports by the UN High Comissioner and NGOs, provides guarantees for perpetrators of human rights violations

But that's quite a sly slight of hand. The first part refers to Coke, and the second refers to a completely different report, but placed together as if to infer that it applied to Coke. The UN et al reports don't refer to Coke.

IMO Cokes response to these allegations are evasive and bully boy tactics.Plus the fact that Coca Cola have benifited enormously from the weakining of the union. IMO that detracts from their credibility and I tend to believe their accusers.

Well I tend to require evidence. There are many people and organisations that I don't like, but I won't judge them guilty of anything unless I am given evidence.

Johnmb

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Also the whoole we dont own the plants, were just their sole customers and large shareholders line sounds a lot like the plants are dealing with the AUC and Coca Cola are powerless to stop them :rollseyes:

But no actual evidence has ever been produced to show that the local bottling company are dealing with the AUC, so Coke are fairly powerless. They cannot unilaterally pull out of their contracts just for the heck of it (unless the other party was incredibly stupid when it negotiated the contract).

Stabshauptmann

You've said you havent seen much factual evidence either way, so it comes down to opinion. My opinion is that Coca Cola are not acting in the most ethical manner possible, its my opinion and I will continue researching this.
I respect your opinion, and how you made it, you've obviouly done a lot of work on the matter.
It is also my opinion that given the circumstances withdrawing the sale of Coke was appropriate given the possibility that human lifes were at stake. They may not have been, but for me, the possibility was enough.

Stabshauptmann

And I dont consider it misdirection, Im attacking the credibility of Coca Colas defence. Hiding behind a recognised flawed system

killbillie

im_not_ok wrote:

i just think its strange that a shop thats covered in logos for a product doesn't sell that product. i don't know if its legal to do that but its not too much of a problem cos i can just go to the science canteen for coke

The reason the Science shop still has Coke emblazoned all over it is that it would cost too much appartently to get a new shutter etc.

But no actual evidence has ever been produced to show that the local bottling company are dealing with the AUC, so Coke are fairly powerless. They cannot unilaterally pull out of their contracts just for the heck of it (unless the other party was incredibly stupid when it negotiated the contract).

At the minute there is not enough evidence to hold up claims in court that the IRA were involved in the Northern Bank raid but I think most people here would agree that they were involved. IMO ditto in Columbia.

Stabshauptmann

killbillie wrote:

The reason the Science shop still has Coke emblazoned all over it is that it would cost too much appartently to get a new shutter etc.



At the minute there is not enough evidence to hold up claims in court that the IRA were involved in the Northern Bank raid but I think most people here would agree that they were involved. IMO ditto in Columbia.

Ok thats it Im sticking my name to this. I know Zane you pointed it out as well, but if justice be served Irish1 points it out the whole time. Anyway Im naming it :cool:
Redeyes law:All political discussions in Ireland eventually lead back to the IRA.

Now to put that up there with all the others;
Godwins law: All debates on the internet eventually result in someone bringing up Nazis (and that person invariably looses) [or something to that effect]
Sleepy's law: For all and every situation there is a simpsons quote to match
Sykes law: Everyone on the internet is male untill proven otherwise

TBH thats all I know

lordgoat

Johnmb wrote:

Back at the time this was going on in UCD, I was a student, and I felt that the person instigating it was just looking for a bit of notice,

exactly, its like watching transition year students trying to 'save the whales'...

please are people still on a high horse over coke, get over it, you're not goingto change the world and people are sick and tired of hearing about the evils of coke. and when you compare a soft drink to cocacine it looks remedial.

Stabshauptmann

Bout as stupid as comparing Cocaine to heroin

If you took your head out of the sand you'd actually see the difference this campaign and ones like it have had.
No one is more blind than he that doesnt want to see...

Slash/ED

lordgoat wrote:

exactly, its like watching transition year students trying to 'save the whales'...

My thoughts exactly

Stabshauptmann

so what, ye three rebels are too cool to care. Yeah reminds me of school alright...

Johnmb

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Bout as stupid as comparing Cocaine to heroin

If you took your head out of the sand you'd actually see the difference this campaign and ones like it have had.
No one is more blind than he that doesnt want to see...

It's had no effect. People just buy their Coke in other shops on campus. Actually, it would have had an effect, the student's themselves have to pay more, chances are that Coke get more profit as a result. The shops used to get discounts IIRC, and I doubt the other sources get such discounts, so Coke earn more (assuming the discounts were due to sponsorship of the union, and not just the standard bulk discounts, which is likely as none of the other sources ever competed on price). And off the campus, nothing at all has changed. The only people who don't buy Coke now are the ones who didn't buy it before, nothing has changed.

panda100

The coke ban is ridiculous,the referendum was a joke.What makes me laugh is that the guy who instigated it is always complaining we live in a 'nanny state' and the goverment shouldnt force anything on anyone e.g smoking ban. I think he should practice what he preaches.There shouldnt have even been a referendum in the first place-peopole should be able to make up their own minds.

lordgoat

Johnmb wrote:

It's had no effect. People just buy their Coke in other shops on campus. Actually, it would have had an effect, the student's themselves have to pay more, chances are that Coke get more profit as a result. The shops used to get discounts IIRC, and I doubt the other sources get such discounts, so Coke earn more (assuming the discounts were due to sponsorship of the union, and not just the standard bulk discounts, which is likely as none of the other sources ever competed on price). And off the campus, nothing at all has changed. The only people who don't buy Coke now are the ones who didn't buy it before, nothing has changed.

well said
now that is ironic! and the only peopple that do not but coke are the same are, as said, the ones who didn't buy it before. to quote a recent film the ban is as usleful as a cock flavoured lollipop

larryone

...as much use as a chocolate kettle.
Socialism is about having choice, having the right to choose, and about equality.
Fascism is about taking choice away, removing the right to choose, and singling out those you dont like.
This ban was instigated by "Socialists" But which political paradigm does it fit more????

HappyCrackHead

The idea of the coke ban in SU shops simply means that if someone doesnt want to drink pepsi, lets be fair the stuff is rank unless ur a science mutant, they get charged through the nose. There is a 40c discrepency between a bottle of coke (or other coca cola product) and a bottle of pepsi (or C&C or 7up) this is direct exploitation of students right there.

AND wheres our students union in all this? they just say dont drink coke and tell u about poor columbian workers. for one think, my coke comes from the factory on the Naas Road, the SU should look up a thing or two. The two biggest exports of this country are... (drum roll please) viagra and coca cola formula. So in a way you could thank coke for the celtic tiger and some of us, like me, making it to 3rd level education.

Screw the hypocracy of those hacks in their ivory tower.... i mean student centre... gits...