UCD Coke Boycott

beardedchicken

i just heard that the re-referendum has failed, and the boycott stays.

what do people think of this?
i think that regardless of which side you agree with, this second referendum was a dreadful waste of student funds, that could have been better spent on more important matters, like fighting against the cuts in library funding.

Töpher

personally i'm happy the boycott stands (i forgot my student card on both days and couldn't vote! opps!)

it was a dreadful waste of funding. there'll probably be a third one now cuz people who were out sick or something couldn't vote!

in my own honest opinion i think the call for a re-vote was selfish. i know from what i saw in people alot of people on hearing that cadbury (i think it was cadbury) would be banned suddenly got very pissed off, i got the opinion that no one cared about the reason for the original vote, they voted to ban coke for the laugh, and when something happened that may affect what chocolate they had to eat they suddenly got very uptight on it all. now this is of course only my opinion judging from how i saw many people react.

either way, i'm happy it stands. and the money could have been better spent on anything else!!

Woden

I wanted coke back, i think its ridiculous that it was banned. If people want to choose not to buy coke in the first place for whatever reasons thats there choice. i don't particularly give a crap whats happening over in columbia and feel i should have the right to buy coke in an s.u shop if i want too.

the first time i voted to keep it. the second time i forgot yesterday the referendum was on and my wallet was up in the lab so didn't vote not that it would have matter in the end.

with regards to the second referendum i believe one of the main reasons it was called was due to the fact of the large number of people that were not registered voters for the last election due to the new online registration system. with regards to how the money could have been spent, i don't mind about the cut backs on the library opening hours either once it has books when i need it. i do my study elsewhere.

Töpher

i wish the library had more books! i haven't been able to afford a single book this year, and cant get em in library! you can still buy coke and coke products in vending machines tho right?

Woden

yeah far as i know the vending machines and other non su run shops should still have it (which makes it kinda point less imo as sales here may just increase )

with regards to the library not having books, they continually not had books i wanted for the last few years when i needed them, so its nothing to do with the cuts now

i don't buy the books either its against my religion, i can use the departmental libraries though which i do.

Nike_Dude

Is the ban in UCD like the one in Trinity where its only banned from student union shops? Its supposed to be banned here but its in any of the campus shops I go into. The students union have to much time to on their hands if they are worrying about things that happened years ago in some-african-country-that-I-cant-remember-the-name-of Do the people who are in the union really think that they are making the world a better place or something

Dave

In fairness the stuff is happening now in columbia, and the students union didn't decide the ban, it's ye the students. Twice. Enough said really.

Woden

yeah its only the su shops here, i know in the science building anyway the whole coke refrigerator has been replaced a good while now with a 7up one i think.

ixoy

Originally posted by Nike_Dude
Do the people who are in the union really think that they are making the world a better place or something

If UCD's union is anything like Trinity's union then yes, yes they really do think they're making the world a better place. I remember sitting in the union meetings and trying not to laugh aloud when they raised similiar issues. I felt like pointing out there were far more serious issues facing them - library books, accomodation, computer facilities - but instead these nobs generally felt like addressing issues beyond what the students elected them for :rolleyes:

I urge you all to open a little Coca-cola shop on campus that sells Nestlé chocolate bars

Nike_Dude

I felt like pointing out there were far more serious issues facing them - library books, accomodation, computer facilities - but instead these nobs generally felt like addressing issues beyond what the students elected them for

Exactly the union should be worrying about things that affect the students everyday life, but then again they have very little power so its all the same really:rolleyes: I cant believe that coca-cola was banned by two elections in UCD. I conclude from this that either:
(a) The union rigged the outcome or
(b) as someone said the people who voted decided to ban it for a laugh
How people can be bothered to organise votes and stuff like this when the are more important things to do in college like going out and studying is beyond me. Coca-cola were CLEARED by a court in columbia (?) but evidently some people think they know more about the situation than the courts

Töpher

does anyone know how close it was this time? i know last time there was only like a 59 vote difference.

beardedchicken

according to indymedia (and my, what reliable source that is...) the no side won by over 600 votes. the turnout this time was higher as well.

Sangre

Fs, have the SU ever heard of freedom of choice? If I want to bycott coke, I think Ill do it on my own and not force it on anyone else.

Tbh, the arguements to ban Coke for so pathetic it was funny especially for the 2nd referendum.

'Those jobs were lost because of...uhh....the 'economy'..yeah...thats it, same reason why the hours were cut back'

Here is an EXACT quote

'If the ban on coke is reversed then Columbian paramilitaries will take this as a greenlight to attack unions'

All the evidence was against the Coke ban i.e, the Courts, the Colombian Unions. I swear to God I think people believe they have to be idealistic and noble when they're in college, they heard the Coke accusations and ignored any facts about it.
Im not saying it isnt true, but i didnt see one thing to even slighty convince me.

I voted to keep Coke in both.

Woden

not sure if someone mentioned it but SIPTU (yes a trade union) where campaigning the first time against the ban and the second time to bring it back. (bring back nestle while were at it)

DadaKopf

SIPTU members distributed unofficial leaflets stating unofficial SIPTU policy on the boycott. They distributed these leaflets the day of the first referendum. claiming them to be the official SIPTU position, when in fact the union hadn't taken a vote on the matter.

They threatned to do the same in the second referendum but they were warned by the UCDSU that if Irish Coke bottlers interfered again, the referendum would be called off. Basically, they'd be interfring in a union's own internal affairs. Very bad - and damaging - PR.

Irish Coke workers' position was the boycott would threaten their jobs. Now, as far as I know, the union movement means workers in one country should side with their workers in other countries. I spoke to one of the guys who was at the SIPTU meeting and he said that "Coke has a very special relationship with SIPTU", whatever that means.

On to the Coke referendum
I thought it was great UCD voted even more strongly to bycott Coke the second time. I think the election was run again because the main actors are looking to get elected in the next UCDSU officer elections. Richard Waghorne wants to be (Vice-)President (how he's going to do it with that speech impediment I don't know).

Michael Binchy - now there's a spa. C&E honcho, ginger tosser and leader of the second referendum, he just wanted the publicity. I spoke to him at the Arts block polling station when I was talking to a No campaigner - he came up saying "wow, you're doing pretty well, lads" and I could tell he was doing this for the attention. There was no indication of heartfelt concern for the issue at hand. Hypocritical, egomanaical tosser, I reckon.

Fs, have the SU ever heard of freedom of choice? If I want to bycott coke, I think Ill do it on my own and not force it on anyone else.

Tbh, the arguements to ban Coke for so pathetic it was funny especially for the 2nd referendum.

'Those jobs were lost because of...uhh....the 'economy'..yeah...thats it, same reason why the hours were cut back'

Here is an EXACT quote

'If the ban on coke is reversed then Columbian paramilitaries will take this as a greenlight to attack unions'

Perhaps you didn't see the SU shops' sales figures in last week's University Observer. Perhaps you also haven't read much about how UCD's HEA grant has been cut because of the budget. The SU shop figures show no change, and in some branches an increase, in sales in the last two months. The truth is, even members of SU shop staff aren't yet entirely sure why jobs have been cut. To my knowledge, the job cuts have concentrated on the Students' Centre shop, which is losing out because it's not getting enough business. As for that last quote, yeah it's dumb.

according to indymedia (and my, what reliable source that is...) the no side won by over 600 votes. the turnout this time was higher as well.

Yes indeed, around about 600 votes. My, my wasn't indymedia accurate :rolleyes:.

i got the opinion that no one cared about the reason for the original vote, they voted to ban coke for the laugh, and when something happened that may affect what chocolate they had to eat they suddenly got very uptight on it all. now this is of course only my opinion judging from how i saw many people react.

I don't see it that way. I think there are a number of reasons why people voted to keep the boycott.

First of all, I think a lot more students are interested in global issues these days and want to effect change in a positive way whatever way they can; they may actually be better off making the effort to recycle more or vote in a general election but a changing consense had at least something to do with it.

A major factor, IMHO, was the college press - the issue was very well covered by both campus papers - the Tribune a little more balanced by the right-wing observer - and this played an important role in educating the voters in their decision.

Another factor was that in both cases, the anti-Coke side outnumbered pro-Coke campaigners three-to-one. Furthermore, the quite frankly unattractive personalities of the pro-Coke side rubbed people up the wrong way - so much so they got booed out of lecture halls. Their arguments were weak and I think people picked up on their cynicism.

The final factor was the second referendum's ballot motion, something along the lines of: "I want to overturn the boycott because I like Coke and I also would like to say to Coke that I appreciate all their hard work in UCD over the last how ever many years". Some people might have agreed with the first part, but not the second part. It was a blatant political sideswipe at the anti-Coke people and it was clear that the referendum wasn't about a real issue anymore. Inevitably, more people thought: "WHOA! No way I'm voting for that!"

So I'm not surprised they lost.

Nike-Dude: the union *is* doing all those things. The Coke boycott was initiatiated and run by a bunch of students. Only one member, Finbar Dwyer, was an SU officer, and an ancillary one at that.

Speaking of which: take part in the upcoming spate of library study-ins campainging for restoring the old library opening times.

Woden

with regards to the siptu points above i was handed out siptum flyers saying remove the ban at the second referendum. last monday or tuesday i think it was at the 46A bus stop on the stillorgan duel carriage way

DadaKopf

Interesting. I actually witnessed the exchange between Paul Dillon and Anne Speed (Mrs. SIPTU). Speed seemed determined to distribute them.

See, they weren't officially sanctioned leaflets. The union is currently warring over the issue. It's amusing.

Still, glad their little intervention failed like the Bay of Pigs.

Woden

well i have to say i didn't study them in detail cause i knew where my feelings lay with the matter, but i'm pretty sure it was to do with siptu perhaps it had not officially endorsed by siptu in small print on the bottom

sionnach

Originally posted by Sangre
'If the ban on coke is reversed then Columbian paramilitaries will take this as a greenlight to attack unions'

couldn't stop laughing when i read this. I'm sure these shady colombian paramilitiaries quaked in their boots when they heard UCD were boycotting coke.....
And sangre is right, decisions like whether or not people should be allowed to buy their favuorite brand of soft drink shouldn't be forced on people. If The majority of people in UCD are anti-coke then just let THEM not buy coke, they've still reduced the campus's coke consumption by 55% or whatever the majority was.

Woden

exactly and then you have the likes of me who is just petty and will go out of his way now to buy coke on campus

sionnach

'If dataisgod goes out of his way to get coke on UCD campus then Columbian paramilitaries will take this as a greenlight to attack unions"

coming to a leaflet near YOU

Woden

lol perhaps i should get in contact with these colubmian paramilitaries and we could come to some sort of an agreement

woosaysdan

just because some people dont want to drink coke cos of whats happening in colombia doesnt mean this opinion should be forced onto everyone!!!

seamus

It's only in effect in the SU shop anyway, which is muck. Boycott the SU shop.

sionnach

Originally posted by seamus
Boycott the SU shop.

the ironing would be delicious

Nike_Dude

I'm just after reading in the trinity newspaper that the students union decided not to put the issue of banning coke to a student vote, so there isnt a ban in trinity and there never was.

Is the ban in UCD like the one in Trinity where its only banned from student union shops? Its supposed to be banned here but its in any of the campus shops I go into

It seems i should get my facts right before I start ranting about the students union:o
anyway I think that boycotting the SU shop would be poetic justice and teach the do-gooders to worry about the issues they were elected for:cool:

Annasopra

Trinity SU banned all nestle products a few years ago

sceptre

As did UL SU I gather. Can't get a kitkat in the shop or pubs.

DadaKopf

You fellas aren't getting it:

All UCD students are members of the Students' Union. As a union, members are entitled to raise issues and bring them to its members. As a part of democratic collective decisionmaking, union members vote to decide whether they agree with this policy or not.

In the case of the Coke boycott, the union members voted in favour or the boycott - twice. What's undemocratic about that? The boycott affects the union and nothing outside it, so how you guys figure it's undemocratic and an assault on freedom is beyond me.

Like I said before, if 51% of UCD themselves decided not to drink Coke anymore, it wouldn't be a clear, political statement - it would be a change in consumer demographics. Easy for Coke to get around. Now their operations in UCD are curtailed due to a legal restraint on their behaviour and this places them in a compromising position.

Those who disagree with the ban are free to buy Coke in Hilpers or from vending machines, just not from shops owned by the people who voted to take Coke products off the shelves.

Nike_Dude

You fellas aren't getting it

I do get it, i'm not saying it wasnt undemocratic or anything like that as you said it won in two elections. I'm questioning the SU's policies, how can they justify all the time and money spent on these elections when:
(1) Coca-cola were cleared by a court and
(2) There are much more important issues affecting students like the cut backs in funding from the government
If it was such a serious issue why hasnt other companies, shops or even colleges banned it It seems suspiciously like a ploy to get media coverage for themselves.

DadaKopf

Well then, maybe you're blind. Maybe you haven't seen all posters around campus advertising the library study-ins, the anti racism campaign, the 10k charity mini-marathon, the sexual equality campaign. Maybe you haven't been following the anti-fees protests (worked for through USI). Maybe you just don't read the college press. You're incorrectly assuming things, probably because of prejudice or something.

As reasonable as you think you sound, there's plenty of effort going into things that affect students - like running the shops, the health centre, the union offices, finding ways to keep the failing Forum Bar afloat. It's not like they sit back and scratch their balls all day. This union is the most pro-active union we've had in as many years as I've been in UCD.

As reasonable as you think you sound, the SU budget allocates funds to a referendum account which is enough to hold five referenda a year.

As reasonable as you think you sound, union officers were not the driving force behind the second referendum, and in the first one our housing officer initiated it but the campaign was predominantly run by full-time students.

So, are you just saying you'd prefer your fellow students to just campaign for issues you personally support?

Sangre

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Well then, maybe you're blind. Maybe you haven't seen all posters around campus advertising the library study-ins, the anti racism campaign, the 10k charity mini-marathon, the sexual equality campaign. Maybe you haven't been following the anti-fees protests (worked for through USI). Maybe you just don't read the college press. You're incorrectly assuming things, probably because of prejudice or something.

Dont be be too hard on him for not noticing them.
He does go to Trinity after all.

DadaKopf

Haha.

In that case, he really shouldn't go thinking that just because their union might be crap (I don't know if they are) that ours is, too.

I might agree with him if the UCDSU *wasn't* doing its job but it is.

Nike_Dude

Right i Dont go to ucd but i can have an opinion considering the is not alot of difference between the two unions. I'm well aware that the SU do plenty of worthwhile things 10k walk etc. I just strongly disagree with this coke ban and the way in which it was brought about. It was a terrible waste of time and money regardless of whether it was budgeted for or not

In that case, he really shouldn't go thinking that just because their union might be crap (I don't know if they are) that ours is, too

Could you possibly show me where I said that? no? thats because i didnt say it:) TCD SU do just as many things as UCD SU. Last week they rejected putting the coke issue to a student vote. So, by your reasoning, the students are highly aware of global issues in UCD and the ones in Trinity arent, even though the colleges are only a couple of miles apart

probably because of prejudice or something

Prejudice against what? I fail to see how I can be prejudice for saying certain refernda were a waste

As reasonable as you think you sound, the SU budget allocates funds to a referendum account which is enough to hold five referenda a year

Right, and now there are two gone on the same thing, surely(and again I am aware i dont go to ucd) a more informed campaign before the first vote would have been preferable to a second referendum and you are probably going to say that there was a good campaign before the first vote, then what was the need for a second one?

Well then, maybe you're blind

I could argue the exact same point considering I've said two or three times in this thread that I go to Trinity

the campaign was predominantly run by full-time students

Was it also funded by these full-time students? So in essence it was still SU money running the referendum.

there's plenty of effort going into things that affect students - like running the shops, the health centre, the union offices, finding ways to keep the failing Forum Bar afloat

Thats true but it doesnt mean that more effort cant be put into these areas. the SU whether its in UCD, TCD, UL, DCU, etc. should realise its bounds and concentrate its full efforts on practical, relevant issues (im not saying that doesnt include foreign issues) but there is very little point in squandering what little funds the union have on issues that have very little effect on students and have very little effect on coca-cola who probably are aware of this ban, but they are certainly not worried about it. A much more effective step would have been to invite representatives from coke, national newspapers and the govenment to a debate and this way the issues would have been discussed and would have been reported in the newspapers in the right light, as opposed to the way it was reported which led many non-students to reach the conclusion that the SU were just trying to gain some publicity.

So, are you just saying you'd prefer your fellow students to just campaign for issues you personally support?

I certainly am not saying I want people to campaign only for issues that I support. All i'm saying is the whole business was wrongly handled from the start, but once more I dont go to UCD and the students are entitled to vote for what ever they want. However i'm glad the issue did not get off the ground in trinity and if it does I will strongly be opposed to it not because I have an opinion either way on the matter, but because I feel there are better ways to voice students concerns on matters like this

sceptre

Originally posted by Nike_Dude
coca-cola who probably are aware of this ban, but they are certainly not worried about it

Both aware and worried. They flew over Rafael Quiros as part of the keep Coke campaign. They're quite scared that the other colleges will follow suit. And they may - the issue is coming up in UL as well. Coke are a company that tend to protect their interests, however small, fairly aggressively.

(how agressively was of course the reasoning behind the referendum in the first place)

Woden

i wonder has anyone tried to do an accurate calculation for the revenue coke would lose if the su's in all major colleges stopped selling coke? and then compared it to coca-cola's ireland annual revenue?

DadaKopf

I'm sure it'd be tiny. However, the reason Coke is worried, I presume, is because the effect of SU boycotts would affect consumers' preferences outside of college, even affecting those who don't go to college.

This is why Coke is scared.

But, like, that's the whole reason for the boycott.

DArcy

To start the discussion up again....

Coke were supplying over 2 million cases of soft drinks a year to UCD SU shops. So they're losing quite a bit of profit due to this ban.

DadaKopf

If you read what I said, you'd already know that SU shop takings, with the exception of the Student Centre (which is struggling in general), rose following the ban.

I understand what you're implying but it's fallacious.

DArcy

What I was implying was that Coca Cola were losing profit due to the ban, not the SU shops.

DadaKopf

Pardon me. Still, then it's a matter of scale. As a proportion of all sales in the Republic, it's miniscule. Of course, it wouldn't be if the boycott spread. Which is the whole point.

Woden

i find it hard to relate to the fact that the su shops profits rose by coke not being there perhaps its just coincidence

DadaKopf

It doesn't offer any reasons, just figures. The figures prove that, despite at least 5 products having been removed from SU shops, total revenue was unaffected. The scare tactics were wrong.

Nike_Dude

Didnt think it was worth starting a new thread, does anyone know which side won in the Trinity referendum?

imp

YES - 1816
NO - 1680

This will only fuel my growing Red Bull problems...

}:>

Nike_Dude

It was banned :eek: I cant believe that I was sure the no campaign had done enough to take it. What about the other referendum

imp

The constitutional refurendum was passed too, but I don't know what it was actually for

}:>

DadaKopf

The wha? The Constitutional Review referendum?

Last I read that was on hold. That Farrell eejit asked me if I wanted to be on his committee some random evening in the library entrance. I said "EFFF off! I'm not the least bit interested in your hackery! I'm not like you! I'm busy studying! And I don't care!"

That's the last I cared about it.

Anyone know how the Coke referendum went in Trinners?

imp

Originally posted by imp
YES - 1816
NO - 1680

This will only fuel my growing Red Bull problems...

}:>

}:>

Töpher

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Anyone know how the Coke referendum went in Trinners?

AFAIK they voted to keep it.

Nike_Dude

YES - 1816
NO - 1680

Apparently this was the result. I thought the no side would win but id say the voter apathy was the reason. a lot of people who would have voted no just didnt bother voting. There wasnt really much campaigning on the coke issue people were more interested in the SU elections. That constitutional change was so that the USI can put up their fees to € 5 next year (I think):dunno: