SU Promoting Coke

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Got this email from the SUJobs email list today:

---

FRIDAY, MARCH 3rd, 2006
____________________________________


PROMOTIONAL WORK

Coca-Cola Bottlers Ireland Events Team is responsible for the
promotion of the CocaCola brand portfolio at events throughout the year
(Concerts, sports events, festivals etc). You will be part of a team
contracted to work on a part-time basis, based on a one-year contract.

Successful candidates will ideally hold a full driving licence
and be able to work at weekends and evenings. The busiest time will be
from May to October. An outgoing, enthusiastic personality along with
a high degree of flexibility is essential.

The team is part of a busy Public Relations department
and would particularly suit people hoping to get experience
in all areas of Marketing, PR and Sales.

---

Doesn't it seem slightly ironic to have a ban on coke, and yet have the same organisation trying to recruit promoters of the brand? Maybe its just me...

ApeXaviour

lol good spot

Plunky

I wouldn't be surprised if the SU pushes another lift-the-ban campaign soon (i.e. next year) cuz of the massive loss they're making in the SU Shop (which, I believe, is one of their main sources of income)...

I feel they've made their stance, and people aren't really paying the whole issue much attention anymore, and financially, it's not really viable anymore, so I dunno, let bygones be bygones maybe?





can open, worms everywhere...

Nietzschean

has it ever been the 'su' i.e. the sabbats pushing it one way or another? i thought it was mostly other groups bringing it up. And inline with that i doubt it'll be lifted any time soon....

Anyone remember the days when the SU shops had coke? in the ham it was stocked well more than anything else and still pretty much always sold out...

Andrew 83

I'm skeptical of the view that the SU shop's fall in profits is down mainly to the Coke boycott. I suspect that Centra et al's move into making rolls etc is a much bigger factor. While you're over getting your lunch you then buy whatever else it is you would otherwise get in the SU shop. The Buttery and other catering outlets on campus acknowledge this is one of the main reasons their profits have dropped, is it not highly plausible that it's also the cause of the SU's troubles?

Nietzschean

i didn't mean to imply that i was suggesting coke was responsible for the drop in profits. It may have had an impact but i doubt it would have been enough to drop them out of the black. Your quite right, i would recon centre n co have had a massive impact, just have a look at the number of students inside centra at any one time from 9am - 10pm ... probally find a min of 3 any time of day, and ****é loads come lunch time...

Andrew 83

I was talking about Plunky's post but it's all good!

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

of course, it is not necessarily the case that the SU Shop should be trying to make money; just covering its costs.

The main reason the SU shop loses money is that it pays a number of full time staff at rates of pay that rise with national pay agreements - whereas centra are not tied to things like that.

That's also the reason why the buttery loses money. Some of the staff in the buttery are even paid for the summer months when the buttery is closed.

Don't get me wrong - they are all lovely people in the SU shop and the buttery, but when a shop has to compete with another, and one shop is staffed with min wage part-timers, and the other with full-time-with-benefits staff, then the latter business is always going to suffer...

Plunky

Plunky wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if the SU pushes another lift-the-ban campaign soon (i.e. next year)...

Before anyone rushes into a large "Boo, the SU are conspiring against a democratic decision", this thread was the first I heard about the e-mail. Oddly enough, I'm not up in my office plotting on ways to get around the coke & nestlé boycott and to go against policy, or even to launch another campaign to get the ban lifted. As it was mentioned, not much (if any!) of the SU Exec or sabbats have actually been involved in either the yes or no side of the campaign in both years to the best of my knowledge. Plus, a referendum could have been held this year but nobody collected the signatures, in fact, no-one even queried on how such a boycott could be lifted.

Oh, and Michael, I think that a certain level of "profit" is needed to supplement the other activities which go towards helping students within the SU (e.g. crèche places). But that's just my personal opinion.

Time Magazine

EduMyth wrote:

Oh, and Michael, I think that a certain level of "profit" is needed to supplement the other activities which go towards helping students within the SU (e.g. crèche places). But that's just my personal opinion.

There's really no reason to put profit in quotation marks. Why the taboo about profit? It's not like they're selling babies.

Why must socially-orientated organisations have such a fixation with illogical economic rationale? No! Is it more socialist to pay SU sabbats lower wages? No. Why do people automatically associated fairness with deficit? Nobody is calling for profit-maximisation or any other potentially more malignant notions.

</rant>

Angry Banana

Angry Banana wrote:

There's really no reason to put profit in quotation marks. Why the taboo about profit? It's not like they're selling babies.

Why must socially-orientated organisations have such a fixation with illogical economic rationale? No! Is it more socialist to pay SU sabbats lower wages? No. Why do people automatically associated fairness with deficit? Nobody is calling for profit-maximisation or any other potentially more malignant notions.

</rant>

Now I'm glad I put it in quotes

Ideo

i dont think the buttery staff get paid over the summer. the buttery releases some staff during the summer months when its outside term and takes them back on when term begins again.

i suspect that the two spar shops and the centra on westland that does great pizza has taking the deli business away from the ham cafe and buttery.

i think the increase in prices over last summer should make up for falling profits however.

also the notices that have gone up in the buttery for instance say that outside food is not permitted to be eaten in the buttery, id say this is primarily focused at spar on nassau and college green, to stop students buying food there and bringing it into the buttery

Thirdfox

Roundtower2 wrote:

of course, it is not necessarily the case that the SU Shop should be trying to make money; just covering its costs.

The main reason the SU shop loses money is that it pays a number of full time staff at rates of pay that rise with national pay agreements - whereas centra are not tied to things like that.

That's also the reason why the buttery loses money. Some of the staff in the buttery are even paid for the summer months when the buttery is closed.

Don't get me wrong - they are all lovely people in the SU shop and the buttery, but when a shop has to compete with another, and one shop is staffed with min wage part-timers, and the other with full-time-with-benefits staff, then the latter business is always going to suffer...

If you can't compete on price... compete on offering a better service... you think people go to Brown Thomas for the goods? :eek: (then again maybe they do...)

foxybrowne

would it be useful to have somewhere on the tcdsu website the wording of the motions and referenda which decided the coke/nestlé boycott?
I think the SU was mandated to run an information campaign on the coke/nestlé boycott last year. Does anyone know whats happened in this regard?

regi

It's not like they're selling babies

There's money in that baby business.

foxybrowne

Regi wrote:

There's money in that baby business.

white meat

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

scooby_doo_no1 wrote:

i dont think the buttery staff get paid over the summer.

they do, but just two of the staff are paid, as far as i can remember ...

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

EduMyth wrote:

Oh, and Michael, I think that a certain level of "profit" is needed to supplement the other activities which go towards helping students within the SU (e.g. crèche places). But that's just my personal opinion.

Sure, profit is good, but i was just going from a social perspective and saying that it is not necessarily a bad thing if the SU shop doesn't make money. For example, if ithe shop just breaks even, but gives 10,000 students a value service, then that is imho even better than making a big profit and providing poor service...

I was more making the point, that it is hard for the shop to compete with outside shops because of the different pay structures for staff in the competing shops

osd

Roundtower2 wrote:

Sure, profit is good, but i was just going from a social perspective and saying that it is not necessarily a bad thing if the SU shop doesn't make money. For example, if ithe shop just breaks even, but gives 10,000 students a value service, then that is imho even better than making a big profit and providing poor service...

I was more making the point, that it is hard for the shop to compete with outside shops because of the different pay structures for staff in the competing shops

Interesting to see the debate about the SU finances. As a member of Finance & Services for 4 years I can honestly say there has certainly been a decline in profits/sales since the boycott began but it has been compounded by the Centra's and Spars around TCD. Remember it's not just the coke drink itself that was removed from the shelves it was anything else made by Coca Cola Corp. or even bottled by them. I'm personally interested in the documentry on "Killer Coke" on Channel 4 on Monday night.

Additionally in the constitution...

Article 9 (a) The Union shall be a non-profit making organisation.

osd

foxybrowne wrote:

would it be useful to have somewhere on the tcdsu website the wording of the motions and referenda which decided the coke/nestlé boycott?

Ask and you shall receive...

Nestlé Products
TCDSU votes to boycott (not to stock or sell) Nescafé or other Nestlé
products in the Students’ Union shops.
We encourage College to do the same. We take this action in the light
of Nestlé’s continuing contravention of the World Health
Organisation/UNICEF International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk
Substitutes by promoting bottle-feeding and undermining breastfeeding.

Coca-Cola
TCDSU will not sell any products of the Coca Cola Corporation or enter
into any sponsorship agreements with the Coca Cola Corporation due
to the current situation in Colombia

.

Nietzschean

yes, but profits from a certain venture can be re-directed to another one and keep everything overall break even...

or is that sort of move prohibited?


Some ontopic humour :

osd

yes, but profits from a certain venture can be re-directed to another one and keep everything overall break even...

or is that sort of move prohibited?

Ideally every commercial operation of the Union (JCR, Ents, Bookshop, DUST, etc) should show a profit so it is reinvested into Union related campaigns, crèche subsidies etc but in reality what you are suggesting usually happens like in any operation. Where there is a loss we then look at the problem carefully and try as best we can to never let it happen again!

little miss

Ah... the good old days when I could get my diet coke from House 6. I miss those days... I was more in favour of a levy at the time rather than a ban, but the majority prevailed. Still think its stupid to ban coke on speculation, and yet still support pepsi! Either go all ethical and just sell fair trade products in house 6, or give people full options of all evil corporations...

What about a juice bar in the corner of the shop? Now that I would like! (As long as it was cheaper than the Buttery one...)

Nestle ban made sense to me though, despite the fact that I do seem to always crave kit kats at exam time and keep looking for them in house 6!

ApeXaviour

little miss wrote:

Ah... the good old days when I could get my diet coke from House 6. I miss those days... I was more in favour of a levy at the time rather than a ban, but the majority prevailed. Still think its stupid to ban coke on speculation, and yet still support pepsi! Either go all ethical and just sell fair trade products in house 6, or give people full options of all evil corporations...

So we should be one extreme or the other? Yeah that's clever. That's a lot like saying you have to be a commy or a nazi.

There is no hypocrisy here. Granted speculation is not necessarily truth, but when absolute proof is unattainable and the company's behaviour towards this seems indifferent at best, you gotta wonder.

little miss

I mean, we should educate people why coke is evil rather than just banning it. Present the facts, otherwise it seems pointless. Why is pepsi ok, but not coke? And why is cadburys still sold even though they have some link to coca cola? Nestle ban was obvious and well explained. Just get the impression that the case against coke is still quite up in the air... Sorry, just can't help but enjoy my diet coke (with cherry!)... Hope that doesn't make me a commie or a nazi!

cuckoo

I think there's a few problems with the shops, and that the lack of coca cola products is only the tip of the iceberg.

i) lots of students assume that they're run by the college, maybe if there were signs calling them the 'SU Shop' people might connect them more with the SU
(of course this might make peeps like nietzechan not shop there...), there isn't the awarness there that if the shops do make a profit that it will benefit students.

ii) the shops themselves are cluttered, have peeling posters and stickers up in them and they're grimey.(esp the hamilton one) Not only do centra et al make great rolls, their shops are clean and well lit.

iii) more money should be made from tourists - there's a steady number of them all year round so the shops should be pimping the branded trinity stuff they sell a lot better.

shay_562

the shops themselves are cluttered, have peeling posters and stickers up in them and they're grimey.(esp the hamilton one) Not only do centra et al make great rolls, their shops are clean and well lit.

To be fair, any of the fresh food outlets around college are clean and well-lit too - they're generally seperate from the shops. If the SU/college outlets are losing money to Centra/Spar, I'd say the biggest problem is that, while chocolate and soft drinks and all are 10-15 cent cheaper, rolls are up to a euro more, so people go somewhere cheaper instead. A plain ham roll in the Arts block cafe is €3.50, the same across the street is €2.50. Is there any particular reason why there's a blanket charge of €3.50 for all rolls to cover a meat and 4 salads, even if you don't actually use the salads part? My understanding of economics is limited at best (maybe Enda can explain), but charging the highest possible price for every roll sold there rather than scaling prices based on how much you actually get in it doesn't seem like a great policy.

gilroyb

Though Coke profits were probably a small section of the SU profits, there were a product that people expected to be able to buy. I used always get my lunch in the SU, but now I know that if I want a drink I like (Coke), im going to have to go somewhere else for that anyway, so I may as well just buy all my lunch in Centra. The position of Coke products in the SU shop was similar to loss/no profit leaders in other shops, by having them, other goods could be sold at a profit, but without them, large numbers of customers shop elsewhere.

I also think it's quite possible that even if the ban is removed, people are now used to going outside of college for lunch, and this will continue.

europerson

shay_562 wrote:

Is there any particular reason why there's a blanket charge of €3.50 for all rolls to cover a meat and 4 salads, even if you don't actually use the salads part? My understanding of economics is limited at best (maybe Enda can explain), but charging the highest possible price for every roll sold there rather than scaling prices based on how much you actually get in it doesn't seem like a great policy.

Having the same charge for all rolls means that there is administartive efficiency. It's quicker when you're checking out, than having to answer, "What's on your roll?". In any case, College Catering doesn't limit one to a meat and four salads: one can get as much as one wants on the roll for €3.50. That's the case with me in the Dining Hall, anyway, but maybe that's just because the staff like me there.
If you don't like the prices, go elsewhere, for example, the JCR, with their leathery, plastic-like ham.

As well, the €3.50 charge kind of evens out over people who get rolls with only a couple of fillings and those who get many fillings. This is economically inefficient, as there is no discriminatory pricing.

shay_562

If you don't like the prices, go elsewhere,

I have done. That's the problem. So have many others - I don't know about anyone else here, but I'm far more concerned with whether I'm paying €2.50 or €3.50 for my lunch than whether I drink Coke or Pepsi with it, and I doubt I'm the only one. A lot of people on this thread have suggested that it's the lack of Coke that's hurting the SU shops - I was just offering another potential reason.

desertcircus

With regard to Little Miss's questions:

The particular reason that Coca-Cola is the subject of a boycott is that their bottling partners in Colombia have a bad habit of assassinating union activists in their factories, and Coca-Cola have done nothing whatsoever to prevent this.

Cadbury Schweppes sold a proportion of their soft-drinks operations to Coke a few years ago, but Coke have no involvement in the production of Cadbury's chocolate.

Time Magazine

desertcircus wrote:

The particular reason that Coca-Cola is the subject of a boycott is that their bottling partners in Colombia have a bad habit of assassinating union activists in their factories, and Coca-Cola have done nothing whatsoever to prevent this.

Lol. Well put.

Danger Bob

OSD wrote:

TCDSU will not sell any products of the Coca Cola Corporation or enter into any sponsorship agreements with the Coca Cola Corporation due
to the current situation in Colombia

This is something I always found a bit dicey. So the SU jobs ad was taken down and the TN stuck it on the front page, but was this really a breach of policy? If members of the SU join up to SU jobs, that's pretty much asking the SU to help them find a job. Now, is it sponsorship for Coke to offer TCD students jobs through the union or for the SU to try find jobs for students and suggest working for Coke?

While I fully understand the mandate, I grow curious when people call it a boycott. A boycott would suggest a complete ban on anything to do with Coke. However, there has only been a mandate laid down regarding trade and sponsorship. I can still drink Coke while walking around in my union hoodie. There's no rules covering something like that.

I fully appreciate the wants of the majority that voted last year and the year before and I will follow the policy completely, I just query whether it really works or whether this is just hypocrisy. I remember the council last year where it was suggested that we ban cigarettes from the SU shop due to the human rights abuses in the production of these products and due to the dangerous effects related to their use. As I recall, numerous people got up and blathered on about how we all should have freedom to buy what we want and blah blah blah. When it was then suggested that if that was the case, then why should we have a Coke ban, the SAME people started talking about human rights!!!

Intriguingly, I noticed on that night that some of these people who cared so much about other people's suffering were some of the same people who failed to show for the 10K walk a few months earlier because it was a little too wet and some of the same people who, when we marched to the Dail to protest the poor handling of the grants system were suddenly too busy.

I don't mean to sound rantish but I'm sure that if there was a Coke referendum this year, the people who would run the NO-team would be people who have no problem with smoking or drinking. These are addictive habits which destroy people's lives but yet our union actively partakes in the provision of one and promotes the other through deals on our Ents nights. I have no problem with either vice but I question how we can claim to take the moral high-ground with our Coke and Nestle bans when we have no problem with tobacco or alcohol.

I noticed the comment earlier that while there have been no allegations proven against Coke, that they have been indifferent about the problems. Have a look at Coke's website and you'll note that they have welcomed independent assessors in to investigate these issues. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on Trade Union issues in Colombia but neither will I condemn a company based on allegations before they have been properly investigated.

Apologies again for the length and rantish nature of this post. Put quite simply, I'm a pro-choice kinda guy and our union is generally a pro-choice union. We have policy that says that we're pro-choice on abortion, we're pro-choice as regards sexuality and its expression, we're pro-choice on alcohol, we're pro-choice on cigarettes and, from reading our union guidebook this year, we seem to be pro-choice on drugs. However, we're not pro-choice on a soft-drink. Says it all really.

Time Magazine

How can someone who's always taking the piss with childish antics represent us to the College?





But you are still a stupid liberal.

Barry Aldwell

Danger Bob wrote:

from reading our union guidebook this year, we seem to be pro-choice on drugs. However, we're not pro-choice on a soft-drink. Says it all really.

Nobody ever dies as a result of the drugs trade, after all.

(good stuff out of you Danger Bob, you're redeeming yourself)

the_syco

Article 9 (a) The Union shall be a non-profit making organisation.

Aye. But can the shop avoid that somehow? Also, eh, you need profit to pay the staff. If you sold the products with no profit, how would you pay the staff?:p

Pepsi

Ah, yes. Did they get done for the same thing that everyone says Coke has done?

There is no hypocrisy here.

Aye. Except for the Pepsi...

The particular reason that Coca-Cola is the subject of a boycott is that their bottling partners in Colombia have a bad habit of assassinating union activists in their factories, and Coca-Cola have done nothing whatsoever to prevent this.

And neither has anyone else. In Columbia, there are lots of assinations, but cos some of Cokes' reps got killed, its time to boycott Coke. But lets just forget about the other companies that have their union employees shot.

the_syco

the_syco wrote:

Aye. But can the shop avoid that somehow? Also, eh, you need profit to pay the staff. If you sold the products with no profit, how would you pay the staff?:p

The Union and the Union Shop are different things!

Agent Smith

Is there a Copy Of the Union's constitution online?

patzer117

desertcircus wrote:

The particular reason that Coca-Cola is the subject of a boycott is that their bottling partners in Colombia have a bad habit of assassinating union activists in their factories, and Coca-Cola have done nothing whatsoever to prevent this.

Yes that's right. Colombia. When I first heard this 'allegation' I was completely lost. Coke is banned because of Colombia. What a bunch of rubbish, what could possibly have happened in Columbia that would affect my right to buy Coca-Cola? And how could my not buying Coke possibly affect what is going on in Colombia? Fortunately,while still in a sea of haze I found everything I was looking for in the helpful University Record.

Yes, according to the record, and our friend desertcircus here, Coke was banned because of Columbia. "The Colombian Labour Union [SINALTRAINAL] has accused the Coca Cola Company of numerous human rights and industrial abuses which range from intimidation and forced resignations to kidnapping and murder".
Right. An allegation worthy of investigation I thought. Until I read "They… claim that violence by paramilitaries towards trade unionists in some parts of Colombia is directily linked to the Coca-Cola company's desire to prevent them establishing a trade union to protect the interests of workers in the bottling and distribution plants in that country"

Ah, I thought, I remember reading an article on this some time: Trade union deaths in Columbia, stretching into the thousands. But were coke really involved? Google will help… According to Amnesty International the alleged murder incident took place when Paramilitaries (who not
even Sinaltrainal claim are linked to CocaCola) shot workers in a bottling plant for trying to establish a Trade Union. Six of them. And the Union was calling on CocaCola to provide armed guards to defend the workers in a bottling plant, which they do not own. The correct decision in my opinion, not bringing more guns into Colombia especially when you are not responsible for their welfare – because they do not work for you. Do you think they should introduce armed guards Desertcircus? Introduce more guns into Columbia? Perhaps take on the terrorists themselves, because of their bottlers?


Then I searched deeper. The allegation was of six trade union deaths. How many deaths of trade unionists have there been in Columbia? 100 maybe? 500? No "more than 3,800 union leaders and labor activists have been murdered in Colombia since 1998", according to the World Congress of Trade Unions. And six were related in some way to Coca Cola? Now that's what I call a good record… Besides the allegation was also brought up in front of the World Congress of Trade Unions in May 2003, where all but one union, SINALTRAINAL, rejected the allegations as untrue. Put simply Coca Cola were deemed not responsible for any of the deaths. Do you disagree with their judgement Desertcircus and all you other coke hating people out there?

What exactly does one hope to achieve by not buying Coca-Cola? Do they hope to highlight the issues in Colombia? Good job! You've convinced me that Coke didn't hire a private army. But why not look at the bigger picture instead of dodging around the issue? What about forced labour camps in Asia? What about the scandalous prices we pay for cash crops from Africa? What about all the lives ravaged by AIDS and greedy drug companies not providing medicine?

Yes, Desertcircus, Coke are responsible for all the problems in the world. Make a serious stand boys and girls, not a pathetic ban on CocaCola. Become active. Commit to change. Dedicate yourself. Work tirelessly against global companies who put profit over lives. Don't prevent me drinking my coke. Or if you do want to do this, provide me with a good credible and logical reason. The ban is an example of bitterness gone too far. It won't solve any problems, nor will it raise any issues. If the student's union really cared they would campaign for an all out ban on all 'evil corporations' and not 'stand in solidarity with our fellow Colombian workers.'

Let's be completely honest here. The Student's Union decided to make a stand against multinational cororations, and this time coke got the short stick. A pointless ban, which is only for show, and perhaps to satisfy the egos of some Union members. A Colombian Trade Union punching way above it's weight, has caused a huge problem. Because if we are honest, and that's what we try to be, the real problem in Colombia is Coke. But it's not the coke we're talking about and no matter how much coke is banned, unless serious action is taken, the more important situation, will never change.

Student politics, I tell you: pointlessly bitter and bitterly pointless.

cuckoo

patzer117 wrote:

Student politics, I tell you: pointlessly bitter and bitterly pointless.

A maxim i've heard frequently in SU circles sums it up well - SU politics, and some of the people involved, can be so petty because the stakes are so low. Before there's a deluge of posts contradicting this, i say can be petty, procedural motions and all that attendant hackery can be fun, but it isn't life or death stuff.

Patzer117, that was a well reasoned post.

But, i think the key point with all of this isn't the validity of the ban of coca cola sale/sponsorship - but that the SU is deomonstably working in a democratic manner. A referendum (two in this situation) was held, and the will of the majority is being followed. Yay democracy!

the_syco

Article 9 (a) The Union shall be a non-profit making organisation.

EduMyth wrote:

The Union and the Union Shop are different things!

Eh, if there's nothing wrong with it, why don't you make a profit? They are, after all, seperate, aren't they?

Crash

Syco, out of interest do you actually have any interest in this or are you just attempting to play devils advocate?

The Shol'va

cuckoo wrote:

ii) the shops themselves are cluttered, have peeling posters and stickers up in them and they're grimey.(esp the hamilton one) Not only do centra et al make great rolls, their shops are clean and well lit.

I'm hurt, really hurt. I spent last summer on my hands and knees cleaning the House 6 shop! Hands and knees! I had rubber gloves and everything! And I thought I did I a good job...

cuckoo wrote:

iii) more money should be made from tourists - there's a steady number of them all year round so the shops should be pimping the branded trinity stuff they sell a lot better.

How? There's already jumpers hanging all over the place. There's not exactly much room in there, you may have noticed. In the summer all of the stationary is replaced with TCD merchendise, but which is more important in term time? :P

the_syco

crash_000 wrote:

Syco, out of interest do you actually have any interest in this or are you just attempting to play devils advocate?

More devils advocate, I suppose:o

I'm just wondering, since they are a seprate entity from the SU, could the shop bring back some coke (read: mistakingly order a batch), see how it goes, and go from there.

Also, if I was in TCD, and I wanted either oke, a cup of Nescafe, or a bottle of Powerade, I'd have to bring my own. Drinking pretty much only Coke, that'd mean I'd just go outside the campus.

Crash

not really - you just go to college catering, seeing as they still sell it and arent covered.

the_syco

the_syco wrote:

More devils advocate, I suppose:o

I'm just wondering, since they are a seprate entity from the SU, could the shop bring back some coke (read: mistakingly order a batch), see how it goes, and go from there.

Ah. No, that's not what I meant. I said that they were different, in that the Union is a non-profit making organisation, which doesn't mean that each "department" is non-profit making. Some areas supplement the other areas.

And to get Coke back into the shops would probably require the fridges to be moved back into the shops. Plus I'd (with everyone else, but mainly the 5 sabbats) be accused of flouting SU policy and being careerist, selfish, in breach of mandate and other such wonders. As I said before, I'm not up in my office conspiring against SU policy.

Nietzschean

why not? all that conspiring sounds like fun...

foxybrowne

EduMyth wrote:

Plus I'd (with everyone else, but mainly the 5 sabbats) be accused of flouting SU policy and being careerist, selfish, in breach of mandate and other such wonders.

Impeach! Impeach!
OUT OUT OUT etc.

shay_562

Plus I'd (with everyone else, but mainly the 5 sabbats) be accused of flouting SU policy and being careerist, selfish, in breach of mandate and other such wonders.

Don't those accusations come on a pretty much weekly basis anyway, regardless of whether or not you've actually done anything? The way I see it, you might as well actually earn the criticisms and make a tidy profit at the same time.

rsynnott

Angry Banana wrote:

There's really no reason to put profit in quotation marks. Why the taboo about profit? It's not like they're selling babies.

I suspect because it is NOT profit in any overall sense, rather it is a surplus in one section of an organisation being used to supplement other parts of that organisation. It could not exist in a vacuum.

Thirdfox wrote:

If you can't compete on price... compete on offering a better service... you think people go to Brown Thomas for the goods? :eek: (then again maybe they do...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

Article 9 (a) The Union shall be a non-profit making organisation.

Hmm, yes. What would happen if there ever was a surplus?

patzer117 wrote:

What a bunch of rubbish, what could possibly have happened in Columbia that would affect my right to buy Coca-Cola?

Are you seriously suggesting that you believe you have a right to buy coke in a shop that doesn't want to sell it to you?

the_syco wrote:

I wanted either oke, a cup of Nescafe,

What on EARTH would you want that for?

cuckoo

rsynnott wrote:

What on EARTH would you want that for?

Have you ever tasted the fair trade version of instant coffee? It takes the vileness that is instant coffee and brings it to to a whole new level of yuck. And, when a fair trade loving hippy like me (who still buys and drinks the stuff due to god damn principles) says that, you gotta know it tastes bad. Nescafe in comparison is yum.

back on topic/

i have an old SU t-shirt from when i first got involved in the union (yeah, yeah - to pre-empt all the jokes council was indeed lit by candlelight and we walked uphill both ways to get there) that's bright red and has the coca cola logo beside the SU one.