How would you vote on the boycott?

The_Minister

As you know, the issue of Coke has raised its head again in UCD, and rumours abound of another referendum. If a referendum occured tomorrow, how would you vote? Would you let Coke and Nestle back into UCD?

DirkVoodoo

Nope. Whats the nestle one about though?

The_Minister

DirkVoodoo wrote:

Nope. Whats the nestle one about though?

I believe the Nestlé one is older then the Coke boycott, and I think that there is actual evidence unlike the Coke one. Basically Nestlé sold breast milk substitute cheaply to 3rd world countries, and women made it up using dirty water and their babies died. Apparently Nestlé had held a campaign to convince the women to switch to the substitute and thus, were held responsible. (Thats my recollection anyway, like the reasons behind Coke the crimes and evidence shifts with the teller).

humbert

people can make their choice when they go into the shop, it's not for the minority of opinionated muppets to choose for them:mad:

delta_bravo

the nestle story (i think) is that they have agressive marketing campaigns for the sale of formula for babies in developing countries and tell mothers that it is more beneficial than breast milk. However the mothers obviously dont have access to clean water so they must use dirty water and this causes illness and death amongst children

Garret

the nestle thing is to do with their powdered milk thing. they promote it amongst mothers in africa as a substitue for breast milk and when there isnt clean water around its not a good idea.

apparently

id let em both in

EDIT: wow i was late with that post

delta_bravo

6 votes already and no one has decided to boycott both. this could be interesting

Riamfada

Id have to agree with Humbert. Let people make the decision for themselves when they are at the shelf. Banning the products make a nice statement but have no real effect on the companies. As H said, inform the people, let them make the choice.

dajaffa

I support both bans as I think it both are important statements to make + help to raise awareness of both issues.

My opinion is that u can still get the products on campus, just not in SU shops so if u are anti-ban it's not that much of an inconvenience, though as a ban supporter I'd prefer if the products weren't availible in the restaurant, bars etc...

Though I do support both bans I'd have no problem if the reffurenda are run again, the students are the union + have a right to make their voices heard, + it'd end the argument that those who don't support the ban of "sure twas 3 years ago" etc. I think if the refurenda are run again the students of UCD are intelligent enough to make whatever decision that they feel is right.

humbert

dajaffa wrote:

I support both bans as I think it both are important statements to make + help to raise awareness of both issues.

My opinion is that u can still get the products on campus, just not in SU shops so if u are anti-ban it's not that much of an inconvenience, though as a ban supporter I'd prefer if the products weren't availible in the restaurant, bars etc...

Though I do support both bans I'd have no problem if the reffurenda are run again, the students are the union + have a right to make their voices heard, + it'd end the argument that those who don't support the ban of "sure twas 3 years ago" etc. I think if the refurenda are run again the students of UCD are intelligent enough to make whatever decision that they feel is right.

In practice the union often doesn't represent the opinions of the majority of students and only requiring a 30%* turnout for a referendum encourages this.

*it's quite possible my figures are wrong

valor

definitely allow both

Dave!

Allow both

singingstranger

I'm with dajaffa. I think the decision is made with the knowledge that both are available elsewhere on campus and that the students can therefore register their discontent with the practices of either company but still have the choice, if they wish, to purchase the products.

On top of that, the students of UCD made UCDSU the first institution in the world to instigate a Coke boycott and must be mindful of the fact that such a high-profile about-turn would do the pro-Coke lobby no end of good. While obviously an anti-boycott result would be in support of such a lobby, people who are voting yes just for the sake of it should take into account that the say of UCD holds far more sway worldwide than anyone elses.

gubbie

About the Nestle thing, when the mothers stop breast feeding, their milk dries up and so they have to continue buying the Nestle products.

There's a piece on it in the freshers guide (good work to who ever did it) thats all about it

panda100

Im undecided really but I do think ultimatly at the end of the day students should have the choice to buy whatever they want in the su shops. If people think that nestle and coke should be boycotted then they should do in their own capacity.
However, I do think its important for students to stick up for human rights and what Nestle did in developing countries was just horrific.(that picture in the freshers guide was just harrowing to say the least). Therefore in my own personaly capacity I stay clear of Nestle and coke.That is my own descision and I feel that its other right to buy coke from the su shops if they want to.
I do feel that the coke ban was people inflicting their own views onto the student body. I dont think referendums in UCD are fair. In the second coke referendum these were the results:2,501 (57%) to 1,928 (43%) Hardly representative of 22,000 students ,a pitiful 2500.

BKtje

i'd heard of the coke ban before (only on here) but never heard of the nestle ban.
I still don't know what coke did.
Personally i'd agree with let the punters decide. Perhaps put a sign up so uninformed people can make an informed choice wether or not to purchase it?

singingstranger

For the benefit of those unclear on the *alleged* (because it's gotta be done) of Coca-Cola or Nestle in the cases in question:...

www.babymilkaction.org
www.killercoke.org

Just so all can make their own minds up. I'll also point to the excellent bit on the Coke referendum written by (I think) Colin Gleeson in the first edition of the College Tribune.

Slash/ED

humbert wrote:

people can make their choice when they go into the shop, it's not for the minority of opinionated muppets to choose for them:mad:

Spot on.

Mr.Nice Guy

DaveMcG wrote:

Allow both

Hear, hear.

Time to end this farcical censorship.

rainbow kirby

Allow both. They made an arse of the referendum for the Coke ban both times when they ran it, and reversed the wording the second time which confused quite a few people... it should never have been brought in in the first place.

Royale with Cheese

Why the hell was coke banned in the first place? Idiot students who thought they wanted to make a difference. Oh we're in college now, better protest against something. Who the hell gives them the right to make other people's mind up for them? Just seems like some moron activists with nothing better to do taking advantage of young impressionable students who thought they'd try and develop some morales and vote to ban it. If you want to boycott coke for whatever hazey reasons they gave us in the first place, do it on your time. If anything should be banned in UCD it should be referendums like this one.

The_Minister

singingstranger wrote:

For the benefit of those unclear on the *alleged* (because it's gotta be done) of Coca-Cola or Nestle in the cases in question:...

www.babymilkaction.org
www.killercoke.org

Just so all can make their own minds up. I'll also point to the excellent bit on the Coke referendum written by (I think) Colin Gleeson in the first edition of the College Tribune.

Justfor those who are unfamiliar with the storey, I will say that both those sites are biased and that everything that they say as fact is not proven.

Dave!

The_Minister wrote:

Justfor those who are unfamiliar with the storey, I will say that both those sites are biased and that everything that they say as fact is not proven.

yeah I was gonna suggest providing a more objective link, but then I remembered that I don't care enough about the subject to bother

Young Siward

The whole 'let the punters decide' argument doesn't work for me at all.

The problem lies with the fact that we, the student body, run 4 shops on campus - and if I was a shopkeeper that was offered milk from a supplier that killed to make it a little cheaper, there's no way in hell I'd go near it.

If you want Coke, it is available on campus, but it should not be in SU shops IMO. Let the bans stand.

Red Alert

Every shop in Ireland (as JHJ pointed out in her letter to the tribune) has the right to stock whatever products it wishes. So for example, Superquinn cannot be compelled to stock sex toys.

The SU shops are in the charge of the SU. The SU makes its decisions in a democratic fashion. If you don't like the result make sure you vote next time, and encourage others to do so.

The_Minister

Red Alert wrote:

Every shop in Ireland (as JHJ pointed out in her letter to the tribune) has the right to stock whatever products it wishes. So for example, Superquinn cannot be compelled to stock sex toys.

The SU shops are in the charge of the SU. The SU makes its decisions in a democratic fashion. If you don't like the result make sure you vote next time, and encourage others to do so.

The point is that we haven't voted at all. Only the final years have voted

generalmiaow

I honestly couldn't care less about the subject matter (that is to say the bans), and while I voted in the two coke referenda, it's such a huge waste of our money to hold another referendum. 5 thousand euro could better be spent on things within the student's union's actual remit.

Red Alert

I think the SU might be a lot more relevant if internet voting was looked into. People have lots of free time they spend on the net and might use it.

dajaffa

The_Minister wrote:

The point is that we haven't voted at all. Only the final years have voted

Exactly the reason that, though I support both, I have no objetion at all to the refurrenda being run again. If they are though I would want them to be run with some other reffurenda that need to be run this year (possibly new constitution and making erasmus students members of the union, which may or may not be the same question...) so we dont end up spending more than we need to this year on holding elections.

Royale with Cheese wrote:

Why the hell was coke banned in the first place? Idiot students who thought they wanted to make a difference. Oh we're in college now, better protest against something. Who the hell gives them the right to make other people's mind up for them? Just seems like some moron activists with nothing better to do taking advantage of young impressionable students who thought they'd try and develop some morales and vote to ban it. If you want to boycott coke for whatever hazey reasons they gave us in the first place, do it on your time. If anything should be banned in UCD it should be referendums like this one.

It was banned due to the lack of action taken by the Coca Cola Corporation after (the alleged) murders of some workers in Columbia due to their membership of a trade union. And nobody has the right to make up other people's minds for them, that's why we held reffurendums. The coke one was held twice with the ban supported both times.

Btw, worth pointing out that while percentages do look low in terms of turnout, there are many postgrads who are effectivley never on campus + virtually all of them wouldn't vote in any reffurenda/elections held, though they have the right to.

If people really feel strongly enough against the ban you can go get 800 signatures + get the reffurendum run, no need to be a class rep or whatever.

There is info about both bans in the Student Survival Guide this year. If you don't have one just ask in the SU corridor, there's loads there.

dajaffa

Red Alert wrote:

I think the SU might be a lot more relevant if internet voting was looked into. People have lots of free time they spend on the net and might use it.

It would be extremley difficult to prevent electoral fraud, sure we couldn't even get regular e-voting (remember that!) working in this country

generalmiaow

But would it be advisable to create the precedent that any time the SU made a policy decision by a referendum that every cohort of students has to vote on it when the three/four years are up? I suppose it makes sense in a way, but it's a very expensive way of going about things, even if you combine votes as dajaffa suggested (which is a good idea if we do have to vote about the coke ban again this year).

We voted on a student centre last year that we would not see during our time in college, surely that would go against the spirit of such a precedent.

dajaffa

generalmiaow wrote:

But would it be advisable to create the precedent that any time the SU made a policy decision by a referendum that every cohort of students has to vote on it when the three/four years are up? I suppose it makes sense in a way, but it's a very expensive way of going about things, even if you combine votes as dajaffa suggested (which is a good idea if we do have to vote about the coke ban again this year).

We voted on a student centre last year that we would not see during our time in college, surely that would go against the spirit of such a precedent.

Well things like that stand until someone gets the 800 signatures together to run another reffurendum on the subject as per our constitution which could be 2 months later or 20 years later really, depending on when someone gets another ref going.

The only guideline really is that we (in theory) review the constitution every 5 years or so. There was a new constitution proposed last year but there was problems with the notice given and no vote was done.

Ppl tend to talk about this 5 year thing applying to our stance on certain subjects or someting, but there are no rules in this regard, it really depends on the student body of the time.

generalmiaow

generalmiaow wrote:

But would it be advisable to create the precedent that any time the SU made a policy decision by a referendum that every cohort of students has to vote on it when the three/four years are up?

It's actually a lot freer then that (to the best of my knowledge), there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from proposing a referendum to stop the coke & nestlé ban, nor has there been since the last one. Remember, there was two referenda in one year on the subject of Coca-Cola.

So rather then waiting for 3 or 4 years, you can get one weeks/months after, with the necessary signatures of course. Oh, and you'd need a constitutional referendum for a policy put in place by a referendum to be put back to the students every few years!

My knowledge mightn't be up to speed, so I'm open to correction on the above.

The_Minister

You know, I think that I might turn theory into practice, (and no, I hadn't planned this when I started the thread). Does anyone have any info on how you get a referendum going? I assume that signatures expire over a time, so how do you plan the time for the vote.

generalmiaow

Myth wrote:

Oh, and you'd need a constitutional referendum for a policy put in place by a referendum to be put back to the students every few years!

I think you're right about that, though I wasn't suggesting that this actually be made a constitutional imperative, I'm curious about the precedent set by the argument that the amendments decided referenda of past student bodies don't represent the opinions of the current cohort, if any. I remember the second coke referendum and how the anti-ban people were criticised for having forced a second referendum so soon (albeit on a technical issue). I suppose if 800 people think it's important enough to vote about again then it is, and we should hold a referendum. I'll vote in it, but to be honest I'm more concerned with grinds and accommodation than colombian politics. I also think it'd be a lot harder for someone to push the line of "Let's bring back Nestle(tm) Products, it'll only cost the students 5,000 euro* to vote on it" to 800 people rather than banning it in the first place, but that's how it is.

Maybe they could hold one referendum every year with all the issues in it to save money. Actually, I think 04-05 had no referenda (correct me if I'm wrong)

*I heard this number in first year. It could be wrong.

Byrno

Personally I am completely behind these bans. For one the impact of all of UCDSU standing behind these campaigns is far greater than if all of us individually decided to boycott Néstle and Coca-Cola. Whilst I respect anyone's wish to buy what they like, in fact I have bought coke since when forced to due to it being the only drink available, I try to avoid it when possible.

Second of all I am one of those people who listened to both sides of the arguement back in the day and voted pro-ban and I can tell you that side was more convincing in my opinion. I'm not going to list off all the arguements at the minute as I wasn't a hack at the time so I don't have the literature! I would like to point out though that with Néstle it is more of a moral issue than a legal issue so there isn't any court evidence per se. And with Coca-Cola it is very hard to bring the issues to a court of law, especially woth Columbia the way it is. Even when the case was thrown out of the Courts in the US it was only on legal difficulties and on dismissing it the judge did say that the Coca-Cola Corporation did have questions to answer.

I wouldn't stand in the way of anyone who wanted to hold two referenda on this how ever first of all there are a substantial number of us that have voted on this already between final years, those doing 5/6 year courses, postgraduates and Pierce Farrells! I don't think we want another referendum on Coke. We've already had our say, twice. Also from the SU's point of view personally I don't want another year where people say that all the SU do is campaign on Coke. There's been sop much progress over the last couple of years and I'd be afraid that it would undo all the good work by giving an appearence that all the SU does is boycott things. However that is very much my own point of view.

PS Sorry if I rambled, I'm very tired at the minute!

Blush_01

humbert wrote:

people can make their choice when they go into the shop, it's not for the minority of opinionated muppets to choose for them:mad:

I agree with this. A boycott based on individual choice rather than lack thereof HAS to be stronger than the alternative, which we have at the moment. If everyone chooses to buy Pepsi etc. in favour of Coca Cola products - Coke, Fanta, Riverrock et al - the awareness that these people have of what they're doing is the achievement. People buying bottles of coke in 911 or Hilpers achieves nothing, except higher prices for students who don't get why there's a ban. Posters advising the offences caused by the companies and outlining the products of same would be just as effective. People who want x will buy x regardless in some cases. Awareness, or boycott by choice beats boycott by ignorance any day in my estimation.

If you know why the boycotts exist and don't agree, you should have access to the products, in the same way that you can choose not to buy if you agree.

panda100

singingstranger wrote:

For the benefit of those unclear on the *alleged* (because it's gotta be done) of Coca-Cola or Nestle in the cases in question:...


url]www.killercoke.org[/url]

.

Please dont make your mind up from this website. It is biased and doesnt tell the whole story .
This may help paint a more unbiased picture
http://citizenship.coca-cola.co.uk/latest/index.asp
http://citizenship.coca-cola.co.uk/workplace/labour.asp
http://www.cokefacts.org/

What must be remebered with the nestle ban is we are punishing just one company who abuse people of the third world. Its not just isolated to nestle.It is more then likely every multinational cpompany who abuse citizens of the third world as our prototype. Nestle really are one of many with the main offenders really being the pharmecutical companies.


What really is wrong here is not the ban itself but the referendum process. The fact is only 2,500 voted for the coke ban. That is a measly 12.5% of the student body.That is undemocratic and wholly unrepresantative of us students.

Young Siward

panda100 wrote:

Please dont make your mind up from this website. It is biased and doesnt tell the whole story .
This may help paint a more unbiased picture
http://citizenship.coca-cola.co.uk/latest/index.asp
http://citizenship.coca-cola.co.uk/workplace/labour.asp
http://www.cokefacts.org/

Whereas links direct from Cokes' website do......?

panda100

Young Siward wrote:

Whereas links direct from Cokes' website do......?

Yeah alright there probably about as biased as killercoke.org but at least you get to hear the two sides of the story.

Stabshauptmann

humbert wrote:

people can make their choice when they go into the shop, it's not for the minority of opinionated muppets to choose for them:mad:

Listen its really quite simple. Should people be allowed to choose what to buy? Obviously you think yes.

Well as the owner of a shop I choose not to buy product 'X'. It was my choice and I think Im entitled to make it.

Make whatever arguements you like, but saying you should be allowed choice is BS hypocracy because you're ignoring my right as a shop owner to choose not to buy a product I dont want to.

Ps, and that would be the opinionated majority - in two referendum, btw

Royale with Cheese

dajaffa wrote:

It was banned due to the lack of action taken by the Coca Cola Corporation after (the alleged) murders of some workers in Columbia due to their membership of a trade union. And nobody has the right to make up other people's minds for them, that's why we held reffurendums. The coke one was held twice with the ban supported both times.

Why is a democratic process needed here? You can only have one government hence people have to have an election and vote. Why you need to vote to boycott coke is beyond me. Boycott it if you want to, buy it if you want to. Having a referendum and banning the product is making up people's minds for them. Democracy is a far from flawless system and is not needed in this case. Those in support of the ban could still choose to boycott it if the ban was removed, however those not in favour of the ban don't have a choice. If you want to boycott the product, spread awareness, get a petition of all the people in UCD who don't want to buy the product for reasons given and then send that to coke. It'll have the same affect (nothing).

The process if flawed, the low turnout indicates the vast majority of the student body couldn't care less (i.e. would not support the ban but don't feel strongly enough about it to go out and vote). The only people who would be bothered enough to vote are the ones who feel strongly in favour on banning it, not too many feel that strongly against the ban. This referendum was a joke. Anyone who thinks it's anything other than a bunch of people trying to make themselves feel important are deluding themselves. Why does there need to be a big referendum on a issue which bears no relevance to the student body? It was just held for the sake of having a referendum.

P.S I don't even buy and Coke or Nestle products. I'm one of the select few who considers Pepsi to be the superior brand. I couldn't care less about the availabilty of these products in the SU shops, just about some opinionated activists making peoples decisions for them.

humbert

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Listen its really quite simple. Should people be allowed to choose what to buy? Obviously you think yes.

Well as the owner of a shop I choose not to buy product 'X'. It was my choice and I think Im entitled to make it.

Make whatever arguements you like, but saying you should be allowed choice is BS hypocracy because you're ignoring my right as a shop owner to choose not to buy a product I dont want to.

Ps, and that would be the opinionated majority - in two referendum, btw

well you say shop owner, by that you mean SU, buy that you mean the students. this means that the shop should buy what the students want, getting a small majority in a referendum where they struggled to get 30% to turnout can hardly be said to be representative of the students. I've said it before, if the majority of the students don't care then nothing should change, that imo is democracy

EDIT: except in cases where a decision has to be made, of course.

Stabshauptmann

Blush_01 wrote:

If you know why the boycotts exist and don't agree, you should have access to the products.

You DO have access. There is no blanket ban on campus. FFS the SU hasnt even tried to ban coke in the forum bar though they're on the committee there. All there is is that the shop (a legal entity) made a decision not to buy coke anymore. Not to stop it being sold to students but because the shop's owners didnt want to buy the product.

The SU shops dont sell pornos. I want pornos and I dont see why the opinionated minority should stop impede my porno habbit

I dont care if you choose to buy these products. Do. There are plenty of places on campus to do so. But respect my choice not to buy it (for use in my shops).

Stabshauptmann

humbert wrote:

well you say shop owner, by that you mean SU, buy that you mean the students. this means that the shop should buy what the students want, getting a small majority in a referendum where they struggled to get 30% to turnout can hardly be said to be representative of the students. I've said it before, if the majority of the students don't care then nothing should change, that imo is democracy

EDIT: except in cases where a decision has to be made, of course.

You talk about choice but dont respect my choice of words

I said shop, I mean shop. I dont mean USI or the irish congress of trade unions. I mean a commercial decision, taken my management of a business entity.

And its great that you have your little theories on how democracy should run, but unless you've got a secret army and the revolution is sooner that I think, Im gonna stick with the current system.

I person = I vote. If a quorum is reached the vote is valid.

humbert

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Well as the owner of a shop

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

You talk about choice but dont respect my choice of words

I said shop, I mean shop. I dont mean USI or the irish congress of trade unions. I mean a commercial decision, taken my management of a business entity.

And its great that you have your little theories on how democracy should run, but unless you've got a secret army and the revolution is sooner that I think, Im gonna stick with the current system.

I person = I vote. If a quorum is reached the vote is valid.

weak argument and wildly off topic, we're discussing the SU banning of coke and nestle, it wasn't a commercial decision.

Stabshauptmann

humbert wrote:

weak argument and wildly off topic, we're discussing the SU banning of coke and nestle, it wasn't a commercial decision.

Why wasnt it?

Riverisland choose to pay their workers in africa high wages.
Businesses make ethical decisions all the time. I would love for anyone to explain to me how a shop making a stocking decsion cant be considered a commercial decision.

And as for weak arguements:
"getting a small majority in a referendum where they struggled to get 30% to turnout "

Struggled to get 30%?!

SU Constitution wrote:

Any Referendum under this Section shall be deemed to have been passed if the majority of the votes cast at such referendum shall have been cast in favour of the proposal and not less than 10% of the members of the Union shall have voted at such referendum

Now you have idealistic notions that at least 51% of the entire student body should be in favour. Thats rediculous because you couldnt even expect 50% to show up for voting.

A poignent example, Bill clinton was elected in 1996 as president of the most powerful nation in the world, with only 48% of those of voting age actually voting. Of which Clinton only got 49%. Do the math. Less than half of those eligable to vote voted, less than half of those voted for Clinton in 1996.

And you want 51% of all those eligable to vote to vote in favour of the motion. Dream on!

Vainglory

panda100 wrote:

Im undecided really but I do think ultimatly at the end of the day students should have the choice to buy whatever they want in the su shops.

Should shops not have the right to sell whatever products they want and don't want?

Edit - Ah, just read through the rest of the thread. Seems my comments are being echoed.

rainbow kirby wrote:

Allow both. They made an arse of the referendum for the Coke ban both times when they ran it, and reversed the wording the second time which confused quite a few people... it should never have been brought in in the first place.

The only people who re-ran the referendum and changed the wording were the anti-coke side.

You have the right as a member of your Students' Union to vote in the elections and in the referenda. If you wish to give out about how things aren't fair given that 12.5% voted, then I suggest you rally people to vote. If you wish to change the rules of the 10% quorum, then you should get collecting signatures, but remember that the rules that are currently in place in your constitution were voted upon and agreed by members of UCDSU!

Apologies for my repeated intrusion on this topic, but I've always found the debate on the Coke issue quite fascinating.

panda100

Vainglory wrote:

Should shops not have the right to sell whatever products they want and don't want?

.

Yes Definaltly, I 110% agree with you. Students have an absolute right to say what can or cannot be sold in the union shops. But 2,500 (12.5%) is not representative of the student body. As I said before,I agree with the coke boycott I just dont agree with the way the su handle referendums.

humbert

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Why wasnt it?

Riverisland choose to pay their workers in africa high wages.
Businesses make ethical decisions all the time. I would love for anyone to explain to me how a shop making a stocking decsion cant be considered a commercial decision.

And as for weak arguements:
"getting a small majority in a referendum where they struggled to get 30% to turnout "

Struggled to get 30%?!


Now you have idealistic notions that at least 51% of the entire student body should be in favour. Thats rediculous because you couldnt even expect 50% to show up for voting.

A poignent example, Bill clinton was elected in 1996 as president of the most powerful nation in the world, with only 48% of those of voting age actually voting. Of which Clinton only got 49%. Do the math. Less than half of those eligable to vote voted, less than half of those voted for Clinton in 1996.

And you want 51% of all those eligable to vote to vote in favour of the motion. Dream on!

Read what I said, I said that I think half the students should care enough to vote, not half the students should vote in favour. yes lets look to the american elections for a good example of democracy working!

The riverisland thing was I'm sure good publicity in the hope of boosting sales, nothing like the decision made here.

10%, what a joke.

Oh and I love the way the student union(who run the SU shops) say on one hand that the students are the union then on the other hand say the shops should be allowed to sell what ever they like.