Coca-Cola Back on the Card.

Jager Man

So what do people think about the referendum being held again?

It was brought up at council after Dave Quinn’s report on 'ethical trading' (which did not consult the ethical trading committee). Simon Hall produced a typed 'emergency' motion, which passed.

The reason for bringing the referendum back up was that it was last voted on two years ago so a lot of students are misrepresented on their views.

Crash

No

I personally feel that It should be brought up again. While I'm opposed to the ban (please no one call it a boycott, because it isn't) i'd be happy enough with it being brought and it being defeated, I just feel that with somewhere where the demographic changes completely in 4 years that anything which relates to a current issue should be re-evaluated after 2/3 years or so, simply to ensure that proper representation is being kept.

on the emergency motion point, it does qualify as an emergency motion under the constitution, as it relates to something which has occured since the deadline, such as the discussion paper. Whatever about it being typed, or if you think it was sly, but it is perfectly ok.

same with the KAL case thing actually - someone mentioned to me that that shouldn't have been an emergency motion when in fact it perfectly qualifies due to the USI campaign decision over the weekend.

interested to see what others think though.

Edit: also, I'm changing the poll to a simple yes or no - I feel that there's a touch of bias in the poll options and I think a yes or no question is the best way to allow this one.

paperclip

No

Personally, I think the best way to ensure democracy is to have it available. Those who are ethically opposed to Coke can abstain from buying it.

I like Diet Coke.

ApeXaviour

Why does the coke machine in the hamilton sell its coke so much cheaper than centra...? Hmmm I wonder.


Keep the coke ban, get cheap coke!

&#231

No

&#231 wrote: »

on the emergency motion point, it does qualify as an emergency motion under the constitution, as it relates to something which has occured since the deadline, such as the discussion paper. Whatever about it being typed, or if you think it was sly, but it is perfectly ok.

I still completely disagree

same with the KAL case thing actually - someone mentioned to me that that shouldn't have been an emergency motion when in fact it perfectly qualifies due to the USI campaign decision over the weekend.

Without offending Ronan (LGBT Officer) he didn't mention (or at least I didn't hear) how it was eligible as an emergency motion, which explains such a query. It wasn't even present in the motion presented why it was such an emergency.

As a student, I've no problem with Coca-Cola coming back into the SU Shops. As a consumer, I hope that the price is as low as the vending machines (which I frequent), as Dec said.

Andrew 83

Can someone clarify what's meant be the word reaffirmed in the poll? Are we talking about reaffirming the boycott yes/no or letting Coke back in yes/no?

Personally I think 3 referendums on the issue in four years is over the top. It's like when we were voting on USI membership every year. Keep the boycott.

I wonder if Coke will pay any students to campaign as there were allegations of in the past (I'm not saying it happened, I don't know, I'm just saying there were serious allegations of it).

If the president brought an 'ethical trading' report without consultation with the relevant working group that's seriously wrong. What's the point in having these committees if they're not consulted on the very issues the people on them have a specialist interest in and have been elected to serve on? Very undemocratic.

Andrew 83

No

Andrew 83 wrote:

Can someone clarify what's meant be the word reaffirmed in the poll? Are we talking about reaffirming the boycott yes/no or letting Coke back in yes/no?

Council allowed an emergency motion a few days ago (and then agreed to it) that a referendum take place to remove the restriction on the sale of Coca-Cola goods in the SU. I don't know the precise wording of it as I left before the motions were discussed.

Andrew 83

Myth wrote:

Council allowed an emergency motion a few days ago (and then agreed to it) that a referendum take place to remove the restriction on the sale of Coca-Cola goods in the SU. I don't know the precise wording of it as I left before the motions were discussed.

Sorry I wasn't clear there. I meant in the poll in this topic on the boards! Does clicking 'yes' mean supporting or being against the boycott?

Jager Man

Sorry, in case there was any confusion over the term reaffirmed, what I meant by that was: should coke be brought back into SU shops.......Why didn't I say that in the beginning so easy....

I think Andrew’s point is valid that whether or not you’re opposed to it a vote was taken twice and agreed to ban coke in SU shops etc. The argument that a number of students didn’t vote on this is ridiculous. I don’t need nor do I want to post a list of issues, which the Union follows which are not mandated by council or students.
Three votes in Four years is a lot, why not just throw it in with the Sabbath elections to by-pass the manic council of last week??!

King.Penguin

but the population from last year has changed nearly 25%

Tricity Bendix

King.Penguin wrote:

but the population from last year has changed nearly 25%

By that logic, all referenda that have been undertaken by the SU should be repeated every year. I don't know if I like the sound of that.

fiveone

paperclip wrote:

Personally, I think the best way to ensure democracy is to have it available. Those who are ethically opposed to Coke can abstain from buying it.

I like Diet Coke.

Its not so much much a question of ethics as it is ignorance. Coca Cola is a corporation that is causing a lot of people a lot of trouble. By seeing it merely as a beverage you are willfully ignoring this fact. Your opinion on the matter, or lack thereof, does not justify stifling what little effort there is to make a stand against a huge, dangerous corporation. Your attitude is worse than apathetic, it is actively apathetic.

The decision to ban coke has been an expensive one, and any effectiveness is might have had is undermined by the vending machines, but this doesent mean the whole thing should just be done away with. The idea behind the ban is more important than throwaway consumerism.

lydonst

No

lydonst wrote:

Its not so much much a question of ethics as it is ignorance. Coca Cola is a corporation that is causing a lot of people a lot of trouble. By seeing it merely as a beverage you are willfully ignoring this fact. Your opinion on the matter, or lack thereof, does not justify stifling what little effort there is to make a stand against a huge, dangerous corporation. Your attitude is worse than apathetic, it is actively apathetic.

The decision to ban coke has been an expensive one, and any effectiveness is might have had is undermined by the vending machines, but this doesent mean the whole thing should just be done away with. The idea behind the ban is more important than throwaway consumerism.

Screw that - I want my Coke!!

Joking asise, I get where you are coming from.
However, the OP was not ignoring the fact, it just didn't bother him and he was happy to purchase coke.

From a personal level, I don't really care that much about what coke does or doesn't do. I have more pressing matters (for me) such as my degree and other things.

This ban seems to me pointless as I can buy coke on campus - and regulary do. However I start to get pissed when people start giving out to me for buying coke - it's as much my choice to buy it as it is yours to boycott them, I don't preach to you and I would like not to get preached at by people about it.

Blisterman

I prefer Pepsi.

fiveone

original_psycho wrote:

Screw that - I want my Coke!!

From a personal level, I don't really care that much about what coke does or doesn't do. I have more pressing matters (for me) such as my degree and other things.

This ban seems to me pointless as I can buy coke on campus - and regulary do. However I start to get pissed when people start giving out to me for buying coke - it's as much my choice to buy it as it is yours to boycott them, I don't preach to you and I would like not to get preached at by people about it.

Pressing matters? Degree? Firstly, you need some perspective. Even if your degree requires one hundred per-cent of your attention (it doesen't) it still doesent prevent you drinking something other than coke. And I'm not preaching either - what pisses me off is when people dismiss common sense so flippantly. Coke is bad for you, it is a luxury, and whats more it is a luxury that indirectly takes food out of people's mouths.

Whether you choose to take an interest in the matter or not is irrelavent - there is obviously quite a valid reason for its being banned. You are the most priviledged sector of society, and refraining from drinking coke is the least you can do to get off your apathetic ass.

Aside from that it's bad for you, and its quite addictive too. The ban does not harm coca cola, and it is not intended to. It is symbolic and it brings attention to the companys mal-practice. You want to remove the ban for the sake of walking to the arts block for your precious coke? Be my guest. But companies wrongdoings effect you aswell, and if you retain a willfully ignorant attitude you will eventually be effected in some way, you probably already are. (maybe that's an argument more relevant "for you")

lydonst

No

lydonst wrote:

Pressing matters? Degree? Firstly, you need some perspective. Even if your degree requires one hundred per-cent of your attention (it doesen't) it still doesent prevent you drinking something other than coke. And I'm not preaching either - what pisses me off is when people dismiss common sense so flippantly. Coke is bad for you, it is a luxury, and whats more it is a luxury that indirectly takes food out of people's mouths.

Whether you choose to take an interest in the matter or not is irrelavent - there is obviously quite a valid reason for its being banned. You are the most priviledged sector of society, and refraining from drinking coke is the least you can do to get off your apathetic ass.

Aside from that it's bad for you, and its quite addictive too. The ban does not harm coca cola, and it is not intended to. It is symbolic and it brings attention to the companys mal-practice. You want to remove the ban for the sake of walking to the arts block for your precious coke? Be my guest. But companies wrongdoings effect you aswell, and if you retain a willfully ignorant attitude you will eventually be effected in some way, you probably already are. (maybe that's an argument more relevant "for you")

Face it - you're preaching; you don't know me yet you are calling me 'the most prviledged sector of society' and 'an apathetic ass'. Come off it - what you don't get is that what coke do doesn't bother me. I don't care about them. Full stop.

In relation to the rest of your rant - what I choose to drink is my concern and quite frankly none of yours.

You obviously care about coke, thats you're right.
I don't - thats mine.

fiveone

Don't tell me I'm preaching like you've scored a point. Irrelavent.

I like how you've managed to miscontrue a sector of society as yourself, classic narcissism. We all go to college here, we're all comparitively priviledged. Fact is, you only care about number one. Just because you have an opinion doesent mean you're right (and if its harming someone, I don't have to accept it as your "right."

I'm not targetting you personally, but lose the stubborn attitude.

Crash

No

Actually lydonst, I think you should lose the stubborn attitude. If you can't have a proper discussion on this without just randomly throwing claims about people around, i WILL close this thread, as it is a contentious point that tends to get peoples shackles up, and as such all involved should do their very best to keep this from becoming personal.

fiveone

Yeah bit out of line, apologies. Only trying to deal with what I was given.

Moorsy

Lets not make this a personal argument but a constructive open one.

The facts are what matter and lets look at them.
People died. Whether it concerns you or not, people are now dead for choosing to be part of a trade union. Whether you believe trade unions are good or not is immaterial. People deserve the freedom to choose to be in such an organisation; a tenet of democracy held dearly in our system.

Those people who joined a union (SINALTINAL) were threatened and eventually murder for their participation there within. The Coke ban by Trinity Students Union and many other groups in the United States, Britain and Europe are invoked not as a profit reducing method, they are invoked because the people within those organizations want to highlight the issue. The main focus is media attention; if enough noise is made hopefully the organisation in question will rectify the situation.

The situation foremost is a bottling plant in Columbia, which is not owned by Coke but supplies to Coke. If Coke has no problem doing business with a plant, where union members were murdered, I have a problem.
I ask anybody on these boards to state truthfully that they have no problem with this. That they have no problem drinking a bottle of coke knowing that because somebody wanted a better life for their family they were murder. Does anybody not feel compassion for these murdered people? I know I do.

I think, and more so hope, that nobody would wish to see the same horror in Ireland. That is if they joined a movement, for whatever purposes, they would be free to associate and participate without fear or knowledge that it may lead to their or their family’s murder.

Its is an open show of disgust with murder nothing else, nothing more.

Dave3x

Hardly 'factual'. I looked into this last year, and could not find a single solid piece of evidence anywhere to connect Coca-Cola to dead bodies; every single refernce seemed to originate from "journalists" on the 'killer coke' website. I'm not saying it didn'y happen, I'm just saying that my own attempts failed to find anything that could even remotely convince me.

Secondly, and more importantly: The Studen't Union are not an activist group. They are not a charity group. Their job is not to take the moral high ground. Their job is not to address pressing social issues in another country.

The time and effort, and most importantly, publicity, could be put towards more pressing issues- improving student conditions, which IS the job of the SU.

fiveone

Dave3x wrote:

Secondly, and more importantly: The Studen't Union are not an activist group. They are not a charity group. Their job is not to take the moral high ground. Their job is not to address pressing social issues in another country.

The time and effort, and most importantly, publicity, could be put towards more pressing issues- improving student conditions, which IS the job of the SU.

Not an activist group? You say that like it's a bad thing - they are a political body of students and should take a stand on political issues. They act in the name of students, not merely for the sole benefit of students. I don't know where you got charity from. As you can see from the cuts in the drama dept. its rather obvious you cannot seperate economics, politics from "student issues." I agree with what you're saying in practicality but banning coke requires very little "time and effort" and furthermore shows students are willing to step outside of their cushy little bubble and have a voice on issues in the real world.

Lack of evidence? Well, I'm sure it's there - but aside from that, what do you think the chances of one of the biggest corporations in the world acting in a responsible and ethical manner are? Whatever you think the SU's job should be, there is no reason to remove this minor step towards political, global awareness and refocus it on couches in the arts block and who Quinn fired last week. For god's sake - Coke can be got elsewhere anyway. Students have a bad name because of perceived decadence, narcissism and apathy, and I don't understand why you'd want to strenthen that opinion and earn more profits for Coca-Cola in the process.

Crash

No

lydonst wrote:

but aside from that, what do you think the chances of one of the biggest corporations in the world acting in a responsible and ethical manner are?

sorry, this is the most ridiculuous argument for this i've ever heard. If there is to be a ban on something like this, it MUST, i stress MUST be based solidly on confirmable facts. not whether people believe that coke as a multinational is most likely doing something wrong, or whether some website (and from reading a number of them out there, every single one of them has an agenda and is not below subtle manipulation of the writing to lead an argument) states it.

As for the issue on the students union and its place, i'm somewhat divided on this. In essence, as the SU stands, it is a union only in name. More correctly it is a student services provider. now the one issue of this is that depending on how you view it, there's the slight possibility that we could end up like this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_student_unionism
and have an overall involvement of under 2% nationwide with the students union.

but most of that last paragraphs an aside anyhow.

&#231

No

&#231 wrote: »

In essence, as the SU stands, it is a union only in name. More correctly it is a student services provider.

The one problem with calling it a 'student services provider' implies that it is just there to give out free things (material goods) to students, i.e. like the pens and stuff the SU gives out at exam time. An organisation which involves campaigning doesn't, in my opinion, fit inside the description of a 'student services provider'.

/end aside-ness.

Andrew 83

Dave3x wrote:

Hardly 'factual'. I looked into this last year, and could not find a single solid piece of evidence anywhere to connect Coca-Cola to dead bodies; every single refernce seemed to originate from "journalists" on the 'killer coke' website. I'm not saying it didn'y happen, I'm just saying that my own attempts failed to find anything that could even remotely convince me.

The people were definitely murdered. Amnesty have confirmed so, union leaders from SINALTRAINAL have come over to Ireland and told students and others of the conditions. There is no doubt that this happened.

As has been stated the factory involved is the bottlers who bottle Coca-Cola in Colombia. Again no dispute here.

Coke are connected as they have not insisted to the bottling plant that workers be allowed to join a union - more fundamentally they are turning a blind eye to the fact that people are being murdered in the bottling plant of their product.

A boycott allows us to make a statement that we are against this and that we feel Coke should guarantee workers who are part of their operations (not their bottling plant, but the plant bottling their product) that they will not lose their lives. Coke could easily say they won't use this bottling company unless workers are allowed join unions and their lives guaranteed.

By boycotting Coke it's a statement that we will not sell their products in the SU shops until they take steps to do this. The more organisations that follow suit the better - it puts more pressure on.

Leaving students to make an individual choice is far less effective as many students will be unaware of the issues. This is where the SU has really failed - they have twice been mandated to heavily advertise the boycott and why it is in place but have failed dismally. Perhaps rather than writing unconsulted upon reports and drafting obviosuly pre-prepared 'emergency' motions the officers involved should be fulfilling their mandate to advertise the boycotts?

Dave3x

lydonst wrote:

They act in the name of students, not merely for the sole benefit of students.

This might be slightly tangential, but I believe it's a question of priorities. A student union should first and foremost be for the benefit of students; only after this should other considerations come into play. With so many difficulties in college (such as the cessation of the acting studies course), making this an issue for referendum makes it a priority (in the sense that nothing else s being dealt with instead).

lydonst wrote:

banning coke requires very little "time and effort" and furthermore shows students are willing to step outside of their cushy little bubble and have a voice on issues in the real world.

I would disagree. As the last SU council should demonstrate, this issue takes a lot of time to discuss and it also loses the SU money in lost opportunities (apart from retail income, in potential sponsorship). While I've no problem with student action, this issue is far from unanimous and, I would argue, is no more 'our fight' than any other human rights campaign which is ignored.

lydonst wrote:

but aside from that, what do you think the chances of one of the biggest corporations in the world acting in a responsible and ethical manner are?

As said above, ridiculous. Coca-Cola frequently sponsors small sports teams and other community ventures, but even if they didn't, big corporation does not always equal evil.

lydonst wrote:

Students have a bad name because of perceived decadence, narcissism and apathy, and I don't understand why you'd want to strenthen that opinion and earn more profits for Coca-Cola in the process.

Again, this sounds like you dislike Coca-Cola just because they are a big company. Why would I have an objection to them earning profits through the sale of their product. I'd also argue that students are among the most active demographics in many respects (if we consider the terrible apathy that exists in society anyway); and that their 'bad name' is more likely due to excessive alcohol consumption and drug use.

That's about it for my 2 cents. I know I may have said some things which sound strong, but that's because I'm trying to give an intelligent answer rather than a meaningless opinion.

Moorsy

Dave3x wrote:

As said above, ridiculous. Coca-Cola frequently sponsors small sports teams and other community ventures, but even if they didn't, big corporation does not always equal evil.

I wish not to sound like lydonst, but ask yourself why coke sponsors sports teams? It marketing, at a rather sick level. Many school sports' teams are sponsored by food companies such as McDonald’s. People seem to have no problem with this but then when their children are obese because they eat too much fast food and wont drink milk they blame these corporations. Companies know if you catch a kid when their young you'll have them for life.

That does sound very anti-corporatist but its a fact, something I’m not completely comfortable with.

It is necessary only for he good to do nothing for evil to triumph.
(if anybody wonders if coke is evil, the answer is probably no, but doing business with partners who show a lack of regard to murder is.)

fiveone

Dave3x wrote:

A student union should first and foremost be for the benefit of students; only after this should other considerations come into play. With so many difficulties in college (such as the cessation of the acting studies course), making this an issue for referendum makes it a priority.

As the last SU council should demonstrate, this issue takes a lot of time to discuss and it also loses the SU money in lost opportunities (apart from retail income, in potential sponsorship). While I've no problem with student action, this issue is far from unanimous and, I would argue, is no more 'our fight' than any other human rights campaign which is ignored.

Difficulties, funnily enough, stemming from an all too economic attitude towards non-profit subjects. Why has the coke ban become an issue again? Change of voting demographic? Unlikely this will draw a higher voting turnout than the elections themselves. Loss of revenue? Valid, but in my opinion justified. And I have stated before it is a symbolic ban, it (ideally) should promote aware and change of attitude towards things that are not "our problem." It is not purely human rights - it is, as I see it, a sign of social awareness at the very least. It takes up too much council time? Then simply leave as is. You'll survive. Remember, people don't want to be preached to.

Dave3x wrote:

As said above, ridiculous. Coca-Cola frequently sponsors small sports teams and other community ventures, but even if they didn't, big corporation does not always equal evil.

As has since been pointed out by someone who does not wish to affiliate themselves with me personally, this is advertising and as such meaningless. Big Corporations, granted, are evil only anecdotally. Nonetheless profits are made by exploiting loopholes and having the means to covertly do so - Its obvious Coke doesen't care about Columbians so I'd be rather surprised if they cared about whatever little college projects you're eager to have them fund.

Dave3x wrote:

Again, this sounds like you dislike Coca-Cola just because they are a big company. Why would I have an objection to them earning profits through the sale of their product. I'd also argue that students are among the most active demographics in many respects (if we consider the terrible apathy that exists in society anyway); and that their 'bad name' is more likely due to excessive alcohol consumption and drug use.

Its not just a question of profit and product. It's how they create and the means by which they distribute their product. Their profits are at the expense of non-irish livelyhoods and irish health. The advertising is manipulative and there is there is convincing evidence of their lack of ethics in the conduction of the businuess. I refer to the above post. I don't see how students can justifiably remain socially aware if this ban is done away with, regardless of what you compare them with. They have a responsibility to be active - they do not have mortages, children, and are allowed the apparent luxury of a union where employees of coke are not. Its not even asking much, simply refrain from buying coke from the little S.U. shop.

Dave3x wrote:

That's about it for my 2 cents. I know I may have said some things which sound strong, but that's because I'm trying to give an intelligent answer rather than a meaningless opinion.

Stop preaching.

shay_562

In recent weeks and months, I've heard multiple things that worry me about the conditions that TCD students will face both in coming years and in the very immediate present. The fact that an apparently internationally renowned course has been closed down because it's not pulling in enough money; the fact that several others will likely follow if ARAM continues; the fact that free healthcare for students probably won't last much longer; the fact that every minor sports club in college that wants to use on-campus facilities is about to be essentially shut down by a ridiculous levy; and doubtless many others - these are just a few of the ones that I've heard about and have some personal stake in. I'm under no illusions that this time is even all that tumultuous - I'd guess that in just about every year, the students of TCD are faced with multiple other crises that either die down, or happen anyway and are adjusted to.

You know what doesn't concern me when I think about the future of TCD students? How a bottling plant in Columbia treats its workers. Which isn't to minimise the issue, or to be flippant about those workers' lives; it's simply to point out that the SU has absolutely no reason to get involved here. When we're protesting about something that affects TCD students, or taking a moral stand on educational or welfare matters, by all means, let the SU take a stand. When it comes to the SU shops, the fact that so much time and effort (and as Dave3x pointed out upthread, this does take both) over which soft drinks to stock is a clear misdirection of energy. I'd like to see this issue go to referendum again ASAP (because I believe there will be another vote on this at some stage, and the sooner the better), see the ban tossed out and then never see or hear anything relating to it ever again - if any of the myriad Socs that deal with human rights want to organise boycotts and protests, fine. That's within their mandate. I genuinely can't see what the SU has to do with any of this. It's not a political organisation designed to comment on world issues on behalf of students based on whatever Very Serious Issue is in vogue in a given year; it's there to advocate for students and to improve our general well-being within TCD. Far from doing that, the ban divides our attention, splits our focus and means that the stuff that the SU should be worrying about and debating college-wide slips through with barely a peep.

Andrew 83

Those taking up the time that should be used on other issues are those students (including the Union's Publicity officer from what I can gather, who should be publicising the other issues) who are looking for the ban to be repealed. I can't fathom why they continue to take such a strong personal interest in these topics.

A rather easy to make message is being made that the SU won't support financially a company that's doing nothing to prevent the murder of employees that they easily could. Why is this so bad?

Tricity Bendix

Andrew 83 wrote:

The people were definitely murdered.

Now, just so you know, I'm pretty open-minded about this issue despite whatever ideological affiliations I might once have had, and I don't want to seem rude, but just because you say it on an internet site doesn't make it true. You must understand that union sources aren't exactly neutral. I personally think that these events did occur, but that is only because I'm very easily swayed. I can understand why others are not so easily convinced.

Andrew 83

b.ie curious wrote:

Now, just so you know, I'm pretty open-minded about this issue despite whatever ideological affiliations I might once have had, and I don't want to seem rude, but just because you say it on an internet site doesn't make it true. You must understand that union sources aren't exactly neutral. I personally think that these events did occur, but that is only because I'm very easily swayed. I can understand why others are not so easily convinced.

As far as I was aware there was no dispute as to the fact that the people involved were killed. The question is whether Coke have any responsibility (direct or indirect)? If the people were still alive I'm pretty sure Coke would have made a big deal about this and that the court cases taking place in the United States would have been thrown out immediately.

Personally I too have no idea if the claims that Coke directed and was involved with paramilitaries in the area with regard to the bottling plant are true or not. Therefore I am not going around saying that that definitely happened as I haven't seen clear evidence. It seems uncontested as far as I can see that these people were killed however. Therefore I think it's fair to say Coke should be doing something to protect these employees as they're in their supply line (as I suggested, perhaps by refusing to use Panamco [think that's the bottlers name] until the lives of their workers in Coke bottling plants are guaranteed and union membership allowed).

ApeXaviour

ApeXaviour wrote:

Why does the coke machine in the hamilton sell its coke so much cheaper than centra...? Hmmm I wonder.


Keep the coke ban, get cheap coke!

Ah poo... they raised the price on the machine now :mad: I shoulda kept my mouth shut.

Crash

No

Moorsy wrote:

I wish not to sound like lydonst, but ask yourself why coke sponsors sports teams? It marketing, at a rather sick level. Many school sports' teams are sponsored by food companies such as McDonald’s. People seem to have no problem with this but then when their children are obese because they eat too much fast food and wont drink milk they blame these corporations. Companies know if you catch a kid when their young you'll have them for life.

sorry, this is slightly tangental, but I honestly feel that you're wrong on this. Large corporations sponsoring small sports teams is HIGHLY beneficial to sports in this country, and you can comment on how people have no problem until little johnnys too fat and then its the corporations fault, but in that case, who's fault is it? in my mind, its the lack of responsibility from parents willing to discipline and control a child in relation to wants and demands. They're the ones who sicken me in that situation, not the corporations.


secondly, and this is a bit of a pet hate of mine, could we please take a moment to compare these two words:

boy·cott [boi-kot]
–verb (used with object)
1. to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion: to boycott a store.
2. to abstain from buying or using: to boycott foreign products.

and

ban1 [ban]
–verb (used with object)
1. to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict: to ban nuclear weapons; The dictator banned all newspapers and books that criticized his regime.
2. Archaic. a. to pronounce an ecclesiastical curse upon.
b. to curse; execrate
–noun
3. the act of prohibiting by law; interdiction.

now, which of these would accurately describe the coke situation with the SU at the moment? To refer to it as a boycott is wrong to be honest, when useage no.3 of the word ban most accurately describes the situation as set down in policy.

As for the situation of the ban at the moment, as more and more gets said about it, I want this referendum over and done with either way. whether it stands or goes, I feel that between this and the Flag issue, way too much time is being diverted from the very serious situations that are going on in college at the moment (and it bugs the ****e out of me when everyone gets excited at council over flag stuff and then goes "ugh..." whenever something along the lines of restructuring or modularisation comes up - I know its not fun or exciting, but its gonna affect what you're actually here to do)

anyhow, apologies for pedantism above.

shay_562

Those taking up the time that should be used on other issues are those students (including the Union's Publicity officer from what I can gather, who should be publicising the other issues) who are looking for the ban to be repealed. I can't fathom why they continue to take such a strong personal interest in these topics.

I'd say it's fairly inevitable that the bancott (in an effort to avoid displeasing Crash either way) will be argued over for as long as it's in place. It's ridiculously selective (while lydonst's "All corporations are evil and kill babies" argument was clearly wrong, it's equally wrong to assume that Coke are the first or last company to source cheap labour from questionable sources), it oversteps the bounds of the Union's mandate (the shop is there to make money/provide cheaper goods to students, not to make political points) and it's an inconvenience that students have to live with every day. Of course people are going to be annoyed when morality and ethics are dictated to them by the SU, and of course people are going to continue to argue against the bancott

Your line of thinking seems to be "Well, it's there now, so it's easier to leave it there" - from an idealogical perspective, I'd disagree with this as I think there's very clear opposition to it based on several sound reasons, and to continue with the practical perspective I argued above, I think therefore that another vote on this is inevitable; as long as the bancott is in place people will resent it and rail against it. If it's scrapped in another vote, then it's more likely to slip away and be forgotten about.

pedantism

Pedantry!!

(I'm sorry, but someone had to say it)

Tricity Bendix

Andrew 83 wrote:

As far as I was aware there was no dispute as to the fact that the people involved were killed. The question is whether Coke have any responsibility (direct or indirect)? If the people were still alive I'm pretty sure Coke would have made a big deal about this and that the court cases taking place in the United States would have been thrown out immediately.

Personally I too have no idea if the claims that Coke directed and was involved with paramilitaries in the area with regard to the bottling plant are true or not. Therefore I am not going around saying that that definitely happened as I haven't seen clear evidence. It seems uncontested as far as I can see that these people were killed however. Therefore I think it's fair to say Coke should be doing something to protect these employees as they're in their supply line (as I suggested, perhaps by refusing to use Panamco [think that's the bottlers name] until the lives of their workers in Coke bottling plants are guaranteed and union membership allowed).

But were these people killed because they were trade unionists, or were they trade unionists who were killed?

Incidently, a fully comprehensive boycott would include the banning of products that are manufactured using inputs from the same suppliers to the plant in question (its probably not wise to name it if you're not completely sure) so as to ensure we're hitting the whole supply chain, not just its multinational 'face'.

Andrew 83

shay_562 wrote:

I'd say it's fairly inevitable that the bancott (in an effort to avoid displeasing Crash either way) will be argued over for as long as it's in place. It's ridiculously selective (while lydonst's "All corporations are evil and kill babies" argument was clearly wrong, it's equally wrong to assume that Coke are the first or last company to source cheap labour from questionable sources), it oversteps the bounds of the Union's mandate (the shop is there to make money/provide cheaper goods to students, not to make political points) and it's an inconvenience that students have to live with every day. Of course people are going to be annoyed when morality and ethics are dictated to them by the SU, and of course people are going to continue to argue against the bancott

Your line of thinking seems to be "Well, it's there now, so it's easier to leave it there" - from an idealogical perspective, I'd disagree with this as I think there's very clear opposition to it based on several sound reasons, and to continue with the practical perspective I argued above, I think therefore that another vote on this is inevitable; as long as the bancott is in place people will resent it and rail against it. If it's scrapped in another vote, then it's more likely to slip away and be forgotten about.

Well the majority of students who bothered to vote in two of the last three years wanted it upheld so it's only a small minority who are vociferously against the boycott. If they lose again (maybe they will, maybe they won't) will these people stop for a while? It's starting to feel like the Nice Treaty.


In terms of nomenclature I think it is a boycott, fitting definition (2) listed. The union is abstaining from buying or using Coke products.

b.ie curious - if you know of any other products on sale from other companies that are also being bottled in this plant I think they should be included. I'd be surprised if there are any though I don't know obviously.

xeduCat

Definition of boycott quoted above:

1. to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion: to boycott a store.
2. to abstain from buying or using: to boycott foreign products.

That is in fact the current situation, so boycott is a more precise term.

The shop manager has been instructed (in accordance with the structures of the SU) to "abstain from buying" the relevant products (for stocking in the shop). He has been told by his 'shareholders', if you wish, that he must boycott a particular supplier. A "ban", in pure linguistic terms, is something entirely different. The shop manager could be told to ban all redheads from the shop. That would be a ban.

Remember that 'the students' are not boycotting (or banning) the relevant products; it is the Union as a corporate entity - the business/logistical and organisational unit referred to as 'TCDSU' - that is refusing (in accordance with instructions) to deal with particular companies. (Of course, some students also engage in personal and/or collective boycotts but that is separate and not affected by referendum discussion).

In rhetorical terms, it is a 'student boycott' (or a ban) but in linguistically and legally accurate terms, it is something much more plain - a managerial action in accordance with (legally and institutionally, as distinct from philosophically - that is a matter of opinion) legitimate instructions, an instruction to refuse to trade with company X. If Dublin City Council said that a product could not be sold in shops around the City, that would be a ban. If Dublin City Council itself refused to buy supplies from Reads, that would be a boycott. 'SU' actions towards products in its own shops cannot be a ban - it is a self-restraining boycott.

Andrew 83

xeduCat wrote:

Definition of boycott quoted above:



That is in fact the current situation, so boycott is a more precise term.

The shop manager has been instructed (in accordance with the structures of the SU) to "abstain from buying" the relevant products (for stocking in the shop). He has been told by his 'shareholders', if you wish, that he must boycott a particular supplier. A "ban", in pure linguistic terms, is something entirely different. The shop manager could be told to ban all redheads from the shop. That would be a ban.

Remember that 'the students' are not boycotting (or banning) the relevant products; it is the Union as a corporate entity - the business/logistical and organisational unit referred to as 'TCDSU' - that is refusing (in accordance with instructions) to deal with particular companies. (Of course, some students also engage in personal and/or collective boycotts but that is separate and not affected by referendum discussion).

In rhetorical terms, it is a 'student boycott' (or a ban) but in linguistically and legally accurate terms, it is something much more plain - a managerial action in accordance with (legally and institutionally, as distinct from philosophically - that is a matter of opinion) legitimate instructions, an instruction to refuse to trade with company X. If Dublin City Council said that a product could not be sold in shops around the City, that would be a ban. If Dublin City Council itself refused to buy supplies from Reads, that would be a boycott. 'SU' actions towards products in its own shops cannot be a ban - it is a self-restraining boycott.

That's what I less successfully attempted to say

Moorsy

b.ie curious wrote:

But were these people killed because they were trade unionists, or were they trade unionists who were killed?

.

They were murdered because they were in a trade union. Armed militants didn’t murder these people because the worked for coke (maybe coke would care if that was the case). That’s why after the leader of the union in this plant was shot dead they forced all the other workers in the plant to sign release forms form the union. I think that's clear.
Can we stay away from the banality of whether it's a boycott or a ban, that’s not the issue.

I don't know what way its going to go, this will be the third test and it has not been defeated the other two times. I don't think much has changed since then.

Its all about morality. It is not an issue of whether you can get coke in an SU shop. Is coke that personally attached to you, certainly not (apologies if you are addicted, I have a friend who is). There are many other drinks available.
What does worry me is what seems to be a clear bias towards bringing coke back in (by certain Sabbaths) and the hap-hazard way our union leaders compile reports and decide on issues. I don’t know how I feel about a deputy president leading a march to bring coke back into the SU. Surly this skews the table seeing as so many people within the union find it pleasurable to be adoring sycophants.

Tricity Bendix

Moorsy wrote:

They were murdered because they were in a trade union. Armed militants didn’t murder these people because the worked for coke (maybe coke would care if that was the case). That’s why after the leader of the union in this plant was shot dead they forced all the other workers in the plant to sign release forms form the union. I think that's clear.

Again, saying it on an internet site doesn't make it true.

gilroyb

As I've said on one of the many other threads on this issue before, there was a case taken to the European Courts over freedom of political expression. The worker had been forced to join a particular union as part of his job (as all TCD students are), and that union was taking political stances on issues rather than acting support its members. The court found that forcing people to join such organisations was illegal and the worker was compensated.

If the SU continues to take political stances on issues which have no relevance to its mandate, it's only a matter of time before action is taken to force the money each student pays to the SU be made a voluntary contribution. I wonder how many students would choose to pay for the SU? Not only would this mean that its impact on issues like Coke would continue to be pointless, without the financial and moral support of a large proportion of students its impact on issues within college would become pointless too.

As long as you can't opt out of the Union, it should not be taking positions on such purely political matters.

King.Penguin

Free Coke
Ban redbull
Boycott Finches

xeduCat

gilroyb wrote:

If the SU continues to take political stances on issues which have no relevance to its mandate, it's only a matter of time before action is taken to force the money each student pays to the SU be made a voluntary contribution. I wonder how many students would choose to pay for the SU? Not only would this mean that its impact on issues like Coke would continue to be pointless, without the financial and moral support of a large proportion of students its impact on issues within college would become pointless too.

1. TCDSU is not (legally) a union - in fact it is not capable of being a union so any citation of legal authorities relating to unions is entirely useless.

2. No students pay money to the SU. The SU has (for many years) received a block grant from TCD (this in fact predates the registration fee system). As the funding is not related to either student numbers or the level of the reg fee (which was designed to support the expenses of universities, not to provide for direct payments or membership fees!), it's not legally possible to argue that this is a membership fee. (Edited to add something I forgot: Trinity's Finance Committee / Treasurers' Office could stop this funding tomorrow at its discretion, we'd all go crazy but there would be no refunds or any serious legal avenues, which is the clearest proof that 'students' don't fund the SU...)

3. The USI 'levy' is (potentially) different, but let's not go there

4. It's still possible for a government to provide for opt-outs, but it's by way of a direct, explicit new law rather than applying labour law principles. This is being debated in Australia, for example.

Crash

No

and the VSU law has essentially crippled Ozzie SU's.

xeduCat

It is very funny to mention it to an Australian student hack...

Me: "So, hey, how's this whole VSU thing going to work out?"

OzHack: (adopting tone of menace) "V...S...what?"

Me: (runs away)