Forum bar & coke....?

Alana

Eh...had a bit of a debate with my friends about this today-is the forum bar a student bar-like the one near commerce...? i assumed that as it is attached to the student building it's a student bar....correct me if i'm wrong though...

The reason being is that I was in there today having me some tasty lunch and I went up to get a pepsi-only thing was that there was no pepsi-only coke.....correct me if I'm wrong but i thought that we voted last year to ban coke from the s.u shops and the student bars...? If so, if it is a student union related bar...what the hell is it doing serving it....?

Jonny Arson

Student Bar - To the left of the Commerce building
Forum Bar - At the student centre
Sports Bar - Sports Hall

Red Alert

good question. are you sure it was coke? and the lads weren't just calling it that - they'll get a lot of people asking for "vodka and coke" which is lot easier to say when hammered than "vodka and.... co... pepsi!"

Jonny Arson

I hate this whole controversey over Coke in UCD. I think they should sell it. If you have your reasons for not buying it then don't buy it instead of getting it banned. Totally ridiculous.

themole

afaik, the bars were exempt from the ban.

just some of them stopped selling it anyway, even though they didn't have to.

Syth

Zane from MTV2 wrote:

I hate this whole controversey over Coke in UCD. I think they should sell it. If you have your reasons for not buying it then don't buy it instead of getting it banned. Totally ridiculous.

It's in the constitution now, can;t be changed without a referendum.

To hijack this thread, how long has the Nestle ban been in, and has it actually made a difference.?

gsand

too long and no

Stabshauptmann

what nestle ban?
Forum bar is owned by the SU

Alana

no it actually was coke-contour shaped bottle with coke written on it-(and it wouldn't be vodka i'd be ordering it'd be some good ol whiskey )well whats the point of banning it from the shops but keeping it in the bars, ppl could just say f*ck this i'l buy it in the bar instead...as for the nestle ban-i agree.

Bottle_of_Smoke

the grind were selling sprite the other day, are they still owned by coke?

Slash/ED

Alana wrote:

ppl could just say f*ck this i'l buy it in the bar instead.

And that's a good thing, they should have that choice, the ban is a joke.

Alana

yea but go to o'briens, or go to the spar or 911-you do have a choice, but when u've voted for it to not be in student union places...why is it there...?Hey Dunnes not selling south african bananas in the 1990s affected that countries profile and perhaps it was only a tiny thing on the global scale but it attracted attention to the issue, as has UCD's & TCD's ban on coke-ok it won't bring down the big bad monster but who knows....plus its bad for you teeth

Slash/ED

Yeah but if I'm in the grind it's annoying to have to go off somewhere else to get Coke. Just because some other people don't want to drink it doesn't mean it should be banned, if they want to boycott it that's their business. They should then not buy it and maybe even put some posters up to try and gain support and get others to boycott it, they shouldn't enforce their ideals onto others.

Jonny Arson

Slash/ED wrote:

Just because some other people don't want to drink it doesn't mean it should be banned, if they want to boycott it that's their business. They should then not buy it and maybe even put some posters up to try and gain support and get others to boycott it, they shouldn't enforce their ideals onto others.

Exactly.

Stabshauptmann

Thats what has happened! The SU has not forced others to stop seeling coke, the SU acting as a single entity made up its "mind" to boycott it. It was a fair and democratic process, if you have no problem with coke buy it and drink it-there are lots of places, and feel free to call for a third referendum.

Btw just say Jimmy like Heroin and doesnt believe it is evil or wrong or dangerous or whatever and he is sick and tired of the government preventing ppl from selling it to him

themole

Zane from MTV2 wrote:

Exactly.

ya. i agree with that.

there should have been some requirement for large majority, say 60% of voters. as the ban has a negative affect on the right of the no to ban cokje people, but won't affect the yes voters because they won't drink it if they are opposed to coke.

Slash/ED

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Thats what has happened! The SU has not forced others to stop seeling coke, the SU acting as a single entity made up its "mind" to boycott it. It was a fair and democratic process, if you have no problem with coke buy it and drink it-there are lots of places, and feel free to call for a third referendum.

Btw just say Jimmy like Heroin and doesnt believe it is evil or wrong or dangerous or whatever and he is sick and tired of the government preventing ppl from selling it to him

The point is I don't see why I have to go off on a walk to some other place out of my way while having lunch in the grind to get some coke just because a few people decided they wanted to boycott. If you want to boycott, fine, but don't force that on me, just don't buy the feckin thing, why feel the need to force others to do the same thing?

Jonny Arson

Slash/ED wrote:

The point is I don't see why I have to go off on a walk to some other place out of my way while having lunch in the grind to get some coke just because a few people decided they wanted to boycott. If you want to boycott, fine, but don't force that on me, just don't buy the feckin thing, why feel the need to force others to do the same thing?

You do exactly what one of my friends does. Always buys food in students centre and then makes a trip to the vending machine for coke in the sports centre so he wont have to buy Pepsi. How sad!

Are you going to launch a campaign to ban Pepsi? Pepsi is not all that bad but its no Coke.

Slash/ED

I might launch a campaign to ban fake tan from the campus, the local economy would enter into a crisis.

ghostchant

If the SU hate coke so much then why is the SU shop in the science building still emblazoned with coke logos?

Stabshauptmann

What Im saying is that the SU decided it wouldnt do something, its not forcing you to do anything, just that the SU wont be a part of it. You say let those who want to boycott boycott. Fine, the SU wants to boycott, not a few wackos, the SU as a single entity.
The decision was arrived at in the most democratic way possible.

You could choose to go to O Briens and have your entire lunch there, but its not as good as the grind perhaps, part of that better job is the abscence of coke in most ppls opinions as democratically expressed. More ppl feel better about eating there knowing they arent supporting coke than are inconvienienced.

If you viewed the SU as a single entity and acknowledged that it is the SU who are boycotting coke, then you would see that " [The SU] want to boycott, fine, but don't force that on me, just don't [sell] the feckin thing [in SU shops], why feel the need to force others to do the same thing?[by banning it all over campus]"

Your problem is that you want to benifit from the SU prices and location without paying anything in return. Does that seem reasonable?

uberwolf

if you're interested, The SU constitution says

Such Referendums may be called by the Returning Officers on petition in writing of not less than 3.5% of the total registered membership of the Union at the time of submission or on the direction of the Union Council.

so get the requisite number of signatures and lets have us a referendum on coke

Stabshauptmann

Nobody complained about the logos. The SU officers didnt decide, God I hate coke and Im going to use my position in the SU to ban it. Someone launched a campaign to ban the sale of coke or something to that effect, it was put to a vote and most ppl are happy (judging by both results).

Slash/ED

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

What Im saying is that the SU decided it wouldnt do something, its not forcing you to do anything, just that the SU wont be a part of it. You say let those who want to boycott boycott. Fine, the SU wants to boycott, not a few wackos, the SU as a single entity.
The decision was arrived at in the most democratic way possible.

You could choose to go to O Briens and have your entire lunch there, but its not as good as the grind perhaps, part of that better job is the abscence of coke in most ppls opinions as democratically expressed. More ppl feel better about eating there knowing they arent supporting coke than are inconvienienced.

If you viewed the SU as a single entity and acknowledged that it is the SU who are boycotting coke, then you would see that " [The SU] want to boycott, fine, but don't force that on me, just don't [sell] the feckin thing [in SU shops], why feel the need to force others to do the same thing?[by banning it all over campus]"

Your problem is that you want to benifit from the SU prices and location without paying anything in return. Does that seem reasonable?

Why the hell should I hve to "pay" by not having access to a drink just because a few people (in the SU) decided to boycott? It may seem a trivial thing but it's the principal of it all that a few people can decide what ideals everyone has to follow.

Does anyone really actually think the grind is better than O'Briens soley because O'Briens gives you the choice of buying Coke?

Stabshauptmann

You are being unreasonable, you keep saying those within the SU banned coke or a few ppl. The SU banned coke. The SU as a whole and single entity has choosen to boycott coke. You said its fair enough for an individual, why not for a seperate legal entity. Its doing exactly what you deem fair, its not imposing its boycott on you, you can go elsewhere

ghostchant

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

Slash/ED

Why should I have to go elsewhere, are the SU not there to service the bloody students? If not than what's the point of a Students Union?

Stabshauptmann

Slash/ED wrote:

Why the hell should I hve to "pay" by not having access to a drink just because a few people (in the SU) decided to boycott? It may seem a trivial thing but it's the principal of it all that a few people can decide what ideals everyone has to follow.

Does anyone really actually think the grind is better than O'Briens soley because O'Briens gives you the choice of buying Coke?

I said "part" of the reason, you replied "soley". You are distorting things.
The SU is a seperate entity.
Part does not equally the whole

Slash/ED

I would be suprised if anyone even partly prefered one shop over another because it offered less choice.

Stabshauptmann

Slash/ED wrote:

Why should I have to go elsewhere, are the SU not there to service the bloody students? If not than what's the point of a Students Union?

To represent the will of the majority of its members

Stabshauptmann

You'd be surprised
Ethical issues have been statistically proven to influence sales

Slash/ED

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

To represent the will of the majority of its members

And enforce that will on the minority, yeah that seems fair.

Stabshauptmann

Slash/ED wrote:

And enforce that will on the minority, yeah that seems fair.

The SU does what it want to do. It doesnt bother other entities with that. It decides things by popular vote. The SU shops are only supposed to be for SU members. And SU members as a whole dont want it. Like I said earlier Jimmy whats his Heroin but the big bad government are imposing their will on him.
Democracy isnt perfect but its a pretty good system

Slash/ED

Heroin is illegal because it;'s dagerous to health and socieity in general

Coke is banned in the SU because a few people don't want to drink it.

It's bleedin retarded, everyone who doesn't want to drink coke is going to vote in favour of the ban because they don't want to drink it so not having it available means nothing to them. That doesn't make it a fair decision, if the SU wanted to help out everyone they'd have coke available, those who don't want to drink it don't, those who do, do. Who loses out?

uberwolf

Slash/ED wrote:

Heroin is illegal because it;'s dagerous to health and socieity in general

Coke is banned in the SU because a few people don't want to drink it.

It's bleedin retarded, everyone who doesn't want to drink coke is going to vote in favour of the ban because they don't want to drink it so not having it available means nothing to them. That doesn't make it a fair decision, if the SU wanted to help out everyone they'd have coke available, those who don't want to drink it don't, those who do, do. Who loses out?

a referndum was called due to a quora of signatures being met. The referendum was held, the requisite number of people voted so the teh referendum was legal. The majority who voted decided they wanted to ban coke.

Coke is available in nearly every building in the campus anyway. It was banned as a statement more than a means of preventing students drinking it

Slash/ED

uberwolf wrote:

Coke is available in nearly every building in the campus anyway. It was banned as a statement more than a means of preventing students drinking it

That's fairly pathetic if so imo. Can't the SU just launch a poster campaign outlining why punters like me should boycott the drink then? Or are they worried that given the choice people will drink coke and so go against the agenda they're trying to get across because they don't agree with it?

Stabshauptmann

such publicity was done. They had a trade unionist in from columbia. If you listened to him you might have a different view on how dangerous coke is

Slash/ED

Maybe if instead of banning coke the SU made sure the things that the trade unionists from Columbia were known to students via poster campaigns and what not they wouldn't have to ban Coke as people would choose not to buy it. And the fact that Coke would be readily available in all shops and yet people would choose not to buy it would be a far superior statement.

Stabshauptmann

All of UCD could fit inside theater L.
All the info is widely available.
Ppl just dont care

Johnmb

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

such publicity was done. They had a trade unionist in from columbia. If you listened to him you might have a different view on how dangerous coke is

But they didn't have any representatives from any of the other 11 trade unions that represent workers in the factory in question, and have no problems with Coca Cola. Not a very balanced bit of publicity. Plus, not one person arguing against Coke made any sugggestion as to what the factory should have done. If a senior member of Sein Fein worked in Coke here, and the UVF shot him in his work place, what exactly would you expect Coke to do about it?

And also, regarding the Student's Bar, and the Forum Bar, neither have anything to do with the Student's Union. They are separate entities, and are run by two separate committees. The Union President is one member of the Student's Club committee, AFAIK, but I'm not sure if he is on the Forum Bar's committee. Either way, he only has one vote, and Union policies have not bearing on either of the bars unless the relevant committees decide to impliment similar policies.

uberwolf

Slash/ED wrote:

That's fairly pathetic if so imo. Can't the SU just launch a poster campaign outlining why punters like me should boycott the drink then?

you misunderstand the meaning of democracy.

The SU simply implemented the will of the student body as voiced through a referendum.

So the student body mandated the SU to remove the product from it's shelves.

Whomever cared about the issue voted on it, those who dont care didn't vote.

edit: I should say this means the SU didn't campaign on this issue, and wouldn't have done so unless a majority voted to so at student council. (which I cann't recall if they did) All of which is to say they didn't sit down one day and say hey, let's ban coke for the giggle.

Stabshauptmann

Johnmb wrote:

But they didn't have any representatives from any of the other 11 trade unions that represent workers in the factory in question, and have no problems with Coca Cola. Not a very balanced bit of publicity.

From columbiasolidarity.co.uk

Boycott Coca Cola


The International Boycott of Coca Cola started on the 22 July 2003. It was called by SINALTRAINAL (Colombian Food and Drinks Workers’ Union). It is supported by the World Social Forum, and by the CUT and the CGTD (principle trade union federations in Colombia), and numerous social organisations around the world.

Plus, not one person arguing against Coke made any sugggestion as to what the factory should have done.

There is a campaign for appropriate reparation, it was in the first year hand book this year for sure, not sure wheather or not it was brought up last year

If a senior member of Sein Fein worked in Coke here, and the UVF shot him in his work place, what exactly would you expect Coke to do about it?

You've been fed a lot of tripe, 11 unions have said they were intimidated and this is just a co-incidence it was in a coke plant?

11 other unions havent claimed to be intimidated but the equivilant of our Congress of Trade Unions and a US court say there is enough evidence that this happened and coke are resposible.


Coca Cola stand accused of complicity in the assassination of 8 Sinaltrainal trade union leaders in Colombia since 1990. Many other leaders have been imprisoned, tortured, forcibly displaced and exiled. Of course, Coca Cola deny any responsibility for the murders, pointing out that 100s of union leaders are killed every year in Colombia. However, many of Sinaltrainal’s victims were killed inside Coca Cola plants while negotiating collective agreements. Coca Cola management were reported in the national press as meeting and contracting members of the AUC death squads to “sort out their labour problems”.

And also, regarding the Student's Bar, and the Forum Bar, neither have anything to do with the Student's Union. They are separate entities, and are run by two separate committees. The Union President is one member of the Student's Club committee, AFAIK, but I'm not sure if he is on the Forum Bar's committee. Either way, he only has one vote, and Union policies have not bearing on either of the bars unless the relevant committees decide to impliment similar policies.

Didnt know that, thanks for the info

Stabshauptmann

Also the comparison you drew is totally inacurate. Its more like a Labour member being killed by a local FF cumann

Johnmb

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Coca Cola stand accused of complicity in the assassination of 8 Sinaltrainal trade union leaders in Colombia since 1990. Many other leaders have been imprisoned, tortured, forcibly displaced and exiled. Of course, Coca Cola deny any responsibility for the murders, pointing out that 100s of union leaders are killed every year in Colombia. However, many of Sinaltrainal’s victims were killed inside Coca Cola plants while negotiating collective agreements. Coca Cola management were reported in the national press as meeting and contracting members of the AUC death squads to “sort out their labour problems”.

They stand accused by a union that stands to gain financially from such allegations. No proof has been presented to support most of the allegations. Sinaltrainal are considered to be representatives of left wing terrorist organisations by the right wing terrorists, and are therefore considered legitimate targets. Once again, I ask, what do you expect the factory in question to do? Set up it's own private army? Fire all Sinaltrainal members? Close up operations and fire eveyone? Neither of the Columbian federations named are the equivilent of the ICTU, things are a lot different there than here, and such a congress would be almost impossible.

Also the comparison you drew is totally inacurate. Its more like a Labour member being killed by a local FF cumann

It's nothing like that. Last I checked, no local FF cumann had death squads. As far as the AUC are concerned, what I said would be 100% accurate. As far as Sinaltrainal are concerned, it would be more like a member of the SDLP being shot by the UVF, as Sinaltrainal deny any links to the left wing terrorists.

Stabshauptmann

ok, SDLD and SF are really the same are they, the SDLP are very close to labour. Of course FF dont have death squads, but its a closer analogy.

The US court believed there is sufficent evidence, why wont Coke at least cooperate with this investigation, clear their names and all

AngelofFire

The rationale behind the boycott is that it was a democratic decision made by UCD students to stop stocking coca cola products in the shops that we own. Collective freedom of choice.

Johnmb

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

ok, SDLD and SF are really the same are they, the SDLP are very close to labour. Of course FF dont have death squads, but its a closer analogy.

Where did you get SDLP=SF from? Reread what I wrote. Your analogy is not closer, it is miles away. FF is nothing like the people who carried out the killings. They were terrorists, so UVF is more like it. They also believe that Sinaltrainal have close links to the left wing terrorists (i.e. like SF have close links to the IRA). Sinaltrainal, however, deny they have any such links (which would be like the SDLP, they want roughly the same basic thing, but are in no way linked to the IRA).

The US court believed there is sufficent evidence, why wont Coke at least cooperate with this investigation, clear their names and all

No they didn't, they didn't consider the case was relevant to them, so they didn't hear it. If they believed there was sufficent evidence, they would have found in favour of Sinaltrainal.

Jonny Arson

Its amazing how this....

Alana wrote:

The reason being is that I was in there today having me some tasty lunch and I went up to get a pepsi-only thing was that there was no pepsi-only coke.....correct me if I'm wrong but i thought that we voted last year to ban coke from the s.u shops and the student bars...? If so, if it is a student union related bar...what the hell is it doing serving it....?

eventually evolves into this....

Johnmb wrote:

Where did you get SDLP=SF from? Reread what I wrote. Your analogy is not closer, it is miles away. FF is nothing like the people who carried out the killings. They were terrorists, so UVF is more like it. They also believe that Sinaltrainal have close links to the left wing terrorists (i.e. like SF have close links to the IRA). Sinaltrainal, however, deny they have any such links (which would be like the SDLP, they want roughly the same basic thing, but are in no way linked to the IRA).

I'm not taking the piss out of Johnmb dont worry buddy but I'm in stitches how a question about the selling of a f**king bottle of Coke can eventually turn into a debate about the UVF,IRA etc. I'm not attacking anyone I just find it quite amusing!

Fergalscully

Hi Folks I got an e-mail requesting I clear up some issues brought up on this thread about the bars so here goes

The forum bar is not a student union owned operation. It is technically
owned and run by a committee called the "Forum Club Managment Committee".
The people who sit on this are the president of the students union and/or
his nominee, the administrator of the students union Dave Carmody, the bar
manager, two representatives of the the university Paddy O'Flynn (Electrical
Engineering) Irene Dickson (Medicine) and two students elected by the
members of the students union (these will be elected next week and are
currently Enda Duffy 2nd Arts and Erica Murphy 2nd Med)

All these members have equal powers on the committee. This committee is not
bound by any student union referendum. The situation is similar in the
student club and that committee decided itself to back the coke ban when it
came in, this was before my time on either committee.

My own personal view on the coke ban is that a shop owner has the right not to sell any products he/she doesn't want to. We the students own these shops and we made a decision collectively not to sell nestle and coke products. The union officers may have supported this decision but they didn't instigate it the ordinary students who either collected the signatures, signed the petition or voted in the referendum are the ones to be thanked for it.

I'm glad issues like this are being debated on these boards we need more of this kind of discussion where both sides of the issues are brought up without getting personal. (if only the union boards were like this)

fair play to all

Fergal

---

Original Message

---

To: <SUPresident@ucd.ie>
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 10:55 PM
Subject: Coke & forum bar


> Hey,
> I started this thread on boards there a few days ago, i was just
> wondering if you could shed some light on the situation......? It's
> about coke and the forum bar...
>
> http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=242387
>
> cheers

Jonny Arson

Yeah listen to the boss. Fergal talks damn straight!

Stabshauptmann

Johnmb wrote:

Where did you get SDLP=SF from? Reread what I wrote.

A typo. Sorry what I meant is SF and the SDLP really arent the same. Im happy you choose SDLP in your second example instead of SF which you used in your first. I think the SDLP and labour are similar enough to make that part of our analogies the same.

Your analogy is not closer, it is miles away. FF is nothing like the people who carried out the killings. They were terrorists, so UVF is more like it.

#The reason I choose the local FF cumann is because of the close links the AUC alllegedly have to the government.

The reason I wanted RoI examples is because it brings the analogy closer to home

They also believe that Sinaltrainal have close links to the left wing terrorists (i.e. like SF have close links to the IRA). Sinaltrainal, however, deny they have any such links (which would be like the SDLP, they want roughly the same basic thing, but are in no way linked to the IRA).

Labour has had its links to paramilitaries in the past, most recently when it merged with the Democratic left which was the wing of the OIRA, but labour doesnt have any paramilitary connections and IMO neither does Sinaltrainal.

No they didn't, they didn't consider the case was relevant to them, so they didn't hear it. If they believed there was sufficent evidence, they would have found in favour of Sinaltrainal.

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


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