UCD Anti-Coke Ask you to VOTE NO and NOT ABSTAIN

by David Murphy Campaign Mon Nov 17, 2003 17:33

Make Hisory and Vote No. 1 David Murphy for Academic Council. David is currently in Prison for bin tax protests. If elected by his fellow students in the AC Undergraduate Arts constituency (incld Social Science) he will become the first person to become a member of the Academic Coiuncil while in prison, the last AC member to be in prison for political reasons was Prof. Eoin MacNeill.

On Tuesday and Wednesday Vote NO in referendum and Vote No. 1 David Murphy

PS: David is running against Richard Waghorne (original leader of the pro-Coca Cola side)

by SU member Mon Nov 17, 2003 17:44

Polling is all day tomorrow in some areas.
Earlsfort Terrace (off St. Stephen's Green) [some of Engineering and Medicine],
Blackrock [postgrad Commerce], Ballsbridge [Nursing], Roebuck [Law and Business & Legal], Richview [Architecture], the UCD Hospitals (St. Vincent's, Mater, etc) [Medicine and Nursing].

Voting will then open for ALL students in the evening in the Arts Block in Belfield. Then ALL day on Wednesday for the remaining faculties.

Wednesday is the bigger day- Arts, Science, Social Science, Commerce (undergrad), Veterinary Medicine. Tuesday is important also as it includes some big faculties.

I ACCEPT NO RESPONSIBILITY IF ANY OF ABOVE IS NOT TOTALLY CORRECT

by from ork Tue Nov 18, 2003 01:55

Basically a decision was made on Friday last to change from a abstention campaign to one calling for a no vote. The reasons for this are varied.

Firstly, with all the media attention the referendum was attracting, due to Coca-Cola sending its representative from Latin America, the campaign felt it would be difficult to limit voting to below the 2000 quorum. To do so would necessitate quite an active campaign, so considering the effort that would be required, a more simplistic message of "Vote NO" seemed to be clearer and more easily communicated.

Having seen the Yes sides manifesto, the campaign felt that our arguments were even stronger this time around and that the motion could be defeated.

Finally, having listened to Luis Eduardo Garcia speaking in UCD last Wednesday, anybody present could only feel that we were obliged to campaign in the strongest way possible considering this man was putting his life in danger in coming to speak to us. An "Abstain" campaign would simply have not been in keeping with the emotion running at the time.

There it is. I urge people to come out in droves on Tuesday and Wednesday to vote NO to this referendum, to protect human rights and to maintain the boycott.

by Coke addict Tue Nov 18, 2003 03:04

Please!!

by SIPTU and UCDSU member Tue Nov 18, 2003 13:46

This morning in Belfield (even though the vote is not in Belfield today!) Sinn Fein members claiming to be from the Coca Cola factory were handing out leaflets against the boycott.

I challenged them about their stance. They claim that the boycott will lead to job losses, even though the SU accounts clearly show no loss in revenue! The people that are making workers unemployed are Coca Cola not UCD students!

The bloke I spoke to said that he was a member of Sinn Féin. I rang up SF after speaking to him. They say that it is not their official position. However it seems that they will be finished in UCD (over 20,000 young people) if they contiune backing a referendum that is only being run as an attack of the left in the Union.

I also spoke to SF members in UCD. They don't seem be be happy with their 'comrades' teaming up with the Right wing in the College.

SINN FEIN RECEIVED $5,000 FROM COCA COLA- IT'S NOW PAY BACK TIME!

by The Insider Tue Nov 18, 2003 18:29

Any word on how it's going, turnout, any exit polls or anything?

by steelie Tue Nov 18, 2003 18:31

The UCD students' union officer, Mr Michael Clark told ireland.com initial reports indicated a higher turnout than in the first vote on the subject. There are 19,964 students registered to vote in the university. ... Mr Clark said voting will end at 9.45 p.m. tomorrow. Counting will start immediately with a result expected before midnight

by SU hack Tue Nov 18, 2003 19:07

The big faculties are still to vote. Arts, Social Science, Science, Agriculture, Commerce, Vetinary, Engineering are voting tomorrow. Today was the outlying faculties. From what I heard it went well. In Architecture there was a higher turnout than last time. In Law & Business/Legal there was a good turnout and according to the canvassers it seems a majority in favour of keeping the ban in that faculty. If this is the case it would be significant as this polling station voted pro Coke last time.

In Arts, Social Science and Celtic Studies faculties undergrads will also have a vote in the academic Council. The candidates are David Murphy (Bin Tax Prisoner), Olivia O'Neill (Anti bin tax), Paul Ennis (Anti Bin Tax) and Richard Waghorne (previous leader of pro Coke campaign). There are 3 seats. If David Murphy is elected it will be the first time a prisoner has been elected onto Academic Council and he will be the first prisoner on AC since Prof Eoin MacNeill MP back in the WAr of independence.

by SU hack Tue Nov 18, 2003 19:08

PS

Michael Clark is the SU Returning Officer not just 'SU officer'

by Seán - Cumann Sheena Campbell, DCU Sinn Féin Tue Nov 18, 2003 19:12

SIPTU and UCDSU member said,
"This morning in Belfield (even though the vote is not in Belfield today!) Sinn Fein members claiming to be from the Coca Cola factory were handing out leaflets against the boycott."
A fellow Cumann member of mine also met some people handing out leaflets against the boycott in UCD and spent 15mins arguing with three of them about it.

"I challenged them about their stance. They claim that the boycott will lead to job losses, even though the SU accounts clearly show no loss in revenue! The people that are making workers unemployed are Coca Cola not UCD students!"
I agree and the vast majority of Shinners in Dublin agree with you 100%!

"The bloke I spoke to said that he was a member of Sinn Féin."
After being asked or was it in this capacity that he was handing out the leaflets?
Was he a student of UCD?
I know Anne Speed has been acting in her capacity as a SIPTU rep, and so far I haven't heard her directly connect her involvement in Sinn Féin with this issue.
This by NO MEANS means I agree with her stance on the issue.

"I rang up SF after speaking to him. They say that it is not their official position."
I know this is not good enough.

Sinn Féin members along with Labour, SWP and other individuals are presently working to bring the boycott to DCU and Trinity.

Hopefully the groundwork of the younger members of the party will force the party to publicly take the correct official position!

by SU head Tue Nov 18, 2003 19:27

SF in DCU might be in favour of the boycott, bu that does not take awat from the fact that SF members including Ann Speed have opposed the boycott.

The idea that they were acting as SIPTU members and not SFers is bullshit. It is NOT SIPUT policy to oppose the boycott. SIPTU do not have any position on the issue, in fact many many SIPTU members in UCD have supported the boycott. In any case Ann Speed if she was genuine would have used her position to try to win Coke workers over in Ireland to showing solidarity with their fellow workers in Colombia. She has not done this, instead what has she done? She has gone along with managments scare tactics and blamed looming job losses on the boycott and not what is really to blame; cokes persuit of profit.

BTW
For those that do not know who Ann Speed is, she is a senior member of SF, she has stood in the elections for SF and is a full time official in SIPTU Food and Catering branch

This whole issues has really really harmed SF in UCD. I was around canvassing today and it was brought up with be on two times about SF members supporting the right wing yes side. Both these people wondered whether it was anything to do with the massive bings they recieved off coke

by Seán Wed Nov 19, 2003 10:33

Believe me everyone I have talked to in the party are dissapointed by Speed's attitude and actions towards the boycott.
It isn't just DCU, Trinity Shinners are also involved.
I can't make her stop what she's doing but I and others within the party are actively working towards making the boycott successful, under the banner of Sinn Féin.
Sinn Féin in DCU fully supports the Boycott.
Sinn Féin in Trinity fully supports the Boycott.
And to my knowledge the Sinn Féin Cumann in UCD fully supports the Boycott.

Point of note only students and staff are allowed to hand out literature in the colleges.
You could ask security to remove any member of the public, who isn't a staff member or a student interfering with the referendum.

by UCD student Wed Nov 19, 2003 13:13

I was talking to the SF members in UCD. They are in favour of the ban, but said that UCDSF has not taken a position and won't be asking it's members to vote a particular way. Sinn Fein are being screwed in UCD by those 'siptu reps'.

If Sinn Fein want to protect any future recruitment in UCD they should SUSPEND Ann Speed and this bloke from Coca Cola IMMEDIATELY. And the move to EXPELL THEM.

Any thing less means that they have lost any respect or support they may have had in UCD.

SF it's your CHOICE: $5k from Coke & Ann Speed OR 22,000 students?

by mark Wed Nov 19, 2003 14:03

Its strange that although Sinn Fein have been aware of this boycott campaign since its launch in July, they still have not come out in favour of the boycott yet. All the stranger given that you would think they might be anxious to prove that they haven't been bought by Coke's $5,000 donation.

I hope Sinn Féin do come out fully in support of the boycott. Its a bit weird when a party that claims to be the real left wing group on campuses is getting outflanked on the left all over the place by Labour members.

by MrDisco - ucdSA (Sinn Abhuil) Wed Nov 19, 2003 14:59

Sinn fein on a national, and local level are nothing more than a psuedo-right wing farce.

that they should be "out flanked" by labour yth isnt the exception. last year ucd adc/cfe/ga/yes usi/basically any grassroots group was packed with independents/sa heads/ly heads/anarchists/millies etc.... very few (if any?) sinn fein members were around.

putting up posters of che and bobby is about the extent of the revolutionary happenings of sf ucd. taking cash of the us right wing, (and cocacola?) and getting tds in the dail is about the extent of sinn fein nationally. republican my arse.

also- the vote is on now, so any ucd heads..... get your freak on.

by Canteen Kevin Wed Nov 19, 2003 15:30

As an aside, has anyone noticed the photograph of the Colombia 3 regularly used in the pages of An Phoblacht/RN? The 3 lads have a killer-cola bottle in front of them, which, in some later prints of the picture in AP/RN had the logo blacked out. I haven't read the paper recently, but keep an eye out for the appearance/disappearance of the Coke logo in the picture. As SF blow hot and cold over the ban, maybe it's an indicator of SF's schizo policy to $$$Coke$$$.

by Seán Wed Nov 19, 2003 19:21

The photo you are talking about had the Coke bottle airbrushed out of it for the very reasons that a boycott has been called.
What you should be saying is thankfully they got rid of the coke bottle from the photo!
Surely this is a positive albeit small gesture.

by DCU Student - DCU Wed Nov 19, 2003 22:48 DCU DCU

Don't mind what they say in SF DCU - as nobody ever listens to them any way!! They just jump on the band wagon when any form of student radicalism is in the air! And what's all this crap over Coca Cola anyway!!? If you all put more effort into issues which really effect students like the "old reliable" FEES or how the government is screwing us over all the time it might be more worth while!!

by Crank Wed Nov 19, 2003 23:32

How did the vote go?. Or when will people know?.

by Anne Speed - SIPTU Thu Nov 20, 2003 02:04 aspeed at siptu dot ie 8748346

Reply from Anne Speed
(I am the Branch Secretary of the SIPTU Drinks Branch that has Coca Cola bottling plant workers in membership. I have just come across comments in reference to me and to workers in the Coca Cola bottling plant in Dublin on this and on other pages.

They are mainly a combination of misinformation and downright lies. Lies are being told to the readers of this and other pages in order to avoid having to admit that only workers and shop stewards from Coca Cola bottlers have attempted to express their point of view to UCD students. These workers were prevented from expressing their views, threatened with legal action, assaulted (in one case) and also insulted by some students in favour of the boycott tactic. The object of this censorship tactic appeared to be to prevent ordinary workers from being allowed to exress their view to ordinary students.)

SIPTU workers in Coca Cola bottling franchise attempted to distribute a leaflet to UCD students. This is the supposed “interference” from “officials” referred to by the article by the Editorial Board.

Without getting into the substance of the argument - this is not the place - the workers consider the boycott call to be divisive of the possibility and need for workers solidarity within the Coca Cola system.

The workers in Coca Cola Ireland are aware that Right wing paramilitaries did enter and shoot and kill a Coca Cola worker and a manager in a Coca Cola bottling franchise plant in Carepa in 1996. This happened as part of an assault on a guerrilla force in the locality. One group of franchise managers (who have since been removed) in the Carepa plant in Colombia engaged in extreme threatening behaviour later in the 1990s against SINAL Trainal members. Coca Cola workers in Ireland demanded and received information on these and other events in Colombia. Nothing new or substantially different has been added by contact with a SINAL Trainal member visiting Ireland recently.

Coca Cola workers are aware of the extreme violations of human rights in Columbia and the role of right wing death squads in assassinating trade unionists, political activists and others. It is possible that those in Ireland who are genuinely outraged by these events and want to do something concrete about them have latched on to the boycott call. Coca Cola workers in Ireland merely ask if that is the right thing to do – and also ask why they were not asked for their views.

Not one Irish campaigner sought the views of or communicated with the Irish Coca Cola workers in the bottling companies. They wished to democratically express their views. So-called advocates of socialism and democracy deliberately excluded them from the debates in UCD – and insulted them when they attempted to express their views. It is not as though workers were asked to express solidarity and refused. They were never asked. If union members in Coca Cola refused to support their Colombian brothers and sisters, there might be a case for the boycott tactic. Pursuing this tactic in the absence of making contact with other Coca Cola workers throughout the world only serves to isolate Columbian Coca Cola trade unionists from their worldwide trade union comrades. For those active on issues pertaining to multinationals to refuse to make contact with the workers is to potentially cut off the active involvement and support of organised labour (as well as being politically sectarian).

A couple of observations on some comments I have come accross:

Major Woody October 31
I did not speak on any radio programme on this issue, nor have I ever said that there are no problems at the bottling plants in Colombia. Let us debate honestly and tell the truth.

A couple of commentators have alleged that “Speed” was out in UCD. I was not. Only ordinary workers and shop stewards from Coca Cola were. If you don't believe me, ask them.

I strongly suggest that anyone using this website contact SIPU Drinks branch for details of the SIPTU workers’ position. Better still, for those of you who are serious about this issue, and not just wondering through the web, why not meet the Coca Cola SIPTU members and hear their views face to face.

Geroid O Loinsigh November 3
Your comments are gratuitously offensive. I never have and never would tell anyone that has suffered repression that they have nothing to worry about. The trade union delegation that met the Colombian member of SINAL Trainal expressed solidarity and offered to pursue various forms of solidarity action.

Finally, to all of you out there, the workers in Coca Cola bottlers in this state cannot understand and are clearly bewildered as to why nobody among all of you revolutionaries, activists and democrats ever bothered to ask them what they think or can do, not just as trade unionists but as human beings. The only interest those “left-wing” supporters of the boycott in UCD expressed in the workers, was to ensure that they would not and could not express their views to students. They were insulted, called “company hacks” and, in one case, assaulted.

But then again they are just ordinary workers. What would they know?

Coca Cola Workers leaflet (ask SIPTU for copy)

by arse Thu Nov 20, 2003 02:19

How can you delude yourself so much?.

That's unbelievable bullshit you're after coming out with there. Although, knowing the desperate state of the union movement in Ireland I should have guessed. Nobody should listen to because you're a company hack. Plain and simple. Nobody should listen to you because you never raised a finger to help people who are being subjugated by your corporate henchmen in Colombia. Nobody should listen to you because you're a symbol of everything wrong about the trade-union movement, get the 'nod' from the Boss that everything's ok, repeat it to a few people, tell them there's no problem because the vested-interests have said there's no problem and let's get on with collecting our union dues, managing share options, keeping the staff productivity up in exchange for those percentage points in the partnership deals, give ourself enough spare change to dress up like the fucking Krays (a la Des Geraghty), throw our shapes on the anti-war march and hope nobody notices that we're really just the company men, no better than the coke-fiend IBEQ member.

Pedro Carmona, the President of Coca Cola, organised a coup against Hugo Chavez for Christ's sake. Have you no honesty or deceny or even awareness of the world around you?. Or are you juts that ignorant?.

If you prefer to earn your proletarian wage packet from the Man that's fine. But don't fucking dare come on these boards and preach to the protestors and their supporters, both on the ground and passive supporters like me who read this site, people who ARE prepared to take a stand on an issue. Something a member of SIPTU would know nothing about.

by Tom Shelley Thu Nov 20, 2003 05:01 Boulder, CO USA

I have to admit, I'm not real familiar with this issue as it relates to UCD, although I am fairly familiar with the Colombia/Coke issue.

I basically have a couple questions-

Exactly why is Speed against the boycott?

Have the COLOMBIAN Coke workers called for a boycott?

If they have, this (Speed's position) seems like bullshit. Why is she so upset that IRISH Coca cola workers weren't consulted? This has nothing to do with IRISH coca cola workers- they are not the ones facing death-squads. If they have called for a boycott, why are the IRISH Coke workers supporting that call in the spirit of international solidarity?

Tom

by A.C. Thu Nov 20, 2003 05:46

Tom, someone posted the same thing on a few different threads under the name "Anne Speed". It has not yet been confirmed that the comment did come from her. One of the editors was also impersonated a short while ago on another thread.

by seedot Thu Nov 20, 2003 11:48

This boycott is about trade union representation and it's repression. While its good to see UCD students taking interest in politics outside the campus, the attitude that the SU doesn't need to talk to the trade union movement is self-defeating. They have ignored a number of invitations from the TU's here in ireland. And arse, the unions in ireland may have problems but your uninformed rant is unlikely to influence anybody and you have no right to tell people who should and shouldn't come on these 'boards'.

by Yossarian Thu Nov 20, 2003 12:01

eh?

by Speed Defender Thu Nov 20, 2003 12:40

If you search the web you will find that there are 11 unions representing Coke workers in Colombia. Of these, only 1 (SINALTRAINAL) has called for a boycott. The other 10 unions have not to date supported this call. The IUF statement below is also worth reading....


IUF Coca-Cola Affiliates Reject Call for an "international consumer boycott" of Coca-Cola beginning July 22, 2003
Posted to the IUF website on 11-Jul-2003

Following concerns expressed by a number of IUF affiliates representing Coca-Cola workers worldwide, the IUF has decided to respond to the current campaign calling for an "international consumer boycott" of Coca-Cola beginning July 22, 2003.

Sweeping, unsubstantiated allegations and assertions of the type found in the boycott appeal do nothing to help the cause of the unions that organize and represent Coca-Cola workers around the world, the majority of which are members of the IUF. The call for a boycott of Coca-Cola was unanimously rejected at the recent IUF global meeting that included 27 IUF-affiliated organizations from 23 countries representing more than 100 Coca-Cola workers' trade unions around the world.

New York, March 3-4, 2003
IUF COCA-COLA UNIONS REJECT CALL FOR A GLOBAL COCA-COLA BOYCOTT
The IUF Global Coca-Cola Meeting (New York City, March 3-4, 2003) bringing together 27 representative organizations from 23 countries throughout Coca-Cola’s global operations, strongly condemns the call (dated 3 March 2003) for a global company boycott issued by the Colombian union SINALTRAINAL. The demands contained in the boycott declaration, which contain an implicit call for the boycott of all transnational companies operating in Colombia, do not reflect the concerns of Colombian Coca-Cola workers or the views of the broader Colombian and international labour movements. The boycott call is based on unsubstantiated allegations and empty political slogans. This call for a boycott will damage, rather than strengthen, the credibility of all those seeking to secure union rights for all employees in the Coca-Cola system.
Coca-Cola workers internationally and their unions, through the IUF, are committed to, and organizing for, guaranteed minimum rights for all workers throughout the global Coca-Cola system. We do not recognize the SINALTRAINAL call for a boycott as helpful in any way to our efforts in this regard. We therefore call upon those wishing to advance worker rights within the Coca-Cola system to reject this call for a global boycott and to work together with the IUF and its international membership within the Coca-Cola system.
ENDS/

by Oganach Thu Nov 20, 2003 13:27

A little potted biography of Ms. Speed political development to those who have'nt come across her before. Anne was a prominent member of Peoples Democracy in the 1970s and 80s. This small group, mainly based in the North, started life as a student civil rigths movement in the late 60s but gradually evolved to become the Irish section of a worldwide Trotskyist grouping, called the Fourth International. They were known for their ultra republicanism and their exceptionally dogmatic view of others on the left.

During the 1980's Peoples Democracy split with a majority of members including Anne Speed opting to join Sinn Fein. The minority remained as a seperate organisation, now existing under the name Socialist Democracy.

Apparently the intial reason why Anne and her comrades joined was as entryists i.e. to bring Trotskyist ideas into the Republican Movement, much as the then Militant group were trying to do in the Labour Party. In the 1980s Anne Speed was known as a strident feminist and leftist within SF and in fact ran as their candidate in the European elections at one stage.

However rather than infiltrate revolutionary socialist ideas into the Provo's it seems as is often the case the opposite happened. Anne and the other former Trots were tamed and integrated nicely into the party. She would now be seen as very much part of the mainstream 'republicn labour' camp in SF. In fact as can be seen from the type of language she uses above, her evolution mirrors vary closely that of the former Workers Party union leaders, such as Des Geraghty, Eamon Gilmore etc.

Dont be surprised to see Sister Speed rise in the ranks of SIPTU and who knows what turn her career might take when SF eventually joins a coalition government.

by angry liberal Thu Nov 20, 2003 13:38

I am a student in UCD and a memeber of both referendum campaigns to boycott Coca Cola.In her post miss speed spoke of lies and disinformation,it seems she is well versed in the art and sought to speak of events she neither understood or witnessed.
Firstly she spoke of how SIPTU members were mistreated and even assaulted,we in UCD on either side of the referendum have heard nothing of the sort.She claims that siptu members were not allowed make their views known to students in the college.Well anne we already have a union in UCD thanks and we would thank you not to interfere in its internal democracy(we don't interfere in yours),SIPTU members stood outside UCD gates and distributed leaflets(despite this being against the electioneering rules and their knowledge of this)until they were asked to leave by both sides.To the issue of the knowledge of the workers position,each side in the referendum is given equal material and the yes side made ANNE'S position clear.
As to consulting SIPTU-during the last referendum they came to meet with us and completely denied that Coca Cola were responsible,ie.they were aware of our decision to boycott and made it clear they offered no alternative themselves.They were clearly aware this time,given that they interfered.
Anne refered in her post to siptu reps not being allowed speak and in fact being insulted.She refers to a law society debate held in the college during the first referendum(yet again she didn't attend as with all the other events she claims occurred).They were allowed to speak(although their time was limited due to their not being members of OUR union)and were not insulted but had their pathetic arguments torn apart.
I would like to take this opportunity to declare that last night UCD students voted overwhelmingly to keep the boycott.Anne you may take this as your Q to get your fucking hands of our union and quit your uninformed bullshit rants.We have decided through a democratic decision despite your best efforts to ruin the process and you may take it as read that that decision had something to do with your interference.Thanks ANNE and good luck recruiting young people you complete moron.

by Ciaran Flemming Thu Nov 20, 2003 14:01

The workers in the Coca Cola bottling plant on the Naas Road are going to demand that no part of their subscriptions to the union be passed on to the Labour Party. This is because of the role of Labour Youth members in leading the UCD campaign and in denying them the right to put their point of view across to students.

Not even these members of Labour Youth (which is affiliated through the Labour Party with SIPTU) have bothered to consult them before running off to impress their student radical friends.

As for the SWP, those great friends of the working class (as long as it is kept at arms length, far away), they also have been behind attempts to slander the SIPTU workers in UCD. They can’t bear to admit that actual organised and progressive rank and file workers have a different point of view than they have. So they tell lies and spread slanders about them instead.

This is middle class radicalism of the worst kind. It will do little to aid real workers in Colombia and will be used simply as part of a sectarian slanging match and games of one-upmanship in Ireland. It will also divide students from workers, rather than uniting them.

For real solidarity with Colombian trade unionists, real Irish trade unionists should be invited to be involved. In this case the workers in the Coca Cola bottling plant should have been asked for their views from the outset. Treating their views with disdain is simply middle class arrogance (though possibly good preparation for a career in management in years to come).

by Degenerate Thu Nov 20, 2003 14:18

"For real solidarity with Colombian trade unionists, real Irish trade unionists should be invited to be involved. In this case the workers in the Coca Cola bottling plant should have been asked for their views from the outset. Treating their views with disdain is simply middle class arrogance (though possibly good preparation for a career in management in years to come)."

What cheek. How about -
For real solidarity with Irish trade unionists, trade union bureaucrats should be involved. In these case the workers in City Jet and refuse workers in the four Dublin council areas should have been consulted. Treating their views with disdain is simply middle class arrogance (though possibly good preparation for a career in management in years to come)."

SIPTU policy is that union recognition is the most important unresolved issue for the Trade Union Movement but haven't made it a pillar of any of the Partnership agreements that they have signed up to. The Employers got their binding arbitration.

It is also SIPTU policy to be against the bin tax but two bureaucrats showed disdain for the workers who were showing their solidarity by getting into trucks and breaking the strike.

Sorry Ciaran, nice try but dishonest.

by CIaran Flemming Thu Nov 20, 2003 15:54

Your problem degenerate, is one you share with others. Instead of the personalised attacks on one person who it would appear from all the evidence was properly representing the views of her members, why not deal with the workers directly. I read an invitation to do so above. Are you afraid of them?

The driving force for getting their message across to students was the workers themselves. Only the workers, shop stewards and other rank and file members were present in UCD. They properly represented the views of the workforce.

Do you prefer the cosy cocoon of prejudice, personalised attack and rumour?

Perhaps you think the workers can’t think for themselves and were ‘manipulated’ by evil bureaucrats. I don’t doubt that someone is going to conduct a seminar on how sometimes workers do not know what is good for them and need to be instructed by revolutionary student experts.

I have to laugh at the suggestion that the workers were “interfering” in “our” union. When SIPTU, the other unions and the ICTU organise delegate conferences, various external groups appear outside the door lobbying, distributing literature and selling papers. That is all the workers from Coca Cola were doing outside UCD on Monday on a much smaller scale, until they were intimidated off the footpath outside UCD - and students were denied the right to read one small leaflet.

Universities are supposed to be bastions of free speech and freedom of ideas and association. Those who organised the slander and intimidation of Coca Cola bottling workers betrayed those basic principles.

Talk about democracy in the student movement or the union movement!

(I support the demands of Colombian trade unionists, including the Sinaltrainal union for freedom to organise and for reparation where necessary. I note that this union has members in Coca Cola in Colombia and that they negotiate on behalf of their members there. The union is demanding money reparation in relation to past wrongs.)

by Degenerate Thu Nov 20, 2003 16:51

"Your problem degenerate, is one you share with others. Instead of the personalised attacks on one person who it would appear from all the evidence was properly representing the views of her members, why not deal with the workers directly. I read an invitation to do so above. Are you afraid of them?"

You'll have to point out where I made the personal attacks. To the best of my knowledge the campaign did engage with a Coca Cola worker, his name was Luis Eduardo Garcia.

"The driving force for getting their message across to students was the workers themselves. Only the workers, shop stewards and other rank and file members were present in UCD. They properly represented the views of the workforce."

I also believe that in accordance with the rules of the election the views of Coca Cola were presented.

"Do you prefer the cosy cocoon of prejudice, personalised attack and rumour?"

No. Although it seems you might.

"Perhaps you think the workers can’t think for themselves and were ‘manipulated’ by evil bureaucrats. I don’t doubt that someone is going to conduct a seminar on how sometimes workers do not know what is good for them and need to be instructed by revolutionary student experts."

Oh I think the trade union leadership could do the seminar in their sleep. Again I will mention City Jet, the breaking of strike action in Ballymount and I will add the undemocratic backing of the second Nice Referendum. Perhaps it is time for you to do some naval gazing.

"I have to laugh at the suggestion that the workers were “interfering” in “our” union. When SIPTU, the other unions and the ICTU organise delegate conferences, various external groups appear outside the door lobbying, distributing literature and selling papers. That is all the workers from Coca Cola were doing outside UCD on Monday on a much smaller scale, until they were intimidated off the footpath outside UCD - and students were denied the right to read one small leaflet."

Take it up with UCD. It seems they have rules that don't allow that. Perhaps you can organise a referendum to change this rule. SIPTU officials were quite happy for bin tax protestors to be arrested in Ballymount. So don't talk to me about solidarity.

"Universities are supposed to be bastions of free speech and freedom of ideas and association. Those who organised the slander and intimidation of Coca Cola bottling workers betrayed those basic principles."

What about the slander of Luis and the trying to portray that he was exaggerating the conditions in Colombia. Funnily enough Anne's comrades could probably tell her a thing or two about the treatment of Coca Cola employees as they share living quarters with some of them in Colombia.

"Talk about democracy in the student movement or the union movement!"

Talk away its about all that SIPTU does is talk about it. Remember Nice 2.

"(I support the demands of Colombian trade unionists, including the Sinaltrainal union for freedom to organise and for reparation where necessary. I note that this union has members in Coca Cola in Colombia and that they negotiate on behalf of their members there. The union is demanding money reparation in relation to past wrongs.) "

Bully for you. Well done UCD!

by CIaran Flemming Thu Nov 20, 2003 18:04

"I also believe that in accordance with the rules of the election the views of Coca Cola were presented."

That phrase alone betrays your ‘degenerate’ contempt for the workers who attempted to have their point of view represented, which is not the view of the company. They are strong trade unionists who have been involved in active solidarity as ordinary members of the union. They also expressed solidarity with Luis Edwuardo Garcia, who, unlike UCD student leaders, agreed to meet and to discuss with them.

The paranoid UCD student boycott campaigners had and have one interest only - don't allow the Irish workers to express their views to students. Why, because ordinary students might listen to them and agree with them. Complete hysteria about students being allowed to read a single leaflet was demonstrated in UCD earlier this week.

Going down the route favoured by the Irish workers doses not preclude solidarity with Colombian trade unionists, political activists or with the Colombia 3. Far from it.

You see fit to slander the Irish workers yet again. You want to talk and write about anything but the fact that you are clearly afraid to engage with the Irish Coca Cola bottling plant workers. That is the mistake you still share with others, throwing up smokescreens and launching personalised attacks based on half-truths, total lies and misrepresentations.

by Phuq Hedd Thu Nov 20, 2003 18:09

so what are the Irish Coke workers doing to stop the murder of trade union members in Colombia? Talking about it?

Have their opinions on the boycott been canvassed by Anne Speed or other SIPTU "representatives"?

Will they be happy with the loss of their jobs when they're outsourced to another country where union actions are made impossible by violence?

by angry liberal Thu Nov 20, 2003 18:12

You are clearly an idiot as you keep bringing up a point already addressed.The views of the Irish Coca Cola workers were represented by the YES side in the referendum.They refered to it in their material and lecture addresses.What you find hard to understand is that students knowing of your concerns voted against you anyway.SIPTU interfered in the internal democracy of another union and the vote still happened and you still lost.That my knuckle dragging friend is called democracy so suck it up.

by ec - 1 of Indymedia Ireland Thu Nov 20, 2003 18:24

I'm pretty sure that if the Irish Coke/SIPTU workers being spoken about on this thread submitted an article (or articles) to the site (self publishing - just hit the publish button) there is a strong chance it would get highlighted by the editorial team in the interests of furthering this debate. Try to be polite folks - calling people knuckledraggers is no way to change peoples minds or convince anyone of your argument.

by Degenerate Thu Nov 20, 2003 18:29

"That is the mistake you still share with others, throwing up smokescreens and launching personalised attacks based on half-truths, total lies and misrepresentations."

Spell them out - I'm a bit of a knuckledragger me.

by Ciaran Flemming Thu Nov 20, 2003 21:41

Withdrawing the slander that the Irish Coca Cola bottling plant trade unionists and Coca Cola are the one thing would be a good start in your retreat from misrepresentation.

Recognising that the Irish workers are part of the debate, that their views deserve to be listened to, and refraining from drifting off into irrelevant (in his context) attacks on the trade union bureaucracy would show consistency in addressing the point at issue.

The workers clearly showed they had an independent point of view and, since the issue was brought to their attention, have been pursuing it through the IUF, contact with Amnesty International and questions to Coca Cola.

The implicit offer of an article by the editors should be transmitted to the workers. The most efficient way to do that would be through SIPTU – I see that Anne Speed has given you the telephone number. You (the editors) decide the method of contact.

Mr ANGRY LIBERAL
Why cannot the workers themselves decide the form of their intervention in the debate? Does it occur to you that rules and regulations that suit students may not suit them? The hysterical reaction and refusal to allow the handing out of a leaflet is censorship and unfortunately taints the result in the latest referendum.

In 1964 students in Berkely Californian won the right to bring in outside bodies and individuals to talk to students – it was called the Berkely Free Speech Movement and its effects spread to universities in revolt throughout the world. In 2003 UCD students have invented rules to keep ‘outsiders’ out again by banning leaflets from ordinary Irish workers. Congratulations.

by R Isible - 1 of IMC Ireland Editorial - Indymedia Ireland Thu Nov 20, 2003 22:17

I personally won't be chasing down Anne Speed or anyone else to solicit an article. They/she are aware of this debate as evidenced by her posting on the threads pertaining to the Coca-Cola boycott.

I for one would be very interested in any material submitted by the workers (or Anne or anyone else) that you (Ciaran Fleming) refer to and would certainly wish to work to make any such material into a feature.

However, I am _not_ going to be proactively soliciting this material. Others in the editorial group may choose to do so, but you should be aware that the primary mode of operation of indymedia.ie is that it's an open newswire in which the readers are also the writers. In general we don't go hunting down sources personally and there are limited resources available, so if you (or anyone else) want to see an article about this then write a piece and submit it. If you (or anyone else) care to communicate this offer to the Coca-Cola workers whom you refer to then perhaps they'll write something.

Again, the offer stands open. Write something and submit it to the newswire. Alternatively contact us at:
[email protected]
if you or others need more specific information.

Thanks.

by UCDSU and SIPTU member Fri Nov 21, 2003 01:34

First of all it would be wrong to say that SIPTU were involved, as it is not the position of SIPTU to oppose the ban. It was SOME members of SIPTU that oppose the ban in Coca Cola. Most members of SIPTU in UCD that I know support the ban and have a very good relationship with the SU. SIPTU in UCD and UCDSU have a very good relationship- just look at the recent Library Sit-In which was supported by both Unions.

Ann Speed and her SF cronies have attempted stretched this good staff-student relationship. They have turned many many progressive students (who are also part-time and seasonal workers) off SIPTU. Most of those invovlved in camapign will probably join another Union.

The fact is that Coca Cola workers (note: they were PAID by the firm to do this work) were not allowed on campus. There is good reason.

Reason 1: They were interfereing in the due process of a democratic decison of a sister Union. The rules and regs of referendums in UCD have been worked out and accepted by all in the Union. In my time in UCD most have respected the rules that allow everyone a fair say in votes. UCDSU votes have spending limits. This means no-one can buy an election or referendum. These people would be interfereing with this. The NO side would have no problem with a debate on-campus- but not leaflets.

Reason 2: They were not "members of the University", so would not be allowed on campus anyway with out being invited on by a recognised body (ie SU, Society, Department, Faculty etc). Under the Bye-Laws students, staff, graduates, and those invited are allowed on UCD property. This protects the University from being used by all kinds of Commercial operators marketing their crap to students. Students were within their rights to ask non-members to leave, and campus security would have helped if asked by students.

Ann Speed and her cronies are yellow trade unionists. Just because they are workers we shouldn't believe this shite they are peddling about Union rights. Not all workers act in the interests of their own class. There are things called scabs and black-legs. The Trade Union movement is full of 'leaders' like Ann Speed and David Begg that are at one with the bosses.

These people were not acting in the interests of workers. They were in the interests of their PAYMASTERS Coca Cola. Speed is getting donations to her party from them, the others are lined up by Management to be Foremen and Strike Breakers.

by scab hater Fri Nov 21, 2003 01:46

I am a UCD student. I defend the right to bring in outside people into the University. I believe in Free Speech. For the record students can invoted others in to speak to students. This happens every day of the week. Every society invites people in from outside. You guys were not invited by anyone. No student invited you along. Neither side in the referendum, no society, no-one.

The rules of the SU about electons and referendums are not undemocratic. Quite the opposite. It allows everyone a say. You're views were put forward by many. The 'Irish workers' line was an argument of the anti-ban side. You did contribute to the debate in the national press!

You are allowed stand outside UCD propoerty and give out information. However you also have to know that this would mean that the vote would be in jeopardy. This is fair. How can a group of students, that have essays, projects, lectures etc. and feck all money compete with Full Time staff from a Multinational handing out endless numbers of leaflets?

It's unfair to interfere in such a manner. It's your right to do so- but it's unfair and it can result in the suspension of the vote.

by dg Fri Nov 21, 2003 11:06

for those who think SF are taking donations from Coca-Cola to oppose the boycott.

http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/2262

by angry liberal - UCD Fri Nov 21, 2003 14:48

We invented rules in UCD in 2003 to stop outside interference?Ithink you will find that those rules are there since the college opened and your precious band knew all about them before going right ahead and ignoring them.The workers were allowed into the debating society and spoke,i fear that i can not be held responsible for their lack of debating skills or a well formed argument.They recieved the same opportunities to ask questions as anyone else and just failed miserably,their fault not mine.I have a queation.Are you a member of the UCDSU?(because you see fit to lecture the rest of us on our election rules,our debates,decisions and democracy).

by Ciaran Flemming Sat Nov 22, 2003 15:28

Sorry, I wasn't aware that it was a rule that you had to be a member to comment on the rules.

Which rule would that be, rule 22?

Sometimes, bad rules should be ignored. Most times young people understand this. In this context the intimidation, misrepresentation and censoring of the SIPTU workers was wrong. Doubly wrong in that it drives an unnecessary wedge between them and students.

It also is bad for progressing solidarity work on the very serious situation in Colombia. The insistence on the boycott tactic has played a role as well.

Your anger blinds you.

by I hate fleming the spinmaster Sun Nov 23, 2003 03:01

It's interesting to see this spin coming from Fleming. They are saying that they were denied access to students and it's undemocratic. My understanding is that they were tolerated too much! They broke the regulations of the referendum (SU regulations made by students democratically), they jeopardised the fairness OUR democratic vote.

There is also the case of them TRESSPASSING on University property, being ABUSIVE to campaigners, SU Officers, and SIPTU members in UCD. The Students' Union would have been totally within their rights to physically remove these people from UCD property. However they did not and they took a soft approach to them.

Lets face it. They are a YELLOW Union in Coca Cola. They were PAID AGENTS of Coca Cola who were (ab)using their Union membership to put on the false spin of loosing jobs. It is disgusting the way these Coca Cola agents acted, and it's horrid that they claim to be trade unionists.

by angry liberal Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:31

My point in you not being a member of our union is that you have no idea(as i do having seen it)what went on.You claim,with no evidence,that siptu people were intimidated and abused.Prove it.No such thing took place and in fact the workers were asked to leave on several occasions by both sides of the campaign,the returning officer and staff.Your arguments need a factual basis,but then you don't have one.You still dodge the issue of their interference in our union.The best you can manage is that young people should break rules when they don't agree with them.The point is that the students do agree with the rules,it is you and siptu who feel the compulsion to break them.Immature?You can surely do better than that.They interfered in democracy,broke the rules,have in the past refused to acknowledge the existence of these human rights abuses and they lost.......twice.Students were made fully aware of siptus concerns by the YES campaign and they went on and voted for the boycott.That is democracy flemming,deal with it.

by Gerard Kelly Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:50

Atleast Ciaran Flemming has the balls to stand by his comments and put his name to them. People like you 'Angry Liberal' who hid behind your computer and claim to know it all should simply be ignored!

by angry liberal. Mon Nov 24, 2003 21:15

My name is Raymond Rowan,i enjoy running,antagonising right wingers and one day want to settle down.I'm currently wondering of what relevance all of this is-who i am etc.-and think the fact that not one person has actually refuted or proved me wrong,certainly not your precious ciaran,is far more relevant.Want to waste more of my time or actually discuss the referendum?