Siptu Meeting and Coca Cola

by Susy Fri Nov 21, 2003 19:39

WATER

1. 75% of Americans are chronically dehydrated.

2. In 37% of Americans, the thirst mechanism is so weak that it is often
mistaken for hunger.

3. Even MILD dehydration will slow down one's metabolism as much as 3%.

4. One glass of water will shut down midnight hunger pangs for almost 100%
of the dieters studied in a University of Washington study.

5. Lack of water, the #1 trigger of daytime fatigue.

6. Preliminary research indicates that 8-10 glasses of water a day could
significantly ease back and joint pain for up to 80% of sufferers.

7. A mere 2% drop in body water can trigger fuzz short-term memory,
trouble with basic math, and difficulty focusing on the computer screen or
on a printed page.

8. Drinking 5 glasses of water daily decreases the risk of colon cancer by
45%, plus it can slash the risk of breast cancer by 79%, and one is 50%
less likely to develop bladder cancer.

And now for the properties of COKE:

1. In many states (in the USA) the highway patrol carries two gallons of
coke in the trunk to remove blood from the highway after a car accident.

2. You can put a T-bone steak in a bowl of coke and it will be gone in two
days.

3. To clean a toilet: Pour a can of Coca-Cola into the toilet bowl and let
the "real thing" sit for one hour, then flush clean. The citric acid in
Coke removes stains from vitreous China.

4. To remove rust spots from chrome car bumpers: Rub the bumper with a
rumpled-up piece of Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil dipped in Coca-Cola.

5. To clean corrosion from car battery terminals: Pour a can of Coca-Cola
over the terminals to bubble away the corrosion.

6. To loosen a rusted bolt: Applying a cloth soaked in Coca-Cola to the
rusted bolt for several minutes.

7. To bake a moist ham: Empty a can of Coca-Cola into the baking pan, wrap
the ham in aluminum foil, and bake. Thirty minutes before the ham is
finished, remove the foil, allowing the drippings to mix with the Coke for
a sumptuous brown gravy.

8. To remove grease from clothes: Empty a can of coke into a load of
greasy clothes, add detergent, and run through a regular cycle. The
Coca-Cola will help loosen grease stains.

9. It will also clean road haze >from your windshield.

For Your Info:

1. The active ingredient in Coke is phosphoric acid. Its pH is 2.8. It
will dissolve a nail in about 4 days. Phosphoric acid also leaches calcium
from bones and is a major contributor to the rising increase in
osteoporosis.

2. To carry Coca-Cola syrup (the concentrate) the commercial truck must
use the Hazardous material place cards reserved for Highly corrosive
materials.

3. The distributors of coke have been using it to clean the engines of
their trucks for about 20 years!

Not to mention the appalling human rights record of Coke in Colombia, their environmental destruction in India, and their failure to implement their promises of medical aid to Coke workers who are HIV positive in Africa.

Now the question is, would you like a coke or a glass of water?

by Anne Speed - SIPTU Sat Nov 22, 2003 01:55 Liberty Hall Dublin 1 8748346

An earlier dialogue between LASC and the Irish Coca Cola workers in SIPTU would have been a good idea. The initiative for this obviously should have come from LASC. Coca Cola workers were not in receipt of any information from LASC on visiting speakers, or the intentions of Irish supporters of the boycott.

The position of the Irish Coca Cola workers is set out below for the record (the position UCD students were prevented from reading).

The recent meeting between Irish Coca Cola workers and Luis Eduardo Garcia is to be welcomed. The main concern of the SIPTU Coca Cola bottling company workers was to express solidarity and to demonstrate willingness to offer alternative forms of solidarity, while explaining the possible effect of a boycott on Irish jobs. I suggest that LASC explore this response, rather than denounce it.

I note confirmation that the US Teamsters Union disagrees with the boycott tactic. They believe Coca Cola has a case to answer. SIPTU Coca Cola workers in the bottling company have said: “We all agree multinational companies operating in Colombia must play their part in protecting their workers and in seeking government action against the executioners. We have urged greater action on this by Coca Cola.”

Gearoid O Loinsigh’s knowledge is deficient. The Coca Cola franchise bottling company does not earn 400-500 million dollars per year. It can only be that O’Loinsigh is confusing the franchised bottling operation on the NAAS Road with the totally separate production of Coca Cola concentrate by Coca Cola in Drogheda and in Ballina. O’Loinsigh seems to suffer from a mentality where slogans are more important than facts.

Finally, the Dunnes Stores boycott was against South African goods imported into Ireland. Dunnes Stores workers who refused to handle these goods were sacked by their employer who, if the boycott had been successful, had alternative produce for sale and for the maintenance of their employment. The relevant equivalent here would be to call for a boycott of Colombian goods. Instead LASC is supporting a boycott of (Irish) Coca Cola produced by Irish workers. This explains perhaps why the boycott call is seen by so many in the International trade union movement as divisive.

Can I say finally workers are not interested in endless debate. In this case they have made their point and have declared their good intentions.

(LEAFLET THAT UCD STUDENTS WERE PREVENTED FROM READING)
Workers Say Lift the Boycott
Workers in the Coca Cola Franchise Bottling Plant in Dublin are not supporting the tactic of boycott of Irish produced Coca Cola. We have expressed concerns about the grievances of trade unionists in Colombia and also lobbied the Coca Cola Corporation’s international management.

We respect your interest in human rights and injustice around the world. Trade unions and human rights have to be strengthened and protected in Colombia, a country with the worst human rights record in the world. We know that trade unionists have lost their liberty and sometimes their lives – that teachers, journalists, factory workers have all been targeted by the right wing paramilitaries. We are informed that this boycott seeks to extract reparations for the particular suffered by SINALTRAINAL union.

We all agree multinational companies operating in Colombia must play their part in protecting their workers and in seeking government action against the executioners. We have urged greater action on this by Coca Cola. We will play our part along with the International Union of Foodworkers in pursuing justice for Coca Cola trade union members.

We are aware that new agreements on security for workers have been negotiated by some unions in Coca Cola bottling plants in Colombia.

We believe a boycott is an inappropriate response because all the Coca Cola products sold in Ireland are produced in Ireland. A significant drop in consumption, due to a boycott, would lead to a loss of jobs for our members.

While we fully support the demand to safeguard workers’ rights in Colombia, we believe a boycott of Coca Cola products in Ireland is a Divisive way to try to make progress on this.

ISSUED BY SIPTU MEMBERS IN COCA COLA HELLENIC FRANCHISE BOTTLING COMPANY DUBLIN

by Anne Speed - SIPTU Sat Nov 22, 2003 13:35

A note of information.

A meeting of the SIPTU’s Dublin Regional Executive Committee composed of elected representatives of over 70,000 workers agreed on November 18th to support the position of the SIPTU members in Coca Cola: to criticise the boycott tactic as divisive and to condemn attacks on trade unionists in Colombia.

In addition, officers of the ICTU, with SIPTU’s agreement, will be seeking a meeting with Coca Cola Atlanta’s Irish representatives to pursue this matter.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh - Lasc Sat Nov 22, 2003 20:23

First the figure of 400 million is revenues and not profits (all income before tax and expenses etc) and is taken from a DCU database.

The IUF and Siptu original statements condemn not only the boycott tactic but the allegations. I take it then that Siptu has changed its stance and now believes that Coke has a case to answer. Maybe you could further clarify.

We work with the Colombian trade unionists, on all visits ample opportunity was there for meetings especially given that some of those visits were organised through ICTU.

Again I must repeat that we responde to a plea from the Colombian trade union movement CUT and are quite entitled to take a different line on this to the workers at coke in Ireland. We have seen no effective solidarity from Siptu on these matters over the years and Siptus initial response claiming that the allegations were unfounded confirms the belief that the question for Siptu is not about tactics of boycotts but rather about the substance of the allegations of murder. The Teamsters for the record hasn't actively opposed a boycott either.

The Dunnes analogy is correct. Shippers and importers would have lost out in a boycott of sth african goods.

by Sean MacGabhainn Sat Nov 22, 2003 22:29

Anne Speed was too kind in her reply to Gearoid O Loinsigh (GOL). I suppose in her position she has to measured in her responses.

Each paragraph of GOL’s original post indicates the problem with the divisive boycott tactic and the approach to ‘solidarity’ it has spawned.

Here is why, line by line.

“There have been many opportunities for Siptu to meet with Colombian Trade Unionists. They were not interested.”

In the light of what follows, this is clearly nonsense.

“LASC (Latin America Solidarity Centre) was informally informed by a high ranking official that under no circumstances would they facilitate a meeting with rank and file workers on the issue of the boycott etc."

“Informally informed”? By a “high ranking official”? Who? When? A “high ranking official” of what - ICTU, SIPTU, the Moonies? The information is contradicted by the fact that a meeting involving rank and file workers from the bottling plant was held at the first available opportunity.

Instead of being “informally informed”, the Latin America Solidarity Campaign (LASC) were in fact misinformed by this mysterious high priest of something or other.

”However, in June Lasc brought over a member of the Sinaltrainal union from Colombia. We held a public meeting in the Teacher's Club which was chaired by Des Bonass of the Dublin Trades Council. The meeting was advertised well and the Global Solidarity (the ICTU solidarity ctte) were well informed in advance of the meeting and the topic etc. No contact was forthcoming from Siptu. The meeting was reported in An Phoblacht and presumably Anne Speed would have seen it. Still no contact from her or anyone else in Siptu.”

It is usual for groups bringing over speakers for solidarity tours to make contact with interested parties. But since GOL asserts that he has already written off SIPTU and its members, presumably this is why they were not contacted directly. GOL’s (personal?) policy is clearly a mistake from the point of view of building the most effective solidarity with the widest possible support. Either that or the approach adopted is simply lethargic and passive when it comes to making sure that all potentially interested parties are informed. As we shall see below, it was LASG or GOL in fact who were uninterested in informing SIPTU in the first place.

”In July, Global Solidarity invited the President of the Mine Workers Union in Colombia to attend the ICTU biennial conference. He spoke at a plenary session and also at a fringe meeting chaired by the President of the Northern Ireland Ctte of ICTU and also by Global Solidarity. Although he spoke about the mining situation,he gave over a great deal of his time to deal with the issue of the boycott. He was warmly received. Again, nobody from Siptu contacted him or Lasc, though they did actually pay for the train tickets to Tralee.”

I see. SIPTU did not contact someone who they were not invited to meet. See answer above. By the way, when GOL or LASC presumably thanked SIPTU for the train tickets did they/he enquire as to whether it might be possible to organise a meeting? Or was the attitude: “thanks for the tickets but no thanks”.

“Again we invited Luis Eduardo Garcia from Sinaltrainal to visit here recently. At our request Global Solidarity facilitated a meeting between us and Siptu. The meeting was attended by myself, a representative from the campaign in Britain and also three students from UCD and Luis Eduardo.”

Congratulations to Global Solidarity. Against GOL’s ‘better’ judgement (expressed above and below), GOL agreed to facilitate a meeting with SIPTU workers. A pity a meeting was not held at LASC’s “request” earlier, when there might have been less heat in the situation and the workers’ backs might not have been up as a result of the bruising encounter with the way certain UCD student ‘radicals’ promoted the boycott tactic.

“On Siptu's side it was attended by Anne Speed and three shop stewards from the Naas Bottling plant. Shop stewards from no other plant were invited by Siptu (which is strange).”

Strange? The only Coca Cola workers in membership in that branch are the bottling workers on the Naas Road. What other workers does GOL suggest SIPTU should have invited?

“At the meeting Siptu tried to say that they were opposed to the tactic of boycott due to its affects on Irish jobs. It was pointed out to them that the Siptu statement (available on their site) actually exonerated Coca Cola of any wrong doing in Colombia and that the debate was not about tactics with them but about the substance.”

GOL’s view is contradicted by the SIPTU workers statement above and by the original statement they produced. If there was something GOL could actually take exception to, we can be sure he would have quoted it. SIPTU’s position appears similar to that of the Teamsters below.

”It should be pointed out that in the US the Teamsters Union disagrees with the boycott tactic but does actually say that Coke has a case to answer.”

SIPTU’s position is similar to the approach of the Teamsters.

LASC was reticent about contacts through official Siptu channels as they had signed up ot the IUF statement earlier inthe year which said that the allegations were "sweeping and unsubstantiated".

If GOL’s position is that he will only meet with potential supporters on the basis of a pre-condition that they support the boycott tactic, that is a disservice to those you are working on behalf of on this issue. Also, if a large organisation representing millions of food workers takes a negative position, it might make a solidarity campaigner consider dispassionately whether the tactics adopted are capable of winning widespread international solidarity support. Also, finally, it would have made sense to think locally as well as globally on this issue by finding out for sure SIPTU’s attitude, and examine where there might be points of agreement and points of possible common action. Instead there was a total emphasis on points of disagreement with all the negative consequences that ensued.

“As consumers and as activists we are not bound by the views of those who do not wish to engage in solidarity and who accuse unions that have paid with their lives of being liars. However, we must point out that the real threat to jobs comes from Coke itself which this year alone has laid off 1,000 workers in its home city of Atlanta.”

Not only wrong but over the top. SIPTU have not called anyone in Colombia a liar (They may have a problem with those on this website who continue to assert against all the evidence that the actual SIPTU workers in UCD attempting to communicate their opposition to the boycott were somehow masquerading as SIPTU workers). They appear to wish to act and have acted in solidarity with workers in Colombia and presumably will continue to do so. Not agreeing with the boycott tactic does not preclude this – a concept that, admittedly, GOL (and others) appear to have difficulty with. Usually a solidarity campaign will attempt to get the widest possible agreement going forward. “No” says GOL: “It is the boycott or nothing, ignore those who will not adopt our precondition for action on this matter”. I paraphrase of course – whether accurately or not, others can judge?

“By saying that the boycott will be responsible for future jobs losses which have been on the cards for some time, Siptu is supporting in advance any sackings and weakening the workers case. The Naas plant has annual revenue of 400 to 500 million dollars, they could afford a drop in sales.”

SIPTU did not assert that “the boycott will be responsible for future jobs losses which have been on the cards for some time”. This is an invention of GOL’s. Union negotiators will thank GOL for his advice. I hope they remember to use it in negotiations with employers: “You could afford a drop in sales”. Very effective.

“We answered teh call of trade unionists in colombia, including the congress of trade unionists (CUT). If workers at coke in Ireland want to protect their jobs then stand with their colleagues in Colombia.”

They do stand with workers in Colombia. They cannot do so in association with LASC, becuase it has imposed divisive pre-conditions to a common approach.

“We have organised various meetings with the trade union movement and some as is the case of trade unionists in the Royal Victoria Hospital Sinaltrainal has received support from”.

But no meetings with SIPTU, who GOL has written off (apart form the one-off meeting above, held because the workers on the Naas Road had the effrontery to question the wisdom of the boycott tactic in UCD). But apparently SIPTU are expected to be generally aware of GOL’s movements throughout the country, so that they can grab his attention. Maybe GOL should take his mountain-to-Mohammad approach to solidarity work to its logical conclusion and simply sit by the telephone to await contact from the outside world.

“Maybe Mandate should seek the approval of the shop stewards in JP Carrolls,before insisting on the smoking ban going ahead and Sinaltrainal should seek the approval of Siptu before its makes allegations that Siptu reject. We are not bound by those who do understand solidarity. the Dunnes Stores Strikers in the 1980s did not seek the approval of those who thought they might loose out on the ban on apartheid products.”

Anne Speed’s reply above deals effectively with the dud reference to the South African anti-apartheid boycott. The other points are simply not relevant to the discussion.

I believe GOL acts with the best of intentions. But he has made a divisive pre-condition the basis for solidarity work on the plight of Coca Cola and other trade unionists in Colombia. It is one thing for enthusiastic students to see the boycott as an attractive basis for Latin America, anti-globalisation and anti-multinational action. It is a mistake, though an understandable one. It is a bigger mistake for a solidarity campaign to adopt a policy precondition that acts as a break on finding agreement. The action of the workers in Coca Cola on the Naas Road was inevitable and should have been foreseen. In effect (and implicitly) GOL admits it was potentially foreseen. That is why SIPTU were deliberately ignored and presumably it was hoped that the workers would not find out what was afoot. A big mistake, the results of which are apparent today.

It appears as though SIPTU is continuing with its solidarity approach on this issue, despite the slanders, lies and intimidation its members were subject to. LASC should drop the boycott pre-condition so that common action can be undertaken.

by Tom Shelley Sun Nov 23, 2003 07:20 Boulder, CO, USA

First, at the end of this I have included the Oct. 15th SIPTU statement, taken from http://www.siptu.ie/news/pr.php?id=1004

In it they DO say that Coca Cola is not responsible for what is happening to it's workers in Colombia at the hands of right-wing paramilitaries. This is therefore NOT similar to the Teamsters position (The fact that SIPTU is worse than the Teamsters on this issue does not say anything positive about SIPTU).

In general though, I would like to ask for some specifics from Speed or her supporters as to what EXACTLY SIPTU and the IUF are doing to help the Colombian workers at Coca Cola. If there is to be no boycott, how else is preassure to be put on Coke? And how are those tactics to be as effective as a boycott? Or does SIPTU even want to preassure on Coke, since they don't believe Coke has done anything wrong?

For those of us who believe that COKE is a big part of the problem, a boycott of it IS comparable to the South Africa boycott. And the Colombian Coke workers were the ones who called it.

SIPTU needs to understand- the boycott is about the serious threat to the lives of Colombian Coke workers, something Irish Coke workers don't have to worry about. All they are worried about is the possibility they might lose their jobs, and apparently that fear is great enough to stop them from supporting an effective solidarity effort.

Also, in terms of the attitudes of American unions on this, the following groups support the boycott (this is not an exhaustive list):

Montana AFL-CIO

San Francisco Labor Council

the International Longshore and Warehouse Union

Communication Workers of America.

Service Employees International Union

American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (the largest union in the US)

Tom

- 15 October 2003 -


Workers disappointed as students
vote to boycott Coca Cola products

Workers in Coca Cola’s Dublin bottling plant are dismayed
and disappointed that students in UCD have voted to
boycott Coca Cola products in protest against human
rights violations in Colombia.

In a statement issued through SIPTU’s Dublin Drinks,
Tobacco and Wholesale Distribution Branch, the workers
say they were appalled to learn of the high degree of
confusion and misinformation in the referendum about the
production of Coca-Cola products in Ireland.

“We respect the interest shown by students in human
rights and injustice around the world. Trade union and
human rights in Colombia have to be strengthened and
protected. We know that over 4,000 trade unionists have
been assassinated there in the past decade and that
Colombia has the worst human rights record in the world.
Our Union, SIPTU, has consistently supported solidarity
actions with the workers of Colombia and will continue to
do so. However, we do not believe a boycott of Coca Cola
products is the most effective way of expressing this
concern at the present time.

“Firstly, the International Union of Food Workers (IUF) –
which has been defending workers’ rights and workers’
representatives in Colombia for nearly two decades - does
not believe the Coca Cola Corporation in Atlanta or its
local bottling plant in Colombia has instigated or supported
recent paramilitary activities against trade unionists in
Coca Cola.

“Secondly we believe a boycott is an inappropriate
response because all the Coca Cola products sold in
Ireland are produced in Ireland.

“Some of the literature issued anonymously before the
referendum claimed that a boycott would not affect jobs in
Ireland because the Coca Cola concentrate produced in
Ireland is destined for the European market. However,
production of concentrate is not the only Coca Cola
operation in Ireland. Employment in the Coca Cola
bottling plants which serve the Irish market may also be
placed in jeopardy by an ill-conceived and misdirected
consumer boycott.

“We would urge all other student union bodies and
organisations which are approached to consider this issue
to first acquaint themselves with the views of the workers
employed in the bottling companies as to the likely
consequences of their actions for the livelihoods of Irish
workers.”

by Gearoid O Loingsigh - Lasc Sun Nov 23, 2003 14:35

In reply to Sean, I would like to point out that the tactic of a boycott is not an imposition from Lasc or anyone else. It is the call of the Colombian trade union Sinaltrainal. I thank Tom Shelley for reposting the outraegous statement issued by Siptu.

Until Siptu publicly withdraws that statement there isn't really much to discuss. Either you believe that coke is responsible or you don't. it you don't then there can be no common action becuase there is no common agreement that there is a problem.

Nobody is asked to keep track of my toing and froing aroudn the country. However, when a call is made at the ICTU conference for a Boycott then surely someone in the trade union movement should have taken notice. We replied to our Colombian colleagues pleas for help.

I should also point out that the statement that Isidro Segundo Gil was murdered as part of a general paramilitary offensive on teh guerrillas is beyond belief. This is the the line that the paras take, as they accused Gil of being a guerrilla. This was really part of a general attack on the trade union movement.

Nobody was prevented from debating with UCD. however, the UCD internal student union rules are that only they can distribute leaflets. Or does Sean think that Impact for example could leaflet siptu members on teh upcoming internal elections in Siptu?

So to end Anne Speed says that the workers are not interested in further debate. Fine becuase the boycott tactic will be taken to other universities, TCD very soon. presumably we will hear nothingfrom Siptu.

We expected as well as the reps from Naas
Rd there might also be reps from the concentrate plants.

by Sean MacGabhainn Sun Nov 23, 2003 21:18

Presumably, this is the passage in the original SIPTU statement Tom Shelly and others take exception to:

"Firstly, the International Union of Food Workers (IUF) – which has been defending workers’ rights and workers’ representatives in Colombia for nearly two decades - does not believe the Coca Cola Corporation in Atlanta or its local bottling plant in Colombia has instigated or supported recent paramilitary activities against trade unionists in Coca Cola."

In 1996, right wing paramilitaries launched an attack in the Carepa locality against local guerrilla forces. They entered the bottling factory and killed a worker and a manager. They also burned down the local union office in the town.

Fearing for their lives union members fled the plant. No one has alleged that Coca Cola franchise management were directly responsible.

Later the local bottling franchise manager spoke of “exterminating” the union. Again later, another union, SICO, took over representation of the workers and this has itself left a degree of bitterness in its wake.

There were other incidents, for instance where five workers were arrested on an anonymous tip that they had planted a bomb. Three were detained for six months, and then released without charge. The Sinantrainal trade unionist who visited Ireland last week was one of those three and is still employed by Coca Cola, and is one of the claimants in the US courts.

Coca Cola have a case to answer for the former management in Carepa who threatened the union. Where is the evidence that Coca Cola bottlers were directly responsible for the actions of right-wing death squads and their murderous and intimidatory action against Sinantrainal, their gunpoint threats against Sinantrainal members, the burning of the trade union office in Carepa and other incidents in the mid 1990s?

That events described above are essentially what most of the dispute is about in Colombia. Sinaltrainal has taken a case seeking reparations from Coca Cola and has lost the first round in the US courts.

Sinaltrinal has representation today in the Coca Cola bottling plants in Colombia. It is the biggest union with about 50% of the unionised membership (which is a small proportion of the overall workforce).

Coca Cola bottlers in Colombia recognise and negotiate with trade unions there. Sinatrainal allege a series of malpractices by franchise management in the past. I hope they win their case. I do not agree that workers losing jobs a result of an effective boycott in Ireland will do any good. All that will cause is a fight in Ireland.

Colombia is under the control of far right and corrupt forces. As the SIPTU statement points out, many trade unionists have lost their lives. This includes Sinaltrainal members. SIPTU have said that they have pursued the matter and are willing to do more. Why don’t the campaigners discuss this with ICTU, SIPTU. If they fail to build bridges and do not respect the reservations of the bottling plant workers, then they are only interested in sectarian point scoring.

You know, Tom Sheehy, most workers are not political activists or revolutionary militants. They go about their daily lives in an ordinary way. The Irish Coca Cola workers are no different. You have to go to people with a strategy for effective solidarity action. Nobody appears to have understood this, much less done it. Campaigners need to think about their approach to SIPTU in the same way.

So don’t get all high and mighty and moralistic about Colombia lives versus Irish jobs. The Irish working class has had its own history of struggle and sacrifice, and is quite capable of using that memory to understand why a call for help from Colombia is something that should be listened to.

Let us work out what the workers in Coca Cola can contribute, while remembering that if you drive people into a corner all you get will be closed minds. Getting the support of workers within the Coca Cola system is potentially a powerful weapon inside and outside the company. Think about it.

The Sinantrainal trade union is demanding direct negotiations within the jurisdiction of an International Commission. This call could be supported without demanding that workers accept a boycott that materially affects them.

The problem is that Colombian solidarity work has become focussed on a strategy of boycott of one company. This is divisive and self-limiting.

By the way Gearoid O Loinsigh, re Dunnes Stores boycott of South African goods – importers and shippers would have simply sourced alternative product. A boycott of an indigenous franchised production operation of one product for the local market raises different issues for solidarity campaigners.

by Sean MacGabhainn Sun Nov 23, 2003 22:32

GOL
“Until Siptu publicly withdraws that statement there isn't really much to discuss.”

Is this a new pre-condition? What in particular was “outrageous” about the SIPTU statement?

GOL
“Either you believe that coke is responsible or you don't. it you don't then there can be no common action becuase there is no common agreement that there is a problem.”

RESPONSE
More preconditions? I don’t think you will find that SIPTU has any difficulty with the assertion that there is a problem with Coca Cola in Colombia. It is not necessary to agree every detail in order to agree common action.

GOL
“…when a call is made at the ICTU conference for a Boycott then surely someone in the trade union movement should have taken notice.”

RESPONSE
Agreed, if that is what happened. Someone should have flagged up the difficulties this would cause (and that have inevitably occurred).

GOL
“I should also point out that the statement that Isidro Segundo Gil was murdered as part of a general paramilitary offensive on teh guerrillas is beyond belief. This is the the line that the paras take, as they accused Gil of being a guerrilla. This was really part of a general attack on the trade union movement.”

RESPONSE
Where did this come from? In any case I am sure that right wing forces could combine an attack on guerrilla forces with an attack on the trade union movement. Are you going to make a big issue out of this as well?

GOL
“the UCD internal student union rules are that only they can distribute leaflets. Or does Sean think that Impact for example could leaflet siptu members on teh upcoming internal elections in Siptu?”

Political parties will take an position and interested parties will leaflet on their preferred outcome outside trade union offices. You can be bloody sure, however, that if Union A was taking a decision on whether members of Union B should sacrifice their livelihood in pursuit of a noble aim supported by Union A, that Union B would definitely have something to say about it.

GOL
“Anne Speed says that the workers are not interested in further debate.”

RESPONSE
Read English. She said “endless debate”. She also offered an opening to your campaign. Show you are more interested in solidarity work than sectarian point scoring by pursuing the offer.

GOL
“We expected as well as the reps from Naas
Rd there might also be reps from the concentrate plants.”

RESPONSE
A different branch apparently. You will have to get on the blower to Drogheda (SIPTU) and to Ballina (non-union). With your present approach, however, don’t hold your breath.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Mon Nov 24, 2003 21:24

Point of fact Sean, Sinaltrainal have alleged that the local franchise management was responsible for teh murder of Segundo Gil. If you want the evidence why not read the court papers. They are freely available on the internet. If you want you could contact the American lawyer etc.

It is not a precondition, but if as the IUF said teh allegations of Sinaltrainal are "unsubstantiated and sweeping" then there is nothing to talk about. We don't believe they are unsubstantiated and neither did teh World Social Forum which gave its backing to the boycott in Porto Alegre.

There is no problem talking to trade unionists who believe the union has a case for what is alleged.

By the way, Luis was reincorporated into Coke because they are obliged by law to do so. Unions exist by constitucional right in colombia which means companies have to formally recognise them.

If Drogheda is a different branch then it is siptu's fault that they weren't there. We were and hoped to meet with reps of all theunionise plants in Ireland. Why is Ballina non union if this company is sucha nice bunch of people.

by Sean MacGabhainn Tue Nov 25, 2003 02:49

GOL
Point of fact Sean, Sinaltrainal have alleged that the local franchise management was responsible for teh murder of Segundo Gil. If you want the evidence why not read the court papers. They are freely available on the internet. If you want you could contact the American lawyer etc.

RESPONSE
“Local franchise management” in Carepa? The manager(s) took out a gun and shot him? Is that it?

Don’t be so cryptic. If you have a case, explain it. You are the solidarity campaigner. You are in the best position to explain the point simply and clearly here.

GOL
It is not a precondition, but if as the IUF said teh allegations of Sinaltrainal are "unsubstantiated and sweeping" then there is nothing to talk about. We don't believe they are unsubstantiated and neither did teh World Social Forum which gave its backing to the boycott in Porto Alegre.

RESPONSE
My understanding is that the IUF say that serious allegations that need to be addressed by Coca Cola (ie they have a case to answer) were accompanied by “unsubstantiated and sweeping allegations”.

I read in Luis Eduardo's interview in An Phoblacht that 10,000 were sacked. I am not saying that is not true, but did this happen recently? There are approx 9,000 employees today, apparently. When were there 19,000 employees and what were the circumstances in which over half the workforce lost their jobs?

GOL
There is no problem talking to trade unionists who believe the union has a case for what is alleged.

RESPONSE
You have no problem talking to SIPTU, then, who have been pursuing these matters independently of your campaign - because you think it is OK to potentially sacrifice Irish workers' jobs (without consulting the workers) in furtherance of the campaign?

GOL
By the way, Luis was reincorporated into Coke because they are obliged by law to do so. Unions exist by constitucional right in colombia which means companies have to formally recognise them.

RESPONSE
Better than the law in here then.

GOL
If Drogheda is a different branch then it is siptu's fault that they weren't there. We were and hoped to meet with reps of all theunionise plants in Ireland. Why is Ballina non union if this company is sucha nice bunch of people.

RESPONSE
Did you specifically ask to meet the Drogheda workers? If not, isn’t this just another case of careless assumptions on your part (and not a little arrogance).

Who said Coca Cola were “sucha nice bunch of people”? You do like to fight false battles, don’t you?

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Tue Nov 25, 2003 12:10

Yes Sean we asked to meet with Siptu about teh issue. it was presumed that Siptu would represent all the workers that they claim would be affected and not just those that are in one plant. We asked to meet reps, Siptu chose only to invite those from one plant or maybe there were logistical problems, either way nothing to do with us.

Did the manager take out a gun and shoot them? You obviously haven't read any of the material on the issue, if that is they way you are phrasing things. Inform yourself of the issues first.

IUF statement for the record says that the allegations are untrue, How many times do we have to repeat this. The IUF do not accept that Coke has a case to answer. Neither did Siptu in its first communique on the issue.

For your benefit I will reproduce below there statement on the issue. You don't have to read much beyond the first paragraphs to get the point, though please do read on. It is a good idea to inform yourself of the issues before commenting on them.

International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant,
Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations
8 Rampe du Pont Rouge, Petit Lancy, CH-1213 Geneva, Switzerland
Tel : +41 22 793 22 33 ; Fax : +41 22 793 22 38 ; e-mail :[email protected]; www.iuf.org
URGENT ACTION: E-MAIL CIRCULAR
Geneva, July 14, 2003
To: affiliated organizations
(to the Executive Committee for information)
Concerns: IUF Coca-Cola Affiliates Reject Call for an "International Consumer Boycott Campaign" of Coca-Cola Beginning July 22, 2003
Dear Sisters and Brothers,
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.
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.
The overwhelming majority of unions representing Coca-Cola workers, including those in Coke's largest market, the USA, do not support the boycott call.
The IUF finds statements about Coca-Cola in the boycott call like "For the benefits they obtain from the assassination, imprisonment, displacement, kidnapping, threatening, and firing of union leaders in Colombia, Guatemala, Peru, Brazil, the United States, Venezuela, Palestine, Turkey, Iran, as well as in other parts of the world" misleading and inaccurate. The IUF is not aware of complaints of this kind from our affiliates who represent Coca-Cola workers in many of the countries mentioned. In the case of Iran there are no "union leaders" because there are no unions and as far as we are aware there is no Coca-Cola production.
Of the eight Colombia murders attributed to Coca-Cola, five were of workers at the Carepa plant in Urabá province in the years 1994 through 1996. The best documented case is the killing of union leader Isidro Segundo Gil by paramilitaries on 5 December 1996, which was followed by the forced resignation and flight of other union activists. No details have been provided about one of the other murders attributed to Coca-Cola, which took place in 1989. Oscar Dario Soto, a local president of the SINALTRAINBEC union, was assassinated on 22 June 2001 by unknown assailants. Adolfo de Jesus Munera, a regional CUT official and former Coca-Cola worker, was assassinated on 31 August 2002. We have seen no evidence linking either of these killings to Coca-Cola. The IUF vigorously protested both assassinations to the Colombian government and requested its affiliates to do likewise.
The IUF and its affiliates have consistently protested the Colombian government's failure to provide protection to all union leaders and activists who request it, and will continue to hold the Colombian government principally responsible. We welcome and have always called for a full investigation of these crimes and vigorous prosecution of the perpetrators and those responsible for their actions. Impunity in Colombia must end.
The bottler running the Carepa plant changed its plant management in 1997. Workers at that plant are now represented by a trade union, which has succeeded in negotiating important gains for workers there. These gains were achieved by determined organizing and tough bargaining in a very difficult environment, with the support of the IUF.
The reference in several versions of the boycott call to the Guatemala situation in the 1980's is historically inaccurate. Whilst there was some effort at launching consumer boycotts supported by the IUF's affiliates on that occasion, it was principally action within and around Coca-Cola plants throughout the world organized by IUF affiliates in support of our affiliate STECSA in Guatemala that ultimately forced Coca-Cola into meetings with the IUF and STECSA in Mexico City and Costa Rica. Through this process, an agreement was finally negotiated that led to the change in the franchise holder and a resolution of the repressive situation STECSA had faced in the Guatemala City plant.
Boycott supporters claim to be acting in support of a case launched in US courts against The Coca-Cola Company and its Colombian bottlers. They fail to mention that a recent decision by a US court in relation to this case ruled that neither The Coca-Cola Company itself nor its Colombian subsidiary carries any responsibility for the employment practices of Coca-Cola anchor bottler companies or franchise holders. If this stands, it represents a significant setback for those seeking to defend and advance human and trade union rights within the broader Coca-Cola system by pressuring Coca-Cola to accept some measure of responsibility for industrial relations in anchor bottlers and franchise holders. This was the key issue at the heart of our victory in Guatemala in the 1980's. This court decision is not helpful to our ongoing campaign, but we are determined to overcome this obstacle through serious organizing and engagement.
Our record of struggle at Coca-Cola, and our commitment to trade union rights within the Coca-Cola system, is a matter of public record. More recently IUF affiliates around the world again gave support to STECSA in Guatemala when an aggressive management sought to weaken some of the union's gains stemming from the 1980's campaigns. After a 22-month struggle, the union was able to successfully defend these gains in a new collective agreement earlier this year. In Russia, after nearly a decade of anti-union practices following Coca-Cola's implantation in the former Soviet Union, workers have recently signed a first collective agreement in Moscow, with the support of the IUF and its affiliates. The struggle continues.
It is worth noting that Coca-Cola has a significantly higher trade union membership density than its major competitor PepsiCo, a company which can more accurately be described as consistently anti-union. A serious, sustained campaign for global respect for trade union rights must take account of the global environment in which the company operates, a factor overlooked by supporters of the boycott.
The collective efforts of the IUF and our affiliates are not assisted by unsubstantiated and unverified assertions about the company which cannot be credibly defended and which The Coca-Cola Company has little difficulty in refuting. Serious accusations against the company over issues relating to trade union rights may now lose credibility because of misleading information being circulated in various versions of the boycott call.
It has always been our position that Coca-Cola bears ultimate responsibility for ensuring respect for fundamental rights throughout the Coca-Cola system. In our experience over many years, Coca-Cola is a company which, given the opportunity, is likely to seek to weaken an agreement, block an organizing drive or bust a union where it can do so. In this respect, it is no different from most other transnational companies. To change this our response must be, as always, sustained organizing and engagement backed up by a credible threat of action where necessary to defend and advance respect for trade union rights in this as in all such companies.
With very best wishes, I am

Yours in solidarity


Ron Oswald
General Secretary

ro/pr/70 - 2003

by Mr Disco - ucd SA Tue Nov 25, 2003 13:00

The 1st post in this thread is fantastic. Perhaps more important than all the rest put together.

Coke is a terrible drink. 2 years ago in Ireland, for the first time EVER , sales of milk were surpassed by sales of coke. This, to me is very frightening. How many cases of diabetes, liver failures, chronic obesity, dental problems etc will that cause.

Who will pay for the treatment?

Who will live with this?

Who will continue to do their upmost to push their product upon everyone via sponsoring various sporting events ( world cup/olympics )

I would personally Love to see every coke/c&c/pepsi/glaxosmithkline drinks plant around the world, including Ireland , shut down-the same way id love to see raytheon/boeing/mcdonnell douglas/lockheed etc out of business.

If coke pull out of ireland, it wont be as a result of 5000 students giving it up. Are you too blind or stupid to see this Anne Speed?

Did that cheque for $5,000 clear Sinnfein? Also-Sinnfein are a fucking farce-not just in UCD.

As for columbia - it would appear that the s i p t u website ( linked above ) has a different position to the s i p t u leaflet that coke workers distributed outside ucd. These cretins werent allowed on campus because, aasin all ucdsu referendums, each side has an equal number of leaflets , and only ucd students are allowed on campus.

These blinkered myopic gobsheens showed contempt for ucd students by printing a leaflet that contradicts their own website. UCD students have spoken, so fuckoff.

These blinkered gobsheens showed contempt for ucd students union by ignoring normal democratic processes. the centre (or do you guys call it center) right returning officer told them as much.

most of all, these blinkered twats showed contempt for columbian workers by their actions. I cant wait till coke starts shooting anne speed and co. we'll see which foot the boot will be on then.

In london last thursday, myself and joe carolon from the swp bumped into 2 columbian workers who were delighted with the result. We realised that if this boycott spreads ( which it looks like it will ), then it will be among the most progressive things that we ucd students have done in the crumby petty world of students politics.

Until next time mrs speed and co, i hope your teeth rot, you have to take 2 insulin injections every day, all you can digest is fire extinguisher foam, and your boss takes a contract out on your life. Maybe then ..... youll understand.

//

Ive got the brains, youve got the looks, lets make lots of money

//

N.Tennant - opportunities.

by Sean Mac Gabhainn Tue Nov 25, 2003 13:23

The IUF statement (thank you for including it) clearly shows the IUF as an organisation fighting for trade union rights and on behalf of the interests of Colombian and other workers. It is clearly independent of the Coca Cola Corporation and on the side of the workers, and makes some telling points about its campaign to make Coca Cola responsible for the actions of franchise bottlers.

Whatever your disagreements with the IUF, it is clearly a mistaken tactic to engineer a situation where you are opposing organisations that represent the interests of Coca Cola workers.

You should turn back from your course and engage with the national and international representatives of Coca Cola workers.

Your aim should be to try and forge a unity of purpose between Sinantrainal, the other unions in Colombia, Coca Cola workers in Ireland and internationally.

The boycott tactic is clearly a barrier to that objective.

I have said enough. It is time for solidarity workers to engage in some serious thinking.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh - lasc Tue Nov 25, 2003 13:38

The IUF statement says the allegations are unsubstantiated or did you read a different one?
The boycott tactic was decided by Sinaltrainal,not be me or anyone else. What we have done is support that position.

IUF includes a union in Colombia Sico which operates in the Carepa plant with the tolerance of the paramilitaries. Why are they allowed operate and Sinaltrainal not? Are we to have unity them also or just with Siptu.

You continue to misunderstand either wilfully or otherwise that we support Sinaltrainal and their position. We have not divided anyone. Those that divide are those that refuse to stand by trade unionists who are being murdered. The boycott has the support of the congress of trade unions in Colombia CUT and the World Social Forum. Are we to rethink everything with them as well?

Further, Sinaltrainal used tohave informal contacts with the IUF especially in the 1980s when it was their coke members in Guatemala being murdered. Sinaltrainal gave them every support, now the shoe is on the other foot the IUF says it is all sweeping unsubtantiated statements.

What has happened here with ICTU and colombian trade unionists on visits here seems to be another case of trade union leaders appearing radical with visiting guests and not ever thinking that someone might actually do something. We have been down this road before on many, many issues. It does not surprise us. However, if ordinary workers (not bureacrats)in Coke think that there might be something to talk about they can contact lasc at [email protected] and someone from the campaign can meet them. If they have proposals on alternatives to the boycott let them bring them forward. So far all we have been told is that a quite word in the ear of management in Atlanta will be had.

by Sean MacGabhainn Tue Nov 25, 2003 16:08

This is my last message too.

GOL
Sinaltrainal used tohave informal contacts with the IUF especially in the 1980s when it was their coke members in Guatemala being murdered. Sinaltrainal gave them every support, now the shoe is on the other foot the IUF says it is all sweeping unsubtantiated statements.

RESPONSE
It does not make sense that the IUF would engage in support of Coca Cola workers in Guatemala and then refuse it in turn to Coca Cola workers in Colombia. The tenor of the IUF statement you published above indicates an organisation capable of, and willing to, pursue the interests of workers.

Whatever your or my criticisms of particular organisations, that should be secondary to pursuing maximum unity in support of the interests of Colombian and other Coca Cola workers - and avoiding division with Coca Cola workers in Ireland.

GOL
What has happened here with ICTU and colombian trade unionists on visits here seems to be another case of trade union leaders appearing radical with visiting guests and not ever thinking that someone might actually do something. We have been down this road before on many, many issues. It does not surprise us. However, if ordinary workers (not bureacrats)in Coke think that there might be something to talk about they can contact lasc at [email protected] and someone from the campaign can meet them. If they have proposals on alternatives to the boycott let them bring them forward. So far all we have been told is that a quite word in the ear of management in Atlanta will be had.

RESPONSE
This is very "strange" (to use your earllier phrase) since your earlier message was all about your meeting with various "bureaucrats" and failure to make direct contact the Coca-Cola workers (because of what a "high official" (another "bureaucrat"?) "informally informed" you).

However, since you still want them to come to you, I will try to pass on your offer to meet them and discuss alternatives to the boycott – if they want to bring a "bureaucrat" with them, will that cause you a problem?

Maybe progress can be made.