 North Korea Increases Aid to Russia, Mos... Tue Nov 19, 2024 12:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
Trump Assembles a War Cabinet Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
Slavgrinder Ramps Up Into Overdrive Tue Nov 12, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
?Existential? Culling to Continue on Com... Mon Nov 11, 2024 10:28 | Marko Marjanovi?
US to Deploy Military Contractors to Ukr... Sun Nov 10, 2024 02:37 | Field Empty Anti-Empire >>
Promoting Human Rights in IrelandHuman Rights in Ireland >>
In Welcoming Trump, Let Us Remember Henry VIII Fri Jan 24, 2025 19:00 | Joanna Gray
We're all feeling a little giddy after the inauguration, but let us remember to put not our trust in princes, says Joanna Gray. After all, Thomas More effused at the coronation of Henry VIII, and look what happened to him.
The post In Welcoming Trump, Let Us Remember Henry VIII appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Have Covid Travel Requirements Gone Away? Fri Jan 24, 2025 17:00 | Dr Roger Watson
Back in 2022 and 2023 when Covid travel restrictions and vaccine passports were all the rage Dr Roger Watson published his country-by-country guide. Now, in 2025, he takes a look to see if any are still at it.
The post Have Covid Travel Requirements Gone Away? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
A Golden Age for American Meritocracy Fri Jan 24, 2025 14:15 | Darren Gee
The second Trump Presidency has already dissolved hundreds of DEI programmes and looks set to herald a new golden age of American meritocracy. It's a movement America and the world are hungry for, says Darren Gobin.
The post A Golden Age for American Meritocracy appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Think Tank?s Net Zero Survey Concludes the Public is the Problem Fri Jan 24, 2025 13:10 | Ben Pile
The Social Market Foundation has carried out a survey on public attitudes to Net Zero and concluded that the "uninformed" and reluctant public are the problem. Why else would they say no to heat pumps?
The post Think Tank’s Net Zero Survey Concludes the Public is the Problem appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Number of Children Who Think They are Wrong Sex Surges 50-Fold Fri Jan 24, 2025 11:10 | Will Jones
There has been a 50-fold rise in children who think they are the?wrong sex in just 10 years, with two thirds of them girls, analysis of GP records suggests.
The post Number of Children Who Think They are Wrong Sex Surges 50-Fold appeared first on The Daily Sceptic. Lockdown Skeptics >>
Voltaire, international edition
Should we condemn or not the glorification of Nazism?, by Thierry Meyssan Wed Jan 22, 2025 14:05 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N?116 Sat Jan 18, 2025 06:46 | en
After the United Kingdom, Germany and Denmark, the Trump team prepares an operat... Sat Jan 18, 2025 06:37 | en
Trump and Musk, Canada, Panama and Greenland, an old story, by Thierry Meyssan Tue Jan 14, 2025 07:03 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N?114-115 Fri Jan 10, 2025 14:04 | en Voltaire Network >>
|
Coke Lies About Providing Security for Colombian Trade Unionists
 international |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Wednesday December 03, 2003 10:53 by Gearoid O Loingsigh
Yet another Coke lie
Coke has claimed to be providing security for trade unionists and Siptu echoed these claims in their private meeting with Sinaltrainal. It was pointed out that this was untrue. here isa statement from the union as far back as may pointing out the lies. Coca-Cola Lies About Providing Security
After months of evasions and stonewalling in response to charges by the Colombian union,
SINALTRAINAL, and the International Labor Rights Fund concerning its involvement in gross
human rights violations at bottling plants in Colombia, The Coca-Cola Co. is now shamelessly
— and falsely — taking credit for providing protective measures to endangered employees in the
war-torn country.
Until recently, Coke’s reactions to the July 2001 ILRF lawsuit on behalf of the family of
Isidro Segundo Gil, a union officer murdered by paramilitaries who were working closely with
Coke’s managers at a plant in Carepa, Colombia, have either been assertions that there is “no
evidence” to support “outrageous allegations” or platitudes about “shar(ing) the aspirations of the
people of Colombia for peace, stability and economic progress.”
But at least three times in the last month, Coke and its spokesmen have made the same
outrageous claims:
• In a statement posted on its corporate web site (www.coca-cola.com) on March
21, Coke said the company “and its local bottling partners have prioritized the
safety and security of all employees and labor union officials” by joining “with
the Colombian Government and labor unions to provide all employees
comprehensive safety and security benefits” such as “transportation, loans for
secure housing, paid leave, job transfers, security training, shift and job changes
and extensive life insurance” as well as “personal body guards (and) armored
vehicles” for union officials.
• In an April 16 article, the day before The Coca-Cola Co. annual meeting, the
Houston Chronicle quoted Rodrigo Calderon, vice president of public relations
for Coca-Cola Latin America in Mexico City: “The allegations (in the ILRF
lawsuit) are totally false.” The newspaper added: “He said Coca-Cola provides
bodyguards to union officials, cell phones, armored vehicles and loans to beef up
home security.”
• In its April 17 issue, the Chronicle reported: “Deval Patrick, Coke’s general
counsel, said the company has gone as far as providing security for Colombian
individuals being threatened.”
According to William Mendoza Gomez, president of the Barrancabermeja section of
SINALTRAINAL, who attended the Coke stockholders’ meeting in Houston, “I’m one of 65
members of SINALTRAINAL who are threatened with death by the paramilitaries. Bodyguards
are with me all day, and some nights they stay at my house for increased security. My family has
been victimized.”
But Mendoza and several other union leaders, including Javier Correa, president of the
national union, insist that all protection made available to union members is funded by the
Colombian Ministry of the Interior and partially subsidized by the U.S. government and unions
in Europe and the U.S.
“Coke has virtually nothing to do with providing or paying for any of the protective
measures,” Correa said. “We have received some help as a result of the (legal) cases we have
brought against the company. In one case, the Ministry of the Interior agreed to provide an
armored car but still has not given it, so Panamco (Coca-Cola’s “anchor bottler” in Latin
America) loaned him one. In another isolated case, a worker was granted permission to take a
few days out of the city where he’d received death threats. Coca-Cola wants the world to believe
that the things the Ministry of the Interior has provided were given because Coca-Cola asked for
them. That is completely false! These are things we have achieved with the CUT (the national
union federation) through complaints and requests for protection.”
“I am in the program that provides protection for union leaders and human rights
defenders,” Mendoza said. “This is a program created by the Colombian government, due to
pressure from the Interamerican Commission on Human Rights of the OAS. The Commission
forced the government to give me protection and this came through the CUT and through
Domingo Tovar (of the CUT human rights department), who took the necessary steps to obtain
the protection. Coca-Cola doesn’t have anything to do with this process.
“Coca-Cola also says they loaned me money to buy the weapon I have,” Mendoza added.
“This is a lie. I bought the weapon with my own money. I said this directly to the company
lawyer (Coke’s general counsel, Deval Patrick) at the shareholders’ meeting, and told him he
shouldn’t lie. He said he had received false information from Panamco.”
|
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (10 of 10)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Well Anne, any comments,cat got your ex-trotskyist tongue then? Or is it that you've been told to 'Bi ciuin' by the shinner spinners in case you embarass the young revolutionarys so busy recruiting on campus. Guess its another case of the Justin Morans but its the right flank that has been reigned in this time.
While Im on the subject dont be sad Justin, tiocfaidh do la, when they happily ramble into coalition and we can tell the socialist republicans from the socialite republicans.
"Snare Eire" would you prefer that we laugh at you or feel sorry for you?
Look out the window Chris, oh dear just missed me, well better luck next time. Just remember that there are always netcops watching netcops who watch out for speed cops (Or should that read genuine community police). Tiocfaidh ar la de da!
There could not be a clearer example of why Gearoid O’Loinsigh is pursuing a politically sectarian line on this issue than the opening lines of this page. The SIPTU workers in Coca Cola have opposed the boycott tactic. Since my last little spat with Gearoid, I have taken the trouble (like I said I would) to try and get some information. Unlike the student (temporary) radicals (and the half-hearted attempts of Gearoid O Loinsigh) I have made the effort to find out what they (the workers) have done and what their real position is.
They have taken a principled position of showing solidarity with Colombian trade union colleagues whose tactics they disagree with. Every meeting they have held has been a genuine attempt to put pressure on the company and to get objective information from trade union sources.
The lying and base association of Irish Coca Cola workers’ position with that of the multinational company is just another example of the unprincipled and arrogant actions of people more interested in political sectarianism than in political solidarity. No solidarity activist or campaign worth its salt would gratuitously attack and slander possible or potential allies like this. At the very least, they would not try and stir the pot in this manner that only drives a potential further wedge between SIPTU workers and solidarity work.
One more thing, Gearoid has not answered my question from the other page ("SIPTU meeting and Coca Cola"). Why would the International Union of Food Workers, that has defended Guatemalan Coke workers, suddenly turn around and question parts (not all!) of the position of the Sinantrainal union? Why would they take the trouble to refer to “sweeping and unsubstantiated allegations”. Even if you characterise the IUF as a bureaucratic organisation, it just doesn’t make sense. What is in it for the IUF and the millions of workers it represents? Are they deliberately trying to subvert a Cocal Cola union in Colombia but not one in Guatemala?
On the question of the security agreement, the workers told me they were told of a security arrangement offered to a number of unions in Coca Cola at the end of the summer (doubtless as a result of union pressure). Armoured vehicles are provided via the state to trade union leaders (note: in reporting this, it does not imply support for the Colombian state, any more than saying that Coca Cola did something makes you a Coca Cola fan). Other issues like transportation, paid leave, job transfers, security training, loans for secure housing, are offered by the bottlers (even the Sinantrainal statement above mentions a bottler loaning an armoured car to a Sinantrainal member).
If the recent information is a complete fabrication it would obviously be a service both to the trade union movement here, the solidarity campaign and to Colombian workers to expose it as such. It is simply sectarian to attack the workers for reporting information that was given to them. The Sinantrainal statement above is from May. I have no reason to disbelieve that that was the situation in May. It may well be the situation now, but it does not constitute a reason for a further sectarian attack on Irish Coca Cola workers.
SmcG wrote: "On the question of the security agreement, the workers told me they were told of a security arrangement offered to a number of unions in Coca Cola at the end of the summer (doubtless as a result of union pressure)."
And that strange thing is that The Coca-Cola Company deny assiduously that they have any responsibility for the actions of _Bebidas y Alimentos_ or of _Pan-American Beverages_ or their management or employees. I'd be really interested to see a paper statement or a copy of an email from these people that you say you're in touch with SMcG because that would make it possible to reopen cases against The Coca-Cola Company as opposed to its sub-contractors.
What exactly is the "solidarity" that the alleged "workers" are "demonstrating"? Is there a statement of that available? Also is it anything other than paper solidarity?
Finally, would you care to explain how GO'L is "sectarian" please?
"Seán MacGabhann" (a pseudonym?) writes :
"If the recent information is a complete fabrication it would obviously be a service both to the trade union movement here, the solidarity campaign and to Colombian workers to expose it as such. It is simply sectarian to attack the workers for reporting information that was given to them."
It appears to me that the information supplied by G Ó Loinsigh, LASC, the ICTU Global Solidarity Bulletin, SINALTRAINAL, the World Social Forum, etc etc constitute more reliable sources than who or whatever the source(s) are for the information above given to the Coca Cola workers in Ireland.
It also appears to me that the IFUT statement referring to "unsubstantiated" allegations is discredited.
above should be the "IUF" statement is discredited - apologies to the federation of university teachers in Ireland!
John Meehan writes that the IUF is discredited because LASC, the World Social Forum and Global Solidarity support the Sinantrainal boycott. First of all the ICTU’s Global Solidarity has no such position. Their document says that Coke has a case to answer. They do. Have you any more to contribute on the IUF? What grounds do you have for dismissing their characterisation of Sinantrianal’s case as being damaged because it is accompanied by “unsubstantiated and sweeping allegations”.
Gearoid O Loinsigh reproduced an IUF statement on the “SIPTU meeting and Coca Cola” page that contained assertions about factual inaccuracies in the Sinantrainal claim. If there are such inaccuracies it is unfortunate, because it weakens the case and makes it difficult for an organisation like the IUF (who it appears support third world workers’ rights all over the place) to fully come in behind them – and in any case the boycott call is inherently divisive.
I repeat, what is in it for the IUF?
What Mr Meehan is confused about is that I also do not deny that Coca Cola has a case to answer. It is the height of middle class arrogance to say to Irish workers: “Sacrifice your jobs on behalf of our campaign in Colombia, oh, and by the way, if you do lose your jobs, it won’t be our fault, it will be the company’s”. The other refrain is; “You won’t lose your jobs because we are running a ‘symbolic’ (read ‘ineffective’) boycott on behalf of workers far away that will just make us feel good and will have no effect on their plight”.
If you want an effecive boycott, then workers lose jobs as productin is ratinalised. If you want workers to retain their jobs then run an ineffective 'feel good' campaign. Be honest.
One way to put effective pressure on Coca Cola is to mobilise the workers in Coca Cola. But that is excluded by the tactics pursued and blindly followed by those who think that promoting a boycoitt and attacking Irish Coca Cola workers for sectarian ideological reasons is more important than doing something that is both effective and progressive.
Coca Cola is a US multinational that is tied up with and promotes US capitalism. It has been associated with the attempted coup in Venezuela and it has a serious case to answer for bottlers in Colombia who threatened to exterminate the union. It should be forced to answer those questions. A boycott could only be a last resort if you despaired of the ability of unionised workers in the Coca Cola system to join a solidarity campaign on behalf of Colombian workers. Work stoppages would not be ruled out, though admittedly difficult to obtain.
But the campaign despaired before it started. The Irish Coca Cola workers were non-persons (as were the SIPTU shop workers in UCD) who did not count in the headlong rush to assert that workers rights could be won in Colombia by not drinking a can of coke here. The campaign was prepared to watch Irish workers lose their jobs and potentially force them on to the other side of the debate. Luckily, the workers have been too sensible and too organised for that up to now. But give or take a few more ‘radicals’ pushing the boycott line with impressionable students and you never know – you might push them on to the company side. Then wouldn’t all your prejudices be wrapped up nice and tight for Christmas?
Questions are also asked above about the information given to Irish Coca Colas workers that may have relevance to the Sinantrainal claim. Want to know more? Ask them yourself. SIPTU is in the telephone book. It is the big building you can see sticking out at one end of Butt Bridge, the next one down from O’Connell Street.
"Sean MacGabhainn" (a psuedonym?) writes in reply to me :
"What Mr Meehan is confused about is that I also do not deny that Coca Cola has a case to answer. It is the height of middle class arrogance to say to Irish workers: “Sacrifice your jobs on behalf of our campaign in Colombia, oh, and by the way, if you do lose your jobs, it won’t be our fault, it will be the company’s”. The other refrain is; “You won’t lose your jobs because we are running a ‘symbolic’ (read ‘ineffective’) boycott on behalf of workers far away that will just make us feel good and will have no effect on their plight”."
Problem : I never wrote the statements he puts in quotation marks above - nor did anyone else on indymedia who supports the Coca Cola boycott. SMcG made up these quotes her/himself, and then criticises them
A dubious debating method.
No point discussing anything on this basis - strengthens my suspicions that "Sean MacGabhainn" is a pseudonym.
What's your problem, John? You bleat and bleat about people not using their real names and then when someone actually does, you say over and over that they are making up their own name!
How do we know that you are the real John Meehan? Who appointed you judge of the authenticity of others?
And yes, that is my real name. I suppose you're going to say I'm a Garda agent or something? I agree with your post and with your take on the issues, but not with your rudeness towards Sean.