The coke movement in Maynooth

by iosaf Sat Dec 06, 2003 14:38

Many of us workers, have long forgotten our student days (if we had them) and just get on with it, dealing on a daily basis with the yawning gap between credibility and hypocrisy, argument and point scoring smartarsedness. Meanwhile gorging themselves plump on the intellectual toil of former generations, sitting at their desks that still are available to them and their socio-economic class, these little reprobates can argue in favour of one of the world's largest most powerful wealthiest multi-national-corporations *for free*. And then they "grow up" and do it for a "salary", I wonder how many of us "workers" do anything for a "salary"?

{These little YFG heads, doing it all for free.}

Petulant little ogras is too kind a term for them, and was one I used give them out of some type of "oh well there they go the way of their parents perhaps..." "pity".

The idiocy is outstanding.

I shall spend some of my weekend looking back over the YFG contributions starting with last "poverty season's sleep out", because the "choice for all" YFG people will soon be making a mockery of social responsiblity by going "hungry" in front of your supermarket.

it has been a year since YFG Univ. Limerick raised 3345€ for homeless there, and incidently since they were invited to take part in a homelessness debate and add a policy on homelessness to their YFG website.

& to think coke speeds some up...

by smart arse Sat Dec 06, 2003 16:34

Would it not be more sensible to ban coke on the basis that it's shite?

by David Sat Dec 06, 2003 20:20

The "information" peddled by YFG as a basis for opposing a Coke Boycott is lifted directly from the failed campaign in UCD where it was thoroughly refuted.
In maynooth last week there was a meeting discussing the possibility of a coke Boycott and this was attended by several YFG members. one of whom was distributing fliers giving the exacty same "information" as in the post above. This Individual did not stay at the meeting for long enough to have heard any of what had to be said on this issue. The remaining YFG members distanced themselves from the individual distributing the flier and were offended when I asked them to justify any of the points presented in said Flyer claiming that they had not made their mind up on the issue and would seek to collect as much information as possible before making a judgement. Either the individual who was handing out the leaflets is acting unilaterally and alone, or YFG decided it was fair to distribute inaccurate propaganda.

And their assertion that they are the only active political party on campus... that's just wrong. Although i'm not a member of any party, there is a clear presence of Young labour and ogra sinn fein not to mention the SWP.

by swift response Sat Dec 06, 2003 23:35

"Would it not be more sensible to ban coke on the basis that it's shite?"

Sensible ? Yes, perhaps .....

But it would be against the principles of the neo-liberal "market economy" school of thought which is based on the premise that people should be free to consume shite after having absorbed sufficient advertising propaganda (especially if someone can make a handy profit out of it) .......

A funny old world ... but there you have it .....

by Angry Liberal Sun Dec 07, 2003 14:18

These were the same arguments used by Fine Gael in UCD when they LOST the second referendum.The arguments are easily refuted by those who are informed about the situation and i see that Fine Gael have sunk to a new low,latching on to human rights abuses to get attention.

by cynic Sun Dec 07, 2003 14:43

YFG, you don't even neet to talk to them, they look like wannabe politicians. Don't bother asking them any questions, it's not as if you expect a straight answer. They claim to be a political party that's seperate from FG but they don't run in elections and 100% of their members vote for FG and aspire to be officials within FG in the future.

The only reason there is such a thing as YFG is to make insignificant members feel important and practise their authoritarian techniques amongst other insignificant members of the FG party. It's likely that every active member of YFG in Maynooth will have some CV padding titled position for their future corporate boot licking career.

by FG Watcher Sun Dec 07, 2003 16:46

"We live in a society where people are innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around"

This is a good one, coming from the offspring of the organisation which gave us the Garda Heavy Gang.
Now they are trying to gloss over human rights abuses in Central America. They never change their spots.

by I hate FG Sun Dec 07, 2003 18:28

It is also coming from a party that attempted to put down a joint motion with the govt calling for Joe higgins resignation from the Dáil. This is when Lowry, Burke, Haughy, Padraig Flynn, Denis Foley, GV Wright.....etc etc were NEVER even asked to resign from their party.

FG are also explicitly anti worker. A couple of weeks ago when discussing a bill that related to trade unions Fg said, that it is up to the employer to decide whether their workers should be able to join a union. Look it up, it's in the Dail record. This position is even to the right of the constitution. FG also are the party that organised (pathetic) pickets outside a bin tax rally when Joe H was released. They are also the party that opposes paying benchmarking. How dare these people then turn around and say they have the interests of Irish workers in mind when they oppose the boycott.

FG are a joke, they will be humiliated in Dublin in the next elections. Even the capitalists think FG are a joke, FG are not a credible opposition. these careerists are better off joining Labour they will I am sure be the opposition of choice for the capitalists from now on.

by ipse legit - (FG are a residual constituency) Mon Dec 08, 2003 11:51

6.diciembre/2003 - Colombia – Adital/Redher

Officials at the Coca Cola bottling plany in Barrancabermeja have been charged with various illicit acts including the arbitrary and illegal closing of lines of production in the cities of Montería, Cartagena, Valledupar, Cúcuta, Barrancabermeja, Villavicencio, Pereira and Duitama, for the purpose of executing massive dismissals. Besides, the workers affirmed that in these last days they have sensed a very strong offensive against their union and the families of the union leadership.

The recent murder of the social leader, Jesus Red Castañeda, brother-in-law of Juan Carlos Galvis, official of the bottling plant and vice president of Sinaltrainal and president of the Sectional Committee of the Unit head Office of Workers of Colombia (CUT), shows the climate of terror in which the population are living. Juan Carlos also received a death-threat.

The accusations involving the Coca Cola Company and some of their executives since a time ago have already included tax evasion defendants, frauds, murders, tortures, threats and blackmail of workers, union, governments and businesses. It is also maintained that the Corporation is allied with the military and paramilitary groups in south America. Amnesty international and other organizations of Human Rights in the world environment have followed closely these cases.

the Fraternal Solidarity Network of Colombia, wish draw attention to the impact of the CoCa CoLa company's policy on the living conditions of peasants and native cañeros, the practise of buying or discontinuing purchase of sugar cane and then substituting the sweetener with high fructrose originating from U.S. genetically modified maize. The Network asserts that the Coca Cola company has also impacted on the life of the producers of cocoa. Coca Cola is also responsible for water shortages in certain areas and changes to public water policy to support privitasation of aquifiers. The Coca Cola company [one of the largest richest multi-national corporations in the world] quite naturally impacts on the economy of many countries; in the glass industry and plastic industry and in the other production areas of the "secret formula".


Besides the economic and the political impact, the Coca Cola company has a direct effect on the contiuing destruction ad devaluing of cultures, from Chamula in Chiapas to Japan or China, to Russia.

The union leaders have written to the government of Colombia calling for the rights of their workers and the rights of their representatives be upheld and respected.

The unions have asked everyone to apply appropriate pressure to upheld those rights.

If Coca Cola may not do business honestly, sustainably, ethically, and with due respect for the cultures it brings needed income to, then Fine Gael may not suggest we may see any other more unpleasant multi-national-corporation "improve".

We do not all have "choice", and that we in the West may have limited "choice" to pursue lives of material prosperity is not a result of the exploitation of third world workers but rather of our very recent history as European nations, and it is incompatible with those values we supposedly hold dear, that such continuing choice must appear to be maintained by exploitation.

by admirer of honesty Mon Dec 08, 2003 13:40

Quote: Fg are a disgrace
by I hate FG Sunday, Dec 7 2003, 5:28pm

It is also coming from a party that attempted to put down a joint motion with the govt calling for Joe higgins resignation from the Dáil. This is when Lowry, Burke, Haughy, Padraig Flynn, Denis Foley, GV Wright.....etc etc were NEVER even asked to resign from their party.

The only FGer there is Lowry, who asked when the allegations were first made to resign as minister, when the allegations were developed he was sacked from Fine Gael.

If ye want more honesty on certain issues, start off with being honest yourselves.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh - LASC Tue Dec 09, 2003 10:54

The comments by Young Fine Gael are bordering on the ludricous.

Firstly the Judge did not say there was no basis to the case. he allowed the case to proceed against the bottling plants Bebidas and Panamco, the latter 40% owned by Coke.

The CUT does not condemn the boycott their General Secretary Carlos Rodriguez and the head of the Human Rights Section of the CUT Domingo Tovar launched the boycott on July 22nd in Bogota.

The IUF does not represent the workers in the plants where the murders took place.

Sinaltrainal is the majority union in Coke even after we include the 5 ficticious management unions set up in Bogota within the last year in order to give credence to such empty claim.

Saying Sinaltrainal supports the guerrillas is precisely what Coke says and this is why they paras have killed trade unionists. Not only is it wrong but it is libellous and give the opportunity to take YFG to court on this one we will.

Further Coke even went and claimed that they actually protected the workers, a lie that was exposed by the union,as the protection is paid for by the Ministry of the Interior.

Undisputed Fact is that Segundo Gil was murdered inside a Coca Cola plant after the plant manager publicly called for the paramilitaries to sort out the union.

by David Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:31

I have just seen a poster advertising the YFG "debate" on the Coke issue. They have drafted in the head of YFG UCD to try to convince us why the boycott is a bad idea. (he couldn't do it in UCD, Maynooth students must be a bit thicker?)
Unfortunately this debate doesn't seem to have any opposition to the pro coke agenda. "parties were contacted but could not attend" I assume this refers to Young labour (but i can't be sure). YFG are fully aware that there are other groups active in Maynooth who could have been approached to defend their position. Maybe they did, (the Global Awareness Society's e-mail isn't working right now) but i doubt that the attempt was made.
Anybody who is around Maynooth tonight, the "debate" is on in CS1 at 7pm It'll be fun to go there and comprehensively refute every arguement they can throw at us. It won't change YFGs mind (the truth isn't a consideration when formulating policy) but it will give them a fright if they think they can lie to students and get away with it.

by friendly commie Sat Dec 13, 2003 14:54 DCUSWSS at hotmail dot com

Just to let people know that the Socialist workers soc, sinn fein and labour are running an anti-coke campaign in DCU.

No opposition yet........

by trekkypj Mon Dec 15, 2003 15:35

Let's not be hypocrites here.

Most of you are blasting YFG simply because it has taken a specific stance on the Coca Cola issue. What some of you are implying is that it's o.k. to bash YFG for opposing the boycott of Coke products in Maynooth, simply because they dared to take a stance that some people don't agree with.

What the hell do you expect from us? You would RATHER that YFG did nothing? Just sat on its arse and talked shite??? We are opposing this ban on Coke products not on the basis of condoning human rights abuses, which we abhor totally, but because insufficient evidence has been brought forward to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are actually occuring. There has been too much spin, too much propoganda and too much infighting on this issue from both sides of the debate; we cannot tell fact from fiction. And THAT is why we are opposing the ban at this time!!!

Some of you would act a judge, jury and executioner all in one if given the chance; I thought that in this country, we were innocent until proven guilty. I also thought that we had the right to express a view that does not necessarily conform to that of others. YFG have the right to make an informed decision on whether or not to support the ban.

We have decided not to support it purely on the grounds of lack of information and lack of proof. Many people will disagree with us. Fine. We don't have a problem with that; but don't tell us that we have no right to take the stance we are taking; we have every right, and our right is enshrined in the Irish Constitution, in EU law and in the UN Charter of human rights. Our stance reflects that of many of the students of NUI Maynooth(and indeed nationwide) who feel that there has not been enough facts brought forward to justify any ban.

by trekkypj Mon Dec 15, 2003 15:44

And just to clarify about the speaker in favour of the ban at the debate in Maynooth itself...

We did TRY and contact every political group on campus well in advance( i.e. two weeks); but some of them, including the Radical Soc. and the Global Awareness Soc. could not be contacted. Labour, SF and the other parties in favour of the ban on campus were unable to provide a speaker on the night; in SF's case they were holding a talk on the hunger strike the same night.

And in the end, we did have a speaker for the ban on the night in question, someone kindly agreed to speak at the last minute in favour of the ban. We made the effort to ensure that the debate as impartial and as fair as possible, but if they didn't want to speak, what could we do?

by David Mon Dec 15, 2003 15:47

YFG in Maynooth are against the boycott because you have been told to be. It's as simple as that. At the first meeting on this matter your members were present handing out propaganda against a ban that they had recieved from YFG UCD. When questioned why they were handing out this literature your members distanced themselves from it and then admitted that they had practically no information on the debates that were on-going. They claimed that they would gather information and then make an informed decision. What a co-incidence that they all reached the same informed decision and turned out in support of a "debate" where it was essentially YFG and the SU against everybody else in defence of Coke's reputation.

by trekkypj Mon Dec 15, 2003 15:51

I've just noticed that one of the posts accuses us of spreading lies.

Forgive me, but that is nonsense. You are just childishly throwing stones at YFG because you don't agree with our stance.

We happen to believe that all sides involved in the dispute in Colombia have been spreading urban myths and half-truths, not just SinalTrainal, but also Coca Cola and the bottlers. So we don't believe either side. Therefore, since only propoganda is available, no facts, we have moved to oppose the ban on Coke.

by David Mon Dec 15, 2003 15:57

"The TRUTH behind the ‘Ban’ on COCA-COLA products
· The case was thrown out of the courts in the first instance.

· “no factual or legal basis for the claims” – Miami District court, Judge Martinez

· Columbian congress of trade unions condemns the ban.

· The allegations against Coca- Cola are entirely unproven and untrue.

· SIPTU, CUT, International United food workers, and the major unions in the US and the UK are all opposed to the ban on Coca- Cola products. Take their advice- Do not support this ban

· 10 out of 11 Columbian trade unions representing Coca-Cola workers also condemn the ban

· Coca-Cola was simply caught up in the crossfire of a bitter civil war involving left and right wing guerrillas

· Sinaltrainal ( the union making the claims) support the left wing guerrilla movement of which FARC and ELN are the main terrorist Organisations"

These are all Dishonest claims that have been refuted many times but the posters are still put up around the college. They might not all be "lies" but they are Dishonest

by trekkypj Mon Dec 15, 2003 16:02

I was not told how to do anything by YFG! I researched both sides of the argument thoroughly and came to the conclusion that both sides had nothing but accusations and propaganda to fling at each other.

This debate should be about whether or not these allegations are true; not point scoring on the basis of making the other side look like muppets. All you have been doing is using the issue to try and beat YFG and the other groups opposed to a ban, when we should be discussing the wider picture of why Colombia is in civil war, and how we can help these people. Did you really give a shit about the colombian people before these allegations came to light? The fact that thousands have died in a civil war simply leave you unaffected??? Or are you simply being opportunistic and using the issue as a tool to further the cause of anti-capitalism, socialism, etc???

We don't know enough about the situation out there. We are not familiar with Colombian society. We don't know the full story and we can't expect to make rushed decisions based on allegations that have not as yet been proven in an impartial forum.

by David Mon Dec 15, 2003 16:17

You say that because we don't intervene in Columbian government atrocities that we have no right to intervene in Coke atrocities?

First of all, we as ordinary irish people have absolutely zero influence with the Columbian government (who as right wing fascist murderers I am totally opposed to) As irish consumers, we do have an influence on the part CocaCola play in the mess over there.

It is a greater injustice to ignore the problem and allow Coke to crush trade Unions than to tarnish coke's reputation should some of our information turn out to be incorrect. (I don't believe that it is, but it is impossible for me to have 100% certainty on anything)
Even if Coke did not proactively support the violence against Sinaltrail trade union officials, they benefit from it directly and I believe have the power to make it stop.
Legalistic argueing about the ownership of factories and minor points of law have absolutely no meaning to me. Coke is one large corporation, all it's bottling plants (even if they are registered in ireland or seperately in Columbia) are part of the Coke Corporation. The legal self defense mechanisms are designed specifically to dilute responsibility and this sleight of hand does not work on me. If Coke are worried about the boycott then they will have to change their policy towards labour in South america.

by trekkypj Mon Dec 15, 2003 22:38

What I have been saying, what YFG has being trying to say is that we are not fully informed of the situation. We are not satisfied with the arguments from either side and believe that there is little factual evidence to support either side of the debate.

We at YFG are not saying ignore the issue; on the contrary it should be investigated by non-aligned and impartial groups such as the International Red Cross, Amnesty International and the UN. We are getting hung up on allegations that haven't been either proved or disproved. What possible advantage could be gained by a boycott when neither side has got all the facts of the case? Let's get the proof first on whether this is happening or not, and in the meantime let's concentrate on highlighting the issue of poverty and instability that exists in Colombia due to the apathy that the international community shows to the people in Colombia who are being murdered in a long-running civil war. That would serve a more constructive purpose than bickering over who said what.

by David Tue Dec 16, 2003 15:53

The boycott was called for by the workers in columbia who are directly affected by this!

I don't mean to be blunt either (well really i do,) But i don't think that you'd believe any information that emerged from Columbia that condenmed CocaCola because you are intent on defending this corporation (who, even leaving this issue aside, are pretty nasty in many aspects of their business)

The workers know a whats going on over there. We are calling for a boycott in Maynooth in solidarity with the workers in Columbia and around the world who are suffering from the crushing of independent trade Unions and the installation of company Unions who do not represent the workers

by informed Tue Dec 16, 2003 21:12

"The boycott was called for by the workers in columbia who are directly affected by this!"

actually only one union SIN.. are calling for a boycott of coke, the majority of coca-cola workers are not affiliated to SIN.. and don't support a ban (thats on the assumption that workers support their unions positions and policies). The pro-ban side in Ireland have not bothered to tell people this, i wonder why?

by Eamon Tue Dec 16, 2003 21:53

>> Therefore, since only propoganda is available, no facts, we have moved to oppose the ban on Coke.

Why? - If you claim to have no facts available, why are you taking a stance in this issue?

Surely it would make more sense to either find out the facts and then draw a conclusion, or keep out of it.

by David Wed Dec 17, 2003 15:35

We call for the boycott in solidarity with the Sinaltrainal Workers who have called for this action because it is these people who are directly being affected. It could be said that the other workers in the other unions in Columbia are irrelevant as they are not affected by this particular campaign of intimidation. However i believe that the other unions do not properly represent their workers. At least some of these Unions were established BY COCACOLA. I know Young Fine Gael choose not to see that this is a little strange, They see nothing suspicious in allowing a company to establish Unions for the workers to join, they don't think it's a huge conflict of interest and that it's almost certainly just another method of controlling workers. In fact this strengthens the case against Coke. These other puppet Unions are not facing campaigns of violence to anywhere near the same level as Sinaltrainal have to endure. It can be inferred by this that Coke might have an interest in discouraging workers from joining this particular Union in favour of the other puppet Unions and this might be an important factor in how Coke are dealing with this issue.
Even in Ireland many of the ICTU Unions no longer represent workers as demonstrated by their willingness to negotiate collective wage agreements that sacrfice the only weapon workers have to fight for better conditions, the right to strike. If Unions are so unrepresentative in Ireland, Imagine what they might be like in Collumbia (one of the few nations even more corrupt than we are) And it it is not an olympic leap to conclude that maybe Sinaltrainal are being targetted because they are one of the Few workers Organasations that refuse to get into bed with corporations.

by David Thu Dec 18, 2003 17:27

Somebody is going around the college putting stickers on the YFG propaganda posters. This probably isn't such a good idea, there needs to be a kind of within the campaign, It's a lot of work to put up information posters around the college and i would prefer not to have some YFG heads pulling down pro boycott information in retaliation for their posters being defaced. I think Instead of putting the stickers on the poster, put them beside it.

by infomred Fri Dec 19, 2003 15:10

David said : "However i believe that the other unions do not properly represent their workers.."

Of course david, your right, if the union doesn't do what you think they should do, they can't represent their members because you are the only person who knows what the mmembers think. Quite an achievement to do so from Ireland, don't you think.


If. SIN.. are the only union representing their workers, why are they one of the are one of the smaller unions? All the other workers have CHOSEN to join unions that refuse to support any boycott on Coca-Cola.

Out of curioiusity which is worse a Coke backed uioon or a FARC./ and or ELN backed one?

by David Fri Dec 19, 2003 19:49

It certainly doesn't seem that way (i can say the same thing about Irish and american people too)
Why do they keep electing governments that don't seem to have their best interests at heart?
Maybe because they believe the propaganda for their "representatives"
Maybe because they believe the propaganda against the alternatives?
Maybe because they are afraid to support the alternatives?
maybe they don't know enough about the alternatives?
maybe they don't care about representation, maybe they are so cynical about all kinds or representation that they are not willing to fight anymore?
Maybe because sinaltranail are being so heavily oppressed that they d not want to risk being associated with them?
Maybe its safer to be anonymous in Columbia?

by john Fri Dec 19, 2003 21:41

Nice to see David that you've realised that the anti-coke debate comes down to a load of maybes. MAYBE if you said that earlier, and stopped basing politics on gut feelings, people would have more respect for your ilk

by David Sat Dec 20, 2003 13:13

Is uncertain because it would take a lot of primary research to prove it.
However the important aspects of the anti coke campaign are Concrete and uncontested. Sinaltranail members have been murdered, tortured and initmidated and continue to be so. Sinaltranail workers have asked for an international solidarity boycott.
Boycotts have a history of resolving this kind of Worker intimidation involving Coke. (see Guatemala in 1980)

Overthrow
July 1984

Guatemala:
COKE ADDS STRIFE
By Paul DeRienzo

(Guatemala City)-On February 17, 460 workers from Embotelladora Guatemalteca, the U.S. Coca-Cola franchise in Guatemala took over the bottling factory as it was being closed by the owners for "bankruptcy." The workers demanded that the plant re-open, change managers and that the activities of death squads responsible for the murder of union leaders and activists cease.

The takeover came after years of antiunion violence. Marion Mendizabal, a 22 year old union leader cut down by machine gun fire in front of the plant in 1980, was one of three secretary generals of the bottlers union assassinated in the 18 months between December 1978 and May 1980.

During that period, three other members of the union’s executive committee were also murdered, two of them were brutally tortured.

The attitude of the Government can be summed up by a remark on March 3rd, 1984, by Guatemalan President, General Oscar Mejia Victores: "I think the violence is fine. It is folkloric in our country, as all countries have their violence in one form or another. Sometimes there is a little, sometimes it decreases or increases," General Victores told the Financial Times of London.

Although the company had yearly sales of $10 to 12 million, on Feb. 16th it closed its doors declaring bankruptcy. The next day the workers occupied the plant in order to guard the machinery and protect the premises, declaring their intention to stay in the plant until production is resumed.

Bad Books and Bankruptcy

The workers of Embotelladora Guatemalteca want Coca-Cola to change the managers of the franchise on the basis of their discovery of two sets of books, one actual, the other forged. These books show that large sums of money were siphoned off by the company management.

Declaring bankruptcy has recently become a favorite union-busting tactic in the United States. While corporations here have to go through a period of dealing with public outrage, outside the U.S. and especially in Guatemala a quick phone call to the death squads would usually silence any popular outcry.

Management at the bottling plant prior to the takeover was directed by a reactionary Houston attorney, John Clinton Trotter, acting he said for a wealthy Houston widow, Mary Hodge Fleming. Trotter had close ties with the Guatemalan Chief-of-Police, German Chupina, who had been directly linked to death squad activities. Trotter maintained armed guards on top of the walls surrounding the plant who shot more often at workers inside than intruders outside, with one union leader gunned down on ‘company property.

Concerning the union, Trotter told Newsweek, "They’re communist… they’re part of a ruthless worldwide communist campaign against big companies like Coca-Cola." In 1979 Trotter blamed the union problems on the owners of a local Pepsi Cola franchise who he called "agitators."

In 1975 Trotter had offered union leaders a $50,000 bribe warning that he would give the money to the government, "to suppress us if we did not accept it." Trotter dismissed these charges as "Unfounded." Coca-Colonialism

For many people in the 135 countries where it is sold, Coke symbolizes U.S. influence. Vietnam veterans and others remember during that war that even if you couldn’t get drinking water out in the jungle, there was always a warm Coke nearby.

The company, whose after-tax income was $558 million on $6.8 billion in worldwide revenues, is part of the Rockefeller wing of the Trilateral Commission.

In 1980, however, an international boycott was launched in 1980 by the International Union of Food and Allied Workers (IUF), to which the Guatemalan bottlers belong. The international boycott featured a four-day consumer boycott in Sweden and a three-day work stoppage by Swedish Coke bottlers.

As a result of the boycott, Coca-Cola agreed to deal with the union. Police were removed from the plant and it was sold to a consortium of Mexican and Central American investors. Coca-Cola continues to control the use of their name, a registered trademark whose use it can revoke at any time. That power gives the company ultimate control over all franchises.

Lock-Out and Occupation

On February 27th H.T. Circuit, head of Coca-Cola’s Latin America Dept. agreed to meet with union representatives after an urgent request by the Guatemalan Ministry of Labor through the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala. Circuit then backed down and agreed only to receive "a representative of the Ministry of Labor and the persons accompanying him." At the meeting Circuit said that he had no control over an "independent" franchise but that Coca-Cola would be happy to re-establish the franchise if the union could come up with a new investor who would pay $14 million. (Maybe the IUF could find the money?) Negotiations broke down leaving the plant under worker occupation. According to the IUF, "The tactic is stonewalling, the objective to destroy the union in Guatemala and the credibility of the IUF."

According to IUF editor Jim Wilson, who visited from March 5 to 10 with a U.S. film crew, "The plant is an unarmed fortress under a state of siege in an undeclared war. Occasionally a tanqueta, a small tank, lumbers by. Some nights noisy army trucks set up quasi- roadblocks which stop passing vehicles at random. If a selected driver fails to notice their signal, soldiers hidden a block further down shoot. It’s a grim variation on the traffic speed trap concept.

"Even from the outside the besieged fortress image is vivid. The large plant and its storage yard are enclosed with a high cinderblock wall prickling on top with broken I liter coke bottles embedded in cement. Above that is a barbed wire fence. Four large banners stretch across the front of the complex condemning Coca-Cola and explaining the workers’ position. On the walls and on the terrace in front of the plant workers patrol round the clock. In the distance, at least in the mornings when it is clear, a circle of smoke from one or more volcanoes can be seen… "

Morale among the occupying workers is high. When asked how long they can remained holed up they respond simply, "For months, many months." Their days are taken up by various activities such as literacy classes.

The biggest single activity surrounds the gathering and preparing of food. The union has had to spend little of its meager financial resources on food. Most of the food comes from the workers’ relatives in the ‘countryside or from the surviving Guatemalan unions.

The workers have proceeded with caution due to the brutality of the Guatemalan government. Since 1980 over 30,000 Guatemalans have been murdered by government forces. Gen. Mejia Victores has consolidated the "strategic hamlet" campaign instituted by his deposed predecessor, Rios-Mont, seeking to isolate the guerillas completely by keeping most of the population under lock and key.

In 1980 the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG) was formed from all the political and guerilla groups opposing the Guatemalan government, rapidly expanding armed resistance, sending the Reagan administration scrambling to abrogate guidelines set by the Carter administration banning military sales to Guatemala (even while Carter’s cronies from Coca-Cola were turning a deaf ear to the killings at their own plant).

Protest Now!

In 1981 23 Bell helicopters were sold to the Guatemalan government. These helicopters were supposedly sold for civilian, not military uses but are now being used as gun ships. The Reagan administration is about to sell Guatemala spare parts for these helicopters.

Embotelladora Guatemalteca is still. being occupied, the only thing standing between the workers and the Guatemalan military is the international support they have received. The IUF is planning to announce an international boycott of Coke in Europe and the United States if Coca-Cola refuses to negotiate. Urgent action is requested by-the union. Telegrams should be sent to: Mr. H.T. Circuit/Latin American Dept. Coca Cola Corp./310 North Ave. N.W./Atlanta Ga. 30313 (404-676- 5964).

by YFG Rep - Young Fine Gael Sat Dec 27, 2003 19:48 joebloggs20 at oceanfree dot net

The title of the campaign being run against coke is "killer Coke"

I'm asking you,
can you tell me where Coca cola have being proven to have killed someone, beyond reasonable doubt in a court?

oh wait,
that's right.
YOU CAN'T!

by David Sat Dec 27, 2003 20:59

By that logic, George Bush really was elected president of america, after all, the supreme court said so..

problem is, there is a huge amount of evidence that courts refuse to look at. (not to mention inbuilt bias and conflict of opinion within court systems around the world)
This can be demonstrated by recent trials of Activists here in ireland, lots of evidence and witnesses were inadmissable because they were deemed "political" when even the most pro war individual would have to admit that the peace activists were engaging in activities that were hugely politically motivated and these motivations were a large part of their defence. If the courts were focused on Justice instead of simply interpreting carefully selected aspects of severely flawed legislation then these court cases would have been handled differently

The legal systems and Corporate structures have evolved in symbiosis. Multi-Nationals have designed themselves to be immune protected from legal procedings. The burdon of proof is simply unrealistic. Even if there was documentary evidence of the Representative for Coke in columbia supporting or directly aiding the death squads, the parent company in the US would still claim that they are a seperate legal identity to the columbia division and so can't be held responsible. (and i'm sure YFG would still be defending them) Companies have legal identities similar to people in the eyes of the law and the law can not hold individuals accountable for the actions of another individual. except multinationals are clearly not individual seperate entities, they are obviously intrinsicly linked beyond seperation.

The reasons why Coke was not found guilty in Court were not sufficiant reasons why coke are not responsible for the problems affecting sinaltrainal activists, and no matter how many times you repeat that one dimentional soundbyte it's not going to change the position of me and i believe others, involved in campaigning for workers rights

by David Sun Jan 04, 2004 16:05

Its interesting.
http://mikado.eeng.may.ie/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5985

by Moi Sun Jan 04, 2004 16:59

Yeah, David, I had a look at that page. The quality of debate is certainly not up to the standard here on indymedia. I worry for this country if FG ever get back into power.

by David Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:31

It is an open forum, anybody can post there so not all the contributors were from YFG (which is probably why there was any kind of debate at all)

I did like their opening statement.
"It is now official policy that yfg are against the ban on coke. "
Meaning, It has been decided so you all gotta fall into line.

by Coca-Cola supporter Mon Jan 05, 2004 15:12

Opposition to the Coca-Cola policy was decided by a vote of members at the YFG conference in Ennis late last year. What more would you like them to do David?

Also, if you look at the news post you'll see that a link was providided to the YFG Maynooth discussion board.

Interesting to note that in Maynooth only YFG have gone to the effort to have a message board on Mikado. Its no wonder more than 50% of students registered to political parties in Maynooth were registered to YFG.

How many joined the socialists?

by David Mon Jan 05, 2004 17:18

I'm not a socialist.

by Coke supporter Tue Jan 06, 2004 10:23

David, the question wasn't about your own political affiliations but about the political scene in Maynooth. Maynooth YFG are making a real effort to be involved in campus life, this can be seen through taking a leading position in the COke debate and in their Mikado discussion fourm amongst other things. The result of this hard work can be seen in Freshers Day when they got more members than all other political parties.

I asked how many people joined the socialists of all ilks in maynooth to demonstrate the complete lack of effort on behalf of the socilaists in Maynooth, a lethargy in marked contrast to YFG. YFG are sticking their heads above the parapet in Maynooth, are taking positions on political matters, almost alone in Maynooth amongst political parties are actually campaigning. They deserve a bit of credit for that, and the idiot above who tried to suggest they were idiots is wrong.

by David Tue Jan 06, 2004 12:26

Political activity appears to be sorely lacking at NUIM but personally I do not believe that one must join a political party to be politically active. In fact, My personal view is that such affiliations leave you restricted by party Whips and calls for Unity and make the grassroots individuals less effective, subordinated to the party leaders. For example, YFG might have a lot of members (i don't know how many exactly) but only a few of them are involved in organising, the rest are only in a supporting role.
There are other groups on Campus that, while they might not be as big or as visible as YFG, are organising and empowering members, and even people who are not involved in any groups are playing a part, they're just not looking for publicity and recognition for their actions.

by David Sat Jan 17, 2004 14:50

Article in Corpwatch.org

http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=9568

The Indian parliament has banned the sale of Coke and Pepsi products in its cafeteria. Indian parliamentarians should take the logical next step, and ban the sale of Coke and Pepsi products in the entire country.

by Daniel Sat Jan 17, 2004 16:37

From that Corpwatch report:
"high concentrations of pesticides and insecticides, including lindane, DDT, malathion and chlorpyrifos, in the colas, making them unfit for consumption"
Luverly, I never go anywhere without my chlorpyrifos, it really gets my system going in the morning.

by David Thu Jan 22, 2004 12:22

College is starting back up and the campaign is gonna really get going soon. There will be a few open meetings in maynooth calling for anybody interested to get involved and also to form a formal coalition with all societies who want to help promote the Boycott.

The first meeting is on the 4th of February with Gearoid from the LASC attending, followed by a video for anybody whos interested

I have also started to put up information posters around the college, I'll include the text here.

Info on the Coke Boycott Campaign

1 Coke Boycott campaign has been called by the workers union, Sinaltrainal, in conjunction with the International Labour Rights Fund.

2. This is part of a wider campaign to end paramilitary violence against all workers in Columbia. 3/4 of all trade unionists killed in the world are from Columbia.

3. There has been credible evidence that Panamco and Bebidas, licenced Coca-Cola bottlers, are employing the paramilitary organisation, AUC, to provide security services. This is illegal under American law and such support enables these paramilitaries to continue murdering Columbian people and poisoning the world through their drug trafficking activities. American courts refuse to investigate these claims.

4. Sinaltrainal are involved in a campaign to unite all unions in Columbia to stop Multinationals from supporting paramilitaries. After drug trafficking, Multinationals provide the second largest source of income to right wing terrorists in Columbia.

5. 8 Sinaltrainal Union leaders employed at Coca-Cola bottling plants have been killed by paramilitaries since 1989. many others have been kidnapped, assaulted and their families have also been targeted.

6. The plant manager at a Bebidas facility in Carepa publicly announced that he had ordered the paramilitary to destroy the Sinaltrainal union. Paramilitary leaders have boasted that they were being employed by Coca-Cola bottlers to destroy the Unions.

7. After Isidro Gil was murdered inside a bottling plant in 1996, the plant manager allowed the paramilitaries hold a workers assembly where they threatened the lives of Sinaltrainal members. The plant manager had already prepared forms for the workers to sign renouncing their Union membership. This shows blatant collusion

8. 2 months later, with the Sinaltrainal union decimated at Carepa, the plant manager fired all the workers and re-hired workers at 1/3rd the wages of the unionised workforce.($130 a month)

These are only a selection of the allegations against Coca-Cola. Far more evidence exists. There will be numerous public meetings in the college from early February. You can also check out some of the following websites. www.laborrights.org www.lasc.ie www.killercoke.org www.indymedia.ie www.corpwatch.org

Information compiled and distributed by a NUIM student in a personal capacity in advance of the establishment of a formal Boycott Coke Campaign

by YFG Member Thu Jan 22, 2004 20:40

For more see yfgmaynooth.com

Coca Cola debate in NUI Maynooth. - This was a debate held by the NUI Maynooth branch on the issue. Worthwhile looking at if you want to do a campaign on it in your own branch ( it will be important for college branches).

Killer Coke? A report of a Young Fine Gael Maynooth Open Debate, held on Tuesday 9th Dec at 7 p.m.

The debate “Coca Cola –Killer?” was a tremendous success with somewhere in the region of 30 to 40 people present. Although we were officially unable to get a speaker to speak in favour of the ban, a number of people who were more then able to voice their opinion! Conan Brady the officially neutral speaker spoke of how the students union would not in fact be in favour of the ban for “purely financial reasons”. He told us how the union is literally “counting pennies” at this stage, with a 60’000 euro deficit over the last three years, and that the coke sold in the SU shop would be needed from this perspective. He also outlined the ins and outs of having a referendum and that this in itself would cost the SU money. Asked by a member of the crowd as to why he was only giving the negative and no positive, he responded by saying that he could not at present see any positive effect of this ban. He concluded by saying that while he might be slightly anti-coke in a personal capacity, he found it difficult to side with those who supported it because of the mass amount of misinformation that has often come from supporters of such causes in the past.

Michael Binchy, the speaker from UCD, began on this point also. Michael had campaigned in a personal capacity against the ban in UCD and told us that one of the reasons that he recalled a referendum was that the first time around there were nearly 4000 students who could not vote. He told us how there was a huge amount of misinformation being spread in the campaign against Coca Cola, words like ‘rapists’, ‘killers’ and ‘blood on your hands’ were used as emotive arguments, he said. Highlighting that Columbia is one of the most dangerous places in the world with thousands of deaths in the last few years alone, he said that Coca Cola actually brought stability to a country in a state of war. He also addressed the allegation that Coca Cola was doing nothing to protect its employees, stating that Coca Cola had taken a number of measures to protect it employees such as transportation, paid leave for those considered in danger, security training, shift and job changes, extensive life insurance, paid cellular phones for emergency use (offered to all of SINALTRAINAL's Board of Directors), and loans to improve security of union offices.

Among his other arguments were that the ban would end up costing only Irish jobs, that the majority of Unions in Columbia were actually opposed to the ban, and that the one union in favour of it were in fact politically motivated in doing so. Michael also told us how we should have freedom of choice and suggested to those in favour of the ban that it would be fairer for them to simply call on people to boycott Coca Cola rather than force a ban on everyone else. But perhaps the most important point that he made in the debate, was the fact that the case was thrown out of three courts already. Admitting that while the first two courts in which it was thrown out would not have been impartial, he went on to say that the Miami court was a fair hearing for the case. He quoted the judge presiding over the case as saying that there was “no factual or legal basis for these claims”.

Last to take the podium was a representative of the Global Awareness Society. She started off by saying how she was given very little notice of this debate and therefore had not enough time to adequately prepare for it. She asked Young Fine Gael to stand beside them in supporting the ban and questioned their motives behind it. Earlier in the debate she pointed out that while it was said that this ban was a restriction of choice, this was not realistically the truth, as students could easily buy from any other shop, and that this was merely a symbolic stand. She criticised Coca Cola’s tactics in Columbia heavily and said that should there be a referendum on the issue she was confident it would be passed.

by Brittle Bones Fri Jan 23, 2004 00:58

Makes no difference how many times it is debated in the world of academia, the stuff is still shite.

by David Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:36

Be aware that the "factsheet" as published on the top of this page contains information that even Members of the YFG pro Coke side now admit are untrue and deliberately misleading.
A member of YFG maynooth told me that he would be revising the factsheet to remove these false allegations
Trouble is i don't see where they'll be able to find any arguements to replace them.

by yfg member Sun Feb 22, 2004 03:04

THe one fact that we got wrong was that the columbian congress of trade unions support the ban.
THe quote of "legal basis" was misquoted but was said by coca cola in an official capacity on their website.

There are more details we can add in david, such as the fact that our own students union are completely opposed to the ban.
"boycott the boycott" ger healy, tara walsh.

by David Sun Feb 22, 2004 14:44

Is another example of getting your facts wrong

by Daniel - LY Wed Mar 03, 2004 11:35

Coca Cola is a luxury and not a right. Im shocked that ANY organisation of human beings would confuse that matter.

Further more...students do indeed have a right to choose, and should practice that right in a referendum.

The sooner YFG learn to make a relevant and coherent political statement the better.

by Julie Stout Fri Mar 12, 2004 17:31 juliebstout-peace at yahoo dot com Conway, Arkansas

This Columbian strike missed my attention in the North American press, probably because it was never even mentioned. I can't even figure out why Coca-Cola has bottling plants in Columbia, as if Columbian people wouldn't know what to drink without a US corporation telling them what to do. It's just absurd. Even if you want to drink toxic caffeinated shite beverages, there are certainly many to choose from if you don't like Coke, so what's the big deal with endorsing a boycott? Surely, the student concessions can sell Pepsi or R.C. Cola. Aren't there any Irish colas? Doesn't it make more sense to consume locally produced products where the profits remain in your own community rather than having the profits be shipped back to Atlanta, Georgia?

The biggest flaws I see posted here with the pro-"free" trade arguments is that they completely ignore the concept of consumer choice. If the students don't want to have Coke sold on campus, that is their prerogative. If their decision is capricious, too bad for Coke. Do I need to go to court and have a judge tell me that I have his/her permission to stop buying Coke? That is completely utterly insane.

It's been some months, so the issue being since resolved, I'll leave you with some advice for the future. In cover of night, dump their damned cola overboard and burn the ships in the harbor. That'll show 'em.

by Daniel - LY Sat Mar 13, 2004 17:46

I like you attitude Julie.

FYI - There are no Irish cola's....thats the nature of globalisation.

- The boycott did actuall make US news once or twice...see www.killercoke.org they have a list of published articles. The most important one was an article in the Atlanta business post....(Atlanta is the world HQ of Coke)...about the UCD boycott.