Reply to a SIPTU member on the divisive Coca Cola boycott

by Raymond Rowan - Amnesty ucd Sat Dec 13, 2003 13:21

I have met with Mrs.speed on a previous occasion in which i made several points regarding UCD internal democracy.Unfortunately Anne has forgotten so i am forced to remind her in the hope that i don't see the same inaccurate information posted again.
Anne writes in her post that SIPTU members were restricted from passing out leaflets and information to UCD students.As i have said before UCD referenda allow a given number of leaflets and posters to both sides and have and will be called off if this is interfered with,this interference has come from societies and students within the college in the past.SIPTU was made aware of this before both referendums and chose to ignore it.Anne's contention that SIPTU were unfairly treated disappears and i'm sure both sides of the the referendums will agree with me on this.I can assume this as both sides both times asked the members to leave.
The only reason that the members wanted to leaflet was to get their point of view across,but what Anne fails to see and i fear accept is that for 2 weeks those opposing the boycott made her views known.Every leaflet and poster they had refered to it(thats thousands of leaflets by the way)and so what she fails to see is that UCD students being fully aware of the arguments decided to vote for the boycott.I think that is the real problem here,the inability to accept a democratic decision and hide behind false assumptions of student ignorance.
Finally with regard to the role played by leading members of the student union.I attended the meeting with SIPTU members before the first referendum.Refering to it Anne claims that one of our delegation was intransient(which having been there unlike Anne i deny)but she fails to note that the SIPTU members at the meeting denied any human rights abuses by Coca Cola and didn't ask for discussions they just demanded an end to the boycott full stop.As regards the general approach of the student union.The students union represent the students of UCD and all its members(who agreed or disagreed with the boycott)supported our internal democracy.They acted on behalf of their union members,as Anne is so fond of saying,and many of their members thank them for it.We are not a soft touch and Anne or her associates have no right to interfere with our democracy or insult our elected leaders based on hearsay.I've attended the meetings,know the colleges rules(which apply equally to everyone)and he people involved.Anne does not.So in sumation i would request that if Anne has some actual basis for anything she has to say regarding UCD can she post it?If i can't prove you wrong then you win Anne but we both know better than that.

by Precision Man Sat Dec 13, 2003 13:35

Anne Speed wrote:
"As for LASC, at no stage - repeat, no stage – did its Irish representatives officially approach SIPTU Head Office or the drinks, tobacco, distribution branch seeking communication on Sinantrainal’s call for a boycott and LASC’s intention to build public support"

That gives the impression that LASC is some kind of international organisation with "Irish representatives". In fact it is an Irish-based organisation and was set up in the mid 90's as the focus shifted away from Nicaragua and toward the broad Latin American situation.

by lanky and skinny rather than slim and svelt - cough cough - splutter - look like a girlie in a hoody. Sat Dec 13, 2003 14:51

People just can't get the heads around the sweet bubbly stuff just being so _uncool_, and for no wonder, I remember when still doing my apprenticeship, how Woodie Guthrie would go nowhere without a bottle of cola, and didn't all the trippers in the sixties down it all the time?
oh, how things are changing:

Your Weekend Italian lessons.

"como fare una Campagna di boicottaggio"
http://www.tmcrew.org/killamulti/cocacola/index.html

by Gearoid O Loingsigh - LASC Sat Dec 13, 2003 17:39

To clarify Lasc is an Irish organisation and not an international organisation. We did contact Siptu at the time of the visit by Luis Eduardo Garcia, the Sinaltrainal member and met with Siptu, Anne Speed included.

We did not contact you before hand, but as an independent organisation we are not obliged to do so. We develop our own policy and act accordingly. Nothing Anne Speed has said on the Coca Cola issue including the disgraceful first communique that denied there was any problem at Coca Cola in Colombia can convince anyone that things would be different now had we consulted Anne Speed and the shop stewards before hand.

As for alternatives to the boycott. That is up to Anne Speed and Co. What is your alternative, we are anxiously waiting to hear what this alternative is.

However, if it is just a quiet word in the ear of Coke, well that is not an alternative. If you put as much effort into pressurising Coke as you put into pressurising others, things might advance.

by Sean MacGabhainn Sun Dec 14, 2003 15:32

I will keep it short (for once)

Gearoid:
You say that you did not contact SIPTU workers about a campaign policy that could potentially lose the same workers their jobs because you “were not obliged to”. This is either political incompetence or just arrogance. Had you no idea that that they might have a view on your campaign tactic? For someone who makes sideswipes at trade union bureaucrats, this takes the biscuit.

Raymond:
Your bottom line is that you were promoting a campaign tactic in defence of the right of trade unionists to organise in Colombia. But, on the basis of a tactic that could weaken Irish trade union organisation here, through the workers losing their jobs as a result of large accounts being closed down in student unions around the country - in the Irish bottling plants and also in the SU shops.

And you expected them to say nothing or to refrain from insisting on having a voice when their jobs and the well being of their families was on the line.

Did no one have the wit to stop and say: “Hang on, perhaps workers in Coca Cola bottling plants in Ireland might have a view on this. Maybe we should listen to what they have to say and facilitate their attempts to address the students in what ever way they find convenient.”

This was not done because Irish workers’ jobs were considered the sacrificial lamb in defence or workers’ rights elsewhere. Instead of exploring common action, middle class arrogance and the use of rules to deny a voice to Irish workers was the order of the day.

Defending workers’ interests abroad by undermining them here – that takes some doing.

by Justin Mon Dec 15, 2003 01:21

Anne regardless of the in's, outs, rights and wrongs of the tactic of boycott what will you be doing among your membership working in Coke to show solidarity with their Colombian comrades who are being intimidated and murdered for joingin trade unions? Will you ballot your members for a half day or 24 hour work stoppage?

I would appreciate if you could answer my question.

I am of the opinion that the reason that boycott actions are being taken in various colleges is because of the lack of action on behalf of SIPTU. If SIPTU were to organise work stoppages in Irish plants in solidarity with their fellow trade unionists in Colombia, it would be a much more effective action and would really make Coke listen to their workers.

Also, I think you and the Coke workers must recognise that the students in UCD and elsewhere are not anti Coke, they are not anti Coke worker. They are motivated by very commendable reasons.

by see the other side Mon Dec 15, 2003 01:44

Justin regardless of the in's, outs, rights and wrongs of Siptu's actions regarding the Sinaltrainal call, what will you be doing as a campaigner for majority world justice to examine how your tactics will impact on the livelihood of irish workers. Will you meet with the workers who are likely to lose out by your actions? Will you allow the people who will vote on these actions to hear their side of the story?

I would appreciate if you could answer my question.

I am of the opinion that the reason that many trade unionists feel isolated from the global justice movement is the disregard for their needs shown by activists. If those activists were to talk to trade unionists it would be a much more effective movement and could really make some changes.

Also I think you and the student activists must recognise that trade unionists in Ireland are not anti solidarity, they are not anti labour struggle. They are motivated by very commendable reasons.

by Justin Mon Dec 15, 2003 02:13

I am not writing off Coke workers as scabs or SIPTU members as reactionaries. I am arguing that the most effective action we can take in Ireland against Coke in colombia is to organise strike action among Irish coke workers. In saying this I support the boycotts, they will also hit Coke and are the only way that activists feel they can hit Coke mamagment given the lack of leadership from SIPTU. One critisism of the pro boycott campaigns I'd have would be their lack of attention they showed to winning over the workers in SIPTU.

I do not think that Coke workers in Ireland are unable to take solidarity action. I am sure they are outraged by the murder of their comrades in Colombia. I think that SIPTU should hold a ballot for striek action on this issue, I am 100% sure they would vote to take action.

by Justin Mon Dec 15, 2003 02:17

I do not think that it is the fault of the boycotts that Irish workers may be laid off. Irish workers and Coke bosses are not on the same side, they do not have common interests. If Irish workers are laid off it is because Coke want to maintain their profits by introducing mechanisation in the plants. I will guarentee you that not one senior manager of member of the board of Coke will suffer any loss in pay or be sacked whatsoever. Again it is the role of the trade union leaders liek Ann Speed to explain this to their members instead of jumping into bed with managment and giving impression that the boss and worker have common interests.

by UCDSU class rep - 2nd Arts Mon Dec 15, 2003 02:48

"They have a broader concept of democracy than that possessed by some politically manipulative leaders of students union bodies"

I interpret this comment by Anne Speed as an attack on the executive of the UCD SU and the SU as a whole. Anne are you saying that the executive and the officers in UCD are politically manipulated fools who are not democrats? I think you are, this is a disgrace.

The officers of the UCDSU are democratically elected and accountable to the membership. If any student or group of students are dissatisfied they can raise it at council or even impeach them through a referendum. I am not 100% familiar with SIPTU's internal democracy. But from what I hear, Ann, you are not elected or accountable to the membership of SIPTU. You are on a wage far exceeding that of your membership. in general UCDSU officers and candidates to various positions make their party affiliations quite clear to the electorate, do all SIPTU officials do likewise?

I will be bringing up these issues ASAP witin the SU. I will be demanding that the SU take a position of demanding an official apology from SIPTU. UCDSU has some links through USI with SIPTU, these remarks from Ann Speed are a disgrace and a two fingers to the student movement.

Ann, for your information the rules regarding 'outside interference' are there for a very good reason. They are effectivly spending limits. They prevent people or groups buying elections. Students in general have little in terms of disposable cash, how do you think it is democratic for a group of ordinary students to compete with the might of the Coca Cola corporation who could have flooded the campus with 1,000s of leaflets and 1,000s of free bottles of Coke.

I agree with Justin. Why wont Ann Speed stop insulting the UCDSU and start organising solidarity industrial action now!

by Joe Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:44

Thanks for the reply Ann

Obviously the 'implied threat' I mentioned in the original post could be something serious. However as I also wrote "I very much doubt such a threat existed, that's not the point here though, the level of communications cock up that led to them believing it might be true is".

Also obviously the impression the students took from meetings with SIPTU are not necessarly the same as the message SIPTU was trying to get across. Again a fairly clear communications problem.

A rather unproductive argument of 'who should have talked to who first' could rage on for months to no ones benefit. Probably more sensible to agree to differ on who is to blame and for everyone concerned to learn from it.

On SIPTU leafletting the campus during the SU referendum I didn't actually have a problem in itself with this. But I think its a bit silly to pretend that one union targetting a referendum of another unions members in this manner is common place.

Anyway as in my original post I think its time to move beyond both sides blaming each other for the bad feeling that now exists. A concrete proposal from the food branch would be a good start.

by BNFL Mon Dec 15, 2003 14:27

Anne and Sean your efforts here for Coca-Cola have not gone unnoticed. If there are any vacancies in Sellafield soon, we will be sure to give you a call.
Your level of representation is akin to the union workers that we have cultivated here.
Keep up the good work!!

by BNFL Mon Dec 15, 2003 14:35

Thanks to the CWI who worry about our workers. With them giving us left cover we will never close. Indeed the English SP are more concerned about those working in Sellafield than they are about its effects on the rest of the English, Irish, Scorttish and Welsh Working Class.

Is Nuclear Power still ok under Workers Control or has that line changed.

by Arts Student - UCDSU member Mon Dec 15, 2003 17:13

1. There are Rules about votes in UCDSU. There are spending limits on litrature, posters, leaflets etc. because most students are on a limited income and ALL members of UCDSU have the right to run for election and call a referendum regardless of their income. I think that you should respect these rules and understand that outside organisations should not be allowed outspend a group of students with a very limited budget.

2. You should respect the officers of UCDSU. The level of disrespect that members of the Executive in favour of the ban got from so-called SIPTU shop stewards was shocking. They repeatedly stood outside Belfield and broke the rules of the referendum and put the holding of the poll in jeopardy. I think that they gave your people a lot of space and time. They were within their rights to have them physically removed from UCD property but didn't. The SU officers were all directly elected and got far more votes than SIPTU bureaucrats like you and are far more accountable.

3. You should show some leadership in your position. You are mistaken to think that a boycott in 4 shops in UCD showing solidarity with Coca Cola workers in Colombia will loose jobs in Ireland. You should be pointing to the fact that it is Coca Cola that make people unemployed and not UCD students. Why did you not direct the concerns of your members towards the bosses in Coca Cola? Why not organise shop stewards to leaflet their own plants about the Company being to blame for any job losses?

4. Yellow Union. I think that your actions show that you are not acting in the interests of your members, rather you are acting in the interests of their employers. It is in the interests of the Coca Cola corporation to have job losses blamed on students and not their own drive for increased profit. It is also very useful for Coca Cola to have their work done in the name of SIPTU as it divides the Union and Student movement. I also wonder if those shop stewards were paid by Coca Cola on the mornings they stood outside Belfield and Earlsfort Terrace? Will those shop stewards now be earmarked for promotion for their loyalty to the company? Ann, how did you vote in partnership vote?

5. Sinn Féin membership. Were your actions influenced by your SF membership? Did SF know of your actions? Did the $5k that SF received influence SF's actions? Do you know that SF in the State's largest University are discredited? Have you been disciplined yet? if not, why not?

6. Damaging SIPTU. Your actions have not just damaged SF, but they have damaged SIPTU. SIPTU have links with UCDSU through USI (will that be put in jeopardy?). UCDSU have also had very good relations with SIPTU members in UCD working together whenever the College Authorities try to shaft us all. Did you not realise that UCDSU will probably be running a Unionisation camapign among it's 20,000 members- I wouldn't blame them for not getting their members to join SIPTU. At a time when SIPTU are desperate for new members that will be active in the Union your actions have discredited your Union in the eyes of left activists in UCD.

Ann, I think that you should be ashamed to be in the Union of Connolly and Larkin. You have used the name of SIPTU to do the work of the bosses in Coca Cola. You are determined to break unity within the movement between students and workers.

by Raymond Rowan - amnesty ucd Tue Dec 16, 2003 13:41

A bit delayed i know but my response to Sean Macgabhainn is here.You put across the point that the boycott was taken in ignorance of any input or opinion of Irish coke workers and that they had a solution which would be more effective or less devisive.Firstly we met with the reps of the workers before the first referendum.We took on board their useful and positive approach which was that the human rights abuses were not linked to coke and we should leave it to them to do nothing about it.Forgive us please Sean for not being inactive and giving into the pressure.Answer me this Sean,if we hadn't gone ahead with the boycott do you really think Anne and co. would have lifted a finger?

by David Wed Dec 17, 2003 15:17

Are not representing the workers. Union Execs that get paid many times the salaries of the workers they are elected to represent show contempt for the workers they are elected to represent.
I personally have no confidence in ICTU Unions in Ireland

by Sean MacGabhainn Wed Dec 17, 2003 18:27

Yep, Raymond,

They Irish bottling plant workers had already raised it at European Works Council level.

Why do you assume that they would "do nothing about it"? I think you may have reduced your comment to caricature in your comment.

Do you have difficulty with the idea that the solidarity group, the students, etc, acting in harmony with the bottling plant workers would be a powerful weapon?

Who knows, if you had managed to contact them and talk to them, you might have achieved something more positive than you have achieved. Guess what? You could still do it now.

Alternatively, you could shout slogans and insults over the Internet.

It seems to be a difficult thing to explain, but generally people involved in solidarity need to explain and motivate potential supporters (rather than alienate them). It is quite boring, but the message needs to be re-explained over and over again.

Messages like "Colombia workers attacked again – Ha, Ha! SIPTU, what do you say now?" are in my opinion particularly ineffective.

by Raymond Rowan Wed Dec 17, 2003 21:33

You seem confused.firstly i asked would they have done anything if we hadn't had the boycott not have they done anything.So the question still stands,please don't answer your own.As for solidarity,i would have and do welcome any advance by Anne and co.,unfortunately i am forced to repeat myself in saying that it is they who want us to drop everything we have worked for in exchange for...........?A campaign which we hope would be effective and lead by people who want this as low key as possible?Boycott or no boycott what coke have been involved in will blacken ther name.I don't think Anne is up for that as has been established in our meetings.So for the final time we met,they were the ones unwilling to act,the boycott is around and now we are offered minor gestures and destructive opposition to a growing movement for the boycott.What you fail to acknowledge is that they had years to act and didn't.Now people are acting and they drag us back with while shouting in our meetings that it the abuses aren't happening.I want them to do something effective,they won't and haven't.I refuse to abandon this issue to those with no interest in it's success.

by Sean MacGabhainn Thu Dec 18, 2003 15:33

They did something because they heard about the issue and were concerned. If you want to argue that the only reason a group of workers can be forced to move on an issue is if their own jobs are threatened then you sound like (not “are”, just “sound like”) an employer. I am sure that is not your intention. Blackmailing people with their own jobs is not a good campaign tactic.

You do not have to drop everything, nor do you have to adopt a low-key campaign. I don’t see where either of those things follow. The workers in the bottling plant do not determine the tempo of the campaign and neither should it be determined by a divisive tactic (the boycott). I fully appreciate that there have been numerous dedicated individuals and groups drawing attention to the situation of Coca Cola workers in Colombia and that they have done far more work and possibly will continue to do more work than the workers in the bottling plant. My main point is that the work is dissipated by the unnecessary alienation of the workers in the bottling plant. Getting them on board would be a tremendous asset to the campaign. Alienating and slandering them in the way that happened has the opposite effect (enough said about that). I will just say that you underestimate the goodwill that is there now (despite the boycott) and that potentially is there if the tactic is dispensed with.

This might seem like a difficult thought, but if the campaign tactics are not to be determined by the bottling workers in Ireland then, in logic, they are not requred to be determined by Sinantrainal in Colombia either. Think about it.

I would also say that it is a failing for Sinaltrainal not to address the position of the International Union of Foodworkers, which the SIPTU bottling plant workers are affiliated to. If you don’t think that the position or potential support of an organisation that represents millions of food workers is important then so be it. If you do, then you have a responsibility to engage them in discussion, so that matters can be clarified and resolved. You give the bottling plant workers the opportunity to evaluate different positions, rather than demanding that they accept one position without question.

Going around obstacles may give you the impression that they are not there. They are and someday, because you have not secured them, they will fall on you. That is what happened in UCD with the bottling plant workers.

by Raymond Rowan - amnesty ucd Thu Dec 18, 2003 22:06

I think from what i hear that there must be a league of difference between SIPTU workers in the coke plants and their representatives.
On any occasion on which those involved in the boycott have met with Anne and Co there is nothing but instransigience and the statement that every singlr worker in the plants is out to get us.
In replying to your statement on why there has been action.In our first meeting with the reps we were told that the abuses had nothing to do with coke.I think the fact that we brushed that aside and continued has had an effect.I don't think they reacted because their jobs were at risk but because it was a step to modify us when their attempts to disrupt,destroy and derail our campaign failed.How many times has coke heard complaints from interantional unions on its activities world wide and how many times has it listened?I want SIPTU on board and would welcome any good will but that is not the position or potential conveyed by the reps.This boycott may be weaker for their unfortunate absence but it is still strong and still growing and we believe it will have an effect.I regret that it is devisive but i think if the option is between a group which has ignored the subject for a decade,is confrontational and suggests approaches which we think will fail and the boycott then i know my decision.I'm open-minded convince me otherwise.

by John Meehan Fri Dec 19, 2003 13:50

"Sean MacGabhainn" (a pseudonym?) misrepresents pro coke boycott posters on this site, again -

Raymond Rowan :

"You seem confused.firstly i asked would they have done anything if we hadn't had the boycott not have they done anything.So the question still stands,please don't answer your own."

"Sean MacGabhainn" (a pseudonym?)

"If you want to argue that the only reason a group of workers can be forced to move on an issue is if their own jobs are threatened then you sound like (not “are”, just “sound like”) an employer"

Little point in debating with posters like this.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh - LASC Fri Dec 19, 2003 14:02

Sean obviously doesn't read all the indymedia stuff on Coke or is willfully ignorant. Sinatrainal replied to the IUF statements and this reply was posted on this site.

They pointed out that the IUF did not represent workers that were murdered and had no representation at the plants were the violence was taking place.

Just another twisting of the truth by the pro coke side, and this is the term that should be used. They are not pro jobs in Ireland, they are pro coke.

by Gearoid O LOingsigh - LASC Fri Dec 19, 2003 14:05

I have just checked the posting on this site of the union reply to the IUF and surprise, surprise Sean posted a reply to it. So Sean, you were aware that the union had replied when on this thread you say that the union should reply to the IUF.

Enough said. Get real.

by Sean MacGabhainn Mon Dec 22, 2003 13:41

The postings by O Loinsigh and Meehan make little or no sense (in the ordinary meaning of the term).

Sinaltrainal did not reply to the IUF in the sense of taking up their arguments and responding to them. They declared themselves uninterested in responding to the points made by the IUF and made a series of declarations, one of which is reproduced by Gearoid above. Again, we are expected to accept these assertions at face value, even though they are contested. I note on another thread (Maynooth) that the IUF’s actions against coke in Guatemala are outlined. Again I ask, for the umpteenth time, why would the IUF engage in action against Coca Cola in Guatemala and refuse to come to the aid of Sinaltrainal in Colombia? Of course, the truth is that IUF have not refused. They have said that they do not agree with the call for a worldwide boycott (forever? for one year?) and have criticised the detail of some of the sweeping claims made by Sinaltrainal. Why does Sinaltrainal not bring these events directly to the attention of co-workers in trade unions around the world? Indeed, why does not Geraoid O’Loinsigh do so in relation to every example of attacks on Coca Cola workers in Colombia that is brought to his attention? It would seem to be because he is more interested in scoring a series of increasingly pathetic debating points than in actually promoting effective solidarity.

As for Mr Meehan, this is clearly just another posting that a person of his superior intelligence will dismiss with a wave of his hand. Clearly neither my arguments nor I have any reality for him. Like the workers in the bottling plant, they are to be ignored.

A serious point: some posters on some threads have attempted to criticise Sinaltrainal on the basis of alleged connections with guerrilla groups. There is an apparent degree of symmetry here with attempts to link Coca Cola with every violent act that befalls Coca Cola bottling plant workers.

I don’t know if Sinaltrainala have links with guerrilla groups in Colombia or if their members have political sympathy with their aims. If they did, it would be understandable in a country with the worst human rights record in the world, where state sponsored death squads assassinate trade unionists, lawyers, teachers and civil rights workers with impunity. The state is riven with corruption and the military are fighting a war on behalf of the interests of a wealthy elite and on behalf of US interests.

Coca Cola have a case to answer in relation to their bottling plants in Colombia. They have a duty of care toward their workers, in particular, toward those who are elected representatives of the workers. If, as seems likely, that there are attacks targeted on members of Sinaltrainal who are taking legal action against Coca Cola, then the multinational and its franchised bottlers have a duty to denounce such attacks, to take measures to protect those under attack and to put pressure on state forces to ensure that such attacks come to an immediate end.

Connections between Silatrainal and other groups are clearly irrelevant and bring an element of witch hunting into the debate, whereas the relationship of Coca Cola bottlers and Coca Cola itself to death squads is clearly relevant to the discussion. The best way of exposing the latter is why we are here.

Pressure in Colombia, in Latin America, the US, Europe and elsewhere will play a significant part in forcing Coca Cola and the Columbian state to take action. Why not take a leaf out of the IUF’s book in relation to its actions in Guatemala in 1980? Why not go to the people who have some experience of taking on Coca Cola internationally. It would appear to be because the IUF questioned some of the Sinaltrainal claims and instead of arguing it out, Sinaltrainal when worldwide with its boycott tactic. Genuine people in the anti-globalisation movement took it up and are only now becoming aware that campaigning life is not that simple. You can no more take Coca Cola bottling workers in Ireland or in other countries for granted than you can those who work for Coca Cola in Columbia. Trade union solidarity requires an effort to get trade unionists on board.

Now make the effort to get it and stop wallowing about in your own egos.

by John Meehan Mon Dec 22, 2003 15:45

"Sean MacGabhainn" (a pseudonym) writes :

"As for Mr Meehan, this is clearly just another posting that a person of his superior intelligence will dismiss with a wave of his hand. Clearly neither my arguments nor I have any reality for him. Like the workers in the bottling plant, they are to be ignored."

Readers can see
a)
no comment from the poster on whether s/he is usinga pseudonym
b)
no reply to my substantive point that "Sean MacGabhainn" misrepresented Raymond Rowan
c)
"Sean MacGabhainn" makes additional personal attacks at the end of her/his posting

by Concerned Mon Dec 22, 2003 15:58

How do we know this is his real name? Given the number and content of his comments he could well be a badly designed computer program.

He repeats the same generalisations without dealing with the reality that it is difficult to get workers to strike over abstract notions. If there is an onus on anyone to take industrial action then it is on the entire Trade Union Movement. Including those who have comfy jobs in IMPACT HQ. If one was instructed to issue a circular to Union members which went against his Trotskyite principles what would he do? Refuse? I think not. Issued any circulars from IMPACT HQ in favour of Social Partnership John? Or circulars that IMPACT members were to cooperate with Council Management regarding the non collection of bins?

Now I am sure that John will tell us how his position is different from that of Anne Speed.

by Peter M Mon Dec 22, 2003 16:08

"How do we know this is his real name?"
- Quite simply because he is very well known among the Irish left.
Does anyone know who "Sean MacGabhainn" is? I certainly never heard of him before this coke debate.

by Blockader Mon Dec 22, 2003 16:19

I never saw John Meehan on a bin blockade. Maybe hes a Virtual Warrior.

by Peter M Mon Dec 22, 2003 16:28

....you must know him to see

by Concerned Mon Dec 22, 2003 16:30

It doesnt answer the questions about John and IMPACT. What does he do when hes in a similar position to Anee Speed? I was being facetious about him being a program.

by Sean MacGabhainn Mon Dec 22, 2003 19:52

When John Meehan wrote: "Little point in debating with posters like this." I thought he saw little point in debating with me. I assumed that I did not meet his exacting and superior standards of debating.

My apologies for interpreting what he wrote literally. There is obviously a deeper meaning to the point that I missed.

As for the accusation that I do not answer the questions he demands I answer to his satisfaction, all I can say is "touché". I do not believe it is a unique failing.

It seems to be a common failing here, though, to wander off the point and to bring up extraneous issues - as with the latest stuff about IMPACT. What has that to do with anything relevant?

There are a series of points I have brought up that remain unanswered. The general points I raised attempted to address the problems with the boycott tactic. Isn’t that what the debate is about? To be fair, some of those who support the boycott have tried to insinuate that SIPTU workers are uninterested in solidarity. To prove the point, some of them keep jumping up and down and pointing the finger at events in Colombia that most (if not all) of the workers in the bottling plant have never heard about. Why have they not head about them? Because a certain person insists that it is not his job to make them aware – even though he is possibly the best person to do so. Thus the claim of disinterest has the capacity to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Is there anyone else involved in Latin America solidarity who might not be wearing the same set of blinkers?

by John Meehan Tue Dec 23, 2003 21:41

Indymedia readers who support the Coca Cola Boycott were encouraged to learn that the Sinn Féin Ard Comhairle supported their point of view.

A good source has told me that, as a result, Anne Speed resigned from the Ard Comhairle. Dublin Sinn Féin members are to elect a new member in the new year. Sinn Féin could correct this information if it is wrong - I can easily go back to my source(s).

It is clear that despite the party decision Anne is still working against the boycott.

Up to yesterday I only had a strong suspicion that "Sean MacGabhainn" is a pseudonym. I have now got new information that leaves me in absolutely no doubt - SMcG is a pseudonym.

So - and it is only a personal decision - I will not discuss anything with this poster on this site from now on - i advise other writers to do the same.

by Concerned Wed Dec 24, 2003 11:15

John you have not answered the question about your IMPACT activities. What do you do when you have to issue circulars supporting Social Partnership or attacking the Anti Bin Charges Campaign? Do you do as you are instructed by the IMPACT General Secretary?

Why do you apply a different standard to Anne Speed who is following instructions from SIPTU Head Office and her members who work for Coke?

by Arts Student Sat Dec 27, 2003 01:36

In this thread and a number of others comlaints are made that Coca-Cola workers tried to distribute literature at UCd in contravention to UCDSU election by-laws. What hould also be noted is that it is also against the by-laws for UCDSU officers to campaign in a UCDSU referendum, as Dillion and his co-horts did in the ARTS the day of the referendum.

When the UCDSU give out about the Coke workers breaking the rules, they shgould look closer to home.

by Oisín Kelly - UCDSU Education Officer Sat Dec 27, 2003 03:13

"What hould also be noted is that it is also against the by-laws for UCDSU officers to campaign in a UCDSU referendum"

No it's not. Nowhere does it say that Sabbatical officers may not actively campaign in a referendum or other election for that matter. However it does say that Sabbatical Officers are members of the Union and that all Union members are free to campaign etc.

Under the constitution the Referendum of the membership is the highest decision making body- and all members (including members of the executive) have the right to appeal to that body.

I think that it a positive thing that Sabbatical Officers campaigned in the 2 Coke referendums.

by Trade Unionist Mon Dec 29, 2003 02:28

1.) Did the UCD Students Union approach the Irish workforce of Coca Cola and ask them their opinion on the events that have taken place in Colombia and what they thought of the plan to hold a referendum on boycotting Coca Cola in the university?

2.) Do the supporters of the boycott believe that the views of the Irish workforce are relevant to this debate?

3.) If the boycott was to spread to every college campus and maybe beyond, do those who support the boycott think it would impact enough on Coca Cola's sales to force them to change their role in Colombia?
And could it have a detrimental effect on the jobs of the irish workforce?

4.) Have the supporters of the boycott been in touch with the Colombian workers to offer them direct support for their campaign?

5.) Have you offered to raise funds to send to the Colombian workers workers to help their campaign?

6.) Apart from the boycott what else have you done to support the Colombian workers?

7.) When you knew of the objections from the irish workforce why did you not organise a public debate on campus on this issue?

by UCDSU Council % SIPTU member Tue Dec 30, 2003 22:04

"1.) Did the UCD Students Union approach the Irish workforce of Coca Cola and ask them their opinion on the events that have taken place in Colombia and what they thought of the plan to hold a referendum on boycotting Coca Cola in the university?"

The UCDSU is over 20,000 people. As you are aware any member of the Union can initiate a referendum. The Executive or Council did not initiate this referendum, it was a 'rank-and-file' member of the Union who went out and collected signatures. So you will have to direct that question at the individual(s) concerned and not the Union Officers.

"2.) Do the supporters of the boycott believe that the views of the Irish workforce are relevant to this debate?"

Of course they are relevant. But in my opinion the views of Ann Speed etc. are not in the interests of workers in Coca Cola- rather they are in the interests of the Coca Cola Corporation. A perfect example of a Yellow Union Official tied to the bosses.

"3.) If the boycott was to spread to every college campus and maybe beyond, do those who support the boycott think it would impact enough on Coca Cola's sales to force them to change their role in Colombia?
And could it have a detrimental effect on the jobs of the irish workforce?"

I do not believe that a boycott will lose jobs in Coca Cola. It is the Coca Cola corporation that are to blame for job losses as they are the ones doing their best to maximise profits. They are the ones that have laid workers off in the past and made workers work harder all in the interests of 'efficentcy'. From my understanding the ban is not just about dropping sales. It is also largely about Publicity. The UCDSU ban has raised the isssue of the disgusting activities that Coca Cola are getting up to.

"4.) Have the supporters of the boycott been in touch with the Colombian workers to offer them direct support for their campaign?"

I believe they have, and a Coca Cola worker from Colombia came out to Belfield to address students. They are very very appreciative of the stand that UCD students made.

"5.) Have you offered to raise funds to send to the Colombian workers workers to help their campaign?

6.) Apart from the boycott what else have you done to support the Colombian workers?"

The Union has not made moves like this, but it's a good idea and maybe the SU should make a donation. I'm not too sure about individulas in UCD who may have done fundraising on or off campus.

"7.) When you knew of the objections from the irish workforce why did you not organise a public debate on campus on this issue?"

There were a number of debates of the issue in Belfield.

by A confused and bewildered UCD student Wed Dec 31, 2003 00:27

In what capacity id the above person speaking? For themselves, as an elected member of the UCDSU council or on behalf of the UCDSU?

If the first, fine but that isn't made clear and the person would appear to be attempting to pass themselves off as a definitive voice and in some respects as the UCDSU. Also, if these are personal opinions and the contributor doens't want to be associated in puiblic with them, the should use their membership of the UCDSU Council to garner greater publicity for those opinions

If the second, fine, but they should at least put their name to it. Especially because the person makes a number of claims in the first person. Considering their elected capacity I believe that UCD studentts have a right to know what Council Members think and believe. th lack of a proper name confuses the issue and makes one wonder about the validityof the comments.

If the third, is it UCDSU policy to use out dated simplistic communist terms such as 'bosses' and refer to 'yellow unions'?

This isa continuing problem with Indymedia. While annoymity is all well and good, and I am quite fond of it, people who seek to speak in a certain capacity, in this case as a member of the UCDSU Council, should not use it as it confuses people about the authencity and validity of the post.

by Trade Unionist Wed Dec 31, 2003 01:25

The main purpose of my post was to raise the pertinent issue that the views of the Coca Cola workers in Ireland are an important part of this debate. Also, that it is possible for people in Ireland to support the workers in Colombia without engaging in a boycott. Although I am not opposed to the boycott I just think it is a complex issue and that a boycott doesn't neccessarily have to be the cornerstone of the campaign. In fact it is possible that because a boycott now exists that the issue of giving real and direct support to the Colombia workers will fall off the agenda.
Regarding your comments about Ann Speed. I do not know Ann, do you? Your comments seem to suggest that she is only opposed to the boycott because she supports Coca Cola Irelands' managements agenda - this seems unlikely to me. Ann maybe a SIPTU official but that doesn't mean you are automatically a tool of the employers. It is also incorrect to describe SIPTU as a Yellow union. The leadership of SIPTU are committed to social partnership and the majority of them are in reality "tools" of the capitalist system, but SIPTU is not a yellow union. To make this designation is to declare that SIPTU a union of 200,000 workers is irreformable and should be abandoned by the working class. This is not the case. The rank and file of SIPTU can reclaim and rebuild their trade union.
In some ways the issue of the boycott is a side issue, the real issue is how can the 20,000 students in Belfield give real and practical support to the workers in Colombia and money would be a big help.

by the ipsiphi Wed Dec 31, 2003 14:20

There are numerous ways of sending money to Colombia.
And such solidarity action would be very welcome.
but surely the cliché of "sustainability" enters that equation, our _work_ as students, workers, syndicalists in the "North" is to assist those of the south in every way practically possible and politically effective.
To that end the workers and syndicalists of Colombia have consistently over many years asked their fraternally linked organisations in North America and Europe to support their very complex campaign for a fair and just society. They have specifically asked for support in many key areas, one of which is the Global Boycott on Coca Cola products.

I have done my best as a cyber activist to promote that area on a European basis, the Irish component of that campaign has had fair to good results with the Coca Cola company reconsidering many elements of it's youth marketing campaigns in Europe.
I would consider it a side benefit of this campaign that SIPTU and it's equivalents [all national state members of the €CTU] are being brought to the stand to face the accusation "Yellow".
I shall relish that debate as it deepens and broadens in this next year, for in truth it is not only SIPTU that appears in need of "reclaiming" but it's sister unions throughout Europe.

At end, neither the Global nor European figures or weight of either Coca Cola Ireland PLC or NUI UCD undergraduate purchasing power really make a significant difference to the global campaign. But they are a widening of Irish involvement in the search for Peace, Justice and Rights in Colombia, and together with the "Global Campaign" they do make a difference. It's regretable that many older "socialists" refuse to draw the links and understand what it is we are engaged in doing, there is no threat at present to any Coca Cola Europe worker from the campaign, we are not presently talking in those terms nor will the Coca Cola PLC enter into such action as a result of the Colombia campaign, and in any case almost all contracted workers in europe to the Coca Cola Corp have ample employment options with social security compensation compared to those workers and people who are in short "oppressed" by the present system in the third world, the case in point being Colombia.
but I assure you there are many others, which for a variety of reasons we have not as of yet expanded.


So far, the awareness of the case in point, (Colombia) is confined to the Sinantrial allegations, and the boycott in Ireland, but with one little push it may widen very quickly to the global ecological unsustainability of CocaColaPLC and certain other concerns which touch on North American Foreign Policy and the international war on terrorism and on drugs, and as you suggest -
"What do we do now with the European
Labour Movement?"

I'm sure that the students of UCD and beyond would relish any help offered them from sensible mature working class Trade Unionists like yourself, to help widen debate on these issues and inform the Irish people "what is really going on in Colombia", and "How exactly has social partnership trade unionism failed the poor of both Europe and the Third World in the last nineteen years". (interestingly the average age of your boycotting student).
Which shall bring you and us, to how will the future evolution of a society in Colombia with working class rights now taken for granted in Ireland affect our future European Investment and Trade prospects.
How will ending their poverty effect our wealth?

I shall relish that one too, indeed so will we all.

welcome to the 21º century.