Another attack against workers in Coke's bottling plants

by curious Tue Dec 16, 2003 05:54

is sinaltrainal calling for a boycott of coca cola in colombia?

by Curious eile Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:39

Is Coca Cola/SIPTU looking for those advocating a ban to be shot?

by Dave Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:19

Yes the boycott is been called by Sinatrainal internationally including in Colombia of course.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh - Lasc Wed Dec 17, 2003 14:43

Well Siptu, or should that be Sean and Anne, after this latest attack on workers in Colombia. This particular one is one of the named plaintiffs in the case against coke.

I have one question which you refuse to answer no matter how often it is put to you on the net or in person, when we met.

What are you going to do? Now that you have backtracked and said that you only disagree with the tactic of boycotts, let us see you roll out your tactics after the latest murder attempt.

Your silence on this vital question which you steadfastly refuse to answer speaks volumes.

by Mr (mis)Communication Head Wed Dec 17, 2003 16:16

Er, sorry, wouldn't like to be accused of misleading poor Gearoid as he leaves no stone unturned in his quest to defend workers' interests in Colombia.

That number is actually 01 8748346.

Go on, give her a ring. Let your fingers do the walking.

by Mr Communication Head Wed Dec 17, 2003 17:32

My comment just after Gearoid's has been cut - obviously by mistake. Must be a mistake since my second comment correcting the telephone number is still there.......... musn't it?

Could you (whoever you are) put the comment back please.

by 1 of Indymedia Ireland Editorial Group - Indymedia Ireland Wed Dec 17, 2003 18:17

If a comment or story, by you or anyone else has been deleted and you wish to know the reason, or to object to it then please contact the editorial group at [email protected] or alternatively use the "contact us" form. Reposted comments are deleted if this procedure is not followed. A member of the editorial collective will respond to your query. Discussion of the query will take place with you through email. We will _not_ discuss the query through the medium of the newswire unless there is some over-riding reason to do so. Thank you. R Isible

by Mr Communications Head Wed Dec 17, 2003 22:53

Would explaining to all readers why a comment is deleted constitute an "overriding reason"?

Just thought I would ask. Hope you are not offended by my little question.

by Mr_Peer_Review Thu Dec 18, 2003 03:33

If you care to look, you can always find something relevant. It only took me five minutes, but I'm sure if I spent more time looking around I would find much more about why articles and comments are removed. Why not look around yourself?

Try this well written comment from a month ago:
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=62173#comment52886

If that dosen't satisfy you, then look at some of the other indy sites and be thankful that the editors on this one actually remove most of the more obnoxious gunk from public view.

by Mr Communications Head Thu Dec 18, 2003 08:52

The idea of anarchists with rules does not fill me with confidence, particularly where the rules are not explicitly stated as they are applied.
It is a duty to readers to state that a comment has been removed for reason a, b, c etc (where such reasons are already stated, prominently displayed and easily accessible on the site). The fewer rules the better, no personal attacks, slander, racism etc.
What we apparently have is the removal of comments for no stated reason and without readers being informed.
This action can possibly mask arbitrary action, censorship and its twin, the censorship of the fact of censorship. I am not interested in a private email discussion with the people who took the decision to remove a perfectly innocuous comment. If an editor removes something, a statement to that effect should be inserted in lieu of the deleted comment and the rules under which it was removed should be stated explicitly. In that way, those of us who apparently transgress a rule will know what rule is allegedly transgressed.

Seems obvious good editorial practice to me. Openness, transparency, etc.

by Mr Communciations Head Thu Dec 18, 2003 15:58

Getting back on thread, in my deleted comment I was merely trying to suggest to Gearoid that he would be in a much stronger position if he brought news of attacks on Colombian Coca Cola workers directly to the attention of SIPTU. Snarling at them over the Internet just seems, well, childish.

I hope I have not transgressed any boundaries in saying that. I have left out the jokes AND THE CAPITALISATON. So, whatever (unnamed) rule I disobeyed, I hope it does not apply to this message.

by still curious Fri Dec 19, 2003 04:02

Seems strange to me that sinantrain should be campaigning for a boycott in colombia if it is the union representing coke workers there. If the boycott was successful in Colombia that would mean the coke workers were endorsing a policy that was putting them out of work. It doesn't seem to make sense.

by Definitely Fri Dec 19, 2003 12:26

Not sure on what you base your assumption that this site is an anarchist site, "anarchists with rules".
But I agree that the editors should explain when the delete stuff. I would go further, they should have to do ten-page handwritten reports, then they should have to walk around the spire backwards three times whilst throwing salt over their shoulder and reciting: "I am an evil censor" one hundred times for each deletion. What do you think of that idea?

by Liz Fri Dec 19, 2003 12:42

Recent events in Colombia show the continued need to step up the Coke boycott campaign.
Source: Sinaltrainal, Dec 18, 2003

(thanks to Nora at the ILRF for the translation)


At 8:30 pm on December 5, 2003, 2 strangers who identified
themselves as paramilitaries approached the home of Carmen Andrey
Carvajal Montoya, daughter of Sinaltrainal unionist Rafael
Carvajal, in Cúcuta. They shouted through the windows "Tell your
dad to keep quiet, or his children are going to be the ones to
pay". Rafael Carvajal was the victim a few years ago of a bullet
shot by a vigilante inside the Coke bottling plant that
fortunately did not harm him. Also, when Jorge Leal was kidnapped
on December 14, 2000 by supposed paramilitaries, they told him to
tell Rafael to stop accusing Coca Cola of things, and showed a
newspaper clipping where he appeared in a photo at a protest
outside the Coca Cola plant in Cúcuta.


At about 6:25 pm on December 5, 2003, when Sinaltrainal President
Javier Correa Suarez's son
José Luis Correa León was leaving his school in Bucaramanga, he
was followed by a stranger wearing dark glasses who communicated
to another person who waited further down the road that he had to
recorrer the unionist's son. When the two strangers saw Jose Luis
escaping, they fled in the other direction. This is not the first
time this has happened. In March of this year, 2 suspicious
strangers waited in a car for Javier Correa's oldest daughter to
pass.

RUBÉN FRAGOZO , Coke worker and Vice President of Sinaltrainal in
Valledupar was summoned to a disciplinary process. The company
seeks suspension or termination of his contract. The company has
also summoned HELMER BLANCO, WILSON QUIROZ and HERNÁN BOLAÑOS as
witnesses. The company accuses RUBÉN FRAGOSO of false testimony
and of distributing calendars criticizing Coke inside the bottling
plant. The accusation of false testimony is a dirty set up to
pressure workers to accept the company's proposal that they
renounce their work contracts.

These incidents occur in the context of our struggle, started Sept
8, 2003, against the illegal closure of the production lines in
the Coca Cola bottling plants in Montería, Cartagena, Valledupar,
Cucuta, Barrancabermeja, Villavicencio, Pereira and Neiva. Coca
Cola workers have been the victims of forced gatherings where they
are pressured to renounce their contracts. Several workers were
unjustly dismissed, and more than 300 have left their jobs because
of the blackmailing and pressure. On December 5 and 12, the days
that these violent acts occured, the judicial inspection work was
done in the Coca Cola bottling plants in Bogota and Cartagena, in
response to the Coca Cola company's request to collectively
dismiss workers and close the plants. We believe this is a
systematic attempt to intimidate workers and Sinaltrainal.

by Mark Fri Dec 19, 2003 12:50

The reason that Coca Cola workers have called for this boycott is because they have suffered years of intimidation at the hands of the paramilitaries and this is a last resort option.

The truth about a boycott like this is that it will not shut down Coca Cola and leave all the workers out of work. That is a lie put about by Coca Cola management to divide workers and make them do their dirty work for them.

A multi national like Coke will not simlpy throw in the towell and shut up shop if sales fall. They are driven by profit and will do whatever it takes to save their beloved profits (ie. begin to protect the safety of their workers in Colombia if it will put their sales back up). There is no way they will simply decide in the face of an international boycott to give up and shut down and that is a ludicrous proposition for such a large and profitable multinational.

by cavbhog Fri Dec 19, 2003 15:31

"Sinaltrainal holds Mr. Palacios and the Coca Cola company responsible for any incident that endangers the life of Coca Cola workers, inside or outside the factory or at the moment of entering or leaving the factory, because Sinaltrainal has
repeatedly informed the company about these kinds of events that threaten workers' safety, and the company has not done anything to protect the lives of its workers. "

Sinaltrainal want Coke to guarantee the personla safety of each member of staff, all the time?!?!?! This is madness and impossbile as, though some here forget, that Colombia is undergoing a civil war, caused and contiunued by Sinaltrainal's good friend in FARC. It would be impossible for C-C to guarantee the safety of all staff in Irleand never mind in a warzone.

Also, notw that it was two strangers who attacked the Sinaltrainal man, and it was onlyt Sinaltrainla and UNNAMED human rights groups who deducted that it was a coke inspired move.

by a guy called satan Sat Dec 20, 2003 20:15

If coke sets up a company in a place where workers are intimidated and murdered for trade union activity that certainly does make them "responsible" . And if sinantrainal calls for an international campaign to bring it home to coke the seriousness of the situation and to galvanize support abroad, I'd go along with that 100%.
That doesn't mean supporting a boycott as a tactic beyond the limits of propaganda. If a boycott sets workers in Ireland against workers in Colombia , LASC should ensure they do everything they can to address Irish workers' concerns .Much as though I'd applaud UCD students for their support for workers rights, I'd say it was more important to win the support of Irish coca cola workers .
Coke workers were expressing genuine concern for their jobs when they went to UCD - workers in Colombia would understand that . I think it's totally wrong to portray coke SIPTU members as company stooges.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh - Lasc Tue Dec 23, 2003 17:49

Lasc hasn't set workers against workers. We didn't get to speak to them, except to one unelected official Anne Speed and three shop stewards all from the one plant.

Irish workers concerns were dealt with by the visiting member of Sinaltrainal, who said told them that the boycott could be called off in the morning, that it was dependent on Coke, the shop stewards didn't seem to think that there was any problem with coke (at least 2 of the three). This is the main problem. the reps want the boycott called off and then say that Sinaltrainal are wrong on the threats against them. If they were more engaged with Sinaltrainal there might be something to talk about, as it stands we can't get over teh stumbling block of their rejection of the claims made. It should be pointed out that in one meeting Anne Speed claimed that Siptu was responsible for the visit by coke exex Rafael Ferandez and not the Coke company here. This is a serious problem