Vote on Coke narrowly defeated at Siptu conference

by siptu member Sat Oct 09, 2004 21:58

Looks like another case of follow the money...

by madge Sat Oct 09, 2004 23:18

It a real shame that a union such as SIPTU which could have a major influence shies from taking action - sometimes words of solidarity are just not enough. Lets hope as more and more unions take up the boycott eventually organisations such as SIPTU will follow.

by Another SIPTU member Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:10

The reason the superficially progressive motion was voted down was because it was exposed as being another Trojan Horse for the boycott call. With his big boots on the LASC spokesperson (Gearoid O’Loinsigh?) has just made this plain. The boycott call is a dead duck among organized workers around the world, particularly among Coca Cola workers the whole world over.

However, there is a little progress if Gearoid O Loinsigh is abandoning the boycott call in favor of a call for disinvestment. If he picked up the telephone to SIPTU workers to explain his new thinking, or if the movers of the motion had bothered to do the same, he and they might get somewhere.

Without it, this campaign which has not put a dent in Coca Cola’s ability to sell billions of products every day, will continue to go nowhere in real terms. It is probably the most unsuccessful campaign in recent political history in practical terms. Talking to and persuading the workers and their organizations in a respectful manner is the way to go. Try and go there.

by Updater Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:14

*******

BOYCOTT UPDATE

Trade unions around the world are now supporting Sinaltrainal and the
call for a boycott of all Coca-Cola products. In addition to actions
taken by national and international bodies, hundreds of branches,
locals and labour councils have been supporting the campaign to hold
Coca-Cola accountable for its human rights abuses in Colombia. Here is
a selection of some of the most recent campaign victories in the UK,
Ireland and USA.

UNISON, with 1.3 million members, passed a resolution at their
national conference, resolving to: "support the call to boycott Coca
Cola products." NIPSA, the Northern Ireland Public Services
Association, affiliated to both the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and
to the British TUC, voted to support the boycott of Coca Cola until
the company meets Sinaltrainal's demands.

Service Employees International Union (SEIU), with 1.7 million
members, passed a resolution at their national convention in San
Francisco, USA, which resolved: "Support the world-wide call to
boycott Coca-Cola and work to win broad AFL-CIO support for the
campaign against killer Coke..."

Communications Workers of America (CWA), which represents 700,000
members, passed a resolution at their national convention in Anaheim,
USA, which resolved: "that unless the Alien Tort Claims Act lawsuit is
settled by October 15 and the safety and rights of workers in the
Coca-Cola Colombian bottling plants are protected, the CWA will
support Sinaltrainal's divestment and boycott campaign against
Coca-Cola and SunTrust Bank, and will urge our members to do the
same."

American Postal Workers Union (APWU), with 270,000 members, passed a
resolution at their national convention in Los Angeles, USA, which
resolved: "That the national American Postal Workers Union requests
that the United States Postal Service remove all Coca-Cola products
from all postal facilities, and that State and Local American Postal
Workers Unions, stop purchasing all Coca-Cola products until this
issue (Colombian) is resolved."

The Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA), a
constituency group of the AFL-CIO, representing the interests of 1.7
million Latino workers who are members of a union or labour
association in the 50 states and Puerto Rico, passed a motion rebuking
The Coca-Cola Co. for their human rights violations in Colombia.

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT), with 1.3 million members,
passed a resolution at their national convention in Washington, DC,
which resolved: "encourage AFT locals and individual members to
participate in a letter writing campaign to the Coca-Cola Company to
pressure its Colombian branch to stop its persecution of employees
seeking union representation and to respect basic trade union
rights..."

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union, with 60,000 members,
passed a resolution resolving: "That the ILWU join the boycott of
Coca-Cola and do all it can to publicize the boycott around the
world."

Coca-Cola hires former "labour official" to try to do damage control

The growing labour support is of great concern to Coke. This summer,
Coca-Cola hired Jack Otero, former AFL-CIO Executive Board member, to
do damage control.

His meetings with department heads at the AFL-CIO and his efforts at
LCLAA have met with dismal failure.

*******

by A real SIPTU member Mon Oct 11, 2004 13:53

"Talking to and persuading the workers and their organizations in a respectful manner is the way to go. Try and go there."

Either the 'another SIPTU member' is lying or is so assimilated into the Coca Cola company that he/she doesn't realise that here in Ireland we spell organizations - organisations.
The main speaker against the motion on Thursday spoke from a prepared speech so maybe Atlanta write all statements for death squad apologists.

by madge Mon Oct 11, 2004 18:58

to paraphrase "the boycott is a dead duck with organized (sic) workers around the world".

I've heard the arguments for and against the boycott debated within the trade union movement here in the North - I can understand workers who work for companies run by CC fearing for their own jobs but the colombian workers have a lot more to lose. My own union NIPSA (with over 43,000 members the biggest trade union in NI) supports the boycott and I personally support it because the union representing the workers in Colombia wanted the boycott - I think they may have the edge in this debate don't you?

by Coca Cola Kid Mon Oct 11, 2004 19:48

AVELINO ACHICANOY ERAZO: killed during strike at Coca Cola plant 30/7/1990

JOSÉ ELEAZAR MANCO DAVID: Sinaltrainal leader and Uraba Coca Cola bottling plant worker. Killed 8/4/1994.

LUIS ENRIQUE GIRALDO ARANGO: Sinaltrainal member and Uraba Coca Cola bottling plant worker 20/4/1994

LUIS ENRIQUE GÓMEZ GRANADOS: Sinaltrainal leader and Uraba Coca Cola bottling plant worker. Killed in front of his wife and children 23/4/1995

ISIDRO SEGUNDO GIL GIL : Sinaltrainal General Secretary and Uraba Coca Cola bottling plant worker. Murdered at work in the plant 5/12/1996

ALCIRA DEL CARMEN HERRERA PÉREZ,
Wife of Isidro, killed.

GUILLERMO GÓMEZ MAIGUAL: Suicide in bottling plant 1996

ADOLFO DE JESÚS MÚNERA LÓPEZ:
killed 31/8/2002

OSCAR DARÍO SOTO POLO:
killed 21/6/2001

In the interests of fairness the reasons to reject the disinvestment motion included the fact that 'we invest our money to get the best return for our members'.

Great, thanks, I hear Haliburton are doing well.

It also seems that during solidarity talks between SIPTU's Justice for Columbia response to the boycott, the prospect of industrial action here in solidarity was discussed but the Sinaltrainal representative ruined it by stating he couldn't make any decision on industrial action without the direct mandate of his members. Imagine and he a union leader. You wouldn't get that type of thing here.

Maybe the upper echelons of SIPTU could learn something from Sinaltrainal. The least they could do is support them.

by James Tue Oct 12, 2004 13:37

Response to Madge, Monday, Oct 11 2004, 5:58pm

Madge, you write that the 'union' (singular) in Colombia supports the boycott. This is because the 'unions' (plural) in Coke in Colombia do not support it. This is also true for Coca Cola workers in Latin America generally.

There were allegations in the past that these are "death squad" approved unions. But I am glad to say that this type of sectarian slander has abated and I hope it does not return. Should it do so, it will be the responsibility of those supporting the boycott call to immediately step in and denounce such debating tactics that have no place in a discussion about the best way to defend trade unionists under attack in Colombia. Obviously, those supporting the boycott believe in the bona fides of those who oppose the boycott tactic, otherwise they would not have arranged for the Sinaltrainal rep to meet with Irish Coca Cola workers.

I am glad to see that the Sinaltrainal representative is meeting Coca Cola workers next week. I am sure that he will be glad to hear what SIPTU workers have been doing to raise the plight of Coca Cola workers with Coke management and the attacks on trade unionists generally in Colombia. I am also sure that he will have the capacity to differentiate between differences on tactics with agreement on the principle of support for trade unionists under attack. (It is unfortunate that he is reported on Indymedia as placing the International Union of Foodworkers (IUF) on the same plain as Coca Cola management. Anyone who knows anything about the IUF knows that this is, quite frankly, nonsense. It may be that he is misreported – as can quite often happen in these forms of free flowing Internet debates.)

by madge Thu Oct 14, 2004 00:34

My understanding is that Sinaltrainal is/ was the biggest union involved being the "national " union and has been the main target for attack suffering a reduction of 50% of it smembership as members were "convinced" to give up their membership or sacked and replaced by contract non unionised workers.

I have read the IUF statement and it makes me uneasy not least because of the references to the CC company being almost a progressive employer (higher trade union density than PEPSICO?? - big deal) and the inference that the accusations against CC are essentially false.

Against that I read the Sinaltrainal response (remembering that is has been their members who have been targeted in the main as regards CC) - below is an extract from the Presidents statement - I am going to listen to Edgar on Monday so that I can hear the union's experiences first hand and I also hope many CC workers from Ireland will also come to listen to him.

NOVEMBER 2003

"Coca Cola’s bottling companies say that they deplore any act of violence against any trade union leader, but it as been they themselves who falsely accused us of being guerrillas or terrorists, it is they who are carrying out anti-union campaigns to avoid workers joining the union, or pressurising union members to resign. It is not sufficient that they condemn violence theoretically, they have to adopt a respectful conduct towards our human rights and repare the damages suffered by the victims.

For some years SINALTRAINAL did not dare make public denouncements because it waited trustingly for justice to work, but this did not happen. And so we are now seeking justice, truth and reparations and above all we count on international solidarity. The facts are there. But on each and every occasion we give our evidence Coca Cola says that it did not happen, but we have lived through with our flesh and blood these experiences. We have realised that this is a way of maintaining impunity, to try and make people believe the opposite of things that really happened by repeating lies indefinitely.

Other trade union organisations exist inside Coca Cola’s bottling plants, and they are trying to say that the events that we are denouncing did not take place. All of these organisations were created recently and the majority of them did not have any presence where the crimes were committed.

The International Foodworkers Union does not have the right to interpret for us and less to lie about what has occurred. They have not been present in the places where the barbarities took place. It is very easy to speak from long distance without really knowing what happened. We do not want to enter into a debate with them because this would divert attention away from the pressure we are buildning up on Coca Cola to modify its behaviour in Colombia.

It is true that the US judge removed Coca Cola [the parent company], but this decision was appealed [and is still pending]. In any case Coca Cola is directly involved as a shareholder of Panamco and through its control of the whole process through the franchises. This is not only a legal matter, but an ethical and moral point as well.

It is not true to say that Colombian justice has not been involved with the bottling companies. Rather it is precisely the failure of the justice system in Colombia to act which is responsible for the grave problem of impunity which allows the intellectual and material authors of crimes to remain free while committing all forms of abuse.

Yours faithfully,

LUIS JAVIER CORREA SUAREZ
President SINALTRAINAL
Bogotá D. C. - Colombia, 18th November 2003 "

by James Thu Oct 14, 2004 01:08

The IUF state quite clearly that Coke will bust a union agreement if they can get away with it. They state that they are pressing Coke for a comprehensive agreement protecting all workers in franchised bottlers – by the way having all Coca Cola unions participating would be a help.

They state it to be a fact that Pepsi has a far worse record of union busting and non-recognition - not just a little worse, but a lot worse. This is well known in the trade union movement. What could be the problem in stating this fact?

The IUF detail their defence of workers in the food industry and in Coca Cola around the world, in the first second and third world. All I am saying is that the slagging off of the IUF is counter-productive and is political sectarianism. It is possible to have a disagreement with a section of the workers’ movement and not engage in sectarian grandstanding. Name calling rhetoric about the IUF being in “ideological” agreement with Coke is an example of a refusal to engage in real discussion.

There is no detail just empty sloganising that keeps your supporters from getting too close to the supposed ‘enemy’.

I am not saying the IUF is perfect. However, I do know that these allegations of “lies” just do not stack up. The IUF has a presence in Colombia. The other unions have a presence there too, obviously. Sinaltainal have not attempted to convince other Coca Cola workers on their boycott call. Instead they insist on not touching them with the proverbial bargepole – because they know the call is a non-starter – and call them instead “ideological” supporters of management. This is, in my opinion, self-defeating because, without support from fellow production workers in the same industry, you are fighting with one hand behind your back. It is also unnecessarily divisive. Luckily, the production workers in Ireland are not sectarian and have been doing work on the issue of attacks on trade unionists in Colombia.

I know I have not answered everything but if the boycott call relies on name-calling and empty rhetoric than it is not robust enough to defend the interests of workers. It should be re-considered as a means of defending workers in Colombia.