Originally Posted by Goce

You are awesome. What is the cost like?

Sorry for the late reply , it's around the same as you would find anywhere else . Last time I checked 2 dollars

3 reasons why we should have a non-exclusive contract

1) Coca-cola is unethical (killercoke.org) or indiaresource.org

- there are some people who think that the accusations against coca-cola are false please check the links, average people in Colombia, India, Guatemala, Indonesia are contributing to these links, these are not just made up stuff
- Also the people who are against coca-cola are students, professors and people who have one concern in mind JUSTICE FOR ALL.

2) We want more choices

- If there is no exclusive contract we might be able to have more healthier beverage choices like fresh juices and stuff and support the local economy.

3) Monopolies only benefit 'the man' it never benefits the people, its like a dictatorship or tyranny

an impartial group went into Columbia and did research. Their recent report on the situation is that there are obviously ways coca-cola can improve, like all companies, but that the accusations are false. This proves them to be false! What more can you want than a UN organization focused on Labour issues, The International Labour Organization, stating that it is not participating in evil practices?

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/di...od/mission.pdf

There is the proof.

This does not only help "the man" Coke benefits from this because they can plan for a consistent supply in the future so hey can secure plants and jobs for workers. plants like the one in Brampton we receive our coke from. This helps people IN Ontario secure their jobs. Seems to me to benefit the worker.

Originally Posted by sid3112

...
2) We want more choices

- If there is no exclusive contract we might be able to have more healthier beverage choices like fresh juices and stuff and support the local economy.

3) Monopolies only benefit 'the man' it never benefits the people, its like a dictatorship or tyranny

I'm going to argue these two points real quick.

2) The exclusivity deal stated that if coke made a product, then you could not go with their competitor. If they did not make a product of that certain category, then you could totally sell it at Mac. I never had a problem finding healthy options during the time period of the exclusivity contract.

3) Apparently, you've just called me a man because I experienced the many benefits we had through the coke contract. I was was really pissed when it was gone. The residence yearbook received thousands in sponsorship from coca-cola that helped take away the costs from students and to support our equipment budget. Because the coke referendum was gone, I was forced to work overtime to find new advertising sales opportunities and they didn't even come close to getting us the funding that coke gave us. In another position I had that was focused around events management in residence, we had lost hundreds of dollars in sponsorship and free products that we relied on to supplement our events. Ie because the coke deal was gone, we could no longer supply drinks to the runners in the bedraces events. Not to mention the fact that there was a student job out of the deal, scholarships, etc etc

Just a random point, I was talking to Andrew Richardson today(VP Admin) and he reckons that McMaster won't get as good a deal as it might have gotten in 2006 because of the current market financial situation where multinationals are in no position to offer anything significant as they did in 2006.

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

Just a random point, I was talking to Andrew Richardson today(VP Admin) and he reckons that McMaster won't get as good a deal as it might have gotten in 2006 because of the current market financial situation where multinationals are in no position to offer anything significant as they did in 2006.

Is that really important though? I'd worry more about the future rather than the past. Would an exclusive contract, in today's terms and financial landscape make sense? Would it be beneficial? How things were 4 years ago is relatively unimportant.

Another troubling issue that's just come up in recent news, is the intimidation of Canadian student groups by Coca Cola for a film screening. The idea of having a corporation monopolize and stifle free speech in an academic setting is disturbing.



http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...ColumbiaH ome

Just as a note: my internet connection has been unstable at home, so any thing that needs to be replied to may be delayed.

Originally Posted by Jay

Another troubling issue that's just come up in recent news, is the intimidation of Canadian student groups by Coca Cola for a film screening. The idea of having a corporation monopolize and stifle free speech in an academic setting is disturbing.



http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...ColumbiaH ome

Just as a note: my internet connection has been unstable at home, so any thing that needs to be replied to may be delayed.

I just thought I'd point out the obvious slant in your post and play devil's advocate.

While it would make sense that Coke would want to do what it can to protect itself, your statement as a whole is a little bit misleading.

Coke did not try to intimidate student groups or "stifle free speech on campus", they tried to convince Cinema Politica, a non-profit organization dedicated to the screening of political films from showing this particular film.

While Cinema Politica has university students as members, it is an international organization based out of Montreal, and is not a "student group". You make it seem like its some kind of a club on campus. It's like calling Amnesty International a "student group".

As for "stifling free speech", there's a fine line between protecting oneself and actually interfering with free expression (in Canada, we have the right to freedom of expression, not "free speech", which is an american term).

I don't think we can actually say they were "stifling free expression" unless we actually saw the correspondence sent to Cinema Politica from Coke's lawyers. This article only speaks of "veiled legal threats" which to me sounds misleading and slanted.

Although CP is not specifically a 'university group' like AI on campus, the organization provides much needed media resources to university student groups (for example: Concordia University). By preventing CP from providing the film to student groups, it stifles the freedom of expression of that specific group.

Originally Posted by Taunton

Is that really important though? I'd worry more about the future rather than the past. Would an exclusive contract, in today's terms and financial landscape make sense? Would it be beneficial? How things were 4 years ago is relatively unimportant.

I'm mentioning that because I'm assuming Temara Brown was referring to the "benefits" that Coke Contract offers, I'm sure other people will preach we should sign the contract because of the benefits they heard will be offered in 2006. The truth of the matter is that while no one in the MSU(Not even the VP Admin) knows the exact nature of the contract or have an actual copy of it, from the conversations he has had with the Administration and from the market contracts offered there doesn't appear to be as much benefits as before.

Hence using benefits from previous contract isn't a 100% accurate argument.

Speaking with the VP Advancement, it seems as though they would, if the vote happens to show preference for the 100% contracts, that they would put the offer out to tender. Basically, they could pin coke and Pepsi against each-other. This would result in a much better offer, and who provides the service could go either way!

Originally Posted by Ian Finlay

an impartial group went into Columbia and did research. Their recent report on the situation is that there are obviously ways coca-cola can improve, like all companies, but that the accusations are false. This proves them to be false! What more can you want than a UN organization focused on Labour issues, The International Labour Organization, stating that it is not participating in evil practices?

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/di...od/mission.pdf

There is the proof.

I would be very cautious making a statement like this.

1. Is the ILO actually an independent and impartial body on this issue? I would argue it is not. See number 7: The ILO and the 'Investigation' That Never Was(http://www.killercoke.org/critalkpts.htm).

2. Read the entire 2008 report. I did and in all 50 pages it only mentions the murders once. Even when they do mention the murders they do not take a side on the issue. See below. The purpose of this report was not to investigate past human rights abuses and the report cannot declare Coca-Cola innocent of these charges.


“During the period of greatest violence in Colombia, in this plant two SINALTRAINAL (the union which at the time represented the workers at this plant) union leaders were murdered. Neither the perpetrators nor the motives have been determined and there are conflicting versions. In any event, as a result SINALTRAINAL lost its presence in the plant, (including its premises, which it is still claiming) to the union currently established there (SICO). On the matter of the abovementioned violence, the union leaders systematically declined to comment, hinting that they had no wish to revisit the past” (31).

[quote=Natalie M;119169]I would be very cautious making a statement like this.

1. Is the ILO actually an independent and impartial body on this issue? I would argue it is not. See number 7: The ILO and the 'Investigation' That Never Was(http://www.killercoke.org/critalkpts.htm).
quote]

Sorry but the ILO is an impartial body. I have no idea where to start but I will take a stab at it. the ILO is a UN organization, and you quote a clearly biased group(killercoke.org) in their understanding of the situation. This does not give me any proof. I made a much more convincing arguement citing a ligit source.

Now to move into the inaccuracies of the website. To qualify this I worked at the ILO for a summer so I can tell you exactly what goes on there. First the structure goes completely against corporate interests. It is a tripartied agreement structure. You have equal government, business, and labour representation. Seeing first hand, governments completely side with unions on almost all things(there is one instance this was not 100% true that I saw). this is because when they go back to their countries, who votes for them? not the small few running businesses but the masses which make up labour unions.

Coke, like many companies, see that they need to increase the quality of life in many places, and what better way than to give money to the UN for extra aid. We have seen that in the past the ILO was given over 50% of its budget from the USA, and still condemned them for their labour practices! Yes the USA and Canada both have legislation contrary to the ILO's resolutions! The USA then pulled out their funding, but the ILO stood to it.

Your quote proves that even though the ILO asked about the SINTRIAL issues, union workers did not want to comment, making it hard for them to look into past events.

And again I think your point on it not touching on the murders is perfect! How could they deal with a situation that never happened?

So before you go off spreading "social justice" claims spouting of rhetoric from a website which is not fair, balanced, and is as inflamatory and biased as Fox news, do some other research. Look into the facts! Assess both sides! Put more weighting on organizations which are not as biased as the one you seem to be supporting.

Originally Posted by Jay

Another troubling issue that's just come up in recent news, is the intimidation of Canadian student groups by Coca Cola for a film screening. The idea of having a corporation monopolize and stifle free speech in an academic setting is disturbing.



http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...ColumbiaH ome

Just as a note: my internet connection has been unstable at home, so any thing that needs to be replied to may be delayed.

A spokeswoman for Coca-Cola said the company took issue with the film on several points.

"The unfounded allegations made in the documentary have been reviewed by multiple courts in Colombia and the United States, as well by the International Labor Organization, and outside law firms -- all concluding that the Coca-Cola bottler employees in Colombia enjoy extensive, normal relations with multiple unions and are provided with safe working conditions there," Kerry Kerr said Monday in an email.

To me that sounds like the film made accusations against coke that may fall under libel or slander laws according to coke. That's not stifling free expression. Free expression (and free speech in the states) have well recognized limits, i.e., I can not say something threatening, I can not damage a person's/companies reputation by stating something that should be reasonably known to me to be false etc.

[quote=Ian Finlay;119174]

Originally Posted by Natalie M

Your quote proves that even though the ILO asked about the SINTRIAL issues, union workers did not want to comment, making it hard for them to look into past events.

And again I think your point on it not touching on the murders is perfect! How could they deal with a situation that never happened?

So before you go off spreading "social justice" claims spouting of rhetoric from a website which is not fair, balanced, and is as inflamatory and biased as Fox news, do some other research. Look into the facts! Assess both sides! Put more weighting on organizations which are not as biased as the one you seem to be supporting.

Hi again.

1. My quote about SINALTRAINAL from the 2008 ILO report was used to point out that it was the only one in the entire report that mentioned the murders and that the report is not "proof" that Coca-Cola is innocent as you proclaimed in a previous post: "...the accusations are false. This proves them to be false!..."

Here is the quote from the report once again. Also note the report only mentions 2 deaths when there are actually at least 8 deaths of union leaders that have occured accroding to http://www.killercoke.org/crimes.htm.

"During the period of greatest violence in Colombia, in this plant two SINALTRAINAL (the union which at the time represented the workers at this plant) union leaders were murdered. Neither the perpetrators nor the motives have been determined and there are conflicting versions" (ILO 2008 Report, 31).

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/di...od/mission.pdf


2. I actually have done quite a bit of research into the topic on my own. April 1, 2009 Camilo Romero, a representative of SINALTRAINAL came to speak to McMaster Students. He provided us with a clear link between Coca-Cola and the deaths of Colombian trade unionists.

In 1996 when a collective bargaining agreement was being negotiated at one of the bottling plants, a chief union negotiator was shot in the forehead by the paramilitary. Letters of resignation printed on the Coke letterhead were handed out to workers by the paramilitary and they signed them out of fear. Following this incident the new set of workers hired by the Coca-Cola bottling plant were paid 1/3 of the wage of previous workers. It was a direct relationship between human rights abuses and profit gains.

I am not sure how much other evidence you want to prove that these murders have happened and that Coca-Cola has been directly involved. I would suggest attending one of the educational events about Coca Cola in the upcoming weeks.