Honestly? I'd have a much easier time taking your posts seriously if you could cite a website that doesn't make its bias known right in the URL. Two union leaders being murdered during a period of great violence seems more likely to be a stats thing than a coke thing.

I'm sure there were also doctors, brick layers and store owners murdered; a period of great violence means people are getting hurt. Its a tragedy, but it happened. Attributing the deaths of two people to Coke with no evidence, just because they were union leaders is beyond biased. Its like counting car accidents where the victims were smokers as smoking related deaths.

Also, what option would you prefer? A partial exclusivity contract? Nothing at all? You've made your thoughts on coke quite clear, but not on what course of action should actually be taken.

knowing you are a fan of reagan, your post is obviously biased too. (sidenote, any post a fan of reagan makes will be ridiculous)

You need at least 2 clicks to see my bias, which is pretty close to being impartial. :p

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

Honestly? I'd have a much easier time taking your posts seriously if you could cite a website that doesn't make its bias known right in the URL. Two union leaders being murdered during a period of great violence seems more likely to be a stats thing than a coke thing.

I'm sure there were also doctors, brick layers and store owners murdered; a period of great violence means people are getting hurt. Its a tragedy, but it happened. Attributing the deaths of two people to Coke with no evidence, just because they were union leaders is beyond biased. Its like counting car accidents where the victims were smokers as smoking related deaths.

Also, what option would you prefer? A partial exclusivity contract? Nothing at all? You've made your thoughts on coke quite clear, but not on what course of action should actually be taken.

Hey Andrew,

Amnesty International (not the McMaster Group) has mentioned violence, intimidation, and deaths against SINALTRAINAL union members. Obviously, Amnesty International is biased towards protecting human rights, but it has no political or corporate ties. Two years ago, a Colombian human rights lawyer, Liliana Uribe, came to talk to McMaster students two years ago about how corporations end up hiding behind the violence committed by paramilitary groups.

Personally, this referendum is about giving a students a choice in what they can purchase on campus. We've been trying to get more details about alternative proposals from the MSU, but as Huzaifa pointed out - nobody seems to be 100% sure.

Also, straight from the Coca Cola's Company Statement:

Ed Potter is director of global labor relations and he serves on the Applications of Conventions Committee within the International Labor Organization (ILO).

That's a large conflict of interest in my opinion.

Jay,

You just insinuated bias because of a Coke representative on a committee.

What about the other members? It's a committee, and by design no single person (save the chair) has any powers to determine the direction of the committee. In this case, the guy isn't even the chair, so there is no issue whatsoever.

Originally Posted by deadpool

Jay,

You just insinuated bias because of a Coke representative on a committee.

What about the other members? It's a committee, and by design no single person (save the chair) has any powers to determine the direction of the committee. In this case, the guy isn't even the chair, so there is no issue whatsoever.

It's not merely the fact that it was a Coke Representive, but a powerful member of the ILO (15 years). When the committee tried to remove Ed Potter during the course of the investigation to be unbiased, Coke tried to back out of the investigation.

Originally Posted by Jay

It's not merely the fact that it was a Coke Representive, but a powerful member of the ILO (15 years). When the committee tried to remove Ed Potter during the course of the investigation to be unbiased, Coke tried to back out of the investigation.

I know people who have personally worked with Ed Potter, and they all agreed that he is a super upstanding member in all aspects at the ILO. The fact that 1/3 the membership of the committee is unions, and only one company is Coke, that bias should lean towards another way. The committee also is just the group which this is presented too, but they are not the ones who do the investigation.

Also I think since we have been talking about columbia a lot, I should remind us that this is Coke being purchased from and produced in Ontario Canada. Also from what I have heard, if this vote is for a 100% deal, the University will be sending this out for proposals. It was stressed that it could either be Pepsi or Coke or anyone else who thinks they can match this. No other company could though IMO.

Let's all remember that this is for the ability for the MSU to enter an exclusive contract. If the referendum gets a YES, then it doesn't mean the MSU will necessarily enter an exclusive contract, but it does mean that if the benefits to students and the university are great enough, then they will have to option to do so. At the same time, it could go either way, i.e. to Pepsi.

That's all I'll say for now.

Originally Posted by Ian Finlay

I

Also I think since we have been talking about columbia a lot, I should remind us that this is Coke being purchased from and produced in Ontario Canada. .

I would like to emphasize that we no longer live in a society where nations are independent of each other. We live in a globalized economy, where trade in terms of resources, spices, ingredients, raw materials go back and forth. The thing About Colombia is that it is a very rich country in terms of natural resources especially coca leaves (which was a main ingredient in cocaine but coke use a decocanized version of it, "whatever that means), coke canada does not make its own coke products with only Canadian resources it needs resources from South America to make the 'lovely product" we call coke.

Also we seem to forget that it is the unions best interest that coca-cola is kept in business and is functioning perfectly so the workers can get paid and live a prosperous live. The reason there is opposition is because these workers are not being paid sufficiently and when they try to form unions they are threatened or killed.

we don't have a problem with coke we have a problem with their business practice.

have a good one

Originally Posted by sid3112

I would like to emphasize that we no longer live in a society where nations are independent of each other. We live in a globalized economy, where trade in terms of resources, spices, ingredients, raw materials go back and forth. The thing About Colombia is that it is a very rich country in terms of natural resources especially coca leaves (which was a main ingredient in cocaine but coke use a decocanized version of it, "whatever that means), coke canada does not make its own coke products with only Canadian resources it needs resources from South America to make the 'lovely product" we call coke.

Also we seem to forget that it is the unions best interest that coca-cola is kept in business and is functioning perfectly so the workers can get paid and live a prosperous live. The reason there is opposition is because these workers are not being paid sufficiently and when they try to form unions they are threatened or killed.

we don't have a problem with coke we have a problem with their business practice.

have a good one

usually when you try and prove a point, you have a line of evidence that you use to show that undoubtedly something is occurring.

Well, guess what, you don't have anything.

In several trials, Coca Cola was never proven guilty, and as we all know, you are innocent until proven guilty, unless you want me to call you a murderer enough times until we all believe it. Furthermore, neither of the two independent bottlers were proven guilty, in the US or in Colombian courts.

"when they try to form unions they are threatened or killed"

The independent Coca-Cola bottling partners in Colombia have collective bargaining agreements in place with seven unions covering wages, benefits and working conditions. Only one union has made these allegations; none of the other six unions have done so, and neither have the three principal trade union federations in Colombia.

Furthermore, there is a movement of a global coalition of labor unions that has refused to support Rogers' anti-Coke crusade,"We have no evidence of complicity by Coke in the killing of workers,'' says Ron Oswald, general secretary of the International Union of Foodworkers in Geneva, whose members include tens of thousands of Coke workers worldwide.

For a group that keeps spewing the same information, and with so many instances of being proven wrong AND having no support from Colombia itself, Colombia's main or smaller unions, AND having a global partnership of unions against you, you guys should realize that you're not fighting for a cause, you're slandering Coca-Cola.

That's all I have to say.

I don't check macinsiders that often, so if you reply, it may be a bit till I get back to you.

Originally Posted by aviaf

In several trials, Coca Cola was never proven guilty, and as we all know, you are innocent until proven guilty, unless you want me to call you a murderer enough times until we all believe it. Furthermore, neither of the two independent bottlers were proven guilty, in the US or in Colombian courts.

"when they try to form unions they are threatened or killed"

The independent Coca-Cola bottling partners in Colombia have collective bargaining agreements in place with seven unions covering wages, benefits and working conditions. Only one union has made these allegations; none of the other six unions have done so, and neither have the three principal trade union federations in Colombia.

Furthermore, there is a movement of a global coalition of labor unions that has refused to support Rogers' anti-Coke crusade,"We have no evidence of complicity by Coke in the killing of workers,'' says Ron Oswald, general secretary of the International Union of Foodworkers in Geneva, whose members include tens of thousands of Coke workers worldwide.

For a group that keeps spewing the same information, and with so many instances of being proven wrong AND having no support from Colombia itself, Colombia's main or smaller unions, AND having a global partnership of unions against you, you guys should realize that you're not fighting for a cause, you're slandering Coca-Cola.

That's all I have to say.

I don't check macinsiders that often, so if you reply, it may be a bit till I get back to you.

Hey,

My bad for not backing up my claims, but here they are

"The biggest bottlers aren't subsidiaries of Coke, nor are they completely independent. Coke effectively controls them by maintaining big equity stakes and a heavy presence on their boards, and by providing their main source of business. Yet it keeps its stakes in the bottlers below 50%, thereby avoiding getting hit with their piles of debt and any unpleasant liabilities".

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1222/086.html

About coca-cola being cleared of any human rights violation

Bogus 'Investigations' by Cal Safety and White & Case

Coke keeps claiming that it was exonerated of human rights abuse allegations by two judicial inquiries in Colombia and two "independent investigations" in the U.S. But no court in Colombia has ever ruled on the human rights claims against Coca-Cola. U.S. State Department human rights reports point out that only a handful of the thousands of murders of Colombian trade unionists in recent years have ever resulted in successful prosecutions. "Cases where the instigators and perpetrators of the murders of trade union leaders are identified are practically nonexistent, as is the handing down of guilty verdicts," said the State Department. So it's not surprising that the plaintiffs cannot secure justice through Colombian courts. That's why they're seeking redress through U.S. courts in the first place.



Coke states: "...(A) respected, independent third party found no instances of anti-union violence or intimidation at bottling plants." This refers to a bogus report issued in 2005 by Cal Safety Compliance Corporation, a Los Angeles-based company whose work was commissioned and paid for by The Coca-Cola Company. Cal Safety's monitoring record has been discredited in publications like the Los Angeles Times and Business Week. It is "not regarded as a credible monitoring organization within the mainstream worker rights advocate community as a result of its track record of missing egregious violations in high-profile cases and its flawed monitoring methodology,"



according to United Students Against Sweatshops, an international student movement fighting for sweatshop-free labor conditions and workers' rights.


USAS cites Cal Safety's poor monitoring track record as measured by Dr. Jill Esbenshade in her book, "Monitoring Sweatshops." Esbenshade conducted extensive interviews with Cal Safety auditors and directly observed the company's labor auditing in practice. She didn't find Cal Safety's poor track record surprising because she said they failed to adhere to minimum accepted standards for competent factory investigations.



Prior to the Cal Safety report, Coca-Cola repeatedly claimed that another group had investigated allegations of human rights abuses by Coke's bottlers in Colombia and exonerated both Coca-Cola and its bottlers. When students at Carleton College in Minnesota asked for a copy, they were told by a Coca-Cola representative that the report was done by White & Case, but was unavailable to the public. It so happens that White & Case is a large international corporate law firm that has represented Coca-Cola in lawsuits dealing with human rights abuses at its Colombian bottling plants. Alexis Rovzar, an executive partner at White & Case, serves as a director of Coca-Cola FEMSA, Colombia's largest Coca-Cola bottler and a defendant in the lawsuits.



also please check out



COKE IN INDIA


http://indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/index.html


I leave you guys at that for now, eager to hear the response
have a good one

Questions from a noob:

1. If we vote NO on the negotiation of a %100 deal will a smaller deal be negotiated (i.e. 80-20, 60-40)? What size of deal would Coke even agree to anyway? Is their stance "%100 or nothing"?

2. If we vote YES will this imply that we have a %100 deal? There is no actual deal on the table at the moment, correct? The referendum would just give permission in the future?

3. If we vote YES, can it be confirmed (as mentioned earlier) that Mac will be able to also negotiate a deal with Pepsi (or an other) and play the two off of each other?

4. Would negotiating a deal with Pepsi (or an other) require its own referendum? If not then is this really a referendum on Coke or a referendum on exclusivity deals in general?

5. Has the campaign officially started for this yet? If not, are candidates really allowed to be mentioning Coke in their platforms? Hopefully that isn't a loaded question

6. Is the Sil allowed to cover this? If so why haven't they been?

Thanks for this thread everyone, it's a great resource.

Sam Dick
EngIII Coop

Originally Posted by samd

Questions from a noob:

1. If we vote NO on the negotiation of a %100 deal will a smaller deal be negotiated (i.e. 80-20, 60-40)? What size of deal would Coke even agree to anyway? Is their stance "%100 or nothing"?

2. If we vote YES will this imply that we have a %100 deal? There is no actual deal on the table at the moment, correct? The referendum would just give permission in the future?

3. If we vote YES, can it be confirmed (as mentioned earlier) that Mac will be able to also negotiate a deal with Pepsi (or an other) and play the two off of each other?

4. Would negotiating a deal with Pepsi (or an other) require its own referendum? If not then is this really a referendum on Coke or a referendum on exclusivity deals in general?

5. Has the campaign officially started for this yet? If not, are candidates really allowed to be mentioning Coke in their platforms? Hopefully that isn't a loaded question

6. Is the Sil allowed to cover this? If so why haven't they been?

I think the most important thing that people should realize is that aside from any issues people have with Coca Cola which is an ongoing conflict as each side calls the other a liar; is that right now (I mean right NOW) Coca Cola already has greater than 80% of shelf space (some have said around 90%, but I'll let you know later on) and this is without a contract. This means they get 80% of our sales and we get nothing.

With the current economic climate, Coca Cola or Pepsi is unlikely to offer anything substantial if its not an exclusivity deal.

As such, it only makes sense to allow the MSU to negotiate for 100% deals.

I am for pitting pepsi and coca cola against each other because in previous years when we had a contract, the school received tons of money in sponsorships for clubs, the MSU, free stuff, and even created a paid position at McMaster as the Coke Rep. Now, knowing that it may not be this good this time, its important to have something , like pepsi, that we can up the offer with.

Thanks for this thread everyone, it's a great resource.

Sam Dick
EngIII Coop

1. If you vote no on the referendum, then yes, a smaller deal can be negotiated (as in it won't be exclusive). They don't have a stance currently, but seeing as how 80-90% of our shelve space is already Coca Cola we are currently getting screwed because they have almost all of our space and yet we receive no benefits because its not exclusive, and also because there is no current contract.

2. There is no deal at the moment. The referendum is simply to ALLOW the MSU to negotiate or accept an exclusive deal if it benefits the students.

3. Yes Pepsi and Coke can still be played off of each other.

4. No, negotiating with Pepsi would not require its own referendum. As far as my understanding goes, this referendum is here because of a previous referendum which did not allow 100% coca cola, but in light of there being no current contract the issue was brought up again (Although I may be a little off on the reasoning so someone correct me if so)

5. Several groups such as KillerCoke have been campaigning for a while. Posters have just gone up (supported by at least OPIRG) that are against exclusivity. There are no major groups for Coca Cola that have started yet as far as I know.

6. Yes the sil is allowed to cover it. I don't know why they haven't, perhaps you should email them

Originally Posted by samd

1. If we vote NO on the negotiation of a %100 deal will a smaller deal be negotiated (i.e. 80-20, 60-40)? What size of deal would Coke even agree to anyway? Is their stance "%100 or nothing"?

They could, but would most likely not because the costs associated with negotiating a deal isn't worth the benefits.

Originally Posted by samd

2. If we vote YES will this imply that we have a %100 deal? There is no actual deal on the table at the moment, correct? The referendum would just give permission in the future?

There would be no deal right away. The University would go to market with the offer, and have Coke and Pepsi in a bidding war so the best price is negotiated!

Originally Posted by samd

3. If we vote YES, can it be confirmed (as mentioned earlier) that Mac will be able to also negotiate a deal with Pepsi (or an other) and play the two off of each other?

Yes this is confirmed. I talked to VP Advancement Roger Trull and he said this would be their plan of action since they could get the best deal.

Originally Posted by samd

4. Would negotiating a deal with Pepsi (or an other) require its own referendum? If not then is this really a referendum on Coke or a referendum on exclusivity deals in general?

There is no previous referendum saying we can't negotiate with pepsi so they don't need a referendum. When this referendum was called it was less coke and more on exclusive deals in general, but still deals with the same issue.

Originally Posted by samd

5. Has the campaign officially started for this yet? If not, are candidates really allowed to be mentioning Coke in their platforms? Hopefully that isn't a loaded question

The campaign has started. I am running the yes side. So we can discuss it, and candidates can mention coke in their platforms.

Originally Posted by samd

6. Is the Sil allowed to cover this? If so why haven't they been?

I just spoke with Jeff Green the Editor of the Sil and he has requested information from both sides. Hopefully it isn't as one sided like it was the last time this issue was on the table. I have faith that they will let this run fairly though!

I'm not seeing the benefit of an exclusive deal for the average student because our choices are cut in half (essentially) and we're STILL paying $1.98 for a bottle of Coke and $1.25 for a can, which is far more than I can go outside of campus and buy it for.

How is that benefiting the average student?