Originally Posted by Taunton

No, it doesn't. Voting NO would mean the MSU won't negotiate any exclusive deals. The University can do whatever it wants.

Sorry you are right when it comes down to it the university can do whatever it wants but they would be unlikely to go against the vote of a referendum on this issue otherwise there would be no point of having this referendum in the first place.

Originally Posted by Natalie M

Sorry you are right when it comes down to it the university can do whatever it wants but they would be unlikely to go against the vote of a referendum on this issue otherwise there would be no point of having this referendum in the first place.

Well, from my point of view, the referendum is entirely meant for purposes of the MSU. Will the University make decisions based on it? Maybe - I can't say for sure.

What IS fact however, is that only the MSU is bound by the referendum. The university is in no way connected or related to this referendum at all.

Originally Posted by Taunton

Well, from my point of view, the referendum is entirely meant for purposes of the MSU. Will the University make decisions based on it? Maybe - I can't say for sure.

What IS fact however, is that only the MSU is bound by the referendum. The university is in no way connected or related to this referendum at all.

From my understand the university will usually follow student referendum opinions, however if coke gets in with a massive 10-20 million dollar offer they will sign it in a second irregardless of student opinion. But from what I heard we will not be getting anything close to that sort of money;the money in the market right now is much less then it was in 06, then that leads to the question(Ignoring the ethical issues in this instance) whether you just want to drink Coke Products for the next 3-5 years you are here?

Originally Posted by Natalie M

What I don't understand is how you say that you are running a YES side but as far as I know and according to Election Services there is no registered campaign team for the yes side of the referendum which is why we cannot have an open debate on the issue.

What do you mean you are running the yes side? Do you mean unofficially?

Also your excuse for not being able to organize a guest speaker etc. because you did not have time to organize on this referendum is not a great argument. In fact you have know since March 2009 that there was going to be a referendum and you personally initiated the motion to have a referendum.

"Moved by Finlay, seconded by McIntyre to have the motion read, “that the SRA call a referendum on the exclusivity agreement with Coca Cola concurrent with the 2010 Presidential Elections...”

“...Finlay – I plan on campaigning for an exclusive deal and have documents backing with research.” (Minutes from SRA meeting March 29, 2009)

I am still waiting for your documentation. The ILO report which does not address the past atrocities in Colombia is not going to cut it. Also you have yet to address any of our claims about Coca-Cola’s unethical practices in India or El Salvador.

First off, I have been approved by the elections department to campaign for the Yes side so I am official.

I moved that item which was a motion caried over from General Assembly which they wished to pass at the SRA so we did. I did plan on running the yes side, but since I did not even receive the question until days before the referendum was to be called. The Elections Committee talked about a number of different ways to pose the question, many being wrong to bring in certain guest speakers versus others. I am not blaming the EC but if the question was produced earlier, I would have felt easier to declare a side and set up stuff prior to the campaign.

The ILO documentation which states that no one cared about the so called "atrocities" shows the lack of proof there is. Also I am preparing a facebook group with all the information. It is actually ready but I am waiting on the Elections Dept to approve the material. It reference multiple court cases in multiple countries. It references the benefits students recieve. It addresses the India and El Salvador issues too.

All of my sources are from unbiased sources, minus one coke source, from respected organizations. Killercoke.org is not a respected unbiased source.

I shall see you on the campaign trail.

Originally Posted by Ian Finlay

First off, I have been approved by the elections department to campaign for the Yes side so I am official.

I moved that item which was a motion caried over from General Assembly which they wished to pass at the SRA so we did. I did plan on running the yes side, but since I did not even receive the question until days before the referendum was to be called. The Elections Committee talked about a number of different ways to pose the question, many being wrong to bring in certain guest speakers versus others. I am not blaming the EC but if the question was produced earlier, I would have felt easier to declare a side and set up stuff prior to the campaign.

The ILO documentation which states that no one cared about the so called "atrocities" shows the lack of proof there is. Also I am preparing a facebook group with all the information. It is actually ready but I am waiting on the Elections Dept to approve the material. It reference multiple court cases in multiple countries. It references the benefits students recieve. It addresses the India and El Salvador issues too.

All of my sources are from unbiased sources, minus one coke source, from respected organizations. Killercoke.org is not a respected unbiased source.

I shall see you on the campaign trail.

Glad to hear that there will be someone to debate against to make it a more fair referendum. When I met with Elections Services this morning (now yesterday morning) there was no official YES side so this is the first time I've actually heard about it.

In regards to your point about the ILO, it was made very clear that the ILO 2008 report would not address past Coca-Cola practices in Colombia. The "ILO has a remit to investigate only on a countrywide rather than company specific basis and can only investigate current labour rights abuse..." (Thomas 352). So when an ILO report was conducted it would not address any of the deaths that occured at the Coca-Cola bottling plants prior to the start of the investigation (which was postponed until 2006-2008).

Thomas, Mark*. Belching out the Devil. United Kingdom: Ebury Press, 2008.

*Mark Thomas is a political/human rights activist who has visited Colombia, Mexico, India and El Salavador to investigate first hand the unethical practices of Coca-Cola.

I will vote for whoever will get rid of Powerade and get Gatorade.

Originally Posted by deadpool

I will vote for whoever will get rid of Powerade and get Gatorade.

I will not vote for anyone who will do this therefore my vote will cancel yours out.

Gatorade is awful. Powerade yum!

Coca Cola ftw!

I've put an info session being held by the "no" side on the main page. It's this Thursday, the 28th.

-----------------------------------------------
I should also I have not decided how I am going to vote, but am merely providing information.

Originally Posted by Ian Finlay

First off, I have been approved by the elections department to campaign for the Yes side so I am official.

I moved that item which was a motion caried over from General Assembly which they wished to pass at the SRA so we did. I did plan on running the yes side, but since I did not even receive the question until days before the referendum was to be called. The Elections Committee talked about a number of different ways to pose the question, many being wrong to bring in certain guest speakers versus others. I am not blaming the EC but if the question was produced earlier, I would have felt easier to declare a side and set up stuff prior to the campaign.

I spoke to Election Services this morning and there is still no official YES side campaigning in this referendum so I am not exactly sure how you can claim to be an official campaign.

Originally Posted by Ian Finlay

Also I am preparing a facebook group with all the information. It is actually ready but I am waiting on the Elections Dept to approve the material. It reference multiple court cases in multiple countries. It references the benefits students recieve. It addresses the India and El Salvador issues too.

All of my sources are from unbiased sources, minus one coke source, from respected organizations. Killercoke.org is not a respected unbiased source.

Is this up yet? Can you post the URL please.

On the topic of benefits/coke as a sponsor.. I'm in an events management post-grad and my class tonight was going on about the olympic torch relay. My prof is a guy who works for the City of Kitchener and had planned the huge celebration they had when the torch came to town. Coca Cola was one of the two main sponsors for the torch relay and my prof went on and on about how they're the ideal sponsor in every way. I lol'd to myself when he was saying this because of all the controversy over it at mac.

Hey Ian,

I remember last year when this came up one of the points was also that we work with Coca Cola Canada exclusively and therefore were supporting local jobs at the nearby factory - can you explain that again I forget the specifics.

To be honest, I don't think the result of the referendum result will affect me that much either way, but what I don't get is why the No side is so adamant when even without an exclusive contract the majority of our products will be/are Coca Cola. A No vote in this election does not mean we will stop offering Coca Cola products, or mean that Pepsi will take over, it will just mean we have basically the same thing on campus with no benefits.

Also these accusations bug me. There doesn't seem to be any CONCRETE evidence about these violations that the No side keeps using. Students will probably vote No if they fall for the Killer Coke campaign, but regardless of how someone votes I hope they are at least skeptical of these unproven claims.

John,

As we have repeatedly mentioned, our campaign is not trying to ban Coca Cola on campus. Nor are we campaigning for an exclusive contract with Pepsi.

Like I said earlier, we're glad Coca-Cola is providing local jobs; however, in companies like Coca-Cola everything is connected. As for using old statistics regarding Coca-Cola market share, (copied and pasted from the Coke 101 thread "I have an issue with comparisons with numbers from the 1990s. Some people are becoming more conscious about social responsibility such as environmentalism and human rights issues. This is shown through the rise in fair trade products, buying produce from local farmers, and recycled paper options."

In 2004 Human Rights Watch, a reputable human rights organization, pointed the use of child labour in sugar plantations. The Coke website mentions the "(SGP) program for direct suppliers to the Company. Commercial agreements with direct suppliers require compliance with child labor laws under the Supplier Guiding Principles program." This fails to address the fact that HRW was referring to their indirect sugar suppliers.

A section of the Indian Government, Central Ground Water Board, has pointed out that the presence of Coca-Cola factories have resulted in the depletion of groundwater for local villagers and farmers. In Rajasthan, there was a decrease in deep aquifiers of 125 feet in the last decade.

Also, the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3096893.stm) has reported that the sludge produced in Indian factories were given to farmers as fertilizer. Nevermind the fact that Cadium is carcinogenic and lead is toxic. Consequently, these elements have polluted the water and the land.

The claims on human rights abuses in Colombia are much more difficult to assess due to the fact that the paramilitary groups are the ones committing human rights violations. There's also the issue that Coca-Cola subcontracts its workers and owns less than 50% of the suppliers - so they are not 'legally' responsible for anything unethical.

Liliana Uribe, a Colombian human rights lawyer who has spoken in front of the UN, came to speak to McMaster students in 2007 regarding the paramilitary violence in Colombia. She mentioned how many transnational corporations in Colombia end up paying a 'tax' to the paramilitary - for example: Chiquita Bananas. This money funds the actions of the paramilitaries - including the deaths and intimidation of trade unionists, Afro-Colombians and Indigenous people.

From an Amnesty document in 2007 (http://www.amnesty.ca/amnestynews/up...r230162007.pdf)

The trade unionists were warned to put an end to the "trouble in the Coca Cola company as enough damage has already been caused"

Why would the paramilitaries even care about the fact that the union and the bottling plant had a labour dispute?

With respect to financial benefits, multiple sources in the MSU including Vishal Tiwari have stated that the money we're getting from Coca-Cola is not as significant as the numbers that Ian is proposing.

http://thesil.ca/blog/news/6010/ - Article regarding the Coca-Cola Referendum
http://thesil.ca/blog/opinions/vote-...act-with-coke/ - Article written by Sid

I have to head out to class, so I'll finish the last segment re: Colombia later. These issues will likely be addressed at Coke 101 tonight (BSB 106 7-9 PM). There will be a discussion period afterwards, so I urge you to bring forward your concerns! I'll have Dr. Sorger's lecture recorded in case people are unable to make it.

Originally Posted by Jay

Why would the paramilitaries even care about the fact that the union and the bottling plant had a labour dispute?

It's very simple:

These "paramilitaries" (in fact in this case there is one primary group called the United Self-Defence Forces of Columbia, the Spanish acronym being AUC) are right-wing paramilitaries. They have political ideologies and motivations. Traditionally speaking, right-wing ideology includes anti-unionism. This is a group that, as I'm sure you know, is considered a terrorist group.

As I defined terrorism in another thread, one of its primary facets is that it is politically motivated violence. The AUC couldn't care less what company is dealing with unions, the AUC hates unions in general, and since they have no problem committing violent acts, it's not surprising they would do something like this.

That's as much as I can say without showing a bias on the matter.

So the NO side of the referendum is not seeking to ban Coca Cola on campus even though they clearly disagree with their human rights pratices?

This is why I dislike the NO side in this argument. Why campaign to make it so the University would not sign an exclusivity contract with Coca Cola b/c you disagree with their practices, but not so Coca Cola is banned outright? So its okay if McMaster sells products from companies that alledgedly violate human rights, but not exclusively? What exactly does that accomplish? You want to make it so no McMaster students can benefit from Coca Cola's ability to sell products on campus only so certain people who disagree with Coca Cola are able to purchase other beverages on campus?

If you're going to complain about companies you feel there are humanitarian concerns with you need to go for it all or nothing. Either seek to ban Coca Cola, and for that matter every other company you feel comitts human rights abuses or shut up about it. I'm putting it bluntly b/c I think the practice of half assing it and just saying well, we're just seeking no exclusivity, Company X that violates human rights can still sell to students, but we don't want them to benefit in any way from the sale, and we want to be able to purchase products from non-human rights abusing companies. How is that going to stop Coca Cola's pratices that you disapprove of?

As has already been stated even without an exclusivity contract Coca Cola products still take up 93% of the shelf space at McMaster. Essentially all the no side's campaign does is benefit Coca Cola and screw over their fellow students. Coca Cola can maintain their high shelf share at McMaster, get money from students and not have to offer them any of the benefits that come with an exclusivity contract. Way to go no side, way to do nothing in the way of helping your apparent cause or students. *high fives*