MacInsiders Logo

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FINANCE MATTERS! Free Workshop January 30th, 2010 Alison MacInsiders Announcements 0 01-19-2010 10:37 AM
MSU Update: January 16 2010 lorend MacInsiders Announcements 9 01-17-2010 09:29 AM
Hamilton Good Neighbour Campaign: Update 7 January 2010 lorend MacInsiders Announcements 0 01-08-2010 05:27 PM
Blood Clinic - January 12th, 2010 temara.brown MacInsiders Announcements 0 01-07-2010 10:44 PM
Volunteer Fair - Thursday January 7th 2010 Lois MacInsiders Announcements 2 01-04-2010 02:09 PM

COKE 101: January 28th 2010

 
Old 01-26-2010 at 09:57 AM   #1
lorend
MacInsiders VP
MacInsiders Staff
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,615

Thanked: 912 Times
Liked: 506 Times




COKE 101: January 28th 2010
*UPDATED*

More sources:
Finances (http://mac-choice.blogspot.com/2010/01/finances.html)
Court Case Controversy (http://mac-choice.blogspot.com/2010/...ntroversy.html)
Regarding El Salvador Child Labour (http://mac-choice.blogspot.com/2010/...dor-child.html)
Rebuttal regarding ILO report (http://mac-choice.blogspot.com/2010/...rt-claims.html)

If you could not attend, please check out the video here: http://rapidshare.com/files/34319752...-_Colombia.mov


Coke 101 Event
Everything Unethical about Coca-Cola From India to El Salvador to Colombia and many other countries
Featuring: Dr George Sorger

Burke Science Building (BSB) 106, McMaster University
Thursday January 28th
7-9pm

Dr. George Sorger is Professor Emeritus, Dept Biology, at McMaster University. He received his B Sc Honours in Genetics, McGill University and his PhD in Microbial Genetics, Yale University.

Social activist and promoter of application of Microbiology to water quality monitoring in Hamilton and to inexpensive water purification in El Salvador, human rights activist on Central America during the 1980’s and 90’s and in Colombia in 2005. Member Amnesty International Group 1 in Hamilton since it started, member of Campus Choice since its inception.

--
McMaster Campus Choice
[email protected] m
__________________
McMaster Combined Honours Cultural Studies & Critical Theory and Anthropology: 2008
McMaster Honours English with a minor in Indigenous Studies: 2010
Carleton University Masters of Arts in Canadian Studies: 2012 (expected)

We are people of this generation, bred in at least modest comfort, housed in universities, looking uncomfortably into the world we inherit. -- Port Huron Statement




Last edited by temara.brown : 02-02-2010 at 02:51 PM.
Old 01-26-2010 at 10:51 AM   #2
JEFF_CHAN
Forum Creeper
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,250

Thanked: 77 Times
Liked: 454 Times




Awwwww, I got a busy Friday so I can't attend... D:

(Oh well, I kinda gave up drinking the stuff (regularly) a while ago anyways)
__________________
Jeffrey Chan
Fifth-Year Commerce
Off-Campus
Old 01-26-2010 at 11:19 AM   #3
temara.brown
MacInsiders Staff
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,853

Thanked: 259 Times
Liked: 352 Times




Macinsiders will also be posting information from the opposing side of this debate shortly.

JEFF_CHAN says thanks to temara.brown for this post.

Old 01-26-2010 at 02:12 PM   #4
sew12
Elite Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,851

Thanked: 227 Times
Liked: 470 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by temara.brown View Post
Macinsiders will also be posting information from the opposing side of this debate shortly.
Good to hear.

I'm tired of the anti-Coke side spreading their information without challenge. I know lots of people parrot the "Coke is a bad company" line constantly.

I'm not on either side specifically I just like to see the information provided to students to make their decisions be balanced.
__________________
-Stefanie Walsh-
4th Year Multimedia 2010-2011

Old 01-26-2010 at 05:44 PM   #5
Lois
Elite Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,069

Thanked: 318 Times
Liked: 361 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by sew12 View Post
Good to hear.

I'm tired of the anti-Coke side spreading their information without challenge. I know lots of people parrot the "Coke is a bad company" line constantly.

I'm not on either side specifically I just like to see the information provided to students to make their decisions be balanced.
Actually, there was a debate initially scheduled on Friday January 29th. The 'No' side definitely wants to have this debate. On Monday at 10:30 AM, we asked the CRO/DRO about why the debate was cancelled and he said that there was no opposing side at the time. Ian, who claims to be heading the opposition did not want to participate in the debate because:

Quote:
The debate was scheduled to bring in guest speakers. I tried to work to bring someone in but couldn't with such short notice. The other side has a Labour Studies prof who they were going to bring in. I do not feel comfortable speaking against a retired prof. I may have stronger arguements than him, but he is much more clear with his speaking. I also am in the middle of completing my fourth year and have tons of seminars, as well as all the other things I do, so I don't feel I would be able to.

I do not claim to be an expert. But my sources are strong and speak for themselves.


Regardless of whether he is officially campaigning according to Elections Services, I think a debate from both sides is necessary so that the student body can make an informed decision.

Edit: From our last discussion on Monday, the space in MUSC is still booked. All we need is someone from the 'yes' campaign to debate.

Last edited by Lij : 01-26-2010 at 05:48 PM.
Old 01-26-2010 at 07:18 PM   #6
scott000
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 67

Thanked: 19 Times
Liked: 8 Times




Even without the exclusivity contract, it will very likely remain 85-90% Coca-Cola anyway. The only other option would be to go Pepsi majority, but is Pepsi really any better than Coke?
Old 01-26-2010 at 08:27 PM   #7
arathbon
Elite Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 981

Thanked: 87 Times
Liked: 307 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by scott000 View Post
Even without the exclusivity contract, it will very likely remain 85-90% Coca-Cola anyway. The only other option would be to go Pepsi majority, but is Pepsi really any better than Coke?
An exclusivity vote gives us a chance to play them against each other.
__________________
Alasdair Rathbone
H. B.Sc. Kin.
Class of 2017 Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry MD Program
Old 01-26-2010 at 09:13 PM   #8
temara.brown
MacInsiders Staff
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,853

Thanked: 259 Times
Liked: 352 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by arathbon View Post
An exclusivity vote gives us a chance to play them against each other.
But.. you've had this chance for the past three years and the prices have only gone waay up!

edit: wait.. brainfart. I think I misunderstood.. But I think my point was there anyways.. I think.



It seems so much easier to take the 'no' stance because you hear 'human rights violations' and you're immediately sympathetic. Without a strong 'yes' side to present the facts, I feel like you're going to see history repeating itself. I was in first year when they did the election in 2005 and I didn't even know there was a referendum going on. I voted against exclusivity because someone standing outside of BSB politely asked me to do it. Then I saw the reprecussions from all of this and had formed an opinion long ago that the "no" side of this referendum is completely crazysauce.

Last edited by temara.brown : 01-26-2010 at 10:36 PM.

florencem. likes this.
Old 01-26-2010 at 10:00 PM   #9
temara.brown
MacInsiders Staff
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,853

Thanked: 259 Times
Liked: 352 Times




I've found some old ramblings from a former MSU president about this topic on an old facebook group that I think explain why exactly the "no" side of this campaign is crazysauce. You might care to read. It was posted on a facebook group that was seeking to rid McMaster of an exclusivity contract with coke.


Topic: Coke on Mac Campus, and why this is group is pointless
In my previous capacities with the McMaster Student Union, I can honestly say that the above background information is greatly flawed, as is the direction of this form letter campaign. To my knowledge it is not an "exclusive" contract that is being considered, but an important one that recognizes the responsibilities of public entities in the role of ensuring corporations maintain a standard of social ethics and limiting certain abilities otherwise.

Additionally, students at McMaster have not been fighting for the past three years to have the administrations exclusivity contract with coke ended, more correctly, those who have been doing so have been more accurately kicking a dead horse. The referendum of 2005 ensured that the McMaster Student Union would not re-enter into such a contract and would urge the University to do the same, and as far as I understood, the University had essentially decided to do the same.

However, not holding an exclusivity agreement is NOT the same thing as having a product or company removed from a campus or any other form of institution. In the 1990s, and prior to the contract, Coke dominated products on campus anyway, due largely to lower prices and higher dividends. Moreover, with the variety of products coke offers as well as partnerships or associations it maintains, it would be virtually impossible to ever “ban” it completely in any true sense of the word.

Thus, what the University did, by entering into a contract, was ensure that so long as coke would have the presence it did on the campus, it would not have it unchecked and without proper limitations and compensation.

The referendum of 2005 was all well and good in terms of requesting an end to that form of contract, if students didn’t like the idea of an exclusivity agreement, great! Request to end it, BUT on the one hand, do not think that because the contract is not endorsed through a referendum that it will end immediately. If the MSU or the University were to try that, there is a good chance costly litigation would follow, and what message does that send to anyone? Obviously, the contract needs to be run out, as that was the spirit of the referendum and that is exactly why it is only this year that the contract will be done. And, on the other hand, it is destructively naive to think that in the absence of any contract things will be all “tickity-boo” on campus and social ethics will prevail. Far from it in fact, as things would simply just return to the way they were prior to the contract, with coke dominating product sales on campus through the allowances of the free market and the absence of any contractual limitations, stipulations or compensations being enforced by the University or related parties.

Additionally, I recall being asked, “what about establishing a deal with pepsi instead?” Sorry, pepsi isn’t terribly great either. What’s more is also the need to be clear about why any apprehensions about coke exist to begin with, and that is to do with accusations related to human rights, not “product diversity.” Does anyone really care that much about “product diversity”? Especially, when no matter what product it is, it is ridiculously unhealthy, and no matter what company it is, the products indirectly harm everyone anyway through a person’s voluntary consumption of them. So I certainly hope that the answer is no, product diversity is not the issue, pop is not good no matter who the provider is. The only instance in which a provider may matter is when you consider the concept of sustainable communities, local producers who are a benefit (in this instance) to the economic community of Hamilton, Ontario. And this is precisely the point at which I’d like to let anyone here know, if they didn’t already, that there is a coke bottling plant located in one of the poorer areas of Hamilton, and believe me, it and the jobs it provides are direly needed.

So then, under the light of social ethics, I would very much like to pose the question as to why/how the ending of an exclusivity contract with coke at Mac is going to send the company any message about social ethics. Profit wise, it would not even be a drop in the bucket, coke has virtually maintained an exclusivity contract with the entire country of Mexico for the past 50 years or so. The ending of a contract at a Canadian university, without even a dent in their sales, wouldn’t cause anyone with coke to blink an eye, if anything you’d hear champagne (not made by coke) corks popping at the idea that they’d no longer have to provide high compensation and follow any limitations. More importantly, what does a coke exclusivity contract with a Canadian university even have to do with the fact that the Columbian government is not restricting the existence of paramilitary groups that kill union leaders? And I use “restricting” as though the Columbian government actually has concerns over their existence, they are, in fact, quite comfortable with them as they do what the government itself can not. As well, coke is not a state entity that is responsible for ensuring the protection of citizens, if something illegal is occurring, which it obviously is, it is entirely the government’s responsibility to enforce the law and safety, not coke’s. We obviously do not have the same threats in Canada, because, thankfully, our government does much more than even discourage the existence of paramilitary groups.

Without any sustained criminal convictions, coke is in the clear. However, poor human rights records in, say both Mexico and Columbia, are a cause for concern, and any expressions of such concerns, and any relation to coke, should be immediately forwarded to our elected officials (as I am sure they have been, but given the looks of this group’s form letter, it has been in poor, misinformed form, and as such, almost justifiably ignored).

In revisiting negotiations, McMaster is not doing a bad thing or engaging a bad corporate entity by opening a door for them. McMaster is, in fact, recognizing that such free market doors are wide open everywhere, and though impossible to close, it is not impossible to say what that corporate entity must be to enter the room, how it must enter and what restraints and restrictions will be on it when it is in. This is precisely the intention of such negotiations and contracts.

If you want to enact a campaign or discussions that actually have more effect than senselessly bashing your head against a brick wall, talk to the people who’s names and email addresses you’ve listed here, and I mean talk, like a nice, normal conversation, about stipulations you’d like to see, such as:
- Standards of Social Ethics, which, as I recall, was a being discussed.
- Limitations on the presence of coke (in other words, NOT being exclusive), which, as I recall, was not only be discussed but was ensured.
- Ensuring that all products sold are produced locally as to guarantee economic benefit to the local communities, such as ailing North-East Hamilton. Again, I am under the impression this is being discussed, if not also ensured.
- Ensuring that McMaster and its students are properly compensated for the presence of coke on campus, which is one of the fundamental principles for why the contract would be considered to begin with.

It would do well for anyone a part of this group to recognize the important role negotiations, contracts, treatise, and any form of binding legal documents play in restricting the abilities of corporate entities that, as entitled by the free market, could very well do as they wish in the absence of such documents. Moreover, that without such documents, a corporation like coke could very well dominate the product offerings on any campus through the provision of competitively lower prices for consumers and higher royalties for the catering departments that they may be providing through.

Recognizing the need for regulation and limitations for the benefit of the people is indeed what is done in any successful Socialist state, and is essentially apart of the political definition of socialism. However, given the growth and advancement of the corporate world, particularly some entities and their great wealth and power relative to many nations, this concept needs to be extended to contracts with both public and private entities. As this recognition of the relative weakness that states have in relation to corporate entities will be increasingly crucial in the future, and much pressure will be left to fellow entities to ensure social responsibility. And this is, again, precisely what McMaster, the MSU and the GSA are doing.

This group and related form letter offer nothing constructive or of any consequence to problems with coke, Columbia, or human rights offences, instead it merely persists a bad leftist stereotype that ironically restricts any plausible consideration of a true socialist state, especially one that is needed in Canada.



Student: I think it's also worth mentioning that the largest effect that the referendum had was eliminating the position of MSU Coke Rep on Campus, as well as the Cold Beverage Fund. Having the Coke Rep position created a student job, which is intrinsically beneficial to students, and also financially helped out a large number of MSU Clubs and Services by providing beverages (water, not just coke) at their events. With the coke rep position gone, the most affected parties are these MSU Clubs and Services that now have to allocate parts of their budget to what was previously supplied free of charge. It could also be argued that an affected party is whatever student would have worked for the MSU as the Coke Rep each year.

I'm not as clear on the cold beverage fund, but I believe that this was money provided by coke as well, that an MSU Club or Service could apply for. Ultimately, the elimination of this has resulted in the same detriments as does the lack of a coke rep.

If you're a pepsi fan, check out the Dr. Pepper machine in the basement of Divinity College.

aviaf, florencem., kanthamd, Nino, samd, scott000 all say thanks to temara.brown for this post.

aviaf, florencem., scott000 like this.
Old 01-27-2010 at 04:11 PM   #10
Lois
Elite Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,069

Thanked: 318 Times
Liked: 361 Times




Hi Scott,

In 1991, Pepsi opened up a bottling plant in Burma (now known as Myanmar) despite the calls of human rights activists for transnational corporations to hold off on investing in the country until democracy is restored. As you may know, the Burmese junta has been responsible for many human rights violations. Furthermore, there have been links between the military and Thein Tun (a Pepsi business partner).During this time, many universities (such as Carleton U) and municipalities boycotted Pepsi as a result of their business transactions with a country that committed human rights violations. In 1997, Pepsi pulled its business out of Burma as a result of global boycotts for human rights violations.

This is a similar situation with Colombia and human rights. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch have cautioned against a Canadian-Colombian (and US-Colombia) free-trade agreement with Colombia as a result of the disproportionate number of trade unionist murders and a disregard for workers rights (1). Additionally, Afro-Colombians, Women, Indigenous Populations, and human rights lawyers have killed or threatened by the paramilitaries in Colombia (2).

Currently, Pepsi and Coke both have issues with environmental degradation in India. However, at this particular point and time Pepsi appears to be the lesser of two evils because they ended their ties with Myanmar, whereas Coke continues its relations with a country (Colombia) with vast human rights injustices.

Furthermore, many of the people that I've talked to were concerned about having a monopoly on campus. Many individuals, including some MSU / SRA members do not feel that an exclusive contract with Coca Cola is in the best financial interest of the students. Our side of the referendum, human rights aside, is about allowing students to make choices about what they consume on campus.

(1) http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/09/1...us-colombia-fr
(2) http://www.amnesty.ca/blog2.php?blog=colomb ia_hr

Sorry if that was tl;dr.

(Rebuttal to Temara's post will be posted later as I have class in 10 minutes).
Old 01-27-2010 at 06:43 PM   #11
aviaf
Richard Cioci
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 245

Thanked: 46 Times
Liked: 50 Times




Correct me if I'm wrong, but students will still have choice with an exclusive contract. This contract would be only for the MSU and not the entire univeristy, so you could still get no Coka products unless the university decided to follow suit afterwards.
Old 01-27-2010 at 09:13 PM   #12
temara.brown
MacInsiders Staff
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,853

Thanked: 259 Times
Liked: 352 Times




That's true, Richard. The university wasn't leagally bound by the last referendum in 2005, only the MSU was. They just respected what they took as the wishes of the students.
Old 01-27-2010 at 11:24 PM   #13
Lois
Elite Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,069

Thanked: 318 Times
Liked: 361 Times




Dear Temara,

There are problems with his arguments on this issue. I don’t know this where actually posted or who the former MSU President was addressing his comments to. As far as I know, it wasn’t Natalie, Sid, or myself who created the group – meaning the group being referred to is not a member of the No campaign. This of course, would explain why some of the comments are irrelevant to this current referendum.

First of all, as we’ve mentioned earlier, our goal isn’t to ban Coca-Cola on campus. Our main issue is the notion of having only Coca-Cola products on campus and thus preventing students from choosing competing alternatives.

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.

Quote:
So then, under the light of social ethics, I would very much like to pose the question as to why/how the ending of an exclusivity contract with coke at Mac is going to send the company any message about social ethics.
This point fails to address the fact that multiple universities around the world: UBC, University of Oslo, University of Illinois, Guelph, Smith College, to name a few have also decided against an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola. The voices of many universities and organizations is more powerful than you think – as demonstrated by the Pepsi boycotts, which helped to end their business in Burma.
I think I’ve addressed the Pepsi argument in my previous post. With respect to product diversity, there are people who care about product diversity. Many of the people who approached our tables in the student centre were concerned that only Coca-Cola products are sold on campus – some of these individuals didn’t even care about the human rights issues, they were more concerned about choice.

I’m glad that the Coca-Cola bottling plants in Canada are providing jobs to the local community. I don’t think anyone on our side of the campaign has an issue with that. Not having an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola doesn’t mean that these jobs will be lost. Our issue with Coca-Cola is their global business practices – and with large transnational corporations everything is connected.

Quote:
However, poor human rights records in, say both Mexico and Columbia, are a cause for concern, and any expressions of such concerns, and any relation to coke, should be immediately forwarded to our elected officials (as I am sure they have been, but given the looks of this group’s form letter, it has been in poor, misinformed form, and as such, almost justifiably ignored).
I have no idea what this other group wrote.

George Sorger will be talking about the human rights issues associated with during Coke 101, Thursday from 7-9 PM in BSB 106. There will be a discussion period after, so if you have any questions or concerns this will be a good way to have them answered.
Old 01-27-2010 at 11:49 PM   #14
temara.brown
MacInsiders Staff
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,853

Thanked: 259 Times
Liked: 352 Times




click the link on the topic of the thing I'll copied and you'll find the context of the excerpt.. I'll read the rest of your post when I've de-zombified

Last edited by temara.brown : 01-27-2010 at 11:55 PM.
Old 01-28-2010 at 12:02 AM   #15
Lois
Elite Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,069

Thanked: 318 Times
Liked: 361 Times




I just took a look at the group, Hayley is no longer a McMaster student - nor is she campaigning in this referendum.

I would refer to Coke 101 or our facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=2628909 02170 for our stance.

I forgot to address this:
Quote:
Without a strong 'yes' side to present the facts, I feel like you're going to see history repeating itself.
Ian Finlay said that he was going to campaign on the YES side according to the March 29, 2009 SRA minutes. He has yet to officially register a campaign team. According to the CRO/DRO, the space in MUSC is still booked for a debate on this issue on January 29th (Friday). We would like to present both sides of the issue and encourage him (or others on the YES side) to step up to the debate.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



McMaster University News and Information, Student-run Community, with topics ranging from Student Life, Advice, News, Events, and General Help.
Notice: The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the student(s) who authored the content. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by McMaster University or the MSU (McMaster Students Union). Being a student-run community, all articles and discussion posts on MacInsiders are unofficial and it is therefore always recommended that you visit the official McMaster website for the most accurate up-to-date information.

Copyright © MacInsiders.com All Rights Reserved. No content can be re-used or re-published without permission. MacInsiders is a service of Fullerton Media Inc. | Created by Chad
Originally Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright © 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin. All rights reserved. | Privacy | Terms