The Coca Cola referendum has a history of being one-sided. But, there are plenty of arguments on both sides that should be heard before you go and vote.

"Yes" Side of the campaign's facebook group with arguments posted in the discussion board.

The following seeks to refute the points made by the "no" side of the campaign.

Interesting Information from Sources
Article about a Court of Law throwing out the case since the groups did not have any evidence that Coke had anything to do with any murders which happened in Columbia
http://web.archive.org/web/200611020...04bizcoke.html

This one is a bit of a heavy read and a little dry, but is proof from an unbiased UN body that Coke does not use shady employment practices.
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/di...od/mission.pdf

And for fairness, the opposing view;
www.killercoke.org

Past Benefits Received from Exclusivity

1) Student job - campus coke rep
2) Machinery - Fridges, upkeep of fridges, bar pop lines and up-keep
3) Price freeze - for this reason you could recieve 2 cokes for $1, now it is much higher
4) Free product for the campus rep to give to student clubs hosting events!
5) A large amount of money to finish MUSC
6) Endowment fund for bursaries - free money for students!
7) A large chunk of change for the MSU and an even larger chunk for the University to offset the operating fund.
- Students will now need to pay for the difference of this.

What We Could See in a Future Deal
- If we vote YES for this, the University will put this out to the market, and have Coke fight with Pepsi to see who gives the best deal.
- This will not be close to the same as the last deal, but really, our campus will stay one company or the other since it is easier to order through one supplier than two, therefore we might as well get paid for what we would be doing anyways!

Child Labour Claims
Press Release: Take it with a grain of salt. It did come from Coke but still shows their commitment to ending child labour.

Here is another article by a group called "Human Rights Watch." This is the organization who blew the whistle on coke.

It is encouraging to see such a great reduction! There is more to do, but with the commitment of Coke and the government this is possible.

This dedication to right wrongs shows a company one would want to support.

Cokes Global Workplace Rights Policy
Click here to read this document.

Cokes Community Water Programs
Click here to read this document.

I've found some old ramblings from a former MSU president about this topic on an old facebook group that I think add more substance to this debate. You might care to read. It was posted on a facebook group that was seeking to rid McMaster of an exclusivity contract with coke and is linked in the topic here:


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.

PS The stuff on the main article is all taken from the "yes" side's campaign material.. I didn't write that.

The stuff I posted above is just older reference material that I think supports the debate. I only wrote the non-italicized bit.

2 cokes for 1 buck would make my life.

Originally Posted by lawleypop

2 cokes for 1 buck would make my life.

Back in first year when I first saw this deal I couldn't believe it.

Originally Posted by Taunton

Back in first year when I first saw this deal I couldn't believe it.

I'm so jealous right now. D:

Originally Posted by lawleypop

I'm so jealous right now. D:

$1.25 for two cans is still pretty good though! That's only $0.63 each!

Originally Posted by lorend

$1.25 for two cans is still pretty good though! That's only $0.63 each!

?? where? o_O

Originally Posted by lawleypop

?? where? o_O

Union Market. Two cans = $1.25.

Originally Posted by lorend

Union Market. Two cans = $1.25.

OMFG, I DIDNT KNOW THAT. ._.

Must.. tell...Reeves!

Or they did? I actually haven't bought anything but coffee from UM in quite some time, so hopefully I am not misleading you...

I'm glad that this was finally put up. Macinsiders is now balanced. The No side had at least two separate threads with titles and the OP biasing anyone who happened to peruse or read the first bit, and unless the reader would read the whole thread, they wouldn't know any better.

Originally Posted by aviaf

I'm glad that this was finally put up. Macinsiders is now balanced. The No side had at least two separate threads with titles and the OP biasing anyone who happened to peruse or read the first bit, and unless the reader would read the whole thread, they wouldn't know any better.

We post information as we receive it/can find it. The "yes" side didn't have anything available until last this morning/early this afternoon.

So yes, there was a general discussion started by users trying to get more information (which originally didn't have a side), as well as an event being held tonite, but since the yes side was slow out of the gates...it's not really the no side's (or MacInsiders') fault like you are implying.

Originally Posted by lorend

We post information as we receive it/can find it. The "yes" side didn't have anything available until last this morning/early this afternoon.

So yes, there was a general discussion started by users trying to get more information (which originally didn't have a side), as well as an event being held tonite, but since the yes side was slow out of the gates...it's not really the no side's (or MacInsiders') fault like you are implying.

I was merely stating that MacInsiders is now balanced and if anyone thought this thread/announcement was improper or unfair, or biased MacInsiders in any way, then they would be wrong.

Agreed, thank you for posting the yes side.

The no side imo is spreading a lot of misinformation and influencing people's opinions with information that isn't entirely factual.

Also I disagree with the fact that they have based their platform on human rights violations/humanitarian concerns yet they have stated they are not trying to ban Coca Cola outright, just stop McMaster from entering into an exclusivity contract. This to me makes no sense, you have concerns about their alledged violations but you don't want to ban them outright? What exactly does this accomplish? This is especially bizarre considering it has been stated that even without an exclusivity contract there are still 93% Coca Cola products on McMaster shelves? So essentially without the contract the no side is opposing this company that alledgely violates human rights will still have a large percentage of shelf space to sell their products to McMaster students but McMaster students won't recieve any financial benefits out of it. Side no isn't fighting for a win-win, seemingly their platform would achieve a lose-lose situation, a company with human rights abuses would still be operating on campus and McMaster would recieve none of the benefits of an exclusivity contract.

Either fight to outright ban Coca Cola from campuses if you disagree with their practices so whole heartedly, as well as do research into every other company that may have comitted human rights violations and seek to ban them from any involvement with McMaster (fair is fair right, your problem is human rights abuses so Coca Cola isn't the only company you should be pointing the finger at) or allow for the possibility of McMaster students at least being able to gain from Coca Cola's dominance on our shelves. Its all or nothing, how can you be selectively against human rights abuses?

For the record I'm not saying its okay to rack up human rights violations, but I'm also not saying I believe there to be proof of all the humanitarian concerns anti-Coca Cola factions are claiming there are. I just disagree with the no side's platform in this campaign.