Originally Posted by sew12

Agreed, thank you for posting the yes side.

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?

I agree entirely. If Coca Cola were such a bad company, why would you leave them alone on campus?

The difference between an exclusive deal and 93% for us is potential significant benefits for our students (If there are no benefits, then it won't go through), yet, the difference for Coca Cola is a drop in an ocean.

If I were on the 'No' side, I would be upset that you only wish to rob students of the benefits of an exclusive contract and not actually pursue your beliefs further (yes, to me, they're beliefs, not facts).

What possible effect do you think you can have when you specifically have said that you guys aren't trying to get it banned on campus? Why not try to do something properly for once?

Can someone who's well researched on this topic answer me this question? (Don't have time to read everything tonight):

If Coke doesn't get the exclusive deal, will they still be able to sell on campus?

Edit: Just read the above 2 posts. If what they're saying is true, then I agree whole heartedly. The no side would definitely be aguing for a lose-lose situation. Pointless.

Originally Posted by lawleypop

Can someone who's well researched on this topic answer me this question? (Don't have time to read everything tonight):

If Coke doesn't get the exclusive deal, will they still be able to sell on campus?

Hi Cheri,

All a non-exclusive deal just means is that Coca-Cola will not be the only product available. A non exclusive deal would most likely be made up of both Coca-Cola and non-Coca Cola products.

Well I am glad to see that the YES side has posted their arguments so there can be more fair debate about the issue. I also recommend that everyone educate themselves about both sides of the debate before voting.

Here is the NO side's facebook event.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?ei... 02170&ref=ts

I will post counterarguments to these posts as soon as I can (by tomorrow). I have already addressed some of these arguments in the other forum entitled Coca-Cola Referendum. I am heading to the first educational event. Note also: although we believe that killercoke is a viable source it is not the only source we have quoted so your side is misrepresenting our argument.

Coke 101 BSB 106 7pm-9pm.

Check it out.

Originally Posted by Natalie M

Well I am glad to see that the YES side has posted their arguments so there can be more fair debate about the issue. I also recommend that everyone educate themselves about both sides of the debate before voting.

Here is the NO side's facebook event.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?ei... 02170&ref=ts

I will post counterarguments to these posts as soon as I can (by tomorrow). I have already addressed some of these arguments in the other forum entitled Coca-Cola Referendum. I am heading to the first educational event. Note also: although we believe that killercoke is a viable source it is not the only source we have quoted so your side is misrepresenting our argument.

Coke 101 BSB 106 7pm-9pm.

Check it out.

Coke 101 just for everyone's knowledge is titled something like The Unethical Practices of Coca Cola or something. It is not based on straight facts and figures and is unlikely to refute the yes side well since their campaign is based on financial facts and figures. I don't see how going to this will help people if the no side isn't going to discuss the issue of benefits to the McMaster Community that would/would not come with the exclusivity contract.

The yes side thus far is the only side that seems to be addressing the actual concerns of the other side. People who are for the exclusivity contract have address both the financial aspect, and the humanitarian concerns surrounding Coca Cola while all I've seen the no side do is harp on alleged human rights abuses. Another reason why I don't really care for the no side, they're being extremely vocal in accusing Coca Cola of human rights abuses etc which gets people's attention yet they don't actually discuss the issue at hand which is what an exclusivity contract would do for McMaster students. Which goes back to my point about fighting to ban Coca Cola, if the real problem you have is the humanitarian concerns than you should be fighting to ban them, not solely against an exclusivity contract.

Originally Posted by Natalie M

Hi Cheri,

All a non-exclusive deal just means is that Coca-Cola will not be the only product available. A non exclusive deal would most likely be made up of both Coca-Cola and non-Coca Cola products.

Exclusivity means that for any product made by coke (ie. bottled water, soft drinks) you will only be allowed to sell the coke brand and none of their competitors. In exchange, the organizations involved in this deal get perks similar to what was mentioned in the main argument.

Things to think about when it comes to a non-exclusive agreement:
1. There are only two companys really capable of meeting the supply demands that McMaster University has: Coke and Pepsi. One company isn't better than the other.
2. You are probably not going to have both because it's way more inconvient, hence why even without the election, you still have almost 100% coca-cola products.
3. If there's a product that coca-cola doesn't produce and pepsi (or any other company) does, you can still buy the pepsi version of said product.

I actually attended the Coke 101 thing tonight and it was very informative about Colombia's history and put into context how Coke and other such businesses fit into their business climate. (The explanation of the possible motives and ideologies of the current president of Colombia Uribe and his possible involvement with various paramilitary groups; also the existence of insurgency groups like FARC, ELN, etc)

Something I learned: It seems that Coke has worked out a way to use subcontracted workers and co-operatives to relieve themselves of any responsibility regarding the benefits/anything to do with the workers while still leaving them in control of other aspects. I think the best way to put it would be to refer to the judge from the South Florida trial against Coke (which was dismissed) who explained that while he and the court didn't dispute that these things were occuring, they did dispute Coke's responsibility since it is not involved with the labour relations of the workers (who are technically not Coke employees, but employees of the subcontracted company the bottling plant is using), meaning that Coke is not responsible for the deaths. (That being said, the opinion of the speaker was that the judge was really into his universities football team and that one of their sponsor's is Coke, and therefore he had ulterior motives.)

I'm not disputing any of the things that the No side are saying but what I do have a problem with is the fact that they don't realize that saying no won't do anything in terms of changing Coke's business dealings or ethics. If they really wanted to capture anyone's attention, they would be saying to completely boycott it (like the picture accompanying the editorial about it in the Sil today says). I believe that completely ruling out the possibility of an exclusivity contract will do a huge disservice to the students/university who will have the potential to reap huuuuuuge rewards from the benefits a contract like that could bring.

I'm also really happy that this side of the discussion is finally up so the students can understand that there are OPTIONS to voting yes besides just an exclusivity contract. It's in our best interest to consider everything and not just shut out one side completely without being informed.

Hi Everyone,

Firstly addressing your point about the ILO report:

The ILO report does not and was never meant to investigate the deaths of the 8 Coca-Cola trade unionists. This is because the ILO does not address past injustices it only investigates current labour right abuses (Thomas 352). Coca-Cola themselves even admitted in correspondence with Thomas that the ILO 2008 report would only address current labour issues (352).

Ms Sally Paxton, Executive director of Social Dialogue was designated by the ILO to answer questions regarding the ILO investigation responded to an inquiry by Ray Rogers from her ILO office in Geneva; The ILO would at most be carrying out an “assessment of current working conditions at enterprises in Colombia” and not an investigation of the Coca Cola past practices or human rights abuses of its bottlers (Sorger).

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

Dr. George Sorger is one of the founding members of Amnesty International in Canada (first group was founded in Hamilton)

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

Now to move on to your two sources for child labour:

Well let's look at the second one first as it is by the reputable organization Human Rights Watch (HRW):

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/09/1...vador-drops-70

HRW says that there has been a 70% drop in child labour in El Salvador in Sugarcane plantations in the last 5 years but it does not say anything specific about Coca Cola's sugar supplier making an improvement. It is wonderful to hear that this improvement has been made but the article does not guarantee that Coca Cola has stopped using child labour through their sugar supplier.

In 2007 Mark Thomas went to investigate the child labour claim first hand and found that child labour was still being used in the fields (Atkinson, Geoff and Sarah Macdonald).

I agree with your posting about taking the Press Release written by Coca-Cola with a grain of salt.

http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/p...wreport.h tml

You said that Coca-Cola "[showed] their commitment to ending child labour". It is one thing to write it and another thing to actually go through with it. Coca-Cola had a policy against child labour before the 2004 HRW report as well.

(http://www.hrw.org/en/node/12067/section/9)

Atkinson, Geoff and Sarah Macdonald dir. “Dispatches”: Mark Thomas on Coca-Cola. Channel 4 News, 2007.

Originally Posted by kanthamd2

I actually attended the Coke 101 thing tonight and it was very informative about Colombia's history and put into context how Coke and other such businesses fit into their business climate.

I'm not disputing any of the things that the No side are saying but what I do have a problem with is the fact that they don't realize that saying no won't do anything in terms of changing Coke's business dealings or ethics. If they really wanted to capture anyone's attention, they would be saying to completely boycott it (like the picture accompanying the editorial about it in the Sil today says). I believe that completely ruling out the possibility of an exclusivity contract will do a huge disservice to the students/university who will have the potential to reap huuuuuuge rewards from the benefits a contract like that could bring.

Hi Kanthamd,

Thanks for attending tonight's event. I'm glad that you are in agreement with us over Coca-Cola's human rights/environmental practices (or at least that is what I'm gathering from your post please correct me if I'm wrong). We are on the same page to some degree.

I'm curious about your opinion when you are saying that if we really wanted to take a stand we would boycott Coke altogether. Are you saying that if you had the option to boycott Coca-Cola you would? Do the human rights/environmental aspects weigh into your decision about an exclusive contract at all? Why don't you believe that we can have any impact on Coca-Cola by refusing to give them an exclusive deal?

There are other universities and colleges that have taken a stand against Coca-Cola and McMaster is part of a larger movement.

Originally Posted by Natalie M

There are other universities and colleges that have taken a stand against Coca-Cola and McMaster is part of a larger movement.

McMaster would be part of a large movement, if its shelf space didn't naturally go to 93% Coca Cola products. Denying them an exclusivity deal will do nothing to them, it will only take away potential student benefits.

If students believed in these allegations against Coca Cola, then they would stop buying and the University and MSU would reduce the percentage of space that Coca Cola has on its shelves.

BUT

The fact that the last agreement with Coca Cola was for 80% shelf space, and the fact that it is now at 93% should make you see that students aren't taken in as naive children anymore just because they hear someone cry Wolf, and shows that they have already made a choice to support Coca Cola against the slander that it is facing.

Now I must retire to my bed, I have a test tomorrow. G'night everyone

Natalie M,
I am on the same page with you to some degree... while I do think that there maybe some things going on, I don't necessarily buy in to everything that is being alleged against Coke since there still isn't any concrete proof. I'm not saying it's okay to violate human rights and stuff but I do disagree with the proof presented to back up claims against Coke.

I think that the idea of banning Coke altogether is an entirely different discussion, and is not why this referendum is being held. This is why the allegations of human rights violations, etc. do not weigh in on my decision. If this matter was being presented as vote no, ban Coke for these reasons, then I could understand an entire group of people lobbying together to get rid of it, and maybe even support the cause given the right proof. Instead I am weighing the pros and cons of saying no and yet still only having Coke products take up 93% of the shelves and not getting a single benefit out of it vs saying yes and getting my school the compensation/support it deserves for our business. That's why saying no to an exclusive deal wouldn't really do anything to Coke... we're still pretty much exclusive, but we could be getting so much more out of this!!

My biggest problem with the no side is that while you are considering human rights and other environmental concerns, you are doing little to consider (or present) much else. I think that the NO side is a campaign built more on personal beliefs as opposed to fact because nothing they are saying is technically fact (nor is it a developed opinion considering all sides/outcomes of the discussion). What other reasons should we vote no, aside from the human rights/environmental perspective presented? Voting YES doesn't mean being "pro-exclusivity", it just means that you're letting the university do what it can to get the best deal for the McMaster community as a whole.

(I'm sorry, I want to be as clear and concise as possible but I don't write very often and am just trying to sort through all the thoughts in my head.)

If we went after any company with ties to or that did business with politically undesirable partners than we'd be in a bit of a pickle. Let's start listing countries (or business partners) that might upset a significant portion of people:

China
Israel
Columbia
Venezuela
North Korea
Vietnam
Indonesia
Zimbabwe
Syria
Pro-Western governments in Iraq and Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia
Taiwan
Myanmar/Burma
Walmart
Imperial Oil
France

Ok the last one was a joke. (Although in the us i'm sure there are a few hardcore "patriots" who won't buy anything that's french and not freedom)

etc. etc.

The point is, Coke may be maintained close business relations, and even owning large parts of, businesses engaged in unethical activity. If we were to hold every company to this standard we could only do business with ourselves.

Originally Posted by kanthamd2

Natalie M,
I am on the same page with you to some degree... while I do think that there maybe some things going on, I don't necessarily buy in to everything that is being alleged against Coke since there still isn't any concrete proof. I'm not saying it's okay to violate human rights and stuff but I do disagree with the proof presented to back up claims against Coke.

I think that the idea of banning Coke altogether is an entirely different discussion, and is not why this referendum is being held. This is why the allegations of human rights violations, etc. do not weigh in on my decision. If this matter was being presented as vote no, ban Coke for these reasons, then I could understand an entire group of people lobbying together to get rid of it, and maybe even support the cause given the right proof. Instead I am weighing the pros and cons of saying no and yet still only having Coke products take up 93% of the shelves and not getting a single benefit out of it vs saying yes and getting my school the compensation/support it deserves for our business. That's why saying no to an exclusive deal wouldn't really do anything to Coke... we're still pretty much exclusive, but we could be getting so much more out of this!!

My biggest problem with the no side is that while you are considering human rights and other environmental concerns, you are doing little to consider (or present) much else. I think that the NO side is a campaign built more on personal beliefs as opposed to fact because nothing they are saying is technically fact (nor is it a developed opinion considering all sides/outcomes of the discussion). What other reasons should we vote no, aside from the human rights/environmental perspective presented? Voting YES doesn't mean being "pro-exclusivity", it just means that you're letting the university do what it can to get the best deal for the McMaster community as a whole.

(I'm sorry, I want to be as clear and concise as possible but I don't write very often and am just trying to sort through all the thoughts in my head.)

I think you articulated well a very important point.

This referendum is about an exclusivity contract, not about banning Coca Cola outright.

I am against human rights abuses too (I would think most students at McMaster are too), but as has been said no legitimate, concrete proof has been presented that prove that Coca Cola is evil in the way the no side is painting it. That said if you feel that strongly about companies committing human rights abuses then you need to work toward banning them, something that will actually effect them. Its been said again and again but without exclusivity in place Coca Cola products still occupy 93% of our shelf space, and will continue to do so.

Voting yes on this referendum would see just the same dominance of Coca Cola on the shelves at McMaster but with added financial benefits to the students. This is the main reason I would like to see a contract be negotiated with Coca Cola, if we're going to be given 90%+ Coca Cola products anyway I want myself and fellow students to benefit from our support of Coca Cola products.

Keep in mind that voting yes on this referendum does not mean we will sign an exclusivity contract with Coca Cola, it just means we can negotiate with them, and sign one if we feel it beneficial. This is important to note and I don't know if everyone is aware of this. If Coca Cola does not offer enough benefits to McMaster students we don't have to sign a contract, and we can potentially fight for more. Voting yes gives us the ability to negotiate which is really important. A no vote takes away our ability to negotiate with Coca Cola about an exclusivity contract, and therefore completely takes away the potential for us to gain benefits from having so many Coca Cola products on our shelves, and yes the products will still be there, they won't just go away. The shelves will still be dominated by Coca Cola products either way, we just won't benefit from it without an exclusivity contract.

If the no side really cared they would fight to ban Coca Cola. If Coca Cola were banned via a referendum, or even if a referendum tried to ban them it might actually do something. At this point voting no is a lose-lose situation, Coca Cola will still operate on campus, still get thousands of dollars in student money, and in return we will get nothing. By voting no all you do is take away potential benefits from yourself and fellow students, you don't do anything to further your cause, or your beliefs about Coca Cola's allegedly unethical practices.

Originally Posted by sew12

Keep in mind that voting yes on this referendum does not mean we will sign an exclusivity contract with Coca Cola, it just means we can negotiate with them, and sign one if we feel it beneficial. This is important to note and I don't know if everyone is aware of this. If Coca Cola does not offer enough benefits to McMaster students we don't have to sign a contract, and we can potentially fight for more. Voting yes gives us the ability to negotiate which is really important. A no vote takes away our ability to negotiate with Coca Cola about an exclusivity contract, and therefore completely takes away the potential for us to gain benefits from having so many Coca Cola products on our shelves, and yes the products will still be there, they won't just go away. The shelves will still be dominated by Coca Cola products either way, we just won't benefit from it without an exclusivity contract.

This is what I meant by misinformation. The whole time I've been paying attention to this discussion, the NO side fails to mention everything what voting YES means and doesn't correct people who say that voting yes automatically means 100% exclusivity. I think if people understood the fine difference, they wouldn't be as easily persuaded to vote no