Originally Posted by kanthamd2

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

This is the most irritating part about the no side in this situation. I don't necessarily agree with their beliefs, but everyone is free to hold their own beliefs. They don't refute the actually claims of the yes side very well but I guess that's their prerogative. My biggest problem is all the misinformation and propaganda they're spreading. Human rights abuses are strong words, and easily get people to pay attention and then to go on not correcting misinformation once you've got their attention is a shady tactic.

I hope the question is worded well.

I got this from the MSU website:

Should the MSU be able to negotiate and/or enter into an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola?



I hope people pay attention to the BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE part, as that is the most important part. The ability to negotiate gives us a good position, we can always turn down bad offers.

Hey guys just posting some more counterarguments for the claims made above by the official yes side:

In regards to the court case we believe that the process has not been fair or brought real justice.

For more information about the lawsuit please watch The Coca Cola Case Tues Feb 2 HSC 1A6 7-9pm. This film has been co-produced by the National Film Board of Canada which is reputable.

http://films.nfb.ca/the-co<WBR>ca-cola-case/index.php

Here are some points for thought:

1. The article you have posted says that:

"Collingsworth said Coke's dismissal was based on a "hypothetical" agreement between Coke and the Colombia bottlers, which the judge said didn't give the company control over security and labor practices at the bottling plants.

Collingsworth said the labor union wasn't allowed to depose witnesses to show Coke did have oversight over such operations"

If the labour union was not allowed to give witness testimony that Coca-Cola was in fact responsible for security and labour practices how did this impact the trial?

2. Judge Martinez may have not been a completely impartial judge. He is a very active alumni of the University of Miami (he graduated from law school there) and he is actively involved with the Miami Hurricanes football team which is sponsored by Coca-Cola (Sorger).

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

Originally Posted by Natalie M

Hey guys just posting some more counterarguments for the claims made above by the official yes side:

In regards to the court case we believe that the process has not been fair or brought real justice.

For more information about the lawsuit please watch The Coca Cola Case Tues Feb 2 HSC 1A6 7-9pm. This film has been co-produced by the National Film Board of Canada which is reputable.

http://films.nfb.ca/the-co<wbr>ca-cola-case/index.php

Here are some points for thought:

1. The article you have posted says that:

"Collingsworth said Coke's dismissal was based on a "hypothetical" agreement between Coke and the Colombia bottlers, which the judge said didn't give the company control over security and labor practices at the bottling plants.

Collingsworth said the labor union wasn't allowed to depose witnesses to show Coke did have oversight over such operations"

If the labour union was not allowed to give witness testimony that Coca-Cola was in fact responsible for security and labour practices how did this impact the trial?

2. Judge Martinez may have not been a completely impartial judge. He is a very active alumni of the University of Miami (he graduated from law school there) and he is actively involved with the Miami Hurricanes football team which is sponsored by Coca-Cola (Sorger).

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

Are you ever going to actually refute the claims made by the yes side that are of a financial nature?

All you continue to do is spam and defend your position against criticism from the yes side but you have yet to refute their actual platform.

Why should I vote no if you haven't said there is anything wrong with the yes platform? Thus far they've given me reason to doubt your position but your side has given no consideration to the students of McMaster or the financial aspect of this situation.

If your side continues to ignore these questions and not refute the claims made by the yes side than I will be forced to vote YES on February 3rd.

Copied and Pasted:


From the copy of the 1998 contract in our possession, the exclusive contract with Coca Cola was initiated on January 1998 and ended on January 2008. Despite that fact that our exclusive contract with Coca-Cola has ended in 2008, the contract was extended for two more years because McMaster failed to meet Coca-Cola’s target volume.

Consequently, in our discussion with John McGowan (the MSU Manager), we found out that the shelves are still exclusive to Coca-Cola until the end of this academic year. During this time, although we are exclusive to Coca-Cola because of the contract clause, we are not receiving financial benefits. Hence the quote by Trull, “94 per cent of cold beverages on campus remain Coca Cola products” is misleading because our shelves are still exclusive to Coca-Cola - except for products such as milk, Jones Soda, and Calypso which are not competitors of Coke.

Also, after discussing the financial aspects with the Board of Directors, MSU president Vishal Tiwari and Andrew Caterine, Coke hasn’t even offered us an exclusive contract. The current financial environment is not conducive to a bidding war, and according to Vishal we are unlikely to get the same financial benefits as before from an exclusive contract.

Originally Posted by Jay

Copied and Pasted:


From the copy of the 1998 contract in our possession, the exclusive contract with Coca Cola was initiated on January 1998 and ended on January 2008. Despite that fact that our exclusive contract with Coca-Cola has ended in 2008, the contract was extended for two more years because McMaster failed to meet Coca-Cola’s target volume.

Consequently, in our discussion with John McGowan (the MSU Manager), we found out that the shelves are still exclusive to Coca-Cola until the end of this academic year. During this time, although we are exclusive to Coca-Cola because of the contract clause, we are not receiving financial benefits. Hence the quote by Trull, “94 per cent of cold beverages on campus remain Coca Cola products” is misleading because our shelves are still exclusive to Coca-Cola - except for products such as milk, Jones Soda, and Calypso which are not competitors of Coke.

Also, after discussing the financial aspects with the Board of Directors, MSU president Vishal Tiwari and Andrew Caterine, Coke hasn’t even offered us an exclusive contract. The current financial environment is not conducive to a bidding war, and according to Vishal we are unlikely to get the same financial benefits as before from an exclusive contract.

I saw and responded to this post in the other thread. Thank you for at least addressing it somewhat but its still not convincing enough given the referendum doesn't mean we have to enter into an exclusivity contract it simply means we can if we wish to and if they offer a good enough deal.

The no side has asked me to include some links in the original post, which I will also post below:

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)

Originally Posted by lorend

The no side has asked me to include some links in the original post, which I will also post below:

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/...t-claims.html)

Funny how they said under their finances portion that an 80-20 contract was not on the table since if they spoke with Roger Trull there has been one. Just saying. Also this is a pro coke contract thread, if they wanted to post those links they should have themselves. And looking through the blog posts I am still not convinced. Seems like biased sources or just circumstantial reasoning.

Voting yes will help the university and the MSU to find a contract which benefits the students.

I've moved the links back out since this opinion was augmented w/o the author's (not me) consent.

No people: feel free to submit your own opinion/rebuttle piece and it can be posted too!

And for fairness, the NO side;
www.killercoke.org

This is incredibly misrepresentative of our entire campaign.

If anyone looks at our website or facebook event, we have not used killercoke.org as a source. In the early stages, there have been some references, but that's not what our campaign is based off of.

Funny how they said under their finances portion that an 80-20 contract was not on the table since if they spoke with Roger Trull there has been one.

Actually, when we went into the MSU office, everyone directed us to Vishal because he knew the most about the possible Coke contract. I never said that there wasn't a deal offered. Based on what I've been told from the MSU president, I said "this deal is not on the table" - which is the truth as of now.

Originally Posted by Jay

This is incredibly misrepresentative of our entire campaign.

If anyone looks at our website or facebook event, we have not used killercoke.org as a source. In the early stages, there have been some references, but that's not what our campaign is based off of.


Actually, when we went into the MSU office, everyone directed us to Vishal because he knew the most about the possible Coke contract. I never said that there wasn't a deal offered. Based on what I've been told from the MSU president, I said "this deal is not on the table" - which is the truth as of now.

I was under the impression that killercoke.org was what Campus choice based a lot of information off since when they last ran a campaign they did. All I was stating is that I wanted there to be a fair showing of both sides. I am glad the no side added some extra stuff on the list. I was trying to provide sources for people to research themselves. And to be honest, most of your arguements stem from the talking points listed on the killercoke site so its a good starting point, which can be added to.

As for the Vishal thing. Again you must be right that he said that however again it is wrong. There is an 80-20 contract on the table, and ultimately why would him saying "the benefits would not be the same as the last contract" really matter since they should be decided upon each time a contract comes up. It may not be as good as the last but it could still benefit students.

Actually, most of the people currently campaigning for the NO side weren't even at McMaster during the last referendum.

Our arguments come from:
1) Mark Thomas a political activist who travelled to Colombia, India, and El Salvador to document the Coke issue first hand.
2) Human Rights Watch and Indiaresource.org.
3) Dr. George Sorger (One of the founders of Amnesty International Canada - Group 1, Hamilton) who has visited Colombia and has a great depth of knowledge about the history and sociopolitical environment of Colombia. He also had one of the members of SINALTRAINAL in his home after he fled Colombia because of death threats.
4) We had a first hand testimony from a union worker from SINALTRAINAL who came to speak to us on April 1st last year.

As I have mentioned earlier, there are other options than a 100% exclusive contract (such as a 80/20 split, note that I'm not advocating for this specific contract) - that could get benefits for students, but still reach a happy medium for people who are against a Coke monopoly.

I just saw posters for the yes and no sides in MUSC. The yes poster is far better thought out. I like that it encourages voters to know both sides of the issue before making a decision as opposed to the (much uglier btw) no posters which essentially serve to condemn the yes side and claim they are misleading, which is funny considering. Pot kettle, you know.

The yes side continues to run their campaign far better than the opposition. I would think this even if I didn't agree with the yes side also.

I agree with you 100%, sew. I thought the posters were much more impactful. I really hope students get the message and vote "yes."

Originally Posted by sew12

I just saw posters for the yes and no sides in MUSC. The yes poster is far better thought out. I like that it encourages voters to know both sides of the issue before making a decision as opposed to the (much uglier btw) no posters which essentially serve to condemn the yes side and claim they are misleading, which is funny considering. Pot kettle, you know.

The yes side continues to run their campaign far better than the opposition. I would think this even if I didn't agree with the yes side also.

This debate isn't completely black and white. As I have said before there is no proof that Coke has killed, and likewise I think the arguements of the YES side are stronger, but again, just because Courts rule something and the UN says something, and Coke says things doesn't mean these are 100% right either. I personally buy into those arguements a lot more, obviously, but really there is not absolutely proper side of this campaign.

Although I believe my arguements should convince you to vote yes, our mentality is there are two points of view, and you are free to agree or disagree with the YES side. At the end of the day, just understand where both sides are coming from and make a decision. Which will hopefully be YES.

Well my decision will be yes, but lets hope other people educate themselves about the referendum and come out and vote.