McMaster Campus Choice

The NO side of the Coca-Cola Referendum Debate

Facebook Group

Reasons to Vote No to an Exclusive Contract with Coca Cola (the referendum applies specifically to the MSU (Union Market and 1280)):

Human Rights and the Environment: Coca-Cola is an unethical company. We do not want student benefits to come from the exploitation of workers and the environment in other parts of the world. Some examples include but are not limited to:

1. El Salvador: Coca-Cola plant has polluted the ground water and that child labour has decreased in El Salvador on Sugarcane plantations by 70%(1).

2. India: Coca-Cola has depleted and polluted ground water resources in drought prone communities. Local farmers and residents depend on this water supply for their livelihood (1) (2).

3. Colombia: Coca-Cola has been linked to the murder of trade unionists in Colombia at Coca-Cola bottling plants (3).

The Right to a Choice: In the scope of the referendum, it is not within our power to ban Coca-Cola. We do not seek to ban Coca-Cola from campus but instead are advocating for the availability of more alternatives to Coca-Cola. We respect students' ability to think for themselves and to make their own choices about whether or not to consume Coca-Cola. During this referendum, we are fighting for the ability to make a choice to purchase alternatives to Coca-Cola from MSU services – whether it be from a personal, anti-monopoly, or a humanitarian perspective.

Finances: According to many sources in the MSU including Vishal Tiwari it has been confirmed that an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola will not reap the same benefits as before. Coca-Cola hasn’t even offered us an exclusive contract (John McGowan, MSU Manager).

Important Counterpoint to YES side: In our discussion with John McGowan (the MSU Manager), we found out that our shelves are still exclusive to Coca-Cola until the end of this academic year. Hence the argument “93 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 direct competitors of Coke. There hasn't been the opportunity to bring in competing alternatives.
Brief Counterarguments to Yes Side’s Claims (for more details see http://mac-choice.blogspot.com/

1. Child labour articles: the only evidence the YES side gives shows that Coca-Cola has said they are going to address child labour (whether they have done so is not verified by a non-Coca Cola source) and that child labour has decreased in El Salvador by 70% (not necessarily related to Coca-Cola’s sugar supplier).

2. The Court case: In regards to the court case we do not believe that the process has been fair or brought real justice.

For more information about the lawsuit please watch The Coca Cola Case Tues, Feb 2 in HSC 1A6 7-9 PM. This film was co-produced by the reputable National Film Board of Canada
http://films.nfb.ca/the-coca-cola-case/index.php

3. The ILO report does not investigate the murders of the Coca-Cola bottling plant trade unionists in Colombia. The report is actually quite critical of Coca-Cola’s practice of outsourcing workers and discouragement of trade unionism (Sorger).

4. Killercoke: We are not the same group of students from the 2005 Referendum. Many of us were not McMaster students during the previous referendum. Our arguments come from personal testimony from Mark Thomas (human rights activist who visited Colombia, India and El Salvador first hand to investigate these issues), George Sorger (one of the founders of Amnesty Internation Canada Group 1), and Romero Camilo is a member of SINALTRAINAL, one of the unions who represent the workers at Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia.



References:

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

(2) India Resource Center. "Campaign to Hold Coca-Cola Accountable ". 2009. India Resource Centre Website. 23 Jan. 2010. <HTTP: indiaresource.org campaigns coke index.html>.

(3) Camilo, Romero***. "Update on the latest Coca-Cola Campaign" McMaster University, Hamilton. April 01 2009. Lecture.

***Romero Camilo is a member of SINALTRAINAL, one of the unions who represent the workers at Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia.

Why did this get posted again? Doesn't the no side already have a thread?

Originally Posted by sew12

Doesn't the no side already have a thread?

Nope (at least I haven't seen the other NO thread). We have had a few threads on the Coca-Cola Referendum, but this is the first one specifically discussing the NO side. You may be confusing this thread with the other opinion thread.

I did a quick search and these are all the threads pertaining to the Coca-Cola Referendum:

Coca Cola Referendum!
COKE 101: January 28th 2010
OPINION: Coca Cola Referendum - the "Yes" Side of the Debate
OPINION - McMaster Campus Choice: The NO side of the Coca-Cola Referendum Debate (this thread!)

I still love the taste of Coca Cola.
It's just the right amount of sweetness for me.

kk Coca-cola is bad. let's just ban it altogether. No more coke products on campus. Is that the plan?

Hey guys, the link is not working to the blog:

Here is it

http://mac-choice.blogspot<WBR>. com

Never mind it should work now!

Originally Posted by sew12

Why did this get posted again? Doesn't the no side already have a thread?

There are multiple threads going on.. Im going to work to clean it up and make it more comprehensible right now.

A thread was previously made from the "No" side of the referendum. It has since been closed to try and keep things organized. You can refer to these past posts and arguments for/against their opinion by clicking here: http://www.macinsiders.com/showthread.php?t=2611 3

Heres my summary of the ILO paper that the 'yes' side uses to denounce the claims of shady business practices.

-Operational workers in planets are considered 'outsourced' or on 'contract'
-Most workers in the plants are operational
-'Contract' workers get no benefits "preventive services, company physicians, health insurance and life
insurance"
-"no evidence was seen of special facilities such as ramps, parking
places, specially adapted toilet facilities, or signalling systems for workers with impaired
vision or other temporary or permanent disabilities"
-No labour inspections in the past
-Most alleged violations have to do with the lack of freedom of association

If you actually read through points on this 50 page monster you'd notice how padded it seems. The wording seems to make it all seem good. However you are all university students and can see past a circular argument.


Drink kool-aid instead?

PS. i can cite any of the pages for all these points... but I have a test tomorrow.

As promised I have provided a summary of some of the points brought up in the documentary The Coca-Cola Case:

· The film outlined the facts such as the death of the Coca-Cola trade unionists we have mentioned before. Isidro Gil (key union organizer) in 1996 was shot by the paramilitary at a Coca-Cola bottling plant and shortly afterwards all of the workers (who had been organizing for their rights) were handed letters of resignation with the Coca-Cola letterhead with their manager’s consent and forced to resign if they didn’t want to die like Isidro. The new workers hired by Coca-Cola after this incident were paid approximately 1/3 the wage of the previous workers.

· In Guatemala a similar situation happened in the 1970s-1980s to that of Colombia. A Coca-Cola bottling plant was considered a franchise (like bottling plants in Colombia*) and 8 trade union leaders were killed and there was torture/hazing against organizing Coca-Cola employees. Coca-Cola in this case intervened after public pressure and showed that they did have the power to intervene in labour relations.

· In relation to the Coca-Cola lawsuit:
· The first time the case was brought forward in 2001 in South Florida under the Alien Tort Claims Act**, the judge dismissed it based on Coca-Cola saying that it was not responsible for the bottling plants, the judge “took their word for it”

· When the case was appealed, Coca-Cola offered the plaintiffs a variety of settlements:
· One said that in order to receive the settlement the 8 Coca-Cola workers who were plaintiffs would have to resign from their jobs (they were all key union leaders)
· One offered 1 million dollars total for all of the plaintiffs to split because the plaintiffs were Colombian and therefore Coca-Cola said there should be a discount on their monetary claims
· In 2006 an agreement was almost negotiated where Coca-Cola would compensate victims, agree to create a fund for all trade unionists exposed to violence in Colombia and implement an International Human Rights Policy BUT when it came down to it the agreement “muzzled the union” not allowing them to campaign against Coca-Cola in any way. To accept the settlement the plaintiffs would have to drop all charges against “Coca-Cola, a respectable company”; Coca-Cola would not admit to complicity.
· The plaintiffs decided to weigh dignity over money as they wanted Coca-Cola to admit to their involvement

· The film also shows the reaction of the Coca-Cola CEO in shareholder meetings when shareholders brought up the issues occurring in India and Colombia etc. In one case he said that there was the “perversion of truth” on the internet (to the issues of water in Indian and trade unionism in Colombia). In another case he said that the ILO report would address past and present practices (which was not true and this was confirmed by the ILO contact Sally Paxton)

*the reason that the Coca-Cola parent company was not found guilty in the lawsuit was because they weren’t found to be responsible for labour relations because workers were subcontracted
**An act which allows aliens (people from other countries) to prosecute Americans for crimes that they have committed in other countries where they cannot be properly prosecuted

A few more points about Coca-Cola’s responsibility over the bottling plant in this case: Coca-Cola subcontracted the labour in the bottling plants to PANAMCO. Coca-Cola had two seats on PANAMCO’s board, 24% of the shares of the company and in 1997 Coca-Cola was able to exert enough influence over PANAMCO so that it refused a request to sell its business (Thomas 56).

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 Salvador to investigate first-hand the unethical practices of Coca-Cola.

Somehow the efforts of Campus Choice in articulating the right to choose on Campus. has been lost in an attempt by others to portray the group as a ‘COCA COLA hate group’.

The message is quite simple. A person may choose not to support a manufacturer due to its business practices. That right is a constitutional right in every democracy. It is a right also to present freely your views in a balanced and truthful way on any matter. CAMPUS CHOICE has chosen to present their views on the business practices of a multi-national corporation. It is wrong to demonise the group for their efforts.

The second and more important issue is the right to choose. The University as a catalyst for thought and debate should understand that the creation of monopolies is an undesirable. Should there be choice on campus? Should a student have the right to choose a drink? Should the University be the custodians of the right to choose?

The debate is larger than the simplicity of whether you should drink Coca Cola or another drink, it is about the right to choose and the right to refuse.

I support the efforts of CAMPUS CHOICE in standing up for the right for me to choose on Campus.

SUPPORT THIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CHOOSE AND THE RIGHT TO REFUSE !

What I wanna know is why is the NO side arguing about Coca-Cola's unethical practices when it's not like all Coke products will be banned outright if it wins the referendum. At most, aren't there still gonna be 20 non-Coke products for every 80 Coke products on Campus?

Originally Posted by KayakerDan

aren't there still gonna be 20 non-Coke products for every 80 Coke products on Campus?

And I'd be so happy to have the choice to drink those

Originally Posted by KayakerDan

What I wanna know is why is the NO side arguing about Coca-Cola's unethical practices when it's not like all Coke products will be banned outright if it wins the referendum. At most, aren't there still gonna be 20 non-Coke products for every 80 Coke products on Campus?

I've already asked them about this and apparently they only feel strongly enough about the ethical issues that they don't want an exclusivity contract. I believe they said that they want students to be able to make their own choices (which they can already do since you can bring your own drinks on campus purchased elsewhere).

Coke's dominance isn't going to stop just b/c we're not allowed to enter into an exclusivity contract with them. The only thing voting no does is allows Coca Cola to continue to operate on campus, sell their products to students without giving McMaster any of the benefits of an exclusivity contract. A no vote is a lose-lose for McMaster students, and a win for Coca Cola. At least voting yes there is a potential win-win situation possible. Also we don't have to sign an exclusivity contract, a yes vote only gives us the option, if they don't offer us a good deal we can still say no. A no vote on the referendum takes away student option.

Juana if you'd like to drink non-Coca Cola products as has already been stated there are non Coca Cola options already available on campus. Do you prefer Pepsi? Apparently Pepsi products are available on campus in the Divinity College building.

To reiterate even if students vote no to the MSU being able to negotiate an exclusivity contract Coca Cola's dominance won't automatically go away. Coca Cola products are still likely to dominate the shelves the way they already do now.

Originally Posted by KayakerDan

What I wanna know is why is the NO side arguing about Coca-Cola's unethical practices when it's not like all Coke products will be banned outright if it wins the referendum. At most, aren't there still gonna be 20 non-Coke products for every 80 Coke products on Campus?

Hey Dan,

This campaign is about the right to choice. With the referendum question phrased as, "Should the MSU be able to enter and/or negotiate an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola?", we cannot possibly ban Coca-Cola.

We respect students' ability to think for themselves and to make their own choices about whether or not to consume Coca-Cola. During this referendum, we are fighting for the ability to make a choice to purchase alternatives to Coca-Cola from MSU services.

There are many reasons why people want that choice. For me personally, working towards the protection of human rights is a huge part of my life. Coke's international practices are something that I don't agree with. Myself and others would like to have other options on campus that do not come at the exploitation of workers and their environment.

Others want a choice because they are anti-monopoly, or have personal reasons for wanting another option.