1. Human rights and Coca-Cola:
In India, as a direct result of Coca-Cola bottling plants, there is drastic depletion of groundwater, which villagers and farmers depend on for their livelihood (India Resource).
Moreover, a BBC News Report noted that waste products from a Coke factory in Kerala had high levels of toxic metals such as cadmium and lead. This waste was sold to the farmers as fertilizer, which polluted the land and groundwater resources. Coca-Cola stopped the practice of distributing its toxic waste only when ordered to do so by the state government.
In El Salvador, Coca-Cola's sugar supplier has been noted to use child labour according to Human Rights Watch. Despite Coke's 2005 Press Release, Mark Thomas traveled to El Salvador and documented the usage of child labour (1).
In Colombia, the situation is much more complicated. George Sorger, one of the founders of Amnesty International Canada - Group 1, has provided us with a lecture that provides important information regarding Colombia's sociopolitical environment and how Coca-Cola plays a role. Click here to download it. The opinions article in the Sil discusses the issue further. Due to length, controversy regarding the 2008 ILO report and Court cases are here.
They will also be addressed in the showing of the Coca-Cola Case: Tuesday February 2nd, 7-9 PM in HSC 1A6. This film was co-produced by the National Film Board of Canada.
2. Financial Reasons
Although we interviewed members of the Board of Directors, they all suggested that we talk to the MSU President, Vishal Tiwari, as he was the most knowledgeable on the Coke issue. He noted that there was no exclusive Coke contract on the table. If an exclusive contract were to be signed, students would likely receive less benefits than the previous contract.
Due to a volume-target clause in the previous contract, John McGowan (the MSU manager) mentioned that the contract was extended until the end of the academic year. Hence the quotation "93 per cent of cold beverages on campus remain Coca Cola products" is misleading without the context as there has not been the opportunity to bring in competing alternatives.
3. The Right to Choice
In the scope of the referendum question, 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.
--
Atkinson, Geoff and Sarah Macdonald dir. “Dispatches”: Mark Thomas on Coca-Cola. Channel 4 News, 2007.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Banning Coke Versus Being Against a Non-Exclusive Contract
Many individuals have commented that it would be more beneficial for human rights to ban Coke outright on campus.
Under the referendum question “Should the MSU be able to negotiate and/or enter into an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola?”, we are not in a position to ban Coca-Cola at all.
Although we disagree with an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola because of their human rights violations and/or it imposes a monopoly, we do not intend on banning Coke on campus.
It would be problematic for individuals who don’t care about human rights or who want to be able to purchase Coca-Cola. We respect students' ability to think for themselves and make their own choice. During this referendum, we are fighting for the ability to make our choice to purchase alternatives to Coke from MSU services – whether it be from a personal, anti-monopoly, or a humanitarian perspective.
Under the referendum question “Should the MSU be able to negotiate and/or enter into an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola?”, we are not in a position to ban Coca-Cola at all.
Although we disagree with an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola because of their human rights violations and/or it imposes a monopoly, we do not intend on banning Coke on campus.
It would be problematic for individuals who don’t care about human rights or who want to be able to purchase Coca-Cola. We respect students' ability to think for themselves and make their own choice. During this referendum, we are fighting for the ability to make our choice to purchase alternatives to Coke from MSU services – whether it be from a personal, anti-monopoly, or a humanitarian perspective.
Finances
Many people have asked us about the financial aspect of saying NO to an exclusive contract.
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 our 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. There hasn't been the opportunity to bring in competing alternatives.
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.
Keep in mind that the question that the referendum is asking is, “Should the MSU be able to negotiate and/or enter into an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola?”
If students vote NO to exclusivity, the MSU would technically be able to negotiate a non-exclusive contract with Coke to get financial benefits for students. Prior to the actual release of the referendum question, the proposed contract was a 80/20 split – however, like an exclusive contract, this deal is not on the table (from Vishal) as of now. Note: I'm not advocating for a 80/20 split, I'm just pointing out that it is within the MSU's power to negotiate a non-exclusive contract with the way that the referendum question is worded.
There are other possible options instead of a 100% exclusive contract.
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 our 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. There hasn't been the opportunity to bring in competing alternatives.
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.
Keep in mind that the question that the referendum is asking is, “Should the MSU be able to negotiate and/or enter into an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola?”
If students vote NO to exclusivity, the MSU would technically be able to negotiate a non-exclusive contract with Coke to get financial benefits for students. Prior to the actual release of the referendum question, the proposed contract was a 80/20 split – however, like an exclusive contract, this deal is not on the table (from Vishal) as of now. Note: I'm not advocating for a 80/20 split, I'm just pointing out that it is within the MSU's power to negotiate a non-exclusive contract with the way that the referendum question is worded.
There are other possible options instead of a 100% exclusive contract.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Court Case Controversy
Ian (YES campaign):
To which Natalie Responded:
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
http://films.nfb.ca/the-coca-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).
Article about a Court of Law throwing out a 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/20061102074001/http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/coke/2006/10/04/1004bizcoke.html
To which Natalie Responded:
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
http://films.nfb.ca/the-coca-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).
Human Rights Watch - El Salvador Child Labour
In 2004, Human Rights Watch noted that "Businesses purchasing sugar from El Salvador, including The Coca-Cola Company, are using the product of child labor that is both hazardous and widespread ... Nearly every child interviewed by Human Rights Watch for its 139-page report said that he or she had suffered machete gashes on the hands or legs while cutting cane. These risks led one former labor inspector to characterize sugarcane as the most dangerous of all forms of agricultural work."(1)
Ian (Yes Campaign):
Natalie's Response:
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.
Coca-Cola had a policy against Child Labour before the 2004 HRW report and before the 2005 press release. Just because the company had this policy did not mean they were actually following through with it. Although the 2005 press release said that Coca-Cola planned to change their practices it did not guarantee that these changes were made. Child Labour was still being used by the sugar supplier in El Salvador in 2007 (after the 2005 press release) when Mark Thomas visited. 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 (3).
(1) http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2004/06/09/turning-blind-eye
(2) http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/09/16/child-labor-sugarcane-plantations-el-salvador-drops-70
(3) Atkinson, Geoff and Sarah Macdonald dir. “Dispatches”: Mark Thomas on Coca-Cola. Channel 4 News, 2007.
Ian (Yes Campaign):
Here is another Article by a group called "Human Rights Watch." This is the organization who blew the whistle on coke.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/09/16/child-labor-sugarcane-plantations-el-salvador-drops-70
It is encouraging to see such a great reduction! There is more to go, but with the commitment of Coke and the government this is possible.
This dedication to right wrongs shows a company I would want to support.
Natalie's Response:
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.
Coca-Cola had a policy against Child Labour before the 2004 HRW report and before the 2005 press release. Just because the company had this policy did not mean they were actually following through with it. Although the 2005 press release said that Coca-Cola planned to change their practices it did not guarantee that these changes were made. Child Labour was still being used by the sugar supplier in El Salvador in 2007 (after the 2005 press release) when Mark Thomas visited. 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 (3).
(1) http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2004/06/09/turning-blind-eye
(2) http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/09/16/child-labor-sugarcane-plantations-el-salvador-drops-70
(3) Atkinson, Geoff and Sarah Macdonald dir. “Dispatches”: Mark Thomas on Coca-Cola. Channel 4 News, 2007.
Regarding ILO 2008 Report/Court Claims
"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" - Ian Finlay (Yes Campaign)
Report: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/papers/food/mission.pdf
Natalie:
To address your point about the 2008 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 "has a remit to investigate only on a countrywide rather than company specific basis and can only investigate current labour rights abuse" (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.
Ian's response:
In the ILOs report it stated that they asked about the murders and that none of the workers wished to bring that up. They did inquire about it but nothing was mentioned. Also I am sure you have made mistakes in the past havent you? Having a report saying you are currently a good person and that even if the past you did do something wrong(which isn't proven) you changed. This shows that the Coke we would be dealing with at this time and is good and is looking at the future to be good.
Natalie's Reponse:
To address the ILO report again:
There is one short paragraph in the entire 50 page report about the murders (it was not the purpose of the report to investigate these murders as I have shown and sourced above). It is a footnote on page 31 which must be taken in context.
Point 91 on page 31 talks about trade unions at the Carepa bottling plant (* will designate footnote):
"The situation is different at the Carepa plant and would appear to be exceptional, comparatively speaking. Of the 70 company workers at the plant, 40 are members of the Carepa branch of SICO.*69 The representatives said that more workers were joining. They pointed out, however, that union membership still carries some risk of stigmatization, *70" (31).
Footnote 70: "During the period of greatest violence in Colombia, in this plant two SINALTRAINAL (the union which at the time represented the workers at this plant) union leaders were murdered. Neither the perpetrators nor the motives have been determined and there are conflicting versions. In any event, as a result SINALTRAINAL lost its presence in the plant, (including its premises, which it is still claiming) to the union currently established there (SICO). On the matter of the abovementioned violence, the union leaders systematically declined to comment, hinting that they had no wish to revisit the past" (31).
The ILO takes a neutral stance on the issue because they were not investigating these past deaths.
When union leaders were declining to comment they were union leaders of SICO, the union currently at the Carepa plant NOT SINALTRAINAL (the union of which at least 6 members/supporters have been killed).
SICO is made up of new workers and a new union which was formed after the 1996 killing of Isidro Gil by paramilitaries (Sorger). They earn approx. 1/3 the wages and have poor working conditions (Sorger). The death of Isidro Gil is the one we discuss in the opinion article in the Sil with very direct ties to Coca-Cola.
http://thesil.ca/blog/opinions/vote-against-mac-contract-with-coke/
Report: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/papers/food/mission.pdf
Natalie:
To address your point about the 2008 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 "has a remit to investigate only on a countrywide rather than company specific basis and can only investigate current labour rights abuse" (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.
Ian's response:
In the ILOs report it stated that they asked about the murders and that none of the workers wished to bring that up. They did inquire about it but nothing was mentioned. Also I am sure you have made mistakes in the past havent you? Having a report saying you are currently a good person and that even if the past you did do something wrong(which isn't proven) you changed. This shows that the Coke we would be dealing with at this time and is good and is looking at the future to be good.
Natalie's Reponse:
To address the ILO report again:
There is one short paragraph in the entire 50 page report about the murders (it was not the purpose of the report to investigate these murders as I have shown and sourced above). It is a footnote on page 31 which must be taken in context.
Point 91 on page 31 talks about trade unions at the Carepa bottling plant (* will designate footnote):
"The situation is different at the Carepa plant and would appear to be exceptional, comparatively speaking. Of the 70 company workers at the plant, 40 are members of the Carepa branch of SICO.*69 The representatives said that more workers were joining. They pointed out, however, that union membership still carries some risk of stigmatization, *70" (31).
Footnote 70: "During the period of greatest violence in Colombia, in this plant two SINALTRAINAL (the union which at the time represented the workers at this plant) union leaders were murdered. Neither the perpetrators nor the motives have been determined and there are conflicting versions. In any event, as a result SINALTRAINAL lost its presence in the plant, (including its premises, which it is still claiming) to the union currently established there (SICO). On the matter of the abovementioned violence, the union leaders systematically declined to comment, hinting that they had no wish to revisit the past" (31).
The ILO takes a neutral stance on the issue because they were not investigating these past deaths.
When union leaders were declining to comment they were union leaders of SICO, the union currently at the Carepa plant NOT SINALTRAINAL (the union of which at least 6 members/supporters have been killed).
SICO is made up of new workers and a new union which was formed after the 1996 killing of Isidro Gil by paramilitaries (Sorger). They earn approx. 1/3 the wages and have poor working conditions (Sorger). The death of Isidro Gil is the one we discuss in the opinion article in the Sil with very direct ties to Coca-Cola.
http://thesil.ca/blog/opinions/vote-against-mac-contract-with-coke/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)