"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/
