Coke Lies About Providing Security for Colombian Trade Unionists

by Snare Eire Wed Dec 03, 2003 14:51

Well Anne, any comments,cat got your ex-trotskyist tongue then? Or is it that you've been told to 'Bi ciuin' by the shinner spinners in case you embarass the young revolutionarys so busy recruiting on campus. Guess its another case of the Justin Morans but its the right flank that has been reigned in this time.

While Im on the subject dont be sad Justin, tiocfaidh do la, when they happily ramble into coalition and we can tell the socialist republicans from the socialite republicans.

by Chris Wed Dec 03, 2003 15:31

"Snare Eire" would you prefer that we laugh at you or feel sorry for you?

by Snare Eire Wed Dec 03, 2003 19:37

Look out the window Chris, oh dear just missed me, well better luck next time. Just remember that there are always netcops watching netcops who watch out for speed cops (Or should that read genuine community police). Tiocfaidh ar la de da!

by Sean MacGabhainn Fri Dec 05, 2003 00:49

There could not be a clearer example of why Gearoid O’Loinsigh is pursuing a politically sectarian line on this issue than the opening lines of this page. The SIPTU workers in Coca Cola have opposed the boycott tactic. Since my last little spat with Gearoid, I have taken the trouble (like I said I would) to try and get some information. Unlike the student (temporary) radicals (and the half-hearted attempts of Gearoid O Loinsigh) I have made the effort to find out what they (the workers) have done and what their real position is.

They have taken a principled position of showing solidarity with Colombian trade union colleagues whose tactics they disagree with. Every meeting they have held has been a genuine attempt to put pressure on the company and to get objective information from trade union sources.

The lying and base association of Irish Coca Cola workers’ position with that of the multinational company is just another example of the unprincipled and arrogant actions of people more interested in political sectarianism than in political solidarity. No solidarity activist or campaign worth its salt would gratuitously attack and slander possible or potential allies like this. At the very least, they would not try and stir the pot in this manner that only drives a potential further wedge between SIPTU workers and solidarity work.

One more thing, Gearoid has not answered my question from the other page ("SIPTU meeting and Coca Cola"). Why would the International Union of Food Workers, that has defended Guatemalan Coke workers, suddenly turn around and question parts (not all!) of the position of the Sinantrainal union? Why would they take the trouble to refer to “sweeping and unsubstantiated allegations”. Even if you characterise the IUF as a bureaucratic organisation, it just doesn’t make sense. What is in it for the IUF and the millions of workers it represents? Are they deliberately trying to subvert a Cocal Cola union in Colombia but not one in Guatemala?

On the question of the security agreement, the workers told me they were told of a security arrangement offered to a number of unions in Coca Cola at the end of the summer (doubtless as a result of union pressure). Armoured vehicles are provided via the state to trade union leaders (note: in reporting this, it does not imply support for the Colombian state, any more than saying that Coca Cola did something makes you a Coca Cola fan). Other issues like transportation, paid leave, job transfers, security training, loans for secure housing, are offered by the bottlers (even the Sinantrainal statement above mentions a bottler loaning an armoured car to a Sinantrainal member).

If the recent information is a complete fabrication it would obviously be a service both to the trade union movement here, the solidarity campaign and to Colombian workers to expose it as such. It is simply sectarian to attack the workers for reporting information that was given to them. The Sinantrainal statement above is from May. I have no reason to disbelieve that that was the situation in May. It may well be the situation now, but it does not constitute a reason for a further sectarian attack on Irish Coca Cola workers.

by R Isible Fri Dec 05, 2003 01:41

SmcG wrote: "On the question of the security agreement, the workers told me they were told of a security arrangement offered to a number of unions in Coca Cola at the end of the summer (doubtless as a result of union pressure)."

And that strange thing is that The Coca-Cola Company deny assiduously that they have any responsibility for the actions of _Bebidas y Alimentos_ or of _Pan-American Beverages_ or their management or employees. I'd be really interested to see a paper statement or a copy of an email from these people that you say you're in touch with SMcG because that would make it possible to reopen cases against The Coca-Cola Company as opposed to its sub-contractors.

What exactly is the "solidarity" that the alleged "workers" are "demonstrating"? Is there a statement of that available? Also is it anything other than paper solidarity?

Finally, would you care to explain how GO'L is "sectarian" please?

by John Meehan Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:52

"Seán MacGabhann" (a pseudonym?) writes :

"If the recent information is a complete fabrication it would obviously be a service both to the trade union movement here, the solidarity campaign and to Colombian workers to expose it as such. It is simply sectarian to attack the workers for reporting information that was given to them."

It appears to me that the information supplied by G Ó Loinsigh, LASC, the ICTU Global Solidarity Bulletin, SINALTRAINAL, the World Social Forum, etc etc constitute more reliable sources than who or whatever the source(s) are for the information above given to the Coca Cola workers in Ireland.

It also appears to me that the IFUT statement referring to "unsubstantiated" allegations is discredited.

by John Meehan Fri Dec 05, 2003 15:34

above should be the "IUF" statement is discredited - apologies to the federation of university teachers in Ireland!

by Sean MacGabhainn Fri Dec 05, 2003 20:47

John Meehan writes that the IUF is discredited because LASC, the World Social Forum and Global Solidarity support the Sinantrainal boycott. First of all the ICTU’s Global Solidarity has no such position. Their document says that Coke has a case to answer. They do. Have you any more to contribute on the IUF? What grounds do you have for dismissing their characterisation of Sinantrianal’s case as being damaged because it is accompanied by “unsubstantiated and sweeping allegations”.

Gearoid O Loinsigh reproduced an IUF statement on the “SIPTU meeting and Coca Cola” page that contained assertions about factual inaccuracies in the Sinantrainal claim. If there are such inaccuracies it is unfortunate, because it weakens the case and makes it difficult for an organisation like the IUF (who it appears support third world workers’ rights all over the place) to fully come in behind them – and in any case the boycott call is inherently divisive.

I repeat, what is in it for the IUF?

What Mr Meehan is confused about is that I also do not deny that Coca Cola has a case to answer. It is the height of middle class arrogance to say to Irish workers: “Sacrifice your jobs on behalf of our campaign in Colombia, oh, and by the way, if you do lose your jobs, it won’t be our fault, it will be the company’s”. The other refrain is; “You won’t lose your jobs because we are running a ‘symbolic’ (read ‘ineffective’) boycott on behalf of workers far away that will just make us feel good and will have no effect on their plight”.

If you want an effecive boycott, then workers lose jobs as productin is ratinalised. If you want workers to retain their jobs then run an ineffective 'feel good' campaign. Be honest.

One way to put effective pressure on Coca Cola is to mobilise the workers in Coca Cola. But that is excluded by the tactics pursued and blindly followed by those who think that promoting a boycoitt and attacking Irish Coca Cola workers for sectarian ideological reasons is more important than doing something that is both effective and progressive.

Coca Cola is a US multinational that is tied up with and promotes US capitalism. It has been associated with the attempted coup in Venezuela and it has a serious case to answer for bottlers in Colombia who threatened to exterminate the union. It should be forced to answer those questions. A boycott could only be a last resort if you despaired of the ability of unionised workers in the Coca Cola system to join a solidarity campaign on behalf of Colombian workers. Work stoppages would not be ruled out, though admittedly difficult to obtain.

But the campaign despaired before it started. The Irish Coca Cola workers were non-persons (as were the SIPTU shop workers in UCD) who did not count in the headlong rush to assert that workers rights could be won in Colombia by not drinking a can of coke here. The campaign was prepared to watch Irish workers lose their jobs and potentially force them on to the other side of the debate. Luckily, the workers have been too sensible and too organised for that up to now. But give or take a few more ‘radicals’ pushing the boycott line with impressionable students and you never know – you might push them on to the company side. Then wouldn’t all your prejudices be wrapped up nice and tight for Christmas?

Questions are also asked above about the information given to Irish Coca Colas workers that may have relevance to the Sinantrainal claim. Want to know more? Ask them yourself. SIPTU is in the telephone book. It is the big building you can see sticking out at one end of Butt Bridge, the next one down from O’Connell Street.

by John Meehan Sat Dec 06, 2003 22:23

"Sean MacGabhainn" (a psuedonym?) writes in reply to me :

"What Mr Meehan is confused about is that I also do not deny that Coca Cola has a case to answer. It is the height of middle class arrogance to say to Irish workers: “Sacrifice your jobs on behalf of our campaign in Colombia, oh, and by the way, if you do lose your jobs, it won’t be our fault, it will be the company’s”. The other refrain is; “You won’t lose your jobs because we are running a ‘symbolic’ (read ‘ineffective’) boycott on behalf of workers far away that will just make us feel good and will have no effect on their plight”."

Problem : I never wrote the statements he puts in quotation marks above - nor did anyone else on indymedia who supports the Coca Cola boycott. SMcG made up these quotes her/himself, and then criticises them

A dubious debating method.

No point discussing anything on this basis - strengthens my suspicions that "Sean MacGabhainn" is a pseudonym.

by Joseph Toomey Sat Dec 06, 2003 22:49

What's your problem, John? You bleat and bleat about people not using their real names and then when someone actually does, you say over and over that they are making up their own name!

How do we know that you are the real John Meehan? Who appointed you judge of the authenticity of others?

And yes, that is my real name. I suppose you're going to say I'm a Garda agent or something? I agree with your post and with your take on the issues, but not with your rudeness towards Sean.