Reply to a SIPTU member on the divisive Coca Cola boycott

national | anti-capitalism | news report

Saturday December 13, 2003 11:48

by Anne Speed - SIPTU Drinks tobacco Wholesale Distribution branch

Moving the discusssion on

Clarification of the position of the bottling plant shop stewards.
NOTE FROM AN IMC EDITOR: ANNE SPEED IS TALKING HERE ABOUT A CONTRIBUTION THAT WAS DOWNGRADED TO BEING A COMMENT ON A PREVIOUS STORY ON THE COKE BOYCOTT IN UCD. THE COMMENT SHE IS REFERRING TO FROM 'JOE' IS BELOW THE 'DIGGING A COKE HOLE' CONTRIBUTION. I HAVE PROVIDED A LINK TO THE THREAD IN QUESTION IN THE FIRST PART OF ANNE's CONTRIBUTION.

I saw two interesting contributions on the front page of Indy Media around lunchtime on Thursday, but they were subsequently removed and have now disappeared from the direct view of readers. They were a contribution by Sean MacGabhainn (“Digging a Coke Hole”) and a response from “Joe” – a SIPTU member. I would like to reply to Joe as I believe Joe has raised some points that need to be addressed (and I will attempt to ensure that Joe is made aware of them directly, if someone can tell me how I might get these points to him).

That said, I will now attempt to answer Joe's points.

I make this reply also partly in defence of bottling plant shop stewards, with whom I have fought for members’ interests for many years and whose strength of character and honesty is above reproach.

Neither I nor the bottling plant shop stewards accept any responsibility for a failure in communication with officers of UCD Students Union. In fact that shop stewards visited the campus days before the 1st referendum – on hearing of it from the son of a plant member - seeking opportunity to acquaint the student body with their concerns. They met one of the officers who advised that acceding to their request was not possible. They were neither advised nor facilitated as to how this might be made possible. In fact they are now convinced that the person/persons they spoke to had a vested interest in ensuring that this did not happen. As for LASC, at no stage - repeat, no stage – did its Irish representatives officially approach SIPTU Head Office or the drinks, tobacco, distribution branch seeking communication on Sinantrainal’s call for a boycott and LASC’s intention to build public support.

Furthermore, Joe makes comments about the students’ “impressions”. But impressions are not facts.

SIPTU shop stewards do not and never have declared their responsibility and do not see themselves as having a responsibility to defend Coca Cola’s public reputation. Their responsibility is to fairly defend their member’s interests. From that starting point they identify with the interests of all trade unionists, irrespective of location or nationality.

As to a reference to a “meeting” – what meeting, when, was Joe there? – in which there was “an implied physical threat” and “minders”. I have to say, unfortunately, that this is insulting and offensive nonsense. The three shop stewards who were in UCD and who participated in meetings on this matter with Coca Cola Atlanta management, an ICTU sponsored meeting with LASC and to date with Labour youth are all publicly identifiable and democratically appointed shop stewards.

These shop stewards do not accept that their public declaration of a material interest on an issue where they were excluded by means of deliberate manoeuvring is “interference”. They have a broader concept of democracy than that possessed by some politically manipulative leaders of students union bodies.

It has always been the case that members of SIPTU, as they considered voting on various serious matters or in election campaigns, have been subject to the attention of interested parties from outside the union, in the form of leaflets, papers and commentaries addressed to them in public spaces. The members of the union have never objected to this practice (they would think it absurd to do so). It would appear that the UCD Students Union or the authorities there have adopted practices of bureaucratic restriction on access to information from parties directly affected by the implications of a decision taken by students. As a result, students were deliberately excluded from access to information that would have affected their decision on how to vote in the referendum. I am afraid that I do not have the same experience in denying a right to information that some student leaders appear to be well versed in.

I do note your suggestion of the ending the boycott tactic in this campaign, but not the ending of pursuit of the interests of trade unionists who work for Coca Cola in either Colombia or in Ireland.

Shop stewards will be pursuing an independent course of action on the issues raised by Sinantrainal in conjunction with the ICTU and the IUF in the weeks to come. We have asked the Sinantrainal member we met to consider our response and alternative forms of solidarity action. That is on the record.