Sunday, November 13, 2005
Response to anon (please don't read if you're not intrested. it's very long)
This is a quick response to anon (about 2 posts down in the comments).
Who do you work for? You rip apart pepsi but try to portray coke as an innocent victim. I smell a coka cola manager! (although probablly more likelly a fat diabetic guy who doesn't wanna give up his coke). I don't have time to give an indepth researched answer, so instead i'll just uneducatedly rant:
So your defence is 'everyone is doing it". I went to highschool and I had decent parents, I know that that defence doesn't hold up in court (at least parent court). If Coke is such a great company why aren't the leaders in creating a safe working enviroment in these troubled nations. Instead they go into poor countries and get away with as much as they can. This is one (of the many) problems of economic globalization, it leads to deregulation espicially in human rights and the envirmoent. thank you WTO.
Here's the thing about unions. I like unions. They are usually good. But often union heads don't always represent the intrest thier workers, and in some cases the unions heads will out right sell out thier workers. The IUF is an international union representative. So if people boycott coke in lets say north america or europe (where many campus are starting to ban coke) Then coke sales will drop and this will eventually trickle down so that the IUF will also get less money from less union dues, etc. Also with such a large union it's more then possible the some of the leaders in the IUF are being 'taken care off' by coke. I don't care what some international union organization seated safely in Geneva has to say. Lets ask the workers getting shot or the people being force fed bottles of coke because the corporation used up all thier water. Of course coke will want to avoid boycotss. In places like grocery stores, people prefer to buy pepsi. Coke is the number one seller because of things like exclusive contracts with universities and high schools, etc.
yes, I have. It's called free trade. It's an effort to create fair trading policies within the context of this globalized economy which will lead to better working conditions for places like China. But please remember that we were talking about Coke, a transnational corporation (TNC). China is a country. Under the current economic globalization (from now on i'll just say globalization) these TNC's will go to countries where they can get labour for as low as possible and in a country with as few regulations as possible. Uncer this system thing like the WTO lobby for these TNC's and try to get even lower regulations (usually shooting down any enviromental complaints, etc). So third world countries tend to de-regulate and develop poorer working conditions to appease the TNC's and convince them to set up shop in thier country. Once the TNC's are in the country, if the country or the people try to create better working conditions by creating more enviromental regulations or forming unions, increasing minimum wage, etc then either the WTO will shoot them down or else the TNC will just pick up and go to an even poorer country, devastating the first countries economy. I'm not saying that China is innocent, but it's because in large part of the TNC's that places like CHina have such shitty conditions. This is like economic globalization 101.
the only person the actually interviewed in this article was from coca-cola management. They didn't take the time to go talk to the researcher in India or anyone else. They quoted other people but only interviewed a coca cola manager. That seems a tad biased to me.
Just because somthing is mainstream doesn't make it reliable. CNN is, in my mind, a joke. And Fox News... well, it just makes CNN look good. These things become mainstream because they have money behind them. News is a buisness, and it is often owned by large corporations. The corporations want thier intrests met (hence they buy news stations). And because somthing is not mainstream doesn't mean it's wrong. I often read the Socialist Worker. Clearly a left wing newspaper, but I have a friend in journalism who said that despite it's bias, it is considered a very dependable resource. Everything has to be taken on a case by case basis, you can never totally trust any source all the time. It's also this comment that you made that leads me to believe that you have a bias for coke.
a couple of things. First of all are you seriously trying to make Coke out to be a victim? A multi billion dollar corporation that controls the lives of thousands of workers and affect millions of consumers is getting picked on?!? Stop trying to gain sympathy for coke through victimization. I don't feel sorry for the company.
Second "a bunch of white middle-class kids looking for a cause if I ever saw one" what the fuck does that mean?!? ya, i'm white, middle class (maybe not as middle-class as I used to be, but thats beside the point), so now my opinion doesn't matter? sorry for the 'racial' and socio-economic class that I was born into. If I was a poor black kid or a rich white kid would my opinion be more or less valid? I'm not 'looking for a cause" like any cause will do. This is a real cause, workers rights, human rights and the enviroment. yes thats very broad but they are things that are worth fighting for no matter what your socio-econmic status is. so please don't try to make my opinions invalid because I am part of a majority. I also think that the downside of economic globalization far out way the good sides, but thats an entirely other debate (for which I have no time).
Who says we don't have support of the workers? I've already explained the down side of unions (very briefly). Heres a piece of gold from good ole wikipedia:
"SINALTRAINAL is a Colombian food industry labor union. They have repeatedly tried to form unions in Columbia for workers of Coca-Cola and have documentation of many members or leaders being murdered, kidnapped, and tortured. They are a central focus in the ongoing Stop Killer Coke movement[1] across college campuses." The IUF only represents workers who are unionized (probablly more in europe and north america). Coca Cola doesn't allow the columbians to get unionized and so then the IUF doesn't represent coca cola workers in columbia. So of course they are going to downplay any violence by coke in that country because they don't want thier workers in the richer countries to be affected. They turn a blind eye.
FINALLY, The reason why I talk about coke so much is not because I think pepsi is innocent or 'less bad'. It's because I was raised on coke, I love coke, I'll probablly die 10 years earlier then I should because of Coke. Really only my friends read this, and they know I love coke, so I used coke because I wanted to show that even though I was raised a coke kid I could still see the bad sides of this corporation.
Anon- if you're not a white middle class kid, then what are you (since it seems to matter so much). why don't you post your e-mail or a link to your website next time.
Who do you work for? You rip apart pepsi but try to portray coke as an innocent victim. I smell a coka cola manager! (although probablly more likelly a fat diabetic guy who doesn't wanna give up his coke). I don't have time to give an indepth researched answer, so instead i'll just uneducatedly rant:
"With respect to Coca Cola, the problem with violence against union activitists (and citizens for that matter) in Columbia is more a national, systemic problem there than a Coca Cola problem..."
So your defence is 'everyone is doing it". I went to highschool and I had decent parents, I know that that defence doesn't hold up in court (at least parent court). If Coke is such a great company why aren't the leaders in creating a safe working enviroment in these troubled nations. Instead they go into poor countries and get away with as much as they can. This is one (of the many) problems of economic globalization, it leads to deregulation espicially in human rights and the envirmoent. thank you WTO.
"At any rate, the International Union of Food Workers, et. al. (IUF) represents workers in Coca Cola plants in 23 countries, and they do not believe that Coca Cola Intl. is behind the violence in Columbia. They also do not support the boycott, as what good does it do to stop buying products made by union labour in 23 other countries..."
Here's the thing about unions. I like unions. They are usually good. But often union heads don't always represent the intrest thier workers, and in some cases the unions heads will out right sell out thier workers. The IUF is an international union representative. So if people boycott coke in lets say north america or europe (where many campus are starting to ban coke) Then coke sales will drop and this will eventually trickle down so that the IUF will also get less money from less union dues, etc. Also with such a large union it's more then possible the some of the leaders in the IUF are being 'taken care off' by coke. I don't care what some international union organization seated safely in Geneva has to say. Lets ask the workers getting shot or the people being force fed bottles of coke because the corporation used up all thier water. Of course coke will want to avoid boycotss. In places like grocery stores, people prefer to buy pepsi. Coke is the number one seller because of things like exclusive contracts with universities and high schools, etc.
"Another country with a horrible human rights record is, of course, China. Heard any calls for boycotts of their products lately?"
yes, I have. It's called free trade. It's an effort to create fair trading policies within the context of this globalized economy which will lead to better working conditions for places like China. But please remember that we were talking about Coke, a transnational corporation (TNC). China is a country. Under the current economic globalization (from now on i'll just say globalization) these TNC's will go to countries where they can get labour for as low as possible and in a country with as few regulations as possible. Uncer this system thing like the WTO lobby for these TNC's and try to get even lower regulations (usually shooting down any enviromental complaints, etc). So third world countries tend to de-regulate and develop poorer working conditions to appease the TNC's and convince them to set up shop in thier country. Once the TNC's are in the country, if the country or the people try to create better working conditions by creating more enviromental regulations or forming unions, increasing minimum wage, etc then either the WTO will shoot them down or else the TNC will just pick up and go to an even poorer country, devastating the first countries economy. I'm not saying that China is innocent, but it's because in large part of the TNC's that places like CHina have such shitty conditions. This is like economic globalization 101.
"The attached article from last month's Economist (an extremely reliable source of information) has more on Coke's efforts to rectify the problems."
the only person the actually interviewed in this article was from coca-cola management. They didn't take the time to go talk to the researcher in India or anyone else. They quoted other people but only interviewed a coca cola manager. That seems a tad biased to me.
"Pepsi is worse than Coke, and a quick internet search (of reliable, more mainstream sources) will reveal it has a history of union busting and disruptive practices, as well as the same water issues in India. "
Just because somthing is mainstream doesn't make it reliable. CNN is, in my mind, a joke. And Fox News... well, it just makes CNN look good. These things become mainstream because they have money behind them. News is a buisness, and it is often owned by large corporations. The corporations want thier intrests met (hence they buy news stations). And because somthing is not mainstream doesn't mean it's wrong. I often read the Socialist Worker. Clearly a left wing newspaper, but I have a friend in journalism who said that despite it's bias, it is considered a very dependable resource. Everything has to be taken on a case by case basis, you can never totally trust any source all the time. It's also this comment that you made that leads me to believe that you have a bias for coke.
"While the anti-globalization crowd (a bunch of white middle-class kids looking for a cause if I ever saw one...) pick on Coca-Cola, the IUF indicates that Pepsi keeps rolling along"
a couple of things. First of all are you seriously trying to make Coke out to be a victim? A multi billion dollar corporation that controls the lives of thousands of workers and affect millions of consumers is getting picked on?!? Stop trying to gain sympathy for coke through victimization. I don't feel sorry for the company.
Second "a bunch of white middle-class kids looking for a cause if I ever saw one" what the fuck does that mean?!? ya, i'm white, middle class (maybe not as middle-class as I used to be, but thats beside the point), so now my opinion doesn't matter? sorry for the 'racial' and socio-economic class that I was born into. If I was a poor black kid or a rich white kid would my opinion be more or less valid? I'm not 'looking for a cause" like any cause will do. This is a real cause, workers rights, human rights and the enviroment. yes thats very broad but they are things that are worth fighting for no matter what your socio-econmic status is. so please don't try to make my opinions invalid because I am part of a majority. I also think that the downside of economic globalization far out way the good sides, but thats an entirely other debate (for which I have no time).
"Question: Why does a group of activists calling for boycotts in defence of unionized workers not have the support of those unions?"
Who says we don't have support of the workers? I've already explained the down side of unions (very briefly). Heres a piece of gold from good ole wikipedia:
"SINALTRAINAL is a Colombian food industry labor union. They have repeatedly tried to form unions in Columbia for workers of Coca-Cola and have documentation of many members or leaders being murdered, kidnapped, and tortured. They are a central focus in the ongoing Stop Killer Coke movement[1] across college campuses." The IUF only represents workers who are unionized (probablly more in europe and north america). Coca Cola doesn't allow the columbians to get unionized and so then the IUF doesn't represent coca cola workers in columbia. So of course they are going to downplay any violence by coke in that country because they don't want thier workers in the richer countries to be affected. They turn a blind eye.
FINALLY, The reason why I talk about coke so much is not because I think pepsi is innocent or 'less bad'. It's because I was raised on coke, I love coke, I'll probablly die 10 years earlier then I should because of Coke. Really only my friends read this, and they know I love coke, so I used coke because I wanted to show that even though I was raised a coke kid I could still see the bad sides of this corporation.
Anon- if you're not a white middle class kid, then what are you (since it seems to matter so much). why don't you post your e-mail or a link to your website next time.
Comments:
Post a Comment
