New Events

National

no events posted in last week

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

Anti-Empire

offsite link North Korea Increases Aid to Russia, Mos... Tue Nov 19, 2024 12:29 | Marko Marjanovi?

offsite link Trump Assembles a War Cabinet Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?

offsite link Slavgrinder Ramps Up Into Overdrive Tue Nov 12, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?

offsite link ?Existential? Culling to Continue on Com... Mon Nov 11, 2024 10:28 | Marko Marjanovi?

offsite link US to Deploy Military Contractors to Ukr... Sun Nov 10, 2024 02:37 | Field Empty

Anti-Empire >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link Alternative Copy of thesaker.is site is available Thu May 25, 2023 14:38 | Ice-Saker-V6bKu3nz
Alternative site: https://thesaker.si/saker-a... Site was created using the downloads provided Regards Herb

offsite link The Saker blog is now frozen Tue Feb 28, 2023 23:55 | The Saker
Dear friends As I have previously announced, we are now “freezing” the blog.? We are also making archives of the blog available for free download in various formats (see below).?

offsite link What do you make of the Russia and China Partnership? Tue Feb 28, 2023 16:26 | The Saker
by Mr. Allen for the Saker blog Over the last few years, we hear leaders from both Russia and China pronouncing that they have formed a relationship where there are

offsite link Moveable Feast Cafe 2023/02/27 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 27, 2023 19:00 | cafe-uploader
2023/02/27 19:00:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of

offsite link The stage is set for Hybrid World War III Mon Feb 27, 2023 15:50 | The Saker
Pepe Escobar for the Saker blog A powerful feeling rhythms your skin and drums up your soul as you?re immersed in a long walk under persistent snow flurries, pinpointed by

The Saker >>

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail?supporter? Anthony

offsite link Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony

offsite link Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony

offsite link RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony

offsite link Waiting for SIPO Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

Voltaire Network
Voltaire, international edition

offsite link Voltaire, International Newsletter N?113 Fri Dec 20, 2024 10:42 | en

offsite link Pentagon could create a second Kurdish state Fri Dec 20, 2024 10:31 | en

offsite link How Washington and Ankara Changed the Regime in Damascus , by Thierry Meyssan Tue Dec 17, 2024 06:58 | en

offsite link Statement by President Bashar al-Assad on the Circumstances Leading to his Depar... Mon Dec 16, 2024 13:26 | en

offsite link Voltaire, International Newsletter N?112 Fri Dec 13, 2024 15:34 | en

Voltaire Network >>

Colombian Coke Workers back in Ireland

category national | worker & community struggles and protests | feature author Monday October 11, 2004 16:27author by Indymedia Ireland Editorial Group - Indymedia Ireland Report this post to the editors

Sinaltrainal leader to seek union and public support for Coke boycott

Edgar Paez a leader of the Colombian Coca Cola workers’ union Sinaltrainal is due to visit Ireland to meet with Irish trade unionists and to address the Irish public. The international boycott of Coke products launched by Sinaltrainal last year has received the support of three unions that operate in Ireland.

So far, Unison, NIPSA and the TUI have backed the boycott at their annual conference. The decision by the TUI was the most public and controversial decision. SIPTU officials have brought pressure ot bear on the TUI and have tried to get the union to reverse its conference decision.

Edgar Paez was invited here by the Latin America Solidarity Centre to meet those trade unionists and student organisations that have given their support to the boycott. The boycott campaign has met with fierce opposition from sections of SIPTU. The food and drinks branch has been to the forefront in that campaign. However, it would seem that their position is not by any means the unanimous view of the Irish trade union movement.

On Thursday 7th of October a motion was put to the Dublin Regional Conference of SIPTU to disinvest from Coke and sell their shares. The same trade-unionists who said that their disagreement with the boycott was tactical also opposed disinvestment. However, despite a concerted campaign by the Regional Executive the conference only narrowly voted not to sell its shares in Coke. The vote was 156 against the motion and 142 in favour.

It would seem that the “position of the ICTU” might not be in line with that of many of its members. Edgar Paez has requested a meeting with the workers of Coca Cola in a letter to Jack O Connor the president of SIPTU. A meeting has duly been arranged for just before the public meeting on Monday. He has also arranged to meet people from the TUI and NIPSA during his visit.

Sinaltrainal have had a tough time from trade union officials as outlined by its president Javier Correa who has accused some IUF (International Union of Food and Drink Workers) officials of having a similar ideology to Coke. Coke have also recently contracted Jack Otero - a leading trade unionist from the AFL-CIO in the USA - to run its counter-campaign.

Edgar will also speak at Wynne’s Hotel, at 7.30 PM on Monday October 18th. This event is organised by Lasc and all are welcome.

Indymedia Ireland Archive on the battle between Coke and Colombian workers

coke3web_1.jpg

author by Jamespublication date Tue Oct 12, 2004 13:52author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It is unfortunate that the Sinaltrainal leader is reported on Indymedia as placing the International Union of Foodworkers (IUF) on the same plain as Coca Cola management. Anyone who knows anything about the IUF knows that this is, quite frankly, nonsense.

It may be that he is misreported – as can quite often happen in these forms of free flowing Internet debates. If he is accurately reported it is unfortunate because it cuts off supporters of trade union rights who may also support the boycott from going to www.iuf.org to see what the IUF does to defend trade union rights around the world. A difference over the boycott tactic does not equal support for attacks on trade unionists. The debate will descend in name calling if this type of allegation starts doing the rounds again.

author by Lasc - lascpublication date Wed Oct 13, 2004 14:30author address author phone Report this post to the editors

As the person who cid the interview with Javier Correa what he said was that some trade unionists (IUF in particular) had no ideological disagreement with Coca Cola. The report on Indymedia is therefore accurate.

It is not name calling point out that coca cola have hired Jack Otero a former executive member of the AFL-CIO the largest union federation in the US to runs its anti boycott campaign.

The differences with teh IUF are not tactical. The IUF does not accept that Coke has a case to answer (publicly, though one internal document does mention one case that MIGHT have some merits to it).

Please go check this on their site and read their communiques carefully. We have been down this road before and we do't intend wasting energy correcting misperceptions of the IUF.

perhaps you could come to the meeting and challenge Sinaltrainal on the issue.

author by Jamespublication date Wed Oct 13, 2004 15:26author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I have no problem with the comment on Coke hiring in a former union official in the states. If you want to attack the bosses, fine by me.

I have a problem with the IUF comment. It is still nonsense. It is part of a generalised attack with no specific information. Who is he talking about, what comment(s), etc. Despite the claim above, this was never clarified, apart form when the IUF pointed out glaring errors about oppression of Coca Cola workers in Iran, where there is no Coke plant. The only criteria appear to be: support the boycott or we will call you a friend of the bosses.

All the evidence suggests that the IUF fights for the rights of foodworkers and accurately reflects the views of the vast majority of Coca Cola workers in Latin America and the rest of the world who are against the boycott tactic. This includes those in other unions in Coca Cola in Colombia. See www.iuf.org. The IUF fight the bosses everywhere, try and get a common agreement on rights for those working for Coca Cola bottlers – except for Colombia? Does that make sense to anyone?

Being against a particular tactic does not make a trade unionist or a worker a supporter of the bosses. That is clearly nonsense, but it is implied in the statement above and has been amplified into a sectarian harangue in the past. Maybe all that is starting again. Though it is encouraging that the bona fides of Coca Cola workers in Ireland are accepted, through the agreement to meet them to discuss the situation and to see if common action is possible (in the absence of agreement on the boycott campaign).

By the way, how come Sinaltrainal still produce Coca Cola in the factories in Colombia? There does not seem to be a boycott there. Granted they are a minority in the workforce, but how come they do not argue for a boycott of production there – the usual way in which workers take action. It would certainly make more sense to the Irish Coca Cola workers if they did.

author by Lasc - Lascpublication date Wed Oct 13, 2004 21:56author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The reference to Iran is historic. It talks about the situation before the revolution when Coca Cola enjoyed good relations with the Shah. So much so that Coke was one of the first companies to be nationalised and Iran now produces its own Cola drink.

As for Colombia the boycott also exists there. it is a consumer boycott there as everywhere else.

james, you seem to a pen name for NM again. Judging by style and smart alec content.

author by Jamespublication date Wed Oct 13, 2004 23:38author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The comment on SIPTU is wrong too. What shares in Coke? Why do you assume that SIPTU have any? Is this another example of: anyone who disagrees with us on the boycott has “no ideological disagreement with Coca Cola”.

In relation to that phrase (from Mr or Ms LASC above), I have to ask: is there something lost in translation? What exactly is that comment supposed to mean: “ideological disagreement”? Why not go up to the Coca Cola workers and tell them: “you are in ideological agreement with Coca Cola”. Inform them that they will not be accepted as honest-to-goodness members of the working class until they work out their “Ideological” disagreements with their bosses. You might get a few funny looks before they decide to ignore you as a harmless enough loon and go on their way.

The on-the-surface inoffensive looking motion at the SIPTU regional conference was defeated because it was exposed as a cover for the boycott campaign, and the references to it here from supporters of the boycott demonstrate that to be the case. The Coca Cola workers called for an ethical investment policy that would affect investments in all multinationals. They also called for justice for Colombian workers and detailed their activity on this issue. The Education Branch, who proposed the motion, received an education. Given that the majority of the 4,000 trade unionists who have been murdered in Colombia have been public sector workers and a huge number of them teachers, I wonder when Irish educators and radical students will start calling for a permanent boycott of classes in a gesture of solidarity. Perhaps telling ordinary production workers what to do is a more satisfying way of passing the time. Perhaps they are in need of “ideological” re-education.

That being the case, the whole of Indymedia has been overtaken by the concerns of one trade union with one position and the attacks on thousands of trade unionists in Colombia ignored (never mind the attitudes of other unions in Coke in Colombia). The Role of state forces that run the right wing death squads has been effectively whitewashed in a crusade against one multinational corporation. This gigantic international flop is only kept going because of the iconography of Coca Cola as a negative talisman for US capitalism and US hegemony.

But while radicals fight a phantom, the state apparatus and its henchmen and allies in all walks of the economy and society get away with murder.

(I suppose the comment on Iran under the Shah is as “historic” (that’s a new one) as the photograph from Kent State in 1968 above, when National Guardsmen shot down and killed four anti-Vietnam protesters at Kent State university: an event now being blamed on, you guessed it, Coca Cola!)

author by pcpublication date Thu Oct 14, 2004 03:31author address author phone Report this post to the editors

A group of activists at New York University turned the school's many Coke vending machines into mock crime scenes to protest Coke's human rights abuses in Columbia bottling plants and raise student awareness about the issue.

Related Link: http://nyc.indymedia.org/feature/display/126818
author by Observerpublication date Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:59author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"The on-the-surface inoffensive looking motion at the SIPTU regional conference was defeated because it was exposed as a cover for the boycott campaign, and the references to it here from supporters of the boycott demonstrate that to be the case."

Wouldn't have anything to do with with branch members being mandated to vote against it, on the threat of expulsion? Course it wouldn't.
Democracy, me arse!!

author by Jamespublication date Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:22author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Apologies, the Kent State killings occurred on May 4 1970, not 1968. The picture above is of Jeffrey Millar, one of the four victims of the National Guardsmen, the state militia. However, I was correct in saying they were not killed by Coca Cola. And no, I don’t know if the Governor of Kent state was friendly with any Coca Cola CEOs or if he participated in suppressing the wages of Coca Cola workers.

Observer:
Observer starts the kind of rubbish comment that plagued this discussion last year. He writes concerning the way delegates voted at the SIPTU regional conference: “Wouldn't have anything to do with with [sic] branch members being mandated to vote against it, on the threat of expulsion? Course it wouldn't. Democracy, me arse!!”

It is now incumbent on supporters of the boycott to step in and to begin to distance themselves from this type of rubbish statement. It gives a completely false picture of life within a trade union. Criticise the bureaucracy fine, but this is just pandering to right wing and, dare I suggest it, petty bourgeois conceptions of trade union democracy. After the vote, which those opposing the motion fought openly and clearly, everyone said how much they enjoyed the debate and its ppolitical clarity. The suggestion of coercion is patent nonsense and an insult to all the delegates.

author by Curiouspublication date Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:37author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"The suggestion of coercion is patent nonsense and an insult to all the delegates."

So you are saying that no delegates were mandated by their branch on what way to vote on this motion?
Can a branch be mandated in what way to vote for a regional conference?

author by Chekovpublication date Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:41author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Once again we have a lot of criticism from SIPTU officials (which I assume you are). Fair enough. But what we don't have is any, and I mean any, suggestions for alternative ways to show support to the Colombian workers. What are you proposing? Because without this, you are just doing the boss's job.

author by Jamespublication date Thu Oct 14, 2004 13:07author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The Irish Coca Cola workers were the first to bring this matter up within the European Works Council, before the boycott call started. They have put it on the agenda again.

They protested at the visit of the Colombian Vice President to Leinster House. They raised with him state collusion with, and direction of, death squads. No Boycotters there, so they probably don’t know this.

They have had, alongside the ICTU, meetings with Coke management pressing them to resolve the issue with Sinaltrainal.

They organised a public meeting on the issue. Your South America correspondent, the LASC spokesperson, managed to find not much positive to say about it in his ‘report’.

They are participating in a joint Irish-British trade union delegation to Colombia, where they will meet all the parties and will assess the situation first hand.

A lot more could be done if the grandstanding stopped and a sincere attempt to find a common way forward in opposition to the death squads in Colombia was engaged in. The strategy of organised boycott based on the views of one trade union that has suffered repression is an obstacle. It is a question of whether campaigners can come to a mature consideration of the gains that could be won by dropping the boycott and unifying in a joint campaign. Singing from the same hymn sheet is sometimes the best way of presenting a united front of opposition to injustice. All the other differences that people and groups have could be subordinated to a common goal for a limited period in the context of winning an agreed strategy. It might be ‘powerful’, more so than what we have now at any rate.

I am not a SIPTU official.

author by pcpublication date Thu Oct 14, 2004 13:55author address author phone Report this post to the editors

there was pieace in the info today about how the former? su president is not going to a honourary degree presentation of the former head of coke because of reports of "bullying" in coca cola plants...

as usual can't get direct link to it

author by Gonzopublication date Thu Oct 14, 2004 19:17author email reclaim98 at hotmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

...this makes Sinn Fein's bid to open the European Social Forum in London this weekend look totally hypocritical.

"Sinn Fein Assembly member and Councillor Michael Ferguson said that if a rescue package for the [Lisburn] plant could not be found, he would be urging Coca-Cola to site their new Irish headquarters “as close as possible” to Lambeg."


Sources:

http://www.sluggerotoole.com/archives/2004/09/republican_soli.php

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/business/story.jsp?story=566640

http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/search?q=coca+cola

author by Jamespublication date Fri Oct 15, 2004 02:50author address author phone Report this post to the editors

What is Gonzo saying, that Coca Cola plants should be shut down and the workers thrown out of jobs? Logically, that should be the case in Colombia too. I suspect that Gonzo might have a problem with Sinaltrainal on that one, never mind Irish Coca Cola workers.

Someday, someone in or around Indymedia will get their head around this one.

Workers in Ireland and Columbia have a right to their jobs, to live and work without fear or the threat of violence, poverty, misery or unemployment. As socialists, as trade unionists, or just as democrats, it is our job to defend and to vindicate that right. It is the job of Columbian workers to stand up for their rights and to show solidarity one with the other. It is the job of Irish workers to show solidarity with their Columbian brothers and sisters. It is not the job of Columbian workers to tell Irish Workers how to do that job in Ireland, anymore than it is the job of Irish workers to tell Columbian workers how best to defend themselves in Columbia. Defending Columbian Coca Cola workers means also defending Irish Coca Cola workers.

Any solidarity campaigner who thinks it a good thing that Coca Cola plants should shut down is living in cloud cuckoo land. A strategy that sees the struggle of workers in lesser developed countries as on a higher political plane than those in countries with a higher standard of living used to be called ‘third worldism’. Gonzo has just fallen into one of the essential traps of that creed. It is one that is implicit in the boycott strategy. Irish workers jobs are of less value politically than those of Columbian workers – that is the essential message being preached. It means that unity between Coca Cola workers and a defence of the rights and jobs of all coca Cola workers is secondary to defending the rights and jobs only of workers in Coca Cola in Columbia – despite the fact that the strategy being followed is a strategy favoured by a minority of Coca Cola workers in Columbia.

Any public representative who is defending the rights of workers to their jobs is to be commended.

Without a job a worker and his/her family is thinking only of the immediate day-to-day needs of the situation. They become isolated and increasingly destitute individualists. With a job, workers are in a position to collectively organise a defence of their immediate interests and those of their fellow and sister workers in Ireland and/or in Columbia.

One union in Columbia has gone on an ultra-left path internationally in defence of its members’ interests locally, because of the extreme repression it has faced. In a desire to show solidarity with a country facing an onslaught from US imperialism and its local agents, anti-globalisation campaigners have adopted this ultra-leftism unthinkingly.

It is time to think. Maybe Gonzo's message will help.

author by Jamespublication date Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:45author address author phone Report this post to the editors

1. Although it is frequently 'petty' the reference a few comments up should be to 'petit' bourgeois thinking.

2. The reference earlier to the Governor of Kent State should of course refer to the Governor of Ohio, in which Kent State University is situated, where the National Guard killed four anti-Vietnam War student demonstrators in 1970 – the poster (literally, the picture) above suggests that they were killed by Coca Cola. Artistic license is one thing but I assume that we are supposed to base our observations on fact, not fiction.

author by Petit poispublication date Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:07author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Tell me James, if you define someone who questions the democracy of the union as petit bourgeois, what are you?
A 'professional revolutionary'? Or a petty bureaucrat perhaps?

author by Jamespublication date Fri Oct 15, 2004 13:13author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I did not allege what you suggest, read more carefully. There was no lack of democracy in the debate. The debate was an exercise in democracy. In that sense the comment I complained of certainly "questions.. democracy".

The comment was also an insult to SIPTU delegates, all of them. It was a typical comment which substitutes stupid slander for a discussion that will take the discussion forward. It destroyed the discussion last year. Since it is all on the pro-boycott side, that side needs to distance itself from it. No sign as yet.

author by Petit poispublication date Fri Oct 15, 2004 13:44author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The contribution which you want people to distance themselves from didn't say anything about the democracy of the debate. What they questioned was the democracy of the vote on the motion.
I notice you didn't answer curious!

author by Jamespublication date Fri Oct 15, 2004 14:36author address author phone Report this post to the editors

What lack of "democracy on the vote"? This is just splitting hairs and going off at a tangent. Some people think democracy is served by mandating delegates after a discussion at branch or section level. Some think it is served by sending un-mandated delegates.

Either way (and I don't know which method was used at the SIPTU regional conference – it is irrelevant), the comment, including the reference to his/her posterior, was typical of the dismissive and arrogant and middle class contempt for discussion and debate among elected delegates at a trade union conference. The stuff about threats and expulsion is really not worthy of comment. As I say, it is typical of a certain mindset that the boycott tactic, and the way it has been conducted here, encourages.

If there was a problem with democracy, we would have heard about it by now. The comment was from someone desperate to make a point, throwing a pebble into the pond in order to see the splash. If boycott supporters are happy with this method of conducting debate that is their business. It does not impress members of SUPTU (but what do they know, only being workers?).

author by amanda allaway - nipsa memberpublication date Tue Oct 19, 2004 22:15author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Well done to LASC and those who supported them in organising the event last night at which Edgar Paez delivered a most compelling case for the boycott. I hope that anyone who was there who did not support the boycott has been convinced of the validity of Sinaltrainal's position. I understand that even the IUF who opposed the boycott and attempted to undermine the claims made in relation to Coke's involvement have now backtracked - perhaps someone can confirm that IUF have shifted their position as I wonder what effect this might have on SIPTU - particularly in light of the fact that Coke are now seeking to close down plants in Ireland. Will SIPTU now be calling for solidarity when they seem reluctant to give it to their colleagues in colombia - it appears from last nights meeting that many SIPTU members are very concerned about the position in relation to the boycott.

author by Mattpublication date Fri Oct 29, 2004 18:53author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The IUF seems to have a long history of sectarian anti-communism. See the following:

Introduction by the General Secretary to the
Report on Activities to the 23rd IUF Congress,
Geneva, April 15 - 18, 1997
Cuba is, at this point, a political irrelevancy. We find its regime repellent, but we must remain open to the needs of the Cuban workers to deal with the problems of market Stalinism on that small island. Our last congress already declared that the politically senseless and vindictive blockade imposed by the United States should be lifted. Cuba is in no way a national security threat to the United States. If there is any good we can do in strengthening the resolve and the ability of the Cuban unions to defend their members’ interests it is our duty not to ignore this opportunity.

Re: Philippines
Joe Tampinco, a former officer of the National Sugar Workers Federation/KMU who had left the NFSW and had helped establish a rival union, was assassinated in July 1988. Dan Gallin, Secretary General of the IUF, believing the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) was behind the assasination, charged the NFSW with "moral complicity" in the killing. He justified this by claiming that since the NFSW was controlled by the CPP, it shared the burden of the assassination. (However, Gallin admitted to International Labour Reports in a February 1989 interview that he did not even have substantial circumstantial evidence to support either his claim of CPP control over the NFSW or of the NFSW's "moral complicity" for the killing.)
In response to the IUF attack, which was the latest in a string of controversial issues, three of the four KMU-affiliated unions that were also affiliated with the IUF withdrew from the IUF, claiming that the IUF had politically intervened in their internal affairs, discriminated against them and tried to split their organizations. For details, see Scipes, n.d.

Re: South Africa
Negative, i.e. denunciatory, passages or items have abounded in the debates about labour internationalism and socialism during the last few years. Here is one from a letter by Dan Gallin, General Secretary of the International Union of Food and Allied Workers (IUF), criticising the South African Congress of Trade Unions (The ANC's traditional union ally from the 1950s to the 1980s):
“SACTU in exile represented never more than a small clique of parasites living off Soviet subventions who put more energy into defending their sectarian turf...than into fighting apartheid.” (Vol. 16, No. 2, 1991:5).

author by Colombia Solidarity Campaignpublication date Tue Nov 09, 2004 15:02author address author phone Report this post to the editors

SINALTRAINAL represents the majority of unionised workers, more than all of the other unions combined. While there are a couple of unions (most notably the one which took over at the Carepa plant after SINALTRAINAL was wiped out by the paramilitaries there) which, for their own reasons, are not in support of the campaign against Coca-Cola, SINALTRAINAL has earned the active support of the largest union federation in Colombia, the CUT (Unitary Workers Federation) as well as the World Social Forum.

Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2024 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy