Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
is it okay to boycott all coke except coke in glass bottles?
dont think i could get through the summer without them :-(
it just genuinely tastes better from a glass bottle. and its fun. and old school 50s styley. cans + bottles = poop.
still sounds like at least 40% affectation ;)
I don't drink that shit any more. My body is a temple
but at least its not a pair of skinny jeans or a fashion mullet
by the way- did you bid on that copy of 'monster man' I linked to on here? Only went for £15...
too poor at the moment i'm afraid :-(
this is why student politics gets a bad reputation: because the people who are most involved in it are idiots who think theres actually a point to doing things like this, or in condemning the actions of israel or whatever. tools, the lot of them.
you weren't around in the 70s or 80s then to actually see student campuses where people gave a shit
is based less on reality and more on how evil they would like to believe coca cola are, based purely on the fact that theyre 'corporate capitalists, yeah'.
and not because knowledge of their abuses is quite widespread and easy to find?
there would surely be a lot more inept boycotts of other companies?
coke get targetted because, much like nike and the gap, it's quite well known how many abuses they commit.
a lot of what people use against coke are allegations, which are very rarely presented neutrally, and similarly i think in a lot of cases the fault lies with the governments of the areas at least as much as with coke; if coke are firing people unlawfully, why doesnt the government do something about it? if their plants are going to have a detrimental effect on the environment, dont allow them to build them.
as much as anything though, i dont like the idea of student meetings which barely meet quorums dictating something to the rest of the members of the union which i think is better left as an individual choice for them to make.
i do have to admit though that it probably is partly just that the people in unions who tend to lead these sorts of things are also the same people who lead 'anti-capitalist' movements which i think arent grounded in a realistic and balanced outlook.
'a lot of cases the fault lies with the governments'
This isn't an argument. If a man stands by watching some get raped, who is at fault? The rapist of the guy watching.
firstly, coke isnt raping people. its stopping employing them. secondly, the man in yours is implied to be an innocent bystander, unconnected to the incident. this isnt the case here. the governments sole responsibility is to protect its citizens. its job here is to set the boundaries of acceptable business practice. clearly, if it isnt doing that properly, then it must share much of the responsibility.
It doesn't absolve Coke of any blame, but the Government isn't innocent either.
And there's considerable evidence that Coke either contributes to, or knowingly ignores, the murder of Trade Unionists in Columbia.
Anyhow, of course the government are in part to blame, just as the bystander should've intervened, but that doesn't take any blame away from the original perpetrator.
its kind of like... right wing paramilitaries killing union leaders (ie prominent leftists) in a fairly chaotic state. i think blaming coke is wishful thinking. by coke, i mean the liquid here, not the white stuff. LOL.
i think exploitation is a word which is used too much, and too indiscriminately.
and the leftist guerillas are pretty distinct groupings. Before Christmas, I briefly met the principal solicitor who prosecuted coca cola on behalf of the International Labour Rights Fund and he was pretty sure the claims that Coke had hired paramilitaries were more than just conjecture. But I don't know, really...
most of the third world isn't exactly run along these lines, you know.
well, that's my arguement shot down then.
a lot of the time, companies relocate to these countries purely because they can get away with doing these things.
the attitude that companies are only responsible to their shareholders is what is slowly fucking destroying the world.
i think businesses should think purely about their shareholders. the system works best that way. its the governments job to set the limits of what is acceptable business practice. why should businesses have to do that?
unbridled capitalism is destroying the planet, and everyone knows that $$$ talk louder than anything else and people seem to blindly accept this as "the way it is".
because its the governments job to bridle it.
if they didn't purposely invest their money in areas where governments are run by tinpot dictators who are only interested in maintaining their own power and robbing their people blind.
i'm not opposed to capitalism at all, i just wish there was more.. well.. ethics behind it.
and, really, nothing pisses me off more than when companies invest in areas that are known for labour and human rights abuses and then claim they "didn't" know because they subcontractors. bullshit.
They get their societies to block vote for every position, and due to voter apathy, they get them all. Hence all the interest in Israel and shit.
my friend is there too. he complains a lot about the union.
Someone else on DiS called it the worst union in the country.
What the Islamic Society did to our student paper this year is a total disgrace.
i just cant believe that your editor is an elected sabbatical officer. ridiculous. with the student papers where i am, the next editor is selected by the current editorial team. which is a hell of a lot more sensible.
But hey, we're a "democratic union", so a sexist, bigoted clueless 27 year old who hasn't finished his degree yet can get the job despite his total lack of experience at EVER publishing ANYTHING simply because he is a Muslim, and every member of the Islamic Society vote for everything.
I hope there will be a backlash next year, but I doubt it.
While I do agree its better for Student Unions to concentrate on matter that affect their own students, for the simple reason that change should be wrought by those whom it affects, its hardly too taxing to pass a few 'we condemn Israel' motions. Arrogant though.
The union represents people of all religions, races and viewpoints. To say "we condemn Israel" will alienate LOTS of your membership, which is, I hasten to add, compulsory.
Because the only people who care enough to get involved are the total idiots. If you did a canvas wide referendum about whether or not to sell Coke in the union, it would probably be a landslide victory for yes to Coke. Sadly, the only people who are pretentious enough to care also have silly ideas about Coke and Nike and sweatshops.
You can only buy fair trade orange juice and shit at my union shop. Because having no choice is fair.
free markets and all, right?
I object to being dictated to by happy-clappy neo-hippies who can't see past their own nose to what the real issues concerning students are. The students who elect them and whom they are supposed to represent.
being your crippling 20hr week and no money?
One, the fact that you're being a complete idiot at this very moment. I will not bite, so don't bait me. Find something interesting or productive to do instead.
Two, things that happen on campus are way more important than anything else. Most students don't care about fair trade or Israel or anything like that. I think this is borne out by the fact that next to nobody buys the fair trade stuff. Remember that Union that banned smoking on "health grounds" and found that it meant nobody would go there any more? Remember that union that banned the BNP from speaking to stop them "polluting our minds"?
Student politics shouldn't extend past student union activities, in my opinion.
the people who run the union of not looking further than the end of their noses?
while i can see where you're coming from with the israel stuff etc, i really don't agree with you on the coke / fairtrade stuff. people change the world, not governments. every day actions regarding consumer purchases have an action on a much wider scale.
However, these baby steps achieve absolutely nothing. I know every revolution begins at home, but simply putting just fair trade stuff in the union shop has no tangible effect whatsoever on fair trade worldwide. People will just buy their PG tips elsewhere.
The difference comes from campaigning and stuff. The people need to make it
clear that they want fair trade stuff to the extent that it becomes damaging to brand image if you're not doing the whole fair trade stuff.
And, I'm afraid, whilst we live our comfortable first world lives, we don't really give a toss about anything else, and this isn't going to happen. Who wants to pay 10p more for teabags so that some woman they'll never see or meet gets more money? You perhaps, and a number of others, but you're not in the majority, and it's a majority you need.
Forgive me for being so cynical all the time. My trip to Cuba last year opened my eyes to a lot of things, and I'm afraid I can't help it.
that unless a lot of people are doing something, it's fundamentally pointless to do it yourself. it's self-defeating.
And on some scales its beneficial to do stuff that other people aren't doing. In fact, mostly it is. If you get peace of mind buying fair trade stuff, then by all means, feel free. That's your decision and that's what you gain from it.
But you're not going to get yourself a new world order anytime soon buy buying fair trade.
so you should be happy that they're sticking to these little steps. if you don't like it, get a campaign going and go take back your student union.
Well I'm happy the way things are.
And no, because I'm leaving in two months.
so that's all fine then.
Scarfo, I think you're missing the point massively here: The union shop SHOULD only have fair trade this and that. You have the choice to go elsewhere and frankly the Union shop isn't where I used to do most of my shopping.
The point here is that an example is being set and large buyer is also making an issue that might filter through to other companies.
Meanwhile, if you can't be arsed that's your own issue. The fact is it's a LOT easier to get a load of people behind something so manifestly good/bad as fairtrade/no fairtrade than to meddle in personal politics of individual students.
Moreover, why can't BOTH be done? I don't remember the Union being "Okay, we've boycotted Nestlé again for this year. Oh look, no time to discuss the fact that grants are going out the window. Tough luck, guys!"
It sounds like you had a really good union, but if you're as old as your profile says, I'm afraid things have changed since then.
The union no longer give a shit about their own students. They do nothing to fight fees / top up fees / end of grants. If they do, and they probably do, they don't publicise it anywhere near as much as they publicise their arrogant stances about world politics. To be blunt, the union is now a jewish/musilim self-interest cartel, and nobody cares enough to do anything about it, me included. I guess that's my failing, but I have no faith in democracy on any level anyway.
From talking to postgraduates, I realise that this has only changed over the past few years.
It's not good.
I'd complain about that for starters
I was reading this bit about something similar to this the other week. It was a little bit that touched on this point about globalisation - basically, that there are some states who fear that they won't be able to ever catch up to the US, because of that country's economic dominance - bolstered in part to the US's desire for a society of market driven states friendly to US interests etc etc.
One interesting result, is that it has become quite mainstream thinking to then believe that globalisation itself is a US export. This anxiety about American power will then sometimes manifest itself in reactions to US businesses.
So, for example, offense given by Coca-Cola translates to ill-feeling towards the US. And vice-versa, as you will have seen pretty much everywhere since this thing in Iraq started.
That makes a glaring typo in only its second sentence.
she's slipped up a fair bit though.
she's not a student.
I love you, Papa Homer.
i don't drink fizzy drinks anyway, and when i do it's pepsi. so i'm really great, yeah?
We're so cool and ethical.
go and hold up a train, or blow something up. Do something productive.
I think I might actually do it tonight.
non-participation is SO Heliotrope.
i'm at manc too. i really can't see how voting against israel will alienate anyone whose isnt worth alienating in the first place. if that makes sense. the jew-soc people are really horrible, right-wing, smug and conceited. and its good that our union has an interested in foreign affairs, and sad that many candidates won in the election explicitly saying they dont care about the middle east.
heliotrope, why? just...why?
There's a difference between an interest and an obsession. I think they had the balance about right 2 years ago, and I think it's all gone totally haywire this year.
No student union can affect any kind of major global change. By attempting to do so they're wasting all their resources and not doing looking after the interests of the students they represent.
Notice how much crapper the union has got socially the last three years, and how utterly shite the nights they put on now are?
but rob owen's politics are generally good, and i'm almost certain that passing votes to boycott coke can only be a good thing, as is twinning with a beleagered palistinian university. and, more to the point, take up very little resources. so i think it's two seperate things really.
you actually know him?
nah nah nah.
why what? why do i want to leave the decision of whether or not to drink coke to individuals? because im not a fascist. or something. LOLOFafasifk.
they're just stopping it being sold in the areas for which they are responsible.
So if you're consigning that ban to the "useless" bin, where does that leave the imposition of free trade goods in the uni shop?
to the "useless" bin at all.
i'm sure the very fact that it exists means a lot of people have thought about WHY it exists.
as i said: small steps.
on here have major difficulties understanding the basic concept of democracy, if they don't like the result they'll stamp their feet
'an imposition'? what could you possibly have against it?
instead that a lot of stuff is underpriced, and that we're used to a culture of this..
because someone is willing to sell it for that much.
If they raise their prices, someone else will get their trade.
This is how prices are set.
however, that is not how the price of tea and coffee is set.
because they only sell fair trade stuff in the shop now!
I have nothing against it, but personally I just shop elsewhere.
if they didn't stock fair trade and just had loads of coke and nestle and stuff. i never asked to only be presented with coke in every newsagent i go into, surely that's an imposition too. or seeing coke adverts everywhere that i never ask to see. etc.
...its an imposition whichever way around it is.
At least you have the choice to just avoid it.
i really have to go to bed. this has been far more fun than about 90% of the stuff on here :)
Was a pleasure!
See you tomorrow
sums up a lot of what they do nicely.
it's taking some responsibility and voting with the wallet. if enough people didn't want things like the union shop going fair trade to happen, they'd turn up to meetings and stop it. the fact that they don't suggests that they're not that bothered. i'd much rather the union represents people who actually give a shit about anything beyond 'the nights that the union put on' and utter crap like that.
i think we both know that the 'no time' lobby are, in the main, both lazy and dishonest about their laziness
good one, craig.
You just said you're too lazy to actually get involved on the issue. If you don't vote, don't bitch about the man on the soapbox.
plus I know full well that the ins and outs of this argument are less simple than 'COCA-COLA SCHWEPPES = BAD', and that if there's any group of people I don't trust, its students who have just discovered politics. Them and the elderly who have forgotten that things change. If you have a social conscious, and you aren't an idiot, you'll make your own balanced opinion on the matter and do your own thing.
I mean, come on, Bono almost makes me WANT children in africa to starve. Thats the effect I'm talking about.
that I obviously don't want anyone to starve, i was mearly making a point. I know some of you people can get a little angry.
All it means is that people who want to drink coke have to walk 10 minutes to a normal shop.
they should do something about it. should the people who care say 'oh wait, what about all the people who can't be arsed?' before doing anything?
of politics been about taking into consideration the wishes of those who can't be arsed to voice an opinion?
from a few square feet of buildings counts as "important".
and maybe schweppes will headhunt you for their enforcement division?
if you want to keep it, it's about time you argued for it, for a change.
i think i'm addicted to it. and can't give it up.
have boycotted the stuff since about 2002 by virtue of the fact that it is just a horrible, nasty tasting excuse for a drink.
My tastebuds make me demi-radical
coke = ranko
plus it makes me go mental CAFFEINE SUGAR FIZZPOP RARARGHY
It's a dislike.
I boycott nothing. If I want a McDonalds/Coca Cola/Burger King/Boots Meal Deal/wank, I will have one.
politics is probably stupid and banning the sale of coke in a union shop isn't going to bring them to their knees.
but generally, the boycotting of coca-cola is a laudable thing and should be supported by all right thinking people.
it's got a horrible greasy aftertaste. Get Spar homebrand instead.
one of my biggest pleasures in life.
If that's at the expense of 98% of the world's population, so be it.
Which is why I drink coke.
that if people want to boycott a company because they believe what they do is wrong, then that's commendable. I think that if people try to force this choice onto others by lack of choice or guilt tripping, that's hugely irritating.
"that's hugely irritating"
my heart bleeds....
a personal choice is also an institutional choice, because shops have to choose to stock a product for you to be able to buy it.
students stopping certain products being sold on campus
more about the guilt tripping bit....
"I think that if people try to force this choice onto others by lack of choice or guilt tripping, that's hugely irritating."
so people guilt trip you? get over it.
by people who positively revel in their anti-activism ...
i used to live with a guy who used to joke that he would only drink nescafe because "it tastes of dead babies"
why would you revel in this? it's not as if its' that difficult to buy a different type of coffee....
thats hardly the same.
what some people in this thread don't seem to get is that nobody's forcing anyone to do anything. at all student unions that i know of, anyone has a right to bring a motion to an open meeting, and anyone has a right to speak for or against it or vote for or against it (or abstain). if you fail to mobilise, you haven't been forced; you've acquiesced through lack of organisation or apathy. the level of organisation needed is so low that i can only think it's mostly apathy.
Our union tried to boycott coca cola on campus but enough students voted against it that it's still available on campus.
at york we had regular union general meetings. they were described as how the whole union was run. no fucker ever went except the su clique and the societies at budget time.
i think we all need to remember that WE is a bigger word than I.
You try gathering enough students together to outvote the block-voting muslims and jews in a university the size of manchester.
See how you do.
It's been tried.
is extremely unfortunate. I've got a few friends there who say the same thing. All you can really hope for is that it doesn't happen again next year.
this thread is proof that democracy is a farce.
If you read the link, and still feel like a glass of coke, you are a moral vacuum who shouldn't be allowed to make judgements or choices. You should live ina society where there is one drink- water, and one type of food- 'moronfeed'. You should not be allowed to speak.
End of post
Because I'm going to base my opinions on coca cola entirely on one student-run hyperbolic anti-coke website.
What DO you base your opinions on the matter on then?
But sometimes it's not important what the majority think is correct.
eg *"kill all paediatricians"*
If that stuff is true, and it's easily verifiable, coca cola should be banned in this COUNTRY, never mind a union bar.
We managed to get it removed from my uni i think, though i'm not sure about the bar. They were the only vending machine operators that wouldn’t let other brands stock bottles in their machines. Also surely if they enraged India’s government enough to have them ban them from any Government building, then I would say that they can’t be very ethical company. I agree with grockle, people really should look harder at their personal ethics, no one will ever be blameless, but companies with such glaringly obvious human rights violations should not be funded.
And it does work, for example McDonalds have recently tried to improve their rather tarnished reputation by signing up with Greenpeace to help prevent the destruction of the rainforest for soy bean plantations.
A big problem is the enormity of the company, there are so many products and markets involved in a company the size of Coke. I mean it’s obviously taking it a bit far, but is there an argument for boycotting the football league, because they receive money from Coke?
Also Pepsi is not an ethical alternative to Coke.