[Seattle-editorial] RE: update for global coke boycott - split in unions

[Gentry Lange]

Huh. I don't know much about posting problems, or editing the frontpage...
but I approve of adding the updates.

Gentry

-----Original Message-----
From: Sheri Herndon [mailto:sheri at speakeasy.org]
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 7:53 PM
To: Gentry
Subject: Fwd: update for global coke boycott - split in unions


hey gentry,
i've posted this with both my email accounts and it still doesn't go
through.  i've also asked jeremy to approve it so it would go through, but
still.  so if you think it warrants it, please free free to do what you'd
like.  but i can't do anymore than send it through and hope it goes through
:))))
but i thought this was an important update to the story.
sheri

====== Forwarded Message ======
Date: 7/19/03 12:55 PM
From: sheri at indymedia.org (Sheri Herndon)
To: editorial at seattle.indymedia.org (Seattle Editorial)

(using different email so it will go through - btw, who is list admin?)
====== Forwarded Message ======
Date: 7/19/03 12:32 PM
From: sheri at speakeasy.org (Sheri Herndon)
To: editorial at seattle.indymedia.org (Seattle Editorial)

hi,
just to let you know there's a lot of debate and growing complexity with
union politics going on over this boycott.  i've been reading about it on
www-features and a few other emails.  i've been trying to get through to
some folks in colombia who might know more as well.

so perhaps an update would be good to add onto this feature because it's not
all cut and dry and people need to know that there's a "split" in the union
solidarity....and people are looking into it.

here are some links and additional information:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No Sweat, a UK activist group set up by Workers Liberty,
who expose sweatshop practices in the UK and try and help
unions to organise, have been supporting the action.

There is now debate on the issue on their website:

http://www.nosweat.org.uk/article.php?sid=568&mode=thread&order=0

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The IUF statement was posted on Melbourne Indymedia on 15 July:
http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/50610.php

While not disputing the issues in the IUF statement, it sounds like
there is some union politics going down here. SINALTRAINAL are not
listed as an affiliate union of the IUF - there are 6 IUF affiliates
listed for Columbia.
(see IUF affiliates - http://www.iuf.org.uk/en/affiliates.shtml). The
Victorian Trades Hall has endorsed the day of action "In doing so we
note the support of both the peak union body (CUT) in Colombia and a key
union, Sinaltrainal, for the protest day." see
http://www.vthc.org.au/media/trades_hall_news/20030715_coke.html
This was posted on the 15th July at least two days after the IUF notice
appeared on LabourStart (13 July), so I would think Trades Hall would be
aware of the IUF allegations.

On Monday I might call Trades Hall to see what other information they have..
Can someone track down whether the peak union body (CUT) in Colombia has
a website and get their angle on this?
The more I look it appears there is something behind the scenes - have
Coca Cola been making overtures to the more business oriented unions
perhaps?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for prompt response. Let me tell you what I know
abou
the union politics going on:

(1) IUF, like all international union bodies, likes to be
in control of international campaigns...it clearly didn't
launch this, therefore it can't be in control of it. There
is a common complaint among national unions that their
international federation hates them turning up at
international events...likes to keep the action for
themselves.

(2) In recent months, I have been told by UK activists that
the British TUC and the ICFTU are undermining the main
Colombian union - CUT - because it has unproven links to
the FARC guerillas, and BP - the British oil MNC with huge
interests in Colombia - has been putting pressure on TUC to
not work with anything related to the FARC because, as you
may know, the FARC blows up oil pipelines. They are instead
encouraging unions to affiliate to a smaller confederation.

I have no proof of these allegations, just a source inside
the TUC who has told me that there is something going on in
relation to the trade union solidarity with Colombia and
its not pleasant.

(3) Consumer boycotts are the WORST form of actions for
MNCs because it tarnishes their brand, hits their share
price, hits their market share, and is very effective if
done properly. The unions DO NOT WANT TO LOSE THEIR JOBS OR
COCA COLA INVESTMENTS in their countries. They prefer to
take industrial action after international lobbying and
protest letters have been exhausted...its a fine balance.

(4) there is no doubt that Coca Cola execs will have leaned
on union leaderships. It is also possible that the union in
question has links to very far left and international
unions hate that...

I'm sending an email to all the groups involved in the
boycott, including the United Steelworkers, Teamsters etc
to see if they will comment and shed some light. I also
know the ex general secretary of the IUF, so i'll try him.

I think this is potentially a massive story that people
need to be aware of.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is a breakng development on the Coca Cola Boycott for
the 22nd. The "International Trade Union movement" is none
too happy about. Just received a press release from the
International Union of Foodworkers (IUF) (below), basically
saying that the majority of Coca Cola unions DO NOT SUPPORT
IT and think it will harm, not help, their efforts to get
better working conditions etc.

Now there is an unwritten rule on consumer boycotts - if
the unions and workers themselves are NOT IN FAVOUR of
them, then they should NOT go ahead. This is a policy of
most consumer groups, anti-corporate groups, social
movements, NGOs etc on this issue, as well as being the
basic principle of international solidarity.

However: the boycott has been called by the main
foodworkers union of Colombia, in conjunction with several
Colombian solidarity groups in US and worldwide.

I think we need to investigate this and run a new feature
on it because this is a very serious - the international
trade union movement is effectively leaving the Colombian
union on its own on an international day of action, and
this could give the Colombian authorities the excuse to
repress the union when it takes its action on 22nd.

This is really really serious. I'm going to contact the UK
colombian solidarity campaign, and see what they know, and
also the IUF who have condemned the boycott.

What do others think/know?
Stuart, Leeds IMC, UK
www.leeds.indymedia.org.uk



IUF Coca-Cola Affiliates Reject Call for an "international
consumer boycott" of Coca-Cola beginning July 22, 2003

Posted to the IUF website on 11-Jul-2003


http://www.iuf.org.uk/cgi-bin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ID=919&vie
w_records=1&ww=1&en=1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Following concerns expressed by a number of IUF affiliates
representing Coca-Cola workers worldwide, the IUF has
decided to respond to the current campaign calling for an
"international consumer boycott" of Coca-Cola beginning
July 22, 2003.

Sweeping, unsubstantiated allegations and assertions of the
type found in the boycott appeal do nothing to help the
cause of the unions that organize and represent Coca-Cola
workers around the world, the majority of which are members
of the IUF. The call for a boycott of Coca-Cola was
unanimously rejected at the recent IUF global meeting that
included 27 IUF-affiliated organizations from 23 countries
representing more than 100 Coca-Cola workers' trade unions
around the world.

****************************************************************************
*************

New York, March 3-4, 2003
IUF COCA-COLA UNIONS REJECT CALL FOR A GLOBAL COCA-COLA
BOYCOTT

The IUF Global Coca-Cola Meeting (New York City, March 3-4,
2003) bringing together 27 representative organizations
from 23 countries throughout Coca-Cola’s global
operations, strongly condemns the call (dated 3 March 2003)
for a global company boycott issued by the Colombian union
SINALTRAINAL. The demands contained in the boycott
declaration, which contain an implicit call for the boycott
of all transnational companies operating in Colombia, do
not reflect the concerns of Colombian Coca-Cola workers or
the views of the broader Colombian and international labour
movements. The boycott call is based on unsubstantiated
allegations and empty political slogans. This call for a
boycott will damage, rather than strengthen, the
credibility of all those seeking to secure union rights for
all employees in the Coca-Cola system.

Coca-Cola workers internationally and their unions, through
the IUF, are committed to, and organizing for, guaranteed
minimum rights for all workers throughout the global
Coca-Cola system. We do not recognize the SINALTRAINAL call
for a boycott as helpful in any way to our efforts in this
regard. We therefore call upon those wishing to advance
worker rights within the Coca-Cola system to reject this
call for a global boycott and to work together with the IUF
and its international membership within the Coca-Cola
system.

****************************************************************************
*************


The overwhelming majority of unions representing Coca-Cola
workers, including those in Coke's largest market, the USA,
do not support the boycott call.

The IUF finds statements about Coca-Cola in the boycott
call like "For the benefits they obtain from the
assassination, imprisonment, displacement, kidnapping,
threatening, and firing of union leaders in Colombia,
Guatemala, Peru, Brazil, the United States, Venezuela,
Palestine, Turkey, Iran, as well as in other parts of the
world" misleading and inaccurate. The IUF is not aware of
complaints of this kind from our affiliates who represent
Coca-Cola workers in many of the countries mentioned. In
the case of Iran there are no "union leaders" because there
are no unions and as far as we are aware there is no
Coca-Cola production.

Of the eight Colombia murders attributed to Coca-Cola, five
were of workers at the Carepa plant in Urabá province in
the years 1994 through 1996. The best documented case is
the killing of union leader Isidro Segundo Gil by
paramilitaries on 5 December 1996, which was followed by
the forced resignation and flight of other union activists.
No details have been provided about one of the other
murders attributed to Coca-Cola, which took place in 1989.
Oscar Dario Soto, a local president of the SINALTRAINBEC
union, was assassinated on 22 June 2001 by unknown
assailants (for more information click here). Adolfo de
Jesus Munera, a regional CUT official and former Coca-Cola
worker, was assassinated on 31 August 2002 (for more
information click here). We have seen no evidence linking
either of these killings to Coca-Cola. The IUF vigorously
protested both assassinations to the Colombian government
and requested its affiliates to do likewise.

The IUF and its affiliates have consistently protested the
Colombian government's failure to provide protection to all
union leaders and activists who request it, and will
continue to hold the Colombian government principally
responsible. We welcome and have always called for a full
investigation of these crimes and vigorous prosecution of
the perpetrators and those responsible for their actions.
Impunity in Colombia must end.

The bottler running the Carepa plant changed its plant
management in 1997. Workers at that plant are now
represented by a trade union, which has succeeded in
negotiating important gains for workers there. These gains
were achieved by determined organizing and tough bargaining
in a very difficult environment, with the support of the
IUF.

The reference in several versions of the boycott call to
the Guatemala situation in the 1980's is historically
inaccurate. Whilst there was some effort at launching
consumer boycotts supported by the IUF's affiliates on that
occasion, it was principally action within and around
Coca-Cola plants throughout the world organized by IUF
affiliates in support of our affiliate STECSA in Guatemala
that ultimately forced Coca-Cola into meetings with the IUF
and STECSA in Mexico City and Costa Rica. Through this
process, an agreement was finally negotiated that led to
the change in the franchise holder and a resolution of the
repressive situation STECSA had faced in the Guatemala City
plant.

Boycott supporters claim to be acting in support of a case
launched in US courts against The Coca-Cola Company and its
Colombian bottlers. They fail to mention that a recent
decision by a US court in relation to this case ruled that
neither The Coca-Cola Company itself nor its Colombian
subsidiary carries any responsibility for the employment
practices of Coca-Cola anchor bottler companies or
franchise holders. If this stands, it represents a
significant setback for those seeking to defend and advance
human and trade union rights within the broader Coca-Cola
system by pressuring Coca-Cola to accept some measure of
responsibility for industrial relations in anchor bottlers
and franchise holders. This was the key issue at the heart
of our victory in Guatemala in the 1980's. This court
decision is not helpful to our ongoing campaign, but we are
determined to overcome this obstacle through serious
organizing and engagement.

Our record of struggle at Coca-Cola, and our commitment to
trade union rights within the Coca-Cola system, is a matter
of public record. More recently IUF affiliates around the
world again gave support to STECSA in Guatemala when an
aggressive management sought to weaken some of the union's
gains stemming from the 1980's campaigns. After a 22-month
struggle, the union was able to successfully defend these
gains in a new collective agreement earlier this year. In
Russia, after nearly a decade of anti-union practices
following Coca-Cola's implantation in the former Soviet
Union, workers have recently signed a first collective
agreement in Moscow, with the support of the IUF and its
affiliates. The struggle continues.

It is worth noting that Coca-Cola has a significantly
higher trade union membership density than its major
competitor PepsiCo, a company which can more accurately be
described as consistently anti-union. A serious, sustained
campaign for global respect for trade union rights must
take account of the global environment in which the company
operates, a factor overlooked by supporters of the boycott.


The collective efforts of the IUF and our affiliates are
not assisted by unsubstantiated and unverified assertions
about the company which cannot be credibly defended and
which The Coca-Cola Company has little difficulty in
refuting. Serious accusations against the company over
issues relating to trade union rights may now lose
credibility because of misleading information being
circulated in various versions of the boycott call.

It has always been our position that Coca-Cola bears
ultimate responsibility for ensuring respect for
fundamental rights throughout the Coca-Cola system. In our
experience over many years, Coca-Cola is a company which,
given the opportunity, is likely to seek to weaken an
agreement, block an organizing drive or bust a union where
it can do so. In this respect, it is no different from most
other transnational companies. To change this our response
must be, as always, sustained organizing and engagement
backed up by a credible threat of action where necessary to
defend and advance respect for trade union rights in this
as in all such companies.
---
Sent from UnionMail Service  [http://mail.union.org.za]


i'm not an editor per se (or authorized with password and skills necessary)
to update, so i'm hoping others will be interested.  i'm sure the global
will be getting updated....as more info comes in....

peace,
sheri
====== End Forwarded Message ======
====== End Forwarded Message ======