Coke agrees to investigation, but workers still abused
Crystal Yakacki
Issue date: 4/10/08 Section: Opinion
I felt a surge of excitement when I heard that Coca-Cola had finally agreed to allow an investigation into the deaths and harassment of workers in their Colombian bottling plants. I've been waiting for such news for a long time. It's especially critical because this week, NYU considers whether or not to overturn its ban on Coca-Cola products on campus.
But I was not surprised to find that this supposed investigation is yet another delay tactic on the part of Coca-Cola.
First, a little background. Coke has a history of refusing investigations in these plants. They refused to work with the Worker Rights Consortium, which is an internationally recognized organization that conducts such investigations and of which NYU is a founding member. They were also uncooperative when meeting with a commission of students and administrators that was intended to develop a final protocol for an investigation.
Coke has previously demonstrated its inability to choose a competent, independent monitoring body on its own. Before our ban was even instated, Coke paid for an investigation by Cal Safety, which satisfied neither the commission nor the NYU Senate because the private company was widely discredited - even by the Los Angeles Times and BusinessWeek.
Having watched all of this unfurl, I was not surprised to find that Coca-Cola had in fact not agreed to an independent investigation at all. What their officials are proposing now is the same investigation they first proposed two years ago when Cal Safety didn't fly: one conducted by the International Labor Organization.
The ILO, a part of the U.N., sounds pretty good. It is a respected institution dealing specifically with labor rights around the world. However, it is neither independent nor qualified to conduct this investigation, which is why over 20 schools around the country have enacted bans since the ILO investigation was first proposed by Coke.
First of all, Ed Potter, Coke's Director of Global Labor Relations - a crisis management department created in response to the campaign against the company - sits on the ILO and has for 15 years. With Potter involved, choosing the ILO for an investigation is akin to choosing a jury that includes the defendant's attorney. This is the same man who presented the Cal Safety investigation as an answer to our concerns and who refused, and continues to refuse, the WRC.
Beyond this, the ILO is unqualified as a monitoring body because it has never conducted a company-specific study. The ILO works with governments; it does not conduct such investigations nor monitor labor standards in particular sites. According to the Michigan Daily, when interviewed in April 2007, Coca-Cola spokesperson Kirsten Whit said, "The ILO presence in Colombia is not specifically for the Coca-Cola company but to monitor all corporations." Yet the NYU ban calls for a specific inquiry into violence against workers in Coke's Colombian bottling plants.
In recent years, the ILO has even rejected the idea of forming a commission of inquiry to examine violence against trade union leaders in Colombia, where this problem is perhaps the worst. The ILO is comprised of one-half government, one-fourth employer and one-fourth labor, so this inquiry was blocked repeatedly by the Colombian government and employer representatives, including Ed Potter.
Coke has been claiming for over two years now that the ILO would do an investigation, but the company has yet to even set a timeline or terms for this investigation. In April 2006, the University of Michigan reinstated Coke products on their campus, calling for Coke to complete an assessment of the conditions in by March 31, 2007. Coke missed that deadline, and another year has passed. It is clear that an investigation will not take place even by the ILO, Coke's preferred choice, unless increased pressure is put on Coca-Cola.
My attempts to contact the ILO have gone unanswered. I do not know any students who have gotten through.
Coca-Cola doesn't want to submit to anything unless it has control over how the investigation is conducted and what its results will be. I don't blame them; it's looking pretty bleak. Union workers at SINALTRAINAL (the Colombian food workers union that launched the Killer Coke campaign) reported receiving death threats just this past February, and the conditions there have not changed much at all.
I speak on behalf of the Campaign to Kick Coke Off Campus as I urge you to go to www.nyu.edu/pages/stugov/reps.html and contact your student representatives on the University Committee on Student Life to demand that this ban be upheld. The pressure that we put on Coke must be maintained in order to get to a point where Coke ultimately does submit to a truly independent investigation.
NYU's vote for the ban, which resulted from overwhelming support on campus and careful consideration in the senate, should be respected and allowed to deliver real results.
Crystal Yakacki is a contributing columnist and NYU alumna and former member of the NYU Campaign to Kick Coke Off Campus. E-mail her at opinion@nyunews.com.
But I was not surprised to find that this supposed investigation is yet another delay tactic on the part of Coca-Cola.
First, a little background. Coke has a history of refusing investigations in these plants. They refused to work with the Worker Rights Consortium, which is an internationally recognized organization that conducts such investigations and of which NYU is a founding member. They were also uncooperative when meeting with a commission of students and administrators that was intended to develop a final protocol for an investigation.
Coke has previously demonstrated its inability to choose a competent, independent monitoring body on its own. Before our ban was even instated, Coke paid for an investigation by Cal Safety, which satisfied neither the commission nor the NYU Senate because the private company was widely discredited - even by the Los Angeles Times and BusinessWeek.
Having watched all of this unfurl, I was not surprised to find that Coca-Cola had in fact not agreed to an independent investigation at all. What their officials are proposing now is the same investigation they first proposed two years ago when Cal Safety didn't fly: one conducted by the International Labor Organization.
The ILO, a part of the U.N., sounds pretty good. It is a respected institution dealing specifically with labor rights around the world. However, it is neither independent nor qualified to conduct this investigation, which is why over 20 schools around the country have enacted bans since the ILO investigation was first proposed by Coke.
First of all, Ed Potter, Coke's Director of Global Labor Relations - a crisis management department created in response to the campaign against the company - sits on the ILO and has for 15 years. With Potter involved, choosing the ILO for an investigation is akin to choosing a jury that includes the defendant's attorney. This is the same man who presented the Cal Safety investigation as an answer to our concerns and who refused, and continues to refuse, the WRC.
Beyond this, the ILO is unqualified as a monitoring body because it has never conducted a company-specific study. The ILO works with governments; it does not conduct such investigations nor monitor labor standards in particular sites. According to the Michigan Daily, when interviewed in April 2007, Coca-Cola spokesperson Kirsten Whit said, "The ILO presence in Colombia is not specifically for the Coca-Cola company but to monitor all corporations." Yet the NYU ban calls for a specific inquiry into violence against workers in Coke's Colombian bottling plants.
In recent years, the ILO has even rejected the idea of forming a commission of inquiry to examine violence against trade union leaders in Colombia, where this problem is perhaps the worst. The ILO is comprised of one-half government, one-fourth employer and one-fourth labor, so this inquiry was blocked repeatedly by the Colombian government and employer representatives, including Ed Potter.
Coke has been claiming for over two years now that the ILO would do an investigation, but the company has yet to even set a timeline or terms for this investigation. In April 2006, the University of Michigan reinstated Coke products on their campus, calling for Coke to complete an assessment of the conditions in by March 31, 2007. Coke missed that deadline, and another year has passed. It is clear that an investigation will not take place even by the ILO, Coke's preferred choice, unless increased pressure is put on Coca-Cola.
My attempts to contact the ILO have gone unanswered. I do not know any students who have gotten through.
Coca-Cola doesn't want to submit to anything unless it has control over how the investigation is conducted and what its results will be. I don't blame them; it's looking pretty bleak. Union workers at SINALTRAINAL (the Colombian food workers union that launched the Killer Coke campaign) reported receiving death threats just this past February, and the conditions there have not changed much at all.
I speak on behalf of the Campaign to Kick Coke Off Campus as I urge you to go to www.nyu.edu/pages/stugov/reps.html and contact your student representatives on the University Committee on Student Life to demand that this ban be upheld. The pressure that we put on Coke must be maintained in order to get to a point where Coke ultimately does submit to a truly independent investigation.
NYU's vote for the ban, which resulted from overwhelming support on campus and careful consideration in the senate, should be respected and allowed to deliver real results.
Crystal Yakacki is a contributing columnist and NYU alumna and former member of the NYU Campaign to Kick Coke Off Campus. E-mail her at opinion@nyunews.com.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
Crystal Yakacki
posted 4/10/08 @ 11:21 AM EST
Hi
Thanks to the WSN for running the oped. However, the headline chosen misrepresents its content. Coke has NOT agreed to an independent investigation, as is required in NYU's resolution. (Continued…)
Lew Friedman
posted 4/11/08 @ 1:34 PM EST
I agree with Ms. Yakacki's comment that the headline chosen misrepresents an excellent article. Perhaps the headline should have read: "Coke Stymies Investigation; Workers Still Abused. (Continued…)
Lew Friedman
Lew Friedman
posted 4/11/08 @ 1:39 PM EST
I agree with Ms. Yakacki's comment that the headline chosen misrepresents an excellent article. Perhaps the headline should have read: "Coke Stymies Investigation; Workers Still Abused. (Continued…)
Post a Comment