Spring Break
There Is No Anti-Coke Movement
Rob Helmuth
Issue date: 4/4/06 Section: Commentary
Coca Cola and their supporters would have you believe that this is simply a Colombian problem. Then why do similar events happen at their plants in Turkey, Indonesia and India? Money. Fearful workers make less money than organized workers do. Implementing a worldwide system to protect their workers and the environment costs more than some overtime for their public relations staff. Coca Cola will tell you they have no control over these plants, that they do not own them-this is only partially true; they simply do not own a majority share. Also, imagine a foreign bottling plant changing the cans they use to blue-think Coca Cola would let that slide? Coca Cola forced the owners of a plant in Guatemala to sell it after public outcry over worker abuse in 1983. Indifference became too costly, and they exerted their power. This is our goal-to increase the cost of inaction and give corporate leaders incentive to put people's lives ahead of their own finances.
One Daily Campus article argues, "… it is the responsibility of the … government to impose restrictions upon corporations that abuse the people," not the company's responsibility to keep from abusing its workers in the first place. President George W. Bush disagrees: "Tougher laws and stricter requirements will help. It will help. Yet, ultimately, the ethics of American business depend on the conscience of America's business leaders."
The opposition has also expressed concern that our campaign will not solve the human rights problem in Colombia. We do not expect to. Although the campaign is identified as the sad state of activism at UConn, that's a more appropriate complaint directed at this attitude; if you can't fix the whole problem, why fix any of it-Hell, why bother trying? By that reasoning, we should never hold anyone responsible for any wrongdoing, because crime will still exist. It's the most brilliant defense ever! 'Your honor, why throw this thief in jail? Surely someone else will steal from us anyway.'
At least some criticism has been constructive: the most recent Daily Campus article suggested we "Bring the Colombian government before the U.N." However, it fails to mention what influence the University of Connecticut has over the United Nations. I'm not aware of any, but I'll let them get back to us on that. Meanwhile, SCA will continue to work with the administration to effect real change in the world.
One Daily Campus article argues, "… it is the responsibility of the … government to impose restrictions upon corporations that abuse the people," not the company's responsibility to keep from abusing its workers in the first place. President George W. Bush disagrees: "Tougher laws and stricter requirements will help. It will help. Yet, ultimately, the ethics of American business depend on the conscience of America's business leaders."
The opposition has also expressed concern that our campaign will not solve the human rights problem in Colombia. We do not expect to. Although the campaign is identified as the sad state of activism at UConn, that's a more appropriate complaint directed at this attitude; if you can't fix the whole problem, why fix any of it-Hell, why bother trying? By that reasoning, we should never hold anyone responsible for any wrongdoing, because crime will still exist. It's the most brilliant defense ever! 'Your honor, why throw this thief in jail? Surely someone else will steal from us anyway.'
At least some criticism has been constructive: the most recent Daily Campus article suggested we "Bring the Colombian government before the U.N." However, it fails to mention what influence the University of Connecticut has over the United Nations. I'm not aware of any, but I'll let them get back to us on that. Meanwhile, SCA will continue to work with the administration to effect real change in the world.