Megan Stevenson and Luce Guillén-Givins have raised some valid points about the Coke boycott in well-written articles, and I really respect them for dealing with this issue on such an ethical basis. I’m learning every day. Apathy, not opposition, is our common enemy. Are our actions congruent with protecting people? After reading last week’s Mac Weekly I’m beginning to feel like Condoleezza Rice in front of the 9-11 committee (although, in this case, a particularly nice, yet equally impassioned, committee). So I would like to clarify my argument and address some assertions that have been made. Unfortunately, I have a limited amount of space, so I’ll primarily address Stevenson’s article.

Stevenson calls into question my word choice in my previous article. A lot of her points are valid. However, SLAC is not the only one who speaks about this issue. As an example, in an article published in the April 2 Mac Weekly, it was implied that Coke, as an organization, might have “helped arrange” “murders,” and that they deny it. This is a “conspiracy” by definition and it is the act of “assassinating union members.” My article wasn’t addressing just SLAC.

Secondly, Stevenson does a great job of assessing the situation in Colombia. Colombia is in the middle of a civil war and corruption is rampant. The bottling companies that work there, whose shares are owned primarily by Coke, have managers that are probably not immune to this surrounding environment. Coke can threaten these bottlers but it maintains that its threats would be ineffective. On Stevenson’s side there’s reasonable evidence to suggest that it could do something, costly as it is, if it had enough incentive. Where Stevenson and I disagree is how to address this situation. While I support protests and other forms of activism, I feel that a boycott is a last resort because it hurts us domestically. Additionally, we don’t have very real alternatives, and we need to be more in touch with the surrounding community (united or not) on this issue.

As far as blue-collar workers are concerned, Stevenson points out that my argument has already been addressed in a previous Mac Weekly article. In that article it is stated that the USWA, ILRF, International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the AFL-CIO all support the boycott. To dismiss one right off, I typed “AFL-CIO” and “Coke Boycott” into Google and got only one link that stated they had endorsed it and it was The Mac Weekly article she cited. This seems suspicious. Perhaps members of the AFL-CIO have spoken out? I think it’s fair to ask for this to be clarified.

The ILRF is technically a fund, not a union that is directly affected (though still important), but the USWA and the Teamsters certainly bear a lot of weight in union support. I respect them immensely, but they make up a little more than two million union members combined, and the IUF alone, which opposes the boycott, contains about 12 million. There are also other examples. The Victorian Trades Hall Council refused to endorse a boycott (they did arrange a big protest though) and Irish SIPTU workers handed out leaflets against the boycott at the University of Dublin saying it would endanger thousands of jobs. So saying a few unions support and a few oppose might be a little deceptive.

The important thing for us ultimately, however, is the local situation. Stevenson points out that before protesting at a Coca-Cola bottling plant, SLAC informed the Teamster’s Union and it was supportive. But focusing only on the Teamster Union overlooks other unions in Minnesota (Not to say it was Stevenson’s intention to do so). One of the reasons that IUF came out opposed was, in its words, “The overwhelming majority of unions representing Coca-Cola workers, including those in Coke's largest market, the USA, do not support the boycott call.” There are 29 Coca-Cola bottling plants in Minnesota; two of those are here in St. Paul, and determining the truth of the IUF statement needs to be emphasized (and for all we know it’s outdated, but I’m not sure).

The situation is progressing. Coca-Cola is working with the hunger strikers to help transfer them to a different plant rather than letting them off (this is why they were on strike), and opening up future talks. Macalester makes money off of having an exclusive contract and ending it might endanger other programs, so we should be pretty sure that this is the course (and many are, but I encourage you as students to engage the issue). Pressure is needed, but cutting off relations seems to be far from the point. In addition to domestic problems Macalester has yet to propose a concrete alternative. Pepsi is historically anti-union, and RC Cola seems to be very limiting.

I would suggest that we look more deeply into local effects as well as national. I’d recommend Macalester open up to more unions in the area to get an idea of the effects (and I’d be willing to help here). Two speakers who know more about it than I do are coming to campus. Two speakers from Coke in Atlanta and one from Colombia will have spoken on Thursday, before this article is published. The other side will speak on Monday at 12 p.m. in the chapel. Only after more community support, like proving that the IUF is wrong and that an overwhelming majority support the boycott, and a finding of suitable alternatives, SLAC has been working on this but it’s not yet on paper, should we prepare the expulsion of Coke from campus.