College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

UMass students boycott Coca-Cola

Call for end to 'exclusive pouring rights' contract

By Hannah McGoldrick, Collegian Staff

Print this article

Published: Sunday, May 3, 2009

Updated: Sunday, May 3, 2009

Coca-Cola

Danielle Augeri / Collegian

Today, the “Campaign to Stop Killer Coke” at the University of Massachusetts will be holding a boycott against all Coca-Cola products.

The campaign at UMass is a nascent organization beginning to gain ground among students. Boone Shear, a member of the organization and an anthropology doctoral candidate at UMass, said “the boycott is meant as a symbolic beginning and as an informational, consciousness-raising exercise.”

The student group is planning on contacting and having dialogue with University administrators and decision makers about the University’s “exclusive pouring rights” contract with Coca-Cola, is eligible for renewal in August, according to the sponsorship agreement. Shear said the group hopes “to have representation and voice in the contract bidding process.”

However, according to contract administrator Ruth Yanka, “the University exercised its option to renew the contract in February of this year,” although the contract would not have been up for renewal until this August.

“We are aware that the University receives a significant amount of money from a company that is associated with torture, kidnapping, murder, union busting, draining of public groundwater in vulnerable communities and so on,” said Shear.

The allegations Shear is referencing regard the grievances lobbied against the Coca-Cola Company in the 2001 lawsuit, Sinaltrainal v. Coca- Cola, placed against Coca-Cola in a Miami federal court. The suit charges that the company collaborated with Colombian paramilitaries to assassinate union leaders at one of the company’s Colombian bottling plants. The charges were placed under the Alien Tort Claims Act, which states “a U.S. company can be sued in America for its actions abroad.”

The lawsuit alleged that paramilitary forces killed three workers, who were members of Sinaltrainal, the National Union for Food Industry Workers, who worked in the Coca Cola Bebidas y Alimentos plant in Carepa, Colombia. In 2003, the charges were dismissed because a U.S. District Court determined that the allegations did not have substantial origin in the United States.  

Under the company’s insurance obligations in the Coca-Cola contract, the company is contractually obligated to “statutory workers’ compensation, including employer’s liability insurance, subject to limits of not less than $1,000,000, affording coverage under applicable workers’ compensation law.” However, there is no tangible evidence that this insurance clause was awarded to the murdered workers’ family members.

The campaign at UMass said in a letter to the editor that “the corporate giant has chosen to evade responsibility and thwart investigations.”

Despite these allegations, Ms. Yanka stated “the University cannot make a decision to exclude a vendor from the campus without some defendable basis.”

The Coca-Cola Company receives “exclusive pouring rights” under its multimillion-dollar contract with UMass. Under the contract, the University is to “use its reasonable, good faith efforts to maximize the sales and distribution of products on the campus, including hawking products in stands and approved cups or twenty-ounce contour bottles during all events when any items of any make or description are hawked.”

The University received up to 46 percent commission off of the sale of Coca-Cola products. The contract also states that “during the term, no competitive products of any kind whatsoever will be marketed, advertised, merchandised, promoted or sampled in any manner nor at any time on the campus and/or in connection with the University, the campus, or the University marks.”

At the time of bidding in August 2004, Polar Beverages of Worcester, Mass., was the other bidder. However, under review by a seven-person selection committee, Coca-Cola was chosen based on established criteria. Since the University renewed the contract in February, “there are no renegotiations – the contract is extended under the same terms and conditions,” said Ms. Yanka.

“The University has committed itself to a relationship with a corporation that is associated with human rights abuses and criminal acts. This relationship effectively excludes other businesses from selling competing products in most places on campus, thereby limiting student choice and compelling students to participate in this relationship. I think the onus is on the administration to figure out alternatives,” said Shear.

The University receives benefits from the exclusive contract with Coca-Cola, such as the Chancellor’s Merit Scholarship of $15,000, transferring the UCard debit program to an Ethernet-based infrastructure, renovations to dining hall beverage stations and a Bill Cosby event with a $10,000 cash sponsorship.

“The concrete benefits bestowed by this exclusive contract tacitly endorse, and indeed are a result of Coca-Cola’s unresolved abuses,” said the campaign. They also believe that it is unethical for the University to benefit from Coca-Cola’s “criminal acts.”

A petition has been circulating, distributed by Killer Coke at UMass, to rescind the “exclusive pouring rights” contract with the Coca-Cola Company. On whether the University took notice of the petition’s circulation and what would occur if the University were to rescind the contract, Ms. Yanka said, “I have not seen any petitions, nor have I had any questions or concerns raised to me regarding ending Coke’s contract for some time.”

Killer Coke at UMass said, “as part of a global effort to force Coca-Cola to take responsibility for its actions – and to allow for free choice on our campus – we call for the University to rescind its current contract and to refrain from any future agreements.”

Comments

20 comments
jt
Thu Jul 30 2009 10:51
Boycott boycotts!
Your name
Sat May 9 2009 00:38
"Defendable basis"? What more defendable basis do they need?!
Mrs. K. Marie Hartwick
Wed May 6 2009 14:43
coca cola is not the killer the maker of coca cola is the killer
always coca cola!
Wed May 6 2009 00:24
killer coke at its same anticts again, this needs to stop, lawsuit against this group of hippies asap!
Your name
Tue May 5 2009 00:18
I truly hope they don't make a contract with polar bevarages, they taste awful. I'm not much of a soda drinker, but I do enjoy the rare occasional coke.

I believe this is a noble cause and there is clearly a group of students that are either too incompetent or short-sighted to understand this campaign's goals. I don't understand the logic of enforcing political jargon to what are apparent to myself and to many others, universal ideas. How is this a "liberal" agenda? It is an effort to support ethical business practices and an outreach to protect lives. I suppose some republicans are far too preoccupied saving the "lives" of the unborn before they extend that same love to their living, breathing, and generally hard-working neighbors.

Johnny
Mon May 4 2009 23:56
more liberal bs
Jack
Mon May 4 2009 17:18
Negotiating the next contract with Worcester-based Polar Beverages instead of Coke would really underscore the commitment of UMass to support local businesses, if such a commitment exists. But could Polar match Coke's pledge to bring the comedic stylings of a nationally known Jell-o Pudding salesman to campus? Probably not.
Scott
Mon May 4 2009 15:52
Sounds like the same idiots that voted for Obummer
Your name
Mon May 4 2009 15:12
UMass students have been protesting the university's Coca Cola contract for YEARS and it has done NOTHING
Your name
Mon May 4 2009 12:41
this is the most retarded campaign that ive heard of yet, these kids are just out to get attention and they r trying to do so by attempting to take down everyone that has a better hand in this world, they were delt the same cards as all of us and they just dont know how to use them the same as cocacola has, all they r trying to do is to make their mark in a misguided way and they need to figure out their lives
anon
Mon May 4 2009 10:39
this is BS, the idea of a bunch of graduate students who cant help but complain about how poor they are and how broke umass is to try and destroy a contract that actually is a decent source of income for this campus is insane

i am a big coke fan, and they certainly have some skeletons in their closet, but so does apple, and everyone still has ipods, so does microsoft, and many people (including just about all of OIT) still run windows, so suck it up

Alex Levine
Mon May 4 2009 10:19
The quote in the story regarding Workers Compensation and Employers Liability indicates a lack of understanding about the purpose of the coverage and when they respond. I'm not condoning murder or corporate terrorism (which are alleged but not proven in the story) but the comment about WC appears to be a red herring.

Workers Compensation is no-fault insurance funded with premiums paid by employers which provides workers with coverage for medical costs and lost wages resulting from work related injuries. In the U.S., each state regulates it's own WC system so there are variations in benefits from state to state and these are determined by state bodies responsible for WC regulation. Not all injuries are covered, they generally have to arise out of and in the course of employment. Most states require that the coverage be provided to employees that are U.S. citizens and permanent residents. These employees are generally entitled to U.S. state benefits for covered injuries sustained when working abroad on temporary assignments. Other countries, but not all countries, have WC type systems but they may work differently from country to country. Canada, for example, has a government run WC system while the US has a private state regulated system (some states have mandatory state managed WC funds instead of private insurance). The workers in Colombia are probably not entitled to U.S. WC benefits if they are Colombian nationals. If Colombia has a WC system, then workers might be entitled to benefits provided under that system depending on whether their injuries are deemed to be covered by the statute. In most states in the U.S., WC is considered the sole remedy for injured workers. That means they generally can't sue their employers for additional compensation when their injuries are deemed compensable under WC.

Employers Liability coverage is also related to damages from injuries to employees from lawsuits brought by the employee dependents who allege they have suffered damages arising out of the employees injuries, e.g.loss of consortium, or from lawsuits brought as the result of subrogation actions by general contractors or project owners for which the injured employee was hired as a subcontractor, or by products manufacturers sued by a worker that was injured on the job while using one of their products. Employers Liability is not a no-fault coverage and is triggered by a lawsuit. The coverage usually responds to suits brought in the U.S., it's territories or possession, and Canada. It may sit under an umbrella which might respond on a global basis but again, a lawsuit would have to be brought against the company and be successful to trigger an award under the coverage.

Your name
Mon May 4 2009 10:06
What a Joke
Your name
Mon May 4 2009 09:40
Killer Coke is making some bold claims, but their cause is noble.
Pep C Cola
Mon May 4 2009 08:40
I think this is a noble endeavor. Bravo to the Killer Coke group and it's supporters!!
Your name
Mon May 4 2009 01:12
What idiots...
Your name
Mon May 4 2009 01:06
What a bunch of idiots.
Your name
Mon May 4 2009 01:05
What a bunch of r-tards.
Your name
Mon May 4 2009 01:05
What a bunch of rtards.
rp
Mon May 4 2009 00:01
Sounds like a legal shakedown by interested parties. Curious as to who funds Killer Coke.






log out