Madam, - I refer to the letter from SIPTU (May 21st) on the recent decision by the TUI to support the boycott of Coca-Cola due to the allegations made against it by the Colombian trade union Sinaltrainal. We feel that this decision is a courageous one and deserves the support of all trade unionists and human rights activists.
SIPTU claims that the boycott will not affect Coca-Cola as the bottling plants are independent franchises. This argument is misleading. Coca-Cola owns 24 per cent of the Hellenic Bottling Company (HBC) which owns the Irish franchise and the HBC is the third largest bottler in the Coca-Cola system and describes itself as such.
However, this is a minor point. All multinationals subdivide their work and outsource aspects of production. Some expand through franchise operations which allow them to grow with a minimum of capital investment. Control and profits are the sticking points for them. Were trade unionists to accept this argument they would never be able to complain about any multinational as all adopt this system to one degree or another.
It is strange that a trade union should accept the division of workers according to the strategic economic interests of a multinational and pit them against each other.
Any fall in sales of Coke products will affect Coke's profits. The boycott is not limited to Ireland but is international. One of the other European countries where there has been a lot of support for the boycott is Italy, where HBC also operates. The boycott is also in place in Colombia itself.
The SIPTU letter also states that Sinaltrainal has declined to re-affiliate to the International Union of Food Workers (IUF). That should read affiliate: it is not the case that Sinaltrainal left the IUF to pursue the boycott. It wasn't a member. But why should it join an international organisation that describes the boycott call as being "based on unsubstantiated allegations and empty political slogans".
SIPTU also calls for adherence to the IUF and ICTU policy. The IUF policy is as previously mentioned, but what is the ICTU position? When was it discussed? Was the pro-boycott side given an opportunity to present its case? We are aware that David Begg issued a statement on the topic but there was no discussion to the best of our knowledge.
The only time the issue was discussed was when Francisco Ramirez, the president of the Mine Workers' Union in Colombia, attended the ICTU biennial conference last July. This was a joint initiative of Latin America Solidarity Centre and the ICTU. Mr Ramirez spoke at a plenary session and also at a meeting organised by the ICTU's development committee, Global Solidarity. As he is one of the co-ordinators of the various legal actions being taken against a number of multinationals he spoke at length about the boycott of Coke that was to be launched. He received a standing ovation.
If the ICTU wishes to debate the issue, we would welcome that. But it should not pretend that there has been a wide-ranging discussion in ICTU. Once again we wish to congratulate the TUI for its action, which contrasts with the contemptible decision of the INTO to receive sponsorship from Coca-Cola. We hope other unions follow the TUI example and that of the students in UCD and TCD by supporting the boycott. - Yours, etc.,
GEARÓID Ó LOINGSIGH, Latin American Solidarity Centre, Merrion Row, Dublin 2.