Effective July 22, 2003, a one-year international boycott against Coca-Cola products was announced by the union body SINALTRAINAL to protest the killings of its union members working in the corporation's Colombian bottling plants.
The following demands are being issued by the organizers: that no more assassinations of union members be instigated, that workers murdered by paramilitaries for union affiliation be printed on Coca-Cola product labels, that full reparations be paid to victim's families, and that Coca-Cola support an annual forum on human rights.
The struggle to form worker representation in Colombia has been one fraught with threats, intimidation, violence, and killing. Since the 1950's, Colombian military and paramilitary forces have been on a crusade to squash any traces of perceived Communism. There is no exception made for unions. Such an environment creates an ideal situation for an employer.
"They look at trade unionists as subversives--as a very real and potential threat" said Robin Kirk of Human Rights Watch.
The tale of Coca-Cola et. al.'s battle with SINALTRAINAL, the union representing workers at a bottling plant in the province of Carepas, begins 8:30 a.m., December 5, 1996. Isidro Segundo Gil, executive board member of the union, was called out to the gates of the plant and shot seven times by a paramilitary group, most likely affiliated with the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, which boasts connections to the Colombian army. At the time, Gil had been negotiating with Bebidas y Alimentos, the bottling company that owned the plant.
The paramilitary group subsequently kidnapped the other union leaders, then infiltrated the union offices, obliterated records, and torched the building. On December 6, they returned and issued an ultimatum: All workers resign from the union by 4:00 p.m.
According to Edgar Paéz, a worker at the plant, "They said that if [people] didn't resign, the same thing would happen to them that happened to Gil--they would be killed." Workers were led to manager Ariosto Milan Mosquera's office where resignation forms were prepared for them. Mosquera, known for attending and providing soft-drinks for paramilitary fiestas, had allegedly claimed earlier in the year that he had issued an order to the paramilitaries to destroy the union. Negotiations were forgotten and the union quickly dissolved.
For the next two months, the paramilitary settled outside the plant. Many experienced workers quit their jobs and were replaced with minimum-wage labor. Neither the plant owner nor Coca-Cola complained to authorities.
During the next four years, Gil's fellow workers attempted to get the government to punish the criminals but instead found themselves being locked behind bars. In the mean time, union members of various disciplines were being assassinated across the country. They received little cooperation from Colombian Attorney General Luis Camilo Osorio.
Under his tenure, nine investigators and prosecutors of human rights violations in Colombia were fired, while fifteen were forced to resign. His office receives over $25 million from the USA, which has set aside $1.3 billion in military assistance for Colombia's drug war. US Congress members John Tierney (D--Mass.) and Jan Schakowsky (D--Ill.) have raised questions of whether this aid has added to the anti-union blood bath.
The union eventually went abroad for help to fight their cause. They received support from the United Steel Worker's of America, the International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF), and the Teamster's Union. On July 23, 2001, they issued a 66-page complaint and filed a $500 million civil case in the U.S. District Court in Florida, implicating Coca-Cola, Bebidas y Alimentos (owned by Richard Kirby, a Florida citizen), and Panamerican Beverages (the biggest soft-drink bottler in Latin America; five SINALTRAINAL union members were imprisoned based on false testimony of a security chief at one of their plants).
The case functions under the 1789 Alien Tort Claims Act, which permits someone, regardless of citizenship, to sue US-based companies for damages caused outside the country's borders. The case is further strengthened by the 1991 Torture Victim Prevention Act, whereby someone subjected to torture in a foreign nation can try their case in the US. The case consists of four concurrent lawsuits. After one year, Coca-Cola had filed two motions to dismiss the charge.
In response to the allegations, Richard Kirby stated: "You don't use them, they use you. Nobody tells the paramilitaries what to do." He continued, "One day the paramilitaries showed up at the plant. They shut the plant down, put everyone against the wall, and started shooting. Now it's been turned around so that it's our fault."
According to James McDonald, Kirby's lawyer, Mosquera resigned two days before Gil's murder, which he believes puts Bebidas y Alimentos in the clear. Pablo Largacha contends that "bottlers in Colombia are completely independent of the Coca-Cola company."
However, both distribution companies have "bottling agreements" requiring that they follow Coca-Cola's "strict" code of conduct. Terry Collingsworth of the ILRF feels that Coca-Cola's knowledge of the killings is beyond doubt; he retorts that "[Coke's] 'code of conduct' shows that they are legally responsible. These companies come up with these codes and then don't enforce them."
The soft-drink empire's website asserts that the allegations "appear to be nothing more than a shameless effort to generate publicity using the name of our Company, its trademark and brands."
The site goes on to excuse the injustices in Colombia as part and parcel of its reputation as a dangerous, violent place. It lists several safety benefits, from cell phones to transportation to life insurance that workers supposedly receive. The site also states that Coca-Cola hired a "well-regarded" law firm to investigate, but doesn't cite the resulting report or name the firm.
On March 31, 2003, US District Court Judge Jose E. Martinez issued his verdict, which was heralded by both sides as a victory. Coca-Cola was found to be innocent of the charges, but the trial will continue for Panamerican Beverages and Bebidas y Alimentos. "I think this has been a wake-up call for Coca-Cola. It certainly can't look the other way. It has to look very closely at its bottlers," said Robin Kirk.
In the mean while, it was announced on September 9, 2003 that nine Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia would be converted or closed. Workers were encouraged to resign from their contracts and go into forced retirement. Approximately 2,500 jobs were put into jeopardy. The violence still continues. On August 22, 2003, a murder attempt was made on Juan Carlos Galvis, vice president of SINALTRAINAL. David Jose Calle, son of the national SINALTRAINAL leader, was kidnapped by four men on September 10, 2003.
For more information on the subject, the following sites are recommended:
http://www.cokewatch.orghttp://www.colombiasolidarity.org.ukhttp://www.sinaltrainal.orghttp://www2.coca-cola.comsources: ANNCOL, The American Prospect, BBC News, Coca-Cola website, Coke Watch, Colombia Report, Colombia Solidarity, Scoop
