The Coke Machine - Michael Blanding [188]
Page 265 The issue was tabled: Yakacki, interview by the author; “NYU Senate Is Impotent,” Washington Square News, April 25, 2005.
Page 265 activists at . . . Michigan demanded that the school: Talia Selitsky, “Killer Coke Coalition Rallies at U. Michigan,” Michigan Daily, February 10, 2005.
Page 265 the board ruled in the students’ favor: Scott Leith, “University Says It Will Drop Coke Unless Colombia Charges Probed,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 18, 2005.
Page 265 “If they don’t step up”: Jeremy Davidson, “U. Michigan Adjusts Coca-Cola Contracts,” Michigan Daily, June 20, 2005.
Page 265 Ed Potter had represented . . . new corporate code of conduct: Caroline Wilbert, “Trouble-shooter’s Big Job Has Kept Him Traveling, from Colombia to China,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, April 16, 2006.
Page 265 spelling out the protections for workers: Ed Potter, interview by the author; The Coca-Cola Company, 2006 Corporate Responsibility Review; The Coca-Cola Company “Workplace Rights Policy,” http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/citizenship/pdf/workplace_rights_policy.pdf.
Page 266 a supposedly independent group: Cal Safety Compliance Corporation (CSCC) for The Coca-Cola Company, “Workplace Assessments in Colombia,” 2005; Russ Childrey, vice president of CSCC, interview by the author.
Page 266 denying responsibility for the violence in Colombia: Author notes of shareholder meeting; Michael Blanding, “The Case Against Coke,” The Nation, April 13, 2006.
Page 266 “felt more like a student protest rally”: “Flat Coke,” Financial Times (London), April 20, 2005.
Page 266 real negotiations began after the meeting: Potter and Romero, interviews by the author.
Page 266 Coke was soon setting its own rules: Notes from September 9, 2005, commission meeting by anonymous student.
Page 266 The students dismissed those demands: “How NYU Chose Colombia over Coke,” BusinessWeek, Online Extra, January 17, 2006, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_04/b3968078.htm.
Page 267 The university issued an ultimatum: Jacob Gershman, “University Senate at NYU Threatens to Oust Coca-Cola from Campus,” Sun (New York), November 7, 2005.
Page 267 NYU . . . would begin removing Coke from campus: Patrick Cole, “NYU Bans Coca-Cola Products,” Bloomberg News, December 9, 2005.
Page 267 “Certainly if there was any wrongdoing”: Caroline Wilbert, “A Surprising Critic of Coke,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 28, 2006.
Page 267 new country: Turkey: Ali Riza Küçükosmanoğlu, president of Nakliyat-İş trade union, interview by the author; Erol Türedi, et al. v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 05-CV-9635 (2005) (hereafter Türedi v. Coke).
Page 268 Coke had nothing to do with it: The Coca-Cola Company statement, “Lawsuit Regarding Protest in Turkey,” November 15, 2005; Potter, interview by the author.
Page 268 “the flipside of being a big brand”: Kenneth Hein, “Advertising: Big Ban on Campus for Coke Products,” Brandweek, December 12, 2005.
Page 268 the union hadn’t first exhausted its remedies: Türedi v. Coke, Decision and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss (39); Notice of Appeal (42).
Page 268 “investigate and evaluate”: Donald R. Knauss, President, Coca-Cola North America, to Tim Slottow, Executive Vice President and CFO, University of Michigan, April 10, 2006.
Page 268 more conciliatory approach to negotiations . . . continued to throw cold water: “Why Does the IUF Attack SINALTRAINAL,” http://www.killercoke.org/iufsinal.htm; “The Facts: The Coca-Cola Company and Columbia,” The Coca-Cola Company press release, January 25, 2006; “Joint Coca-Cola and IUF Statement,” March 15, 2005, http://www.iufdocuments.org/www/documents/coca-cola/jtstate-e.pdf.
Page 268 The anti-Coke campaign immediately cried foul: “University of Michigan Falls Prey to Another Coca-Cola PR Scam,” Campaign to Stop Killer Coke news release, April 17, 2006.
Page 269 “There are 640 people”: John J. Miller, “Fizzes