4 ms·
This is a little indirect? A Colombian bottle company 25% owned by Coke suppressed union activity. awful but hardly what the headlines are stating
by jorblumesea 2mo ago
This is a little indirect? A Colombian bottle company 25% owned by Coke suppressed union activity. awful but hardly what the headlines are stating
- ruggeri 2mo agoI don’t know how much responsibility should flow upward to Coca Cola, but “suppressed union activity” is excessively euphemistic.
- danielheath 2mo agoThey may well have used suppressors.
- elmomle 2mo agoWe can talk about this on a legal or a moral basis. I'm not a lawyer, so I'll focus on the moral basis. If company A offloads some of its work to company B, and company B commits atrocities in a foreign company to keep costs down on said work, is company A not morally culpable if it continues to work with company B? Is it different if we think in terms of two people as opposed to two companies (and if so, why?)?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- jagged-chisel 1mo agoI just need my lawn mowed for $75. I can’t be getting involved with how you hired your helpers/assistants.
- rl3 1mo ago>This is a little indirect? A Colombian bottle company 25% owned by Coke suppressed union activity. awful but hardly what the headlines are stating Suppressed using right-wing death squads. Three workers doing the organizing were straight up murdered. Where do you think those death squads came from? My point was that they weren't exactly an organic phenomenon so much as a feature of U.S. foreign policy during that era. There's one TLA that happens to specialize in their creation so much so that they may as well be the undisputed world champions of the craft.