Accepting Deval Patrick’s account of events, we are left with the following: In October 2003, Patrick was confronted with the issue of Coke’s alleged encouragement of violence against union workers at its Colombia-based bottling plant during an Equal Justice Works conference. In response, Patrick pledged to send an independent group of inspectors to Colombia to investigate the situation. Then, after a period of negotiation over the scope of the investigation and the composition of the investigation party, Coke’s senior management backed off of Patrick’s commitment in early 2004. In turn, a principled Deval Patrick decided to leave Coca-Cola, but not before agreeing to remain as General Counsel throughout the remainder of 2004 and then negotiating a $2.1 million consulting agreement with the company.
Patrick’s account of his departure from Coca-Cola is a story of principle and moral fortitude. With the exception of anonymous sources, it is also an account that is difficult to verify or disprove. So, as David says, “You go with what you got.”
So what have we got? At the end of all of this, what we have got is a $2.1 million severance package for Deval Patrick. Period. That is the sum total of all of Patrick’s angst over the company’s failure to support an independent investigation into the alleged abuse of union workers in Colombia. Which brings me back to the question above:
What ultimately happened to the workers at the Colombia bottling plant?
If the answer is nothing and the story ends with Deval’s settlement, then this tale of principle and moral fortitude has a gaping hole. If it ends with Deval’s settlement, then even Deval’s story – accepted at face value – looks like a high-level executive who was professionally embarassed by his CEO and was willing to wash his hands and walk away from the Colombia workers for a significant amount of money.
I am sure that Patrick supporters will counter, “But what was Deval supposed to do? He was undermined by his CEO. Coke wasn’t going to go along with him.” As a professional, maybe nothing. But did Deval have to go along with Coke? As we all know, there were plenty of additional options for Deval Patrick, the leader, between simply staying at the company (professionally humiliating) and leaving under a lucrative settlement agreement that effectively stifled his ability to advocate on behalf of the Colombian workers (financially rewarding). Some of those options even included opportunities to maintain his personal pledge to investigate the Colombia situation, although those indisputedly would have come at a professional and financial cost to Deval Patrick.
After all, if it was really about them, shouldn’t Deval’s exit stratgy have reflected their concerns too?
did not go along with Coke. Period. End of opportunity for additional malignment. How the f#? do you know any better than he does whether he went along or not? Where is your research on what is continuing to happen in the Columbia situation, which by the F#$%#ing way was not at a company that belonged to Coke but at a bottling facility that was outside of the jurisdiction of the corporate attorney at Coke, Deval Patrick. Where’s your evidence? Where’s your reserach? What do you have to back up your reasons for asking this f#%#ing question? If you can’t do research, then what gives you the right to ask misleading questions? If you are so f#&ing convinced that there’s some deep dark secret here, then why is it that the media whores, scandal rags and other salivating candidates haven’t come up with something after a year of doing oppo research? Huh? Bring it on MD. Let’s hear it. What makes you so sure of yourself and your words? Is it facts or is it that you want your candidate to win based on something other than issues? I know for a fact that Deval did not give up on this issue as you suggest. I’m waiting for you to give us some insight. You seem to know so much, please share your data with all of us.
Deval Patrick’s slogan is “No Ordinary Leader.” That is his assertion. My opinion of the available facts, which are almost entirely the product of Deval Patrick’s own account, is that a lucrative severance package that includes a gag order is decidedly ordinary corporate behavior. Selling silence is not the same as standing up and challenging Coke’s leadership, yet that is how Deval Patrick has chosen to tell it and how some of his supporters are choosing to see it.
<
p>
An alleged principled stand and $2.1 million later, my question still stands: What ever happened to the workers at the Colombia bottling plant? If they were the principle worth resigning for, then what did Deval do for them beyond negotiating his severance? According to the public record, not much, if anything. Those are the facts that I am working with and I’m confident that they are amply provided within my post.
<
p>
If you have additional facts, please feel free to share them. If, on the other hand, you have another profanity-laced comment, well, it’s America, I guess, but that’s still pretty lame.
Tom Reilly loves the Coke workers in Columbia so much, he lives in a two-decker in Watertown out of solidarity.
<
p>
Give it a rest, MaverickDem.
when I find a decent answer, Publius. However, I give you credit for a witty biblical reference and the absence of profanity. đŸ˜‰
I thought it was a reference to Kerry’s massage appointment for this afternoon.
First of all, leave the profanity behind. It reflects poorly on the points you’re trying to make.
<
p>
<
p>
How do you know this? What do you know?
<
p>
My question will always be this — what prevented/prevents Deval Patrick from doing what Sherron Watkins at Enron and Cynthia Cooper at WorldCom found the courage to do — publicly describe the problems and what needed to be done, regardless of their own security. If you’re privy to some knowledge that it’s above and beyond the $2.1 million, please share it with everyone else.
why exactly do you believe that Deval’s approach is not the best? What do you think about his policy papers on education, energy, etc. Have you even read them? If not, let me know when you have. I’ll gladly respond at that time.
<
p>
I wasn’t using profanity per se, I was just using grammar that was appropriate under the circumstances. You know, kind of climbing ino the gutter to communicate with those who reside there.
and still no facts to answer my question – only classless, crass, empty responses, lolorb. (Feel free to give me another “3.” I’m proud to earn them from you.)
<
p>
“. . .climbing into the gutter to communicate with those who reside there, eh?” Well, you don’t know me and you certainly don’t know where I live. But you’ve done a pretty good job of exposing yourself. I’ve engaged many Patrick supporters on BMG – many in meaningful debate. You, however, do your candidate a major, major disservice.
<
p>
p.s. We’re all adults, so we all know what “f@#$” is intended to mean. Don’t insult us by pretending it is something less vulgar.
<
p>
p.s.s. The question still stands. Unanswered.
It’s still “When did you stop beating your wife, dog or whatever the hell you beat?”.
The National Union of Students revisited and updated the Columbian Labour issue as it relates to Coke, in November, 2005 and published the results of their follow-up.
<
p>
I have a copy of the pdf that I’m happy to e-mail to anyone. It’s probably online somewhere, but I’m not sure where.
<
p>
However, I think it’s fair to say that in the totality of his AG record, the same is true of your guy, Reilly.
<
p>
Both solid leaders with solid resumes. Neither has strong claim on extraordinary in terms of their actual accomplishments, but wouldn’t you concede that Patrick has been more inspiring to his base than Reilly has? I mean in addition to the activists who just love getting juiced up (Reich’s base in 2002), Patrick seems to have built on that, no?
<
p>
2. I’m not sure I personally buy your suggestion that Patrick perhaps merits a higher standard because he chose a slogan that says “No Ordinary Leader.” If you want to be Gov, the outcomes of your past leadership decisions should be equally “on the table.” Whether it’s part of your slogan or not – irrelevant. Patrick didn’t fix Coke, Reilly didn’t fix Dig.
<
p>
However, I think it would be fair for you to point out that some Patrick supporters had jujitsued Gabrieili’s “Results” slogan against him, so hard to understand why they find your equivalent “Ordinary Not Extraordinary” barb as low-class.
feel free to consult this post, which I authored, to brush up on all of the candidates’ policy proposals.
<
p>
And, please, don’t lecture me about my contributions to this forum. I have always done my utmost to treat everyone – and every issue – with the dignity they deserve, including this post.
<
p>
You might want to try the same.
I have been sitting on the sidelines reading the posts most of the summer. I thought that I’d jump back in here. It’s a fair question posed by MD. I know MD backs Reilly. As a Gabrieli backer, it’s a question that I would also love to see a real answer to.
<
p>
When we really begin to examine Deval’s past, I see a troubling pattern developing (Ameriquest, Coke, Texaco, stock holdings, memberships while at Harvard, etc.) These run somewhat counter to the great proclamations that we have heard. What is consistent across all of these is that Deval appears to have made a lot of $ and that he is part of an exclusive club.
<
p>
I plan to support whomever wins the democratic primary, so if it happens to be Deval, he and his campaign better get used to the heat because Healey will have her $15M ready to go negative on September 20th.
<
p>
So the question still stands,
<
p>
What ultimately happened to the workers at the Colombia bottling plant?
<
p>
Also, is it possible that Deval is more fraud than real deal?
<
p>
SSG