Coca-Cola employees deserve healthcare

By Angela Campbell

In June 2001 Coca-Cola announced its partnership with UNAIDS, a joint United Nations program on HIV/AIDS. It negotiated with its business and bottling partners to provide HIV/AIDS treatment for its employees and dependents. However, 16 months later, only 1,200 employees under direct employment of Coca-Cola benefitted from these negotiations according to the Oct. 24 issue of The Nation.

A website dedicated to global access treatment points out that while 2.3 million African people died in 2001, the company made a $261 million profit in Africa alone. Only $4-5 million is required to start up full medical coverage for Coca-Cola's employees in the first year. This amount, as argued by many AIDS activists, is miniscule in comparison to Coke's quarter of a billion dollar profit margin. Coke makes two times the profit margin in Africa than in North America (41 percent versus 20 percent).

Since Sept. 29, 2002, the Coca-Cola Africa Foundation announced an initiative to provide AIDS care benefits to workers at all 40 bottling companies within the Coca-Cola company. Presently, only eight of the 40 bottlers have full medical coverage. Coke is falling behind other companies in Africa that have HIV/AIDS treatment at no cost to employees. These employers justify the costs in overall company benefit.

According to Coca-Cola, its HIV/AIDS Workplace Program includes the formation of Local AIDS committees, free condoms for all associates, AIDS awareness and prevention material, free tests and confidential counselling and medical coverage and treatment, including access to ARVs and prophylactic treatments. However, its 40 other bottling partners are independent companies and are responsible for providing healthcare benefits for their own employees. They are at different stages in developing AIDS strategies.

But is this enough? Does Coca-Cola have a moral responsibility to provide for its employees or should that be a governmental concern?

Thousands of protestors answered this very question on Oct. 17, demanding that Coca-Cola, one of the largest employers on the African continent, provide full medical coverage, including access to the AIDS retrovirus (ARV), to all of its employees in Africa. Organizations like ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) and Health GAP (Health Global Access Project) are trying to push Coca-Cola to take responsibility for helping its African employees deal with the devasting effects of the AIDS epidemic.

At Coca-Cola's headquarters in Manhattan, 600 protestors marched around midtown with a giant blow-up Coke bottle. The label read "Coke=Death." Once in front of the headquarters, 32 black body bags were dumped one by one in front of the steps of the building as a thick, red liquid was poured onto them from two-liter Coke bottles. Each of the body bags represented one of the bottling companies Coca-Cola was not providing full medical coverage for. Thousands more participated in marches in Paris, Ghana and in front of the World of Coca-Cola Museum in Atlanta.

In an article from the Oct. 24 issue of The Nation, Sharonann Lynch, Health GAP activist and organizer said, "Until they implement changes, we'll drag their name through the mud."

A spokesperson for Doctors Without Borders, Rachel Cohen, said in the Oct. 24 issue of The Nation, "The role of multinational corporations can be huge in the public-sector response. It ultimately can serve as a catalyst for a wider movement."

The sheer size of corporations and their invasive nature into our everyday lives makes me think that they do share some kind of responsibility for the people for which they provide services, and at the very least, for the people they employ. When corporations have budgets larger than several countries combined, they have an obligation to set the precedent for human rights issues such as this.

The protestors do well to bring this to the world's attention, but perhaps they would also do well to reconsider their persuasive technique. Coca-Cola deserves encouragement for the progress they have made thus far, and although displaying outside pressure and concern may push Coca-Cola to respond more rapidly, it may also be a turn-off to any corporations considering expansion of health coverage for employees.

Fortunately, the negative response of the protestors has not seemed to affect Coca-Cola Africa, as it declares that it will make every effort to respond to the needs of associates and their families. Hopefully this trend will continue so that other corporations will realize that their employees are more important than their profits.