7 ms·

Your satire probably isn't that far off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinaltrainal_v._Coca-Cola_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinaltrainal_v._Coca-Cola_Co.

• DANmode 27d ago
  I was also going to mention this - unfortunate example they chose!
• jimt1234 27d ago
  Whoa. This is weird. My friend's dad was an FBI agent for over 20 years. I remember him telling us a story about a case he worked in the early-90s where a Coca Cola exec was embezzling millions from the company. The exec was caught, basically red-handed. After working with his lawyer, the exec provided a story about some South American gang that strong-armed him into washing money for them (threatened to kill him and his family; I think he said they even kidnapped his daughter). My friend's dad said his team worked with the exec for several months to corroborate the story about the South American gang. Apparently he was telling the truth. Then, after gathering intel on the gang, they came up with a plan to go after them. However, a few days before they were set to act on their plan, they were told to stand down. Actually, no, before that they were told by their leadership that there would be no capture (of the gang), only kill. Then the plan was cancelled altogether. My friend's dad rarely, if ever, talked about his work. However, he got loose lips after retiring, and if he had a few beers in him.
  • zx8080 27d ago
    [flagged]
    • timthorn 27d ago
      It's a rhetorical device to emphasise the reason for cancellation, not a revision.
    • rightbyte 27d ago
      Sounds dictaded.
    • UqWBcuFx6NV4r 27d ago
      People write like they talk for effect. This is very, very common in the real world.
• jorblumesea 27d 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
  • elmomle 27d ago
    We 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 27d ago
      [deleted]
    • jagged-chisel 27d ago
      I just need my lawn mowed for $75. I can’t be getting involved with how you hired your helpers/assistants.
  • ruggeri 27d ago
    I don’t know how much responsibility should flow upward to Coca Cola, but “suppressed union activity” is excessively euphemistic.
    • danielheath 27d ago
      They may well have used suppressors.
  • rl3 26d 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.
• SkinTaco 27d ago
  I don't understand what you're trying to say? Is this like M.K.Ultra?