Thursday, February 25, 2010

Milk Code in the Philippines: Quo Vadis, Nestle?




When an entity publicly espouses certain universal values, it is reasonable to expect that the entity -no matter what kind of situation it is in - will abide by its own espoused values. However, if you look at the way Nestle is handling itself in the Philippines, especially in its hypocritical and bullying treatment of its third party "partners," it is fairly obvious that its values - Honesty, Integrity and Fairness - are just mere lip service. (Please look at the historical posts to see for yourself how this is so.)
If it is unique, "one-of" case then one can reasonably conclude that it a mere aberration; and therefore, the reputation of Nestle, most especially in the Philippines, should remain intact and fairly unblemished. On the other hand, if it is proven that such behavior is habitual, then it reflects badly on how twisted the leadership behind the organization is. As much as we try not to think of it negatively, it is with extreme sadness to conclude that Nestle falls into the category of the latter.

Apart from its trade bullying and its blatant disregard for its former workers, Nestle, by its own words, is extremely guilty and hypocritical in its stand on the international milk code. Consider their own words when you make your judgement on how seriously fucked up this company is:

Philippine Daily Inquirer, 11/21/2006:


Nestlé position

In a statement, Nestlé

Philippines Inc. said it was supporting the proposal to prohibit the use of identical or

similar brand names both for infant formulas and for other milk products not covered by the Milk Code.

“The proposal will strengthen the effective and transparent

enforcement of the ban on the advertising of infant milk,” Nestlé said yesterday in a statement.

The company said it was also supporting an advertising ban on breast milk

substitutes for infants aged up to 12 months. In contrast, the IRR regulates the

advertising of milk formula for children aged up to 24 months, which is consistent with the World

Health Assembly resolutions and the Infant and Young Child Feeding Convention to which the

Philippines is a signatory.

The International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) in Europe, representing 58 groups

in 35 countries across the continent, endorsed the petition supporting the Philippine government’s policy on infant formula.

From England, a certain Jennifer wrote: “The health of

children of the Philippines is of far greater importance than the accumulation of profits by baby milk companies.

“It is shameful that com

panies and individuals should undermine the health of babies purely to make money.”

Please click HERE for the full article.


In their own website for baby milk,

however, here is Nestle's global statement:

However, it appears that most of the allegations about Nestlé

are practices that are entirely in keeping with the International Code, as originally drafted and as implemented by

each government in question. It is important to note in this context that the Code was passed as a recommendation to

governments to implement according to their own legislative and regulatory frameworks.

Nestlé voluntarily and unilaterally applies the Code in its entirety in all developing countries (over 150 nations).

Please click HERE for the full article.


WOW! If this isn't hypocrisy at its best, then what is? It is clearly no wonder why the other issues are

present and there to stay. There is no value (pun intended!) to the word, written or otherwise, in the Nestle world.

The good news is that FRR believes that people, even bullies,

can change for the better. You can be un-fucked up if you put the will behind it.

Nestle, quo vadis?

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Nestle, The World is taking Notice! - Repost from Communique de Presse Gratuit, February 15, 2010




A popular French News Site has gotten hold of the Nestle's abusive practices. While the article is in French, it does not take a genius to gather from the article that Nestle is using its resources to bully and overpower small enterprises in developing countries. Where is Honesty, Integrity and Fairness? What happens to the higher standards of guidance when legalese is not enough? This is corporate hypocrisy at its best.
Click HERE for the link to the website.
***

Société et entreprises : une dénonciation de la politique abusive des firmes multinationales

Moyens mis en œuvre pour régler parfaitement et confortablement une situation X(façon NESTLE). Les pratiques sans scrupule, trompeuses de ce monde géant et célèbre qu’est l’agro-alimentaire, font que ce mot Nestlé ( Niche ) a été abâtardi dans l’infamie.

John Richardson, de “Opines Global Watch Investissement”, fait remarquer que Nestlé a un côté sombre dans son comportement de citoyen corporatif. D’ un point de vue humain, nous considérons que la compagnie est un investissement à haut risque. “L’image respectueuse de la société Vevey, productrice de produits laitiers et alimentaires, basée en Suisse, est éclipsée par les nombreuses critiques, controverses, ainsi que par des informations non fondées qu’elle a obtenues au fil des années. Aux Philippines, cette société a ouvertement défiée la décision de la Cour suprême, datée d’août 2006, lui demandant de retourner à la table des négociations, concernant le Régime des retraites de ses 600 travailleurs géré par une ACB. Mais ce n’est pas son pire crime pour le moment.
La politique commerciale de Nestlé Philippines est synonyme de pratiques prédatrices. Nestlé a réussi à attiré des distributeurs de petite et moyenne taille, par le biais de mesures incitatives, comme des aides initialement financières, en équipement, en services, leur procurant ainsi un bon bénéfice net au départ.. Par la suite, Nestlé a imposé a l’ensemble de ces distributeurs de leur verser à l’avance les bénéfices à collecter, grâce à un système tripartite( Nestlé => Bank => Distributeur) auxquels ils donnèrent le non de “billets tournants en ligne”(R.P.N.L). Une telle mesure a laissé le soin aux distributeurs de Nestlé, de collecter auprès de leur clients ces bénéfices. Clients historiques de Nestlé dont certains non jamais acquittés toutes leurs factures.
En transférant ainsi ses stocks financiers, et si l’on applique le taux de change moyen annuel de la Banque Centrale des Philippines) en 2006, à 3.7 milliards de pesos (soit 80,2 millions de dollars) en 2007. Ses coûts de financement ont également diminué de 60,8 % passant de 734 millions de pesos(soit 14,3 millions de dollars) à 288 millions de pesos (soit 6,2 millions de dollars) pour la même période, explique Atty. Lorna Kapunan, le conseiller juridique de l’un de ses distributeurs philippins. Nestlé a mis en place ces mesures sans même concerter ses distributeurs. Faute de pouvoir se plaindre, Nestlé leur a «caché le miel», et a laissé ses partenaires dans le froid. L’ensemble des distributeurs de Nestlé ont donc été “nichés”(autrement dit floués)!

En avril 2009, Nestlé a ordonné le retrait des produits laitiers de la marque Bear de l’ensemble des rayons de ses distributeurs, et cela sans même justifier publiquement cette décision. Nestlé a délibérément caché de façon cynique le retrait de ces produits en prétextant que c’éait un exercice de simulation pour observer le temps de réponse nécessaire aux distributeurs pour mettre en place la mesure. Aucune somme d’argent qui sera attribuée dans une campagne de relation publique permettra de cacher l’indifférence de Nestlé sur le bien- être et la santé des consommateurs philippins. En somme, vous avez été “niches” Aucun montant de la campagne de relations publiques ne peut cacher son indifférence à la santé et le bien-être des consommateurs Filipino. Vous avez été nichés (autrement dit floués)!


Lorsque l’un de ses distributeurs, les IDE Forefront II Trading Corporation(IDE2),une philippine faisant partie de la petite entreprise, engagée comme distributrice de ses produits, a découvert que le Nestlé Area Sales Manager avait une liaison illicite avec son Président, celui-ci étant un homme marié. IDE Forefront II Trading Corporation(IDE2) a immédiatement attiré l’attention de Nestlé par rapport à ce conflit d’intérêt. Le fait que son directeur commercial de zone exerçait idéalement un pouvoir d’accroissement sur la demande du président, des objectifs de vente du distributeur, étant aussi son amant. Cette situation amoureuse a obtenu pour Nestlé, plusieurs «contrats de complaisance» sans oublier les commissions exponentielles de l’IED 2 sur les objectifs des ventes. Les propriétaires portèrent la question à la direction de Nestlé, qui n’a accordé aucune attention à ce sujet. Dans cette affaire Nestlé n’a pas eu le comportement attendu par la société plaignante. Apres une enquête menée discrètement par Nestlé, il s’est avéré que l’affaire fut jugée strictement personnelle puisqu’elle démontrait une relation amoureuse entre deux adultes n’ayant aucune conséquence sur le bon fonctionnement du distributeur. IDE 2 ne pouvait que constater, hélas, qu’il s’était fait “nicher” par Nestlé(autrement dit floué)!
Par la suite, Nestlé a résilié son contrat de distribution avec l’IDE 2, en prenant le risque aussi de perdre le contrat de distribution la société soeur d’IDE 2 : Service Distributors Inc Edge (SEDI). Comme si cella ne suffisait pas, Nestlé a contraint les propriétaires de l’IDE 2, à signer un accord de remboursement des sommes avancées pour le matériel promotionnel ainsi que le Quitclaim . Ce que Nestlé aurait du faire, c’était d’évaluer la véracité des propos, ainsi que la solidité des bases financières présentées par l’IDE 2 ainsi que sa demande de remboursement. Nestlé a délibérement choisi de s’en prendre à cette situation déplorable et de s’éloigner de toutes responsabilités supplémentaires.

Le Notaire et Conseiller juridique philippin de Nestlé en dépit de toute pièce contradictoire apportée au dossier a ainsi préparé le document qui, de toute évidence, est un acte manifestement illégal et une grave erreur de la marque Nestlé.

Faisant suite à ce document, IDE 2 a déposé une plainte devant la Cour suprême, cherchant à faire radier le conseil juridique de Nestlé pour faute grave et pour violation du serment de d’Hippocrate ainsi que la violation au code de la responsabilité professionnelle.

Deux ans à peine après avoir été présenté par Nestlé comme son “Distributeur de l’année,« l’IDE 2 se trouvé le dos au mur, sans un pouce de répit ou de remise de son «partenaire», et d’ y être poussé par la même main qui l’a attirée dans cette impasse - une impasse Nestlé.

Après la réalisation de l’audit judiciaire, l’IDE 2 a demandé un dédommagement supplémentaire pour perte de 235 millions supplémentaires de pesos (4,9 millions de dollars), plus 252.6 millions de pesos(5,3 millions de dollars) basé sur le coût de l’argent en remboursement des frais juridiques et professionnels engagés pour la période allant de Septembre 2008 au 31 Mars, 2009 ainsi que le reniement de son engagement précédent. Nestlé refuse désormais de reconnaître ces affirmations en disant que le compte de IDE 2 est une affaire close. Nestlé cherche maintenant à élucider sa responsabilité en utilisant le document Quitclaim qu’il avait obtenu en utilisant de fausses promesses, des pratiques contraires à l’éthique du droit, et des manœuvres sournoises.

Après avoir été acclamé comme Nestlé “Distributeur de l’année”, pendant deux années consécutives, l’IDE 2 a maintenant elle-même sa niche(elle s’est fait flouer par Nestlé)!

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Bagong Hari, Dating Ugali - Repost from Horacio Paredes, Abante: Attention: Mr. John Miller

Sabi nila, kapag bago ang pinuno ng isang organisasyon, kadalasan nagbabago rin ang sistema ng pagpapatakbo. Natural lang daw ito dahil lahat ng namumuno ay may kani-kanyang personalidad na lumalabas sa estilo ng pamamalakad. Kaya ‘pag bago ang hepe, kabado ang mga empleyado.


Subalit para sa mga distributor sa Metro Manila at Central Luzon ng isang kilalang banyagang kumpanya na gumagawa ng mga produktong pagkain tulad ng kape, tsokolate, gatas at iba pa, ang pagpasok ng bago nilang hepe ay tila magandang balita. Inaasahan kasi nila na ang bagong dating na presidente ng kumpanya ay hindi magiging tulad ng pinalitan nito. Pinalagay nila na matapos ang mahabang panahon, mabibigyan na ng multinational company ng kaukulang pansin at pagkilos ang kanilang mga lehitimong reklamo.


Kasi naman, milyun-milyong piso bawat distributor ang nawala sa kanila dahil sa pagmando ng Regional Sales Manager (RSM) ng kumpanya na sila’y magbigay ng sampu hanggang dose porsyentong diskwento sa isang wholesaler o tagabenta ng mga produkto sa mga supermarket at mga grocery.


Ang karaniwang patakaran sa mga diskwento ay apat na por syento lamang para may kikitain din ang mga distributor. Pumayag silang magbigay ng diskwentong sobra rito dahil sila’y pinangakuan ng RSM, sa pamamagitan na liham sa letterhead ng kumpanya, na ang multinational ang sasagot sa anim hanggang walong porsyentong pagkalugi nila.


Sa dagdag na diskwentong kanyang natanggap, malaki ang kinita ng pinaborang wholesaler dahil ang mga produktong nakuha niya ay kanyang ibinenta sa napakababang presyo sa Metro Manila. Sa ginawa niyang ito, umangal ang mga Metro Manila distributor dahil hindi nila kayang pantayan ang mababang presyong binigay ng pinaborang wholesaler sa mga supermarket at grocery. Nang sila’y umangal, sagot ng opisyal ng multinational, “Problema niyo na ‘yan.” Tikom-bibig na pilit lumaban sa pagbenta ang mga napagsabihang distributor pero talagang lugi sila.


At habang nagulumihanan ang mga Metro Manila distributor, nag-alboroto naman ang mga taga-Central Luzon. Dahil ni anino ng pangakong ibabalik na diskwento ay ‘di nila naaninag! At lalong sumabog ang kanilang butse nang ang mga tsekeng pinambayad sa kanila ng pinaborang wholesaler ay nagsitalbugan! Eto pa ... ang mga tseke ay nasa pangalan ng RSM! At nadiskubre nila na ang lalaking may-ari ng pinaborang wholesaler ay asawa pala ng RSM!


Habang nagtatago ngayon ang RSM, tinatantiyang ang pagkalugi ng mga distributor sa Metro Manila at Central Luzon (dahil sa kanyang ginawang panloloko) ay umaabot sa isang bilyong piso. Nawalan din ng trabaho ang daan-daang kawani ng mga distributor dahil sa kanilang pagkalugi.


Parang mga Poncio Pilato, todo hugas-kamay naman ang mga opisyal ng multinational company dahil wala raw silang kinalaman sa mga kagagawan ng kanilang RSM. Idemanda na lang daw nila ang ngayo’y ‘di na matagpuang babaeng executive. Kaya lahat ng mga naganap na usapan ng mga distributor sa noo’y presidente ng multinational ay walang pinatunguhan.


Pasok ngayon sa eksena ang bagong hepe na pumalit sa dating presidente na nabigyan ng assignment sa ibang bansa. Laking asa ng mga distributor na mas magiging maunawain ang bago nilang kausap. Maling-mali pala sila, dahil sa halip na umusad ang kaso patungo sa pagkakasundo, ang gusto ng bagong presidente ay bumalik sa simula, o back to zero ang mga usapan!


Hindi pala laging totoo na ‘pag may bagong hari, bagong ugali. Sa panig ng mga distributor, may bago silang katunggali. Para sa akin, dapat na nilang isumbong ang mutinational sa korte, baka sakali doon sa sala ng hukom ng kapwa-Pinoy ay mayroon silang makikitang katarungan na hindi nila makakamit sa kamay ng mga dayuhan.

***

It is expected that when a regime change happens, it is always for the better for all stakeholders, large or small. Apparently, in this case, the new guy is bringing in progress - for them only. WTF?!

Mr. New Leader, you have the golden opportunity to bring in the necessary positive changes, why haven't you done that? Your company is still denying accountability and responsibility in the happenings among your third party partners and your former workers. It may cost you but there is always a price for doing the right thing. It takes a REAL leader to make the tough call and correct all the wrongs in spite of its cost. Do not sweep all these things under the legal rug. Your lawyers are advising you the wrong things just to cover their miserable asses. It is just one bad advise to a bigger bad advise. Before you know it, the mistakes of your advisers will snowball into something bigger and something uncontrollable. By then, you would just wish that you fixed it now.

There is still time. Use it.


Monday, February 15, 2010

Happy New Year, Nestle! Remember your Cabuyao Workers?




Kung Hei Fat Choi to Everyone! As the new lunar year starts, let's remind our dear Nestle friends that they CONTINUOUSLY AND BLATANTLY deny the striking workers what is due them. Supposedly, while the Supreme Court says that the retirement benefits the strikers are asking for are legit, the SC also said that Nestle Philippines did not violate any laws! Talk about paradoxical decisions. While the Supreme Court is the final decision maker in the land, I do believe that there is nothing final so long as there is wrong done to anyone. In this case, that wrong has not been corrected, injustice still reigns and therefore this will never be final.

To the workers, ITULOY ANG LABAN!

To refresh you of the issues, here are a couple of articles:

KMU on CA decision: Where’s national interest in protecting Swiss firm Nestle?

Reference Person:
Elmer "Bong" Labog, KMU Chairperson
Contact information:
0929-629-3234

Labor center slams unjust decision upholding firing of Nestle workers

Labor center Kilusang Mayo Uno slammed the Court of Appeals decision which essentially upheld the corporate interests of Nestle and justified the illegal dismissal of more than 500 Nestle workers, saying invoking “national interest” as primary ground only grants big foreign corporations more power to abuse Filipino workers.

KMU said the CA decision, which upheld the firing of Nestle workers who went on strike over Nestle’s refusal to grant retirement benefits in the collective bargaining agreement negotiations, is “simply unjust and unreasonable.”

“Where’s national interest in protecting the operations of Swiss company Nestle when the rights of Filipino workers are heavily under attack? Would there be a national emergency if workers, who are simply fighting for their just demands, refuse to abide by the DOLE order? KMU Chairperson Elmer “Bong” Labog asked angrily.

“How could workers return to their work if truckloads of heavily-armed AFP and PNP units are the ones implementing DOLE’s Assumption of Jurisdication and return-to-work orders?” he added.

Prior to the return-to-work order, an Assumption of Jurisdiction Order was issued by DOLE in Nov. 28, 2001 over the union’s notice of strike, enabling police and military forces to swoop down on the Cabuyao factory to preempt the strike.

The Supreme Court already ruled in favor of Nestle workers in 1991, saying that retirement benefits is a mandatory collective bargaining issue. In March 2008, it reaffirmed its decision as final and executory. The labor department, however, has not lifted a finger to implement the decision and has even denied the writ of execution filed by the workers last March 5.

“Nestle has continously ignored the two decisions of the highest court for several years. I ask the Court of Appeals, who’s the one breaking the law?” said Labog.

Sheer violence against workers

In their seven-year strike, Nestle workers have suffered violent dispersals by police and military forces who have an encampment inside the Cabuyao plant up to now.

On Sept. 22, 2005, Nestle Cabuyao union president Diosdado “Ka Fort” Fortuna was gunned down by suspected hired armed agents of Nestle on his way home.

“Clearly, the workers have no option but to continue their strike amid sheer intimidation by the armed forces in cooperation with Nestle. It is their best defense against Nestle’s desperate strategy to use the courts and armed forces to attack and end their just struggle,” Labog said.

“It is simply infuriating to hear that the appelate court has upheld corporate interest over the just and legal demands of Nestle workers. This is certainly a bad ruling that further exposes Philippine courts as anti-labor instruments of local and international capitalists.

"The recent CA decision has again clarified to the public that justice in this land favors big foreign corporations, not Filipino workers who are victims of unfair labor pratices committed by such big businesses,”said Labog.


Behind Nestle ad blitz

Media such as print, radio, and television continues to be bombarded by Nestlé commercial advertisements, featuring big names in Philippine show business. Vilma Santos, Cesar Montano, Tweety de Leon, Margie Barretto, Ruffa Gutierrez, Ai-Ai delas Alas, and Kris Aquino are only some of the highly-paid personalities promoting the values-oriented “Choose Wellness, Choose Nestlé” commercial aphorism.

What the public does not know (or what might have been kept from their knowledge), the Swiss-owned multinational company covers up its most atrocious acts against its workers and scoffs at the Supreme Court (SC) decision by way of conditioning the public with the hypocritical “choose wellness” ad. Nestlé promotes a culture of deception while denying justice to its workers for more than five years now.

The Nestlé Cabuyao workers in Laguna, Philippines went to strike on January 14, 2002 when the company used as pre-condition in the collective bargaining negotiations the non-inclusion of the workers’ Retirement Benefits. Despite the sacrifices perceived by the workers, the legitimate strike is backed by the 1991 SC decision affirming the NLRC (National Labor Relations Commission) decision that the Retirement Benefits is a legitimate collective bargaining agreement (CBA) issue.

Unfortunately, the workers’ picketline which was supposed to barricade the company gates was often destroyed by the management’s brutal rampage. Company guards, goons, police and military are garrisoned within and outside the gates.

The campaign “There’s Blood in Your Coffee, Boycott Nestlé” was launched by the workers as one of the leverages to air their legitimate grievance to the public and compel the Nestlé management to settle the labour dispute. It also aimed to counter the vast influence of Nestlé in media as well as its monopoly in the Philippine market.

At the start, the campaign hardly affects the company’s market reputation. However, the campaign caught popular attention and gained wide support in the local, as well as the international community, when two Nestlé unionists were murdered consecutively in September 2005. Luciano Enrique Romero Molina, a Sinaltrainal leader and Nestlé worker who was among the many workers tagged by Nestlé as persona non grata, was murdered on September 11 in Colombia. Diosdado Fortuna, Nestlé Cabuyao union president and chairman of Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Timog Katagalugan-Kilusang Mayo Uno (Solidarity of Workers in Southern Tagalog-May First Movement), was murdered while on his way home from the picketline on September 22.

Many believe that the murder of the two Nestlé workers is not coincidental. The murder of Nestlé Cabuyao union president Meliton Roxas in front of the company gates during their strike in 1989 is another case to prove Nestlé’s blood debts to its workers.

The SC ruled on the labour dispute in Nestlé Cabuyao on August 22, 2006, reaffirming its 1991 decision; hence, directs the Nestlé management and union to go back to the negotiating table to pursue the CBA negotiations.

The Nestlé management persistently snubs the highest court of the land. In fact, in its statement in a news article, Nestlé claimed that the workers who tried to barricade the company gates on January 14 are no longer Nestlé workers (Niña Catherine Calleja, “Workers at multinational food firm barricade factory”,Philippine Daily Inquirer 17 January 2007: A15). Such a statement diverts the real issue and is a blatant disrespect to the latest SC decision.

The ads blitzkrieg came in time and attuned to complement the news statement after January 14.

As Nestlé lavishly spends millions in ads, we have to scrutinize well enough their many purposes, aside from the endorsement of products and conquering the market. After probably knowing the real score, we don’t have to choose wellness if it’s Nestlé. Do we?

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Scratch Villar Off the List!


I really haven't decided who to vote for. I'm still in the process of weighing the pros and cons of each candidate. I won't post about each and everyone's strengths and weaknesses. There's too much going around already. I would just like to focus on one particular candidate whom, prior to this video, was one of frontrunners. I know better now. If he can do this as a senator, what more if he is the top dog.

He is BIG, he got away with it for awhile, but the truth is catching up. No way Manny Villar, no fucking way! Obviously, he has led for no one but himself.

The youtube video: