No announcement yet.

Is Coca-Cola really........

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is Coca-Cola really........


    Your favorite restaurant no longer serves your favorite Coca-Cola fountain drink? It?s that Coca-Coca top directors and sales associates at Team Los Angeles in the past decade have become very interested mostly in ?High Volume Accounts,? that yield higher profits.

    Even though the Coca-Cola Company in Georgia displays their ?Code Of Business Conduct? on their website. COCA COLA (TEAM LOS ANGELES) has been and continues to operate well outside the following established standards of which are displayed below:

    Code Of Business Conduct

    Our Code of Business Conduct serves to guide the actions of our employees, officers and directors in ways that are consistent with our core values: honesty; integrity; diversity; quality; respect; responsibility; and, accountability. The Code helps our people play by the rules wherever we operate around the world.

    Top Directors and Sales Associates of Coca-Cola (Team Los Angeles) are knowingly and willingly engaging in the following unethical and/or illegal acts for the purpose of (indicating) less Costs and Higher Profits, specifically to obtain ?Bonuses.? Here are some examples below:

    *Withholding, delaying, and/or paying service techs at lower than current overtime rates.

    *Withholding and/or delaying rebate-checks to venders and distributors of Coke for up to an entire year. Even large restaurant chains such as, ?Burger King? recently have had their rebate checks withheld.

    *Withholding the replacement of obsolete malfunctioning fountain machines an entire year, as it is an expense of which lowers bottom line Profits & Bonuses.

    *Withholding funding for (POS) Point of Sales material and Menu Support to accounts that sell below 4,000 gallons of Coke annually.

    It has also been revealed that ?Top Directors and Sales Associates? of Coca-Cola (Team Los Angeles) often give very expensive water filtration cartridges for FREE to, ?High Volume? accounts such as McDonald?s. Other smaller volume businesses are left to purchase their own filtration equipment and biannual replacement cartridges, of which raises the question of ?Unfair Competition.?

    Further insight to Coke?s operations reveal its disgraceful ?Marketing Agreement? that falls way short of Pepsi?s, when it comes to ethical responsibility. In essence, it is a five year one-sided contract that?s designed for Coke to profit substantially, while forcing businesses to (exclusively) sell Coke products just for starters. The sale any/all other drinks is so prohibited under this contract, even non-carbonated drinks such as pina-colada, horchata, flavored water, and bottled water. If bottled water is to be sold, it is to be purchased only from Coca-Cola.

    Further analysis of Coke?s ?Marketing Agreement? forces business operators under this agreement to implement larger cup sizes for their customers such as, sizes 24 oz., 32 oz., and 44 oz., and must provide, ?Free Refills.?

    The implementation of larger cup sizes in businesses sets forth many dynamics. Large restaurant chains obtain much higher rebates per gallon of Coke of about $2.75 per gallon of Coke sold. Where as small business obtain just a mere 70 cents per gallon to none at all. These rebates directly influence the prices that consumers pay for a cup of Coke.

    Other dynamics that larger cup sizes set into motion is, ?Customer Choice Limitation? that directly sets off the dynamic ?Health? as well. Customers who have a variety of health issues that they battle on a daily basis are now limited to cup sizes of 24 oz., 32 oz., and 44 oz. that the V.P. Mrs. Katherine Twells and Director of Sales Mr. Shane Wheatland have dictated to business via contract. Apparently the movie, ?Super Size Me? has had absolutely no effect on the senior executives at Coke. All around restaurants in Southern California, through the direction of West Coast Administration, the 16 oz. is being removed for the larger cup sizes, larger profits, and larger consumer health problems related to obesity.

    Even further analysis reveals that business owners have complained about the cost of routine ?Coke Service Calls,? that have resulted in bills in excess of $300.00 of which Coke made a substantial amount of revenue. It is clear that Cokes technicians knew that chlorine in the city water systems over time did damage sensitive plastic components in Cokes fountain machines, but were prohibited Coke's top administrators from notifying the owner to install a simple $200.00 filter. Thus, top officials at Coke?s Team Los Angeles continued to deceive their customers and engaged what may be deemed as ?Ill gotten gains? and/or the ?Gorging of Profits.?

    In an attempt to escape & conceal these matters of what may be called, "Unethical Business Conduct." Coke now has elected to offer in its ?Business Development Fund? to all its customers. Depending on the businesses annual gallons sold, a specific amount of funds will be allocated for the purchase of a ?Menu Board? and of course a ?Water Filter System.?

    A further analysis of (CCNA) Coca-Cola North America?s marketing agreement brings us to ?Dispute Resolution.? In the last part it states, ?The dispute will be resolved by binding arbitration administered by AAA in accordance with its Commercial Arbitration Rules. The last sentence is by far the most interesting, (A judgment on the award of the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court with jurisdiction). This sentence speaks for itself about how (CCNA) views its loyal vendors.

    Of course, the lack of Coke?s ?Code of Business Conduct? at Team Los Angeles has resulted in Pepsi to just devour a tremendous amount of Coke?s large and small volume accounts. In attempt to curb Pepsi rapid growth in Southern California in the past decade, Coke?s ?Top Directors? are suspected of intentionally releasing tens of thousands of stolen 5 gallon concentrated boxes of Coke onto the black market as an incentive for businesses not to switch over to Pepsi?s more lucrative rebate program. As Coke is in business to make money, it is unclear how many fraudulent theft claims it has submitted to its insurance carrier to date.

    Many operators have complained to Coke of Atlanta about its executive?s about the above unethical business conduct, especially engaging in ?Unfair Competition?, but it is still business as usual at Team Los Angeles.

    It would be highly unlikely if Pepsi does not file suit yet again against Coke for their unethical business conduct or we may just even see a class action suit as well.

    Coca-Cola of Atlanta
    President Neville Isdell
    1 Coca Cola Plaza
    Atlanta, GA 30301

    The Coca-Cola Company
    President Neville Isdell
    P.O. Box 1734
    Atlanta, GA 30301

    Coca-Cola (Team Los Angeles)
    Katherine Twells
    Vice President
    Tel: 949-250-7967
    Fax: 949-250-6171

    Coca-Cola (Team Los Angeles)
    Shane Wheatland
    Director, Area Sales
    Tel: 949-250-7936
    Fax: 949-250-6181

    Office of the Attorney General
    Public Inquiry Unit
    P.O. Box 944255
    Sacramento, CA 94244

    L.A. County' District Attorney's Office Bureau of Fraud and Corruption
    Prosecutions Consumer Protection Division
    201 North Figueroa St., Suite 1200
    Los Angeles, CA 90012