Article: Woolworths boycott backed by shareholders

[MickeyD]

40-50 shares? bwahahahaha

And they hope to raise issues at the AGM in 2 weeks time? bwahahahaha

The agenda for the AGM has already been finalised so they won't get the opportunity to raise their point at this AGM. They might have more luck next year.

 

[MrGray]

Sodastream is an Israeli company. Pick 'n Pay, Shoprite and pretty much every major retailer stock it. In fact all the major retailers stock Israeli products or brands with Israeli ties, so why target only Woolworths? Couldn't have anything to do with having Jewish founders and management, could it?

 

[MickeyD]

Sodastream is an Israeli company. Pick 'n Pay, Shoprite and pretty much every major retailer stock it. In fact all the major retailers stock Israeli products or brands with Israeli ties, so why target only Woolworths? Couldn't have anything to do with having Jewish founders and management, could it?

It's all because of the tomatoes....

And some "businessmen" were probably hoping to cash in by luring ex-WW shoppers into their stores.

 

[Paul Hjul]

Sodastream is an Israeli company. Pick 'n Pay, Shoprite and pretty much every major retailer stock it. In fact all the major retailers stock Israeli products or brands with Israeli ties, so why target only Woolworths? Couldn't have anything to do with having Jewish founders and management, could it?

no it actually has nothing to do with Woolworths itself and the political iconography that is in play. COSATU is using Woolworths as a symbol of "whiteness" and the gentrification of the black middle class "into capitalist white power structures" - and all that jazz.
Further Woolworths is vulnerable among SA retailers to getting a walloping by economic forces - so the BDS can claim a victory through ignoring external factors. If Woolworths does well in spite of the protest cue the "capitalist white power structures" jazz

 

[nightjar]

if the politicians are getting involved then there must be an angle. who is going to gain by hammering woolworths?

Something like the German Kaiser who remarked in 1911, "Morality is alright but what about dividends?"

 

[alqassam]

They just a bunch of racists that's all

Whose they.
Thats a pretty generalist and derogatory statement considering you do not know them .many people i know regardless or race condemn to killing of children

 

[alqassam]

"group of shareholders" You mean 5 guys with 1 share?

Im a bit more important than a shareholder. Im a consumer. And if woolies gives into these blacmail demands I wont be using them again. They must stand strong, their handling of this issue has been fine.

Actually the board is accountable to shareholders and not consumers

 

[Albereth]

Actually the board is accountable to shareholders and not consumers

In fact, yes. In spirit, not solely.

 

[alqassam]

In fact, yes. In spirit, not solely.

Triple line reporting etc. But we all know that its all about the benjamins

 

[MickeyD]

Triple line reporting etc. But we all know that its all about the benjamins

It's a retail BUSINESS, not a charity.

 

[IzZzy]

You lamented the rule that shareholders could bring up issues at shareholder meetings.

Shareholders can bring up issues at shareholder meetings - provided these requirements are met:

1) they use the procedure in the Companies Act to do so - this would mean they need at least 10% of the shares to requisition that certain resolutions are tabled [which they don't have]
2) they need to comply with the time requirements for the aforesaid requisition [which they won't be able to in time for the AGM]; and
3) the issues sought to be raised need to be shareholder issues. In other words, shareholders are not entitled to interfere with the conduct or operation of the business of a company, as that falls within the exclusive remit of the board's responsibility. There is a very clear divide between these responsibilities.

I'm afraid BDS actions fail on all three grounds. If I were the Woolies chairman, I would apply for an interdict to prevent these shareholders from riding roughshod over the procedures at the AGM.

 

[Paul Hjul]

Triple line reporting etc. But we all know that its all about the benjamins

the triple bottom line does not include "extent to which company is under the thumb of politicians"

 

[bokdrol]

I did a little snap survey around the office today: middle class educated black, white and indian colleagues (couldn't find my muslim colleagiues, they were probably at Woollies)
The general feeling here seems to be that if they didn't shop at WW before, they will certainly do so now. This is a typical SA response: we have a tendency to "subversiveness" just for the hell of it. We also don't like our shopping time to be interfered with.

 

[Paul Hjul]

Shareholders can bring up issues at shareholder meetings - provided these requirements are met:

1) they use the procedure in the Companies Act to do so - this would mean they need at least 10% of the shares to requisition that certain resolutions are tabled [which they don't have]
2) they need to comply with the time requirements for the aforesaid requisition [which they won't be able to in time for the AGM]; and
3) the issues sought to be raised need to be shareholder issues. In other words, shareholders are not entitled to interfere with the conduct or operation of the business of a company, as that falls within the exclusive remit of the board's responsibility. There is a very clear divide between these responsibilities.

I'm afraid BDS actions fail on all three grounds. If I were the Woolies chairman, I would apply for an interdict to prevent these shareholders from riding roughshod over the procedures at the AGM.

would it not appear a little partisan of the chairman to move for such an interdict?

securing such an interdict would in my view be appropriate and beneficial but I am a little concerned at the chairman not being a respondent to such proceedings

 

[IzZzy]

would it not appear a little partisan of the chairman to move for such an interdict?

securing such an interdict would in my view be appropriate and beneficial but I am a little concerned at the chairman not being a respondent to such proceedings

A little yeah, but the Chairman's obligation is to ensure the orderly and proper conduct of the meeting - which would be at threat by BDS' stated intentions of deviating from the set agenda. It certainly wouldn't be an interdict to stop their presence at the meeting, which would be a step too far.

Considering the cost that goes into meetings, I think it would be appropriate pre-emptive step to be taken - rather than to adjourn and incur double the cost.

 

[bokdrol]

WW should just wait for the BDS to hoist themselves with their own petard. They are making fools of themselves and shaming moderate muslims everywhere.
Soon.

 

[Humberto]

Do you think Woolworths might eventually decide it's not worth it to have all this drama over a relatively small part of their product line and cave in by replacing their Israeli products with non-Israeli products?

 

[Pitbull]

Do you think Woolworths might eventually decide it's not worth it to have all this drama over a relatively small part of their product line and cave in by replacing their Israeli products with non-Israeli products?

Or remove all halaal food and not cater for the Muslims?

 

[Fulcrum29]

Do you think Woolworths might eventually decide it's not worth it to have all this drama over a relatively small part of their product line and cave in by replacing their Israeli products with non-Israeli products?

BDS will continue with reason, they will simply point to shareholders being pro-Israeli etc. The BDS campaigns, http://www.bdssouthafrica.com/2009/06/consumer-boycott.html, are to boycott all connections to Israel. BDS also selectively targets entities, in their case with Woolworths, they are claiming Woolworths to be the only claiming ethical entity in SA amongst all the retailers, though near every entity has ethical, equality and diversity policies.

Noting that the BDS supporters are boycotting due to entities being Zionist institutions and are supporting the Zionist state. In this essence I can relate to Halaal produce supporting radical movements. Draadsitters.

 

[Musicmp3]

Wonder what they say about the beheading of innocent people? Bigots!

Anyway shorter queues now so I dont give a hoot if they boycott or not.