Hundreds of Frito-Lay employees are back on the job this week after ratifying a new union contract that guarantees them one day off a week.
Roughly 600 of 850 workers walked picket lines for 20 days in Topeka, Kansas, before the snack maker and the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers union reached agreement on a revised labor accord, which was then approved by workers, both sides announced over the weekend.
The first strike ever at the facility centered on workers seeking "a voice over how many hours in a week they can be forced to work," Anthony Shelton, the union's international president, said in a statement.
"We are pleased the BCTGM Local 218 members from Frito-Lay's Topeka site ratified the revised contract offer and we look forward to welcoming all of our employees back to work next week," the company said Saturday in an emailed statement. "The new offer from Frito-Lay provides a guaranteed day off during each work week [and] eliminates 'squeeze shifts'," Frito-Lay said, referencing back-to-back 12-hour shifts with just eight-hours off in between.
So the strike is over, the workers got something out of it -- not enough in my opinion, but they did get something. I will return to buying Frito-Lay products. I hope you read Trina's "Volvo workers inspired" last night. If you missed it, please read it. She is correct and these strikes popping up can all benefit one another if people are willing to give an honest evaluation when one ends.
Now here is Richard Medhurst.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Wednesday, July 28, 2021. Is Joe Biden all there? Is the press?
How sentinent is Joe Biden? At 78, it was never a surprise that people would question his coherence. This is someone who was hidden from the press while campaigning -- as a strategy. Even hidden away, his words weren't connecting. SKY NEWS is building a cottage industry around his questionable moments.
We could go on and on.
Joe was too old to run for president and never should have been given the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. He's 78. How old was Ronald Reagen when he left office? 77. He was elected at 69 and served two terms. It was obvious Reagan wasn't coherent at the end.
Some argue it's already apparent that Joe is incoherent.
That might explain why he's so determined to mislead the American people and why some in the press are so willing to lie.
Garbage like the article credited to "agencies" that Pakistan's DAILY TIMES runs which insists "After 18 years, US announces to end combat mission in Iraq." If you're as senile as many fear Joe Biden is, you might just nod along. If you're mind hasn't gone to mush, however, you'll probably be remembering this was declared in Barack Obama's first term as president.
NBC NEWS allows a little truth to emerge via a column they run online by Daniel R. DePetris:
Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi's visit to the White House on Monday produced what the Biden administration is marketing as a major announcement about the U.S. troop presence in Iraq: There won't be any U.S. combat troops in Iraq by the end of the year. The U.S. presence in the country will now focus on training, advising and enabling Iraqi security forces to conduct operations independently against the Islamic State militant group.
So that's Daniel R. DePetris, Ruth Sherlock, (NPR) and us. Guess what? We're all still breathing.
Meanwhile, ANTIWAR.COM continues to lie -- most recently in the latest from Jason Ditzy. WSWS just completely ignores the whole issue. Didn't think either of you outlets existed to provide cover for politicians but I guess we can tell by your actions, right?
Look, Daniel, Ruth and us, we're all in the pool. Como on in and join us, you can even stay on the shallow end or visit the kiddie pool.
I'm just sick of this garbage. You self-present as truth tellers but you take a pass time and again. WSWS needs, apparently, multiple days after an announcement (lie) is issued by the government to respond and Ditzy and his ANTIWAR gang just run with whatever the government says.
Do we need to buy them floaties? Would that help.
(Yes, we are fine. I've read the e-mails and was already aware of what happened last night. Their little games do not hurt us and haven't in the past and they're learning that payback is always meted out -- not by me but by UK supporters. That's all we'll say here. If we had a community newsletter today or tomorrow, I wouldn't even say that. This will be addressed in the gina & krista round-robin.)
The front pages of THE PROGRESSIVE, THE NATION and IN THESE TIMES have nothing on it either. Noting that before ________ with WSWS to whine that others didn't cover it.
WSWS has spent how many weeks calling out JACOBIN? For not covering this or that? But it can't cover this lie being spread by the White House via the press?
It really is a garbage media we are being asked to build. Send money, send money!!!!! We are the last tellers of truth!!!!!
What a load of garbage. They're lazy pandhandlers. And they prove it by doing nothing with the money they've been given.
Trudy Rubin is someone I've long disagreed with on many things releated to Iraq. We've included her frequently over the years because she truly does care about Iraq. This is from her latest from THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER:
But he also made clear that U.S. forces — probably most of the 2,500 now in the country — would be rebranded to “train, to assist, to help and to deal with ISIS.”
Moreover, the White House wants to help Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, an unusual Iraqi leader. He is trying to pull together a country fragmented by sectarianism, corruption, and by Iranian meddling, including aid to Shiite militias that challenge the government.
And there it is. The US is trying to rig the election for Mustafa.
Mustafa is a lousy prime minister. But even if he was a great one, the pretense Joe Biden's carrying out is an attempt to influence a foreign election.
Joe should really learn to butt the hell out.
He is the one who negotiated The Erbil Agreement -- the legal contract that threw out the 2010 votes so that Nouri al-Maliki could get the second term that the Iraqi people voted to avoid.
Back then, Susan Rice and Samantha Power were insistent that Nouri al-Maliki had to have a second term. It was the only way, they insisted, to achieve US goals. The man running the secret prisons and torture chambers, the man who saw everyone as his enemy must be given a second term over the objection of the Iraqi people. Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates did object. But Joe sided with Rice and Powers. (Hillary and Robert's stance was what Joe's had been originally in March of 2010 -- that the winner should be named prime minister-designate -- that would be Ayad Allawi.)
Anybody remember how that turned out?
Nouri's second term saw him persecute even more Iraqis and ISIS rose up as a result of his persecution of Sunnis. ISIS, under Nouri, would terrorize the country. It would also do something that terrorists don't generally do, it would seize control of parts of the country.
That's on Joe Biden and the gang who couldn't support democracy or respect the votes.
They just knew better -- in their minds.
We're there again with Mustafa. He has accomplished nothing. The Iraqi people are suffering. But here's the US government yet again trying to influence the government. As noted in the roundtable for POLLY'S BREW with Iraqi community members, there's a feeling of why even bother to vote this go round since Joe's back in the White House and they know he overturned their votes in 2010?
A lot of people are saying that they won't participate in the elections.
Some leaders in The October Revolution have announced that they won't be voting. Some Christians have announced the same. XINHUA notes that there are now three political groups that are also saying they won't participate:
The Iraqi National Dialogue Front announced on Wednesday its withdrawal from the parliamentary elections scheduled for Oct. 10.
It is the third political group, after Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc and the Iraqi Communist Party, that has decided to withdraw from the upcoming Iraqi elections.
"The failure to provide a safe environment for early elections and the proliferation of out-of-control weapons are all factors that confirm that no clear change will happen, and accordingly, the Front decided not to participate in the elections," the Front said in a statement.
The Front, led by Salih al-Mutlak, participated in the 2018 elections as part of the al-Wataniya (National) Coalition led by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a veteran secular politician. The coalition won 21 out of the 329 seats in the parliament.
On the withdrawal of Ayad Allawi's National Dialogue Front, Halgurd Sherwani (KURDISTAN 24) notes:
In a press conference on Wednesday in Baghdad, Judge Wael Abdullatif, the deputy of the Forum, announced the decision. The electoral list was headed by Allawi, a former prime minister and seasoned politician.
Abdullatif said he expects very low turnout in the planned elections, which would result in a “weak government.”
He urged other political parties to take the same position.
It is not yet clear how the latest withdrawals by major parties will affect the planned vote. Government officials, including Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi regularly reiterate that the election will be held on time – Oct. 10.
In 2010, Joe Biden tossed aside the Iraqi votes and Ayad Allawi's chance at being the prime minister. Wonder if Joe's position as US President currently had any impact on Allawi's decision?
The CIA estimates that Sunnis make up approximately 34% of Iraq's population -- a significant number -- unless you're ANTIWAR.COM. (ANTIWAR.COM works to disappear the Sunnis the same way WSWS works to disappear the Kurds.) Their votes? It appears that there is a huge enthusiasm gap. ARAB WEEKLY offers a lengthy analysis which includes:
Most Iraqi Sunnis do not trust the political forces and parties that represent them. The tensions between Halbousi and Khanjar have increased that level of mistrust ahead of the parliamentary elections, which are expected to be held next October.
Sunnis, whether displaced or residing in their areas, realise that Halbousi and Khanjar have been picked by the ruling Shia parties to play the role of the community’s representatives.
Khanjar is allied with a number of Iranian-aligned Shia forces, including the Badr Organisation headed by Hadi al-Amiri and the Islamic Dawa Party headed by Nuri al-Maliki, while al-Halbousi enjoys the support of Kurdish and Shia leaders, including former Kurdistan Region President Massoud Barzani and the leader of the Sadrist movement Muqtada al-Sadr.
After the elimination of most of the supporters of the Islamic State in Iraq, Khanjar made a radical shift in his political position, transforming himself in the process from a radical critic of Iran to ally of the Shia Islamist regime in Tehran.
Halbousi’s supporters say that Tehran wants to reward Khanjar for this political u-turn by giving him the chance to participate in returning part of the Sunni community of Jurf al-Sakhar, 60 kilometers southwest of Baghdad, to their areas. Local media sources have earlier suggested that Khanjar has reached an agreement with Shia militias, according to which he gave up most of the areas in Jurf al-Sakhar in exchange for allowing part of the Sunni population to return to their homes.
Since 2018, no Iraqi official has been able to enter Jurf al-Sakhar after the displacement of its Sunni residents, while sources say that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps directly supervised the transformation of parts of this area into camps for Shia militias, weapons stores and sites for taking off and landing drones. The Shia militias also exploited vast agricultural areas in Jurf al-Sakhar to create farms and fields, raising livestock, poultry and fish.
Independent Iraqi politician Jabbar al-Mashhadani told The Arab Weekly that Khanjar’s alliance with Iran, through Qatari mediation, is his magic recipe for hijacking Sunni votes.
Mashhadani, however, warned the spell could turn on Khanjar if the political situation changes or if regional balances shift.
RUDAW has an important piece that we'll note the opening of:
US Ambassador to Iraq Matthew Tueller spoke with Rudaw's Roj Elli
Zalla in Washington DC, discussing developments in the US mission in
Iraq, the upcoming parliamentary elections, and the Kurdistan Workers'
Party (PKK) in the Kurdistan Region.
Echoing other US officials, Tueller reiterated Washington's role in Iraq is to enable Iraqi security forces to fight the Islamic State (ISIS), saying that anyone criticizing the US presence is resisting the state.
The US is also providing financial support to the UN mission in Iraq, and the electoral commission, in preparation for the October elections.
He also refuted claims that the US is "quiet" on the Turkey-PKK conflict, and says Washington wants a strong Iraqi state to contribute to a more peaceful Middle East.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Some of the militia groups are saying combat troops, advisor troops, this is just a change of names and the US is not really withdrawing. What do you say to that?
The security issue has dominated much of the discussion, but let me remind everybody that of course our presence there is at the request and invitation of the Iraqi government, they asked us to come in and lead an international coalition to help the Iraqi government deliver the decisive and enduring defeat of ISIS. We have accomplished much of that mission and we are at a stage now where we can assess what are the capabilities of the Iraqi forces, whether from the Peshmerga, the Iraqi security forces, or the counter terrorism forces and what are their needs. That’s the nature of the discussion. I would dismiss those who are criticizing this or anything because what they are really resisting, is they are resisting an Iraqi state, they are resisting a state that is able to provide security for the Iraqi people, they are resisting an Iraqi state that is able to provide jobs, predictability that is what their resistance is. There is no occupation by any foreign force, certainly not by the US. Our role there, operating within the Iraqi bases and the Iraqi operation centers, is to enable and make the Iraqi forces the most capable they can be.
This agreement between Iraq and the US, do you think this might lead to a better condition for the embassy to open up, and the US bases there that would face less attacks?
Well of course we do not have US bases in Iraq, we have some of our military that are on Iraqi bases whether in Ain al-Assad or Erbil or elsewhere so there are no US bases. We have an embassy, as we have embassies in any country in the world, and it is normal that a host government is responsible for protecting embassies and protecting forces that are in the country of the invitation. So the real question is for the Iraqi government, will they be able to stand up to those forces that as I said are resisting the Iraqi government. Will they be able to hold accountable those who are conducting these attacks, will they be able to deter them, will they be able to chase them down. I have seen some success in that regard and we hail that and we hope that the Iraqi government will continue to pursue very, very aggressively these forces that ultimately are threatening the interest of Iraq and the Iraqi people.
The following sites updated: