Nearly 600 workers at the Frito-Lay snack food production plant in Topeka, Kansas walked out Monday, joining a growing number of striking workers who are demanding substantial pay increases to keep up with the rising cost of living and an end to intolerable levels of mandatory overtime, punitive attendance systems and other management abuses.
Striking workers hit the picket lines carrying home-made signs that highlighted the almost universal grievances of workers in the US and internationally. “Cost of living goes up while our pay stays the same,” read one, while another said, “Frito-Lay High Profits-Low Wages.” Others pointed to long hours of labor, including 12 hour shifts, six and seven days a week. “A strike shouldn’t be the only reason we get a holiday off” one worker’s sign read, while another read, “Mandatory Overtime—Where is my family time?”
Like the striking Volvo Trucks workers in Virginia, Warrior Met coal miners in Alabama, ATI steelworkers in Pennsylvania and other states, and the St. Vincent nurses in Massachusetts, the Frito-Lay workers are also in a conflict with a pro-company union. In the last year alone, the Frito-Lay workers have voted down four contracts backed by Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers (BCTGM) Local 218, including one last weekend.
The latest proposal for a two-year contract, worked out between Frito-Lay, owned by PepsiCo, and the union under the direction of a federal mediator, included an annual raise of just two percent, well below the rate of inflation, currently about five percent a year.
A Frito-Lay worker who recently quit after six years because of the abusive conditions told the World Socialist Web Site that the BCTGM signed a contract in January 2016 that cut full-time wages from $20 an hour to $15 an hour. “Due to a high turnover rate, Frito-Lay decided to increase their full-time wage to $18 an hour. It is now 2021, and workers have lost two dollars an hour over the last six years, from 2015 to 2021.”
They do not link to that earlier article about the former Frito-Lay worker. Here is the link to that report.
The snacks Frito-Lay makes include Doritos, Ruffles, Cheetos, Sun Chips, Tostitos, Rold Gold, Funyuns, Walkers, Kurkure, Fritos, and Lays. I mention that because I think the public can do more with regards to supporting Frito-Lay workers.
For example? When I was young (yes, I was once young), we stopped eating grapes to show our support for the workers. In fact, this is a 2017 article from United Fruit Workers about that:
On September 8, 1965, Filipino American grape workers, members of the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, walked out on strike against Delano-area table and wine grape growers protesting years of poor pay and conditions. The Filipinos asked Cesar Chavez, who led a mostly Latino farm workers union, the National Farm Workers Association, to join their strike.
Cesar and the leaders of the NFWA believed it would be years before their fledgling union was ready for a strike. But he also knew how growers historically pitted one race against another to break field walkouts. Cesar’s union voted to join the Filipino workers’ walkouts on Mexican Independence Day, September 16, 1965. From the beginning this would be a different kind of strike.
–Cesar insisted the Latino and Filipino strikers work together, sharing the same picketlines, strike kitchens and union hall.
–He asked strikers take a solemn vow to remain nonviolent.
–The strike drew unprecedented support from outside the Central Valley, from other unions, church activists, students, Latinos and other minorities, and civil rights groups.
–Cesar led a 300-mile march, or perigrinacion, from Delano to Sacramento. It placed the farm workers’ plight squarely before the conscience of the American people.
–The strikers turned to boycotts, including table grapes, which eventually spread across North America.
But Cesar knew the strikers’ greatest weapon was simply their decision not to quit, to persevere no matter what the odds or how long it would take. The strikers had to be prepared to risk everything—beginning with their financial security.
Two and a half years into the strike, during the winter of 1967-68, some strikers, especially some young men, were impatient. There was no hope of victory any time soon. Thick Tule fog shrouded the valley, making things seem even drearier.
Some young male strikers talked about violence, about striking back at the growers who abused them. By fighting back they could prove their machismo, their manliness. Cesar rejected that part of American culture that, he said, “tells our young men that you’re not a man if you don’t fight back.” He had already begun boycotting table grapes, following the tradition of his hero, Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Cesar also followed Gandhi and Dr. King’s practice of militant nonviolence.
Some of the strikers equated nonviolence with inaction or even cowardice. Cesar believed exactly the opposite. He believed nonviolence is more powerful than violence, that it supports you if your cause is just. He believed nonviolence forces you to be creative–that it lets you maintain the offensive, which is crucial to winning any contest.
But for Cesar, nonviolence was more than a tactic or strategy that could be discarded if it wasn’t working. He once wrote, “However important the struggle is and however much misery, poverty and exploitation exist, we know that it cannot be more important than one human life.” Cesar also quoted Gandhi, who said, “Do something! Offer your life! If you really want to do something, be willing to die for it.”
He didn’t teach people by lecturing or by telling them what to do. He led by example. He planted little seeds of hope that sprouted into a renewed movement.
Again following the example of Gandhi, Cesar announced in February 1968, he was fasting to rededicate the movement to nonviolence. He went without food for 25 days, only drinking water. It was an act of penitence for those who advocated violence and a way of taking responsibility as leader of his movement.
The fast divided the UFW staff. Some didn’t understand why Cesar was doing it. Others worried about his health. But the farm workers understood. A Catholic mass was said daily near where Cesar was fasting in a tiny windowless room of an adobe-walled gas station at the Forty Acres, the UFW headquarters outside Delano. Hundreds, then thousands, came.
In 25 days, Cesar lost 35 pounds. His doctors said his life was in danger.
But the fast worked. All talk of violence stopped. Dr. King wrote Cesar, expressing admiration and solidarity. The fast ended during a mass in Delano with thousands. Senator Robert F. Kennedy was there, he said, “out of respect for one of the heroic figures of our time.”
Cesar was too weak to speak, so his statement was read for him. It ended with, “It is my deepest belief that only by giving our lives to we find life. The truest act of courage, the strongest act of manliness, is to sacrifice ourselves for others in a totally nonviolent struggle for justice. To be a man is to suffer for others. God help us to be men.”
The grape strike continued. So did the grape boycott.
For 100 years before Cesar Chavez, farm workers tried, and failed, to organize a union. Every strike was crushed. Every union was defeated.
Cesar knew the farm workers couldn’t win with just a field strike. The growers controlled all the rural social and political institutions.
Cesar read about Gandhi’s boycott of salt in 1930. He carefully followed Dr. King’s Montgomery bus boycott in the mid-1950s.
For the first time in American history, Cesar and the United Farm Workers (the result of a merger in 1966 between the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee and the National Farm Workers Association) decided to use a boycott in a major labor dispute. The boycott changed the scene of the battle from the fields, where the odds were stacked against farm workers, to the cities, where farm workers could appeal for help to the American people, whom Cesar called “our court of last resort.”
Hundreds of grape strikers traveled across the U.S. and Canada, telling their stories and organizing mass support for the grape boycott. The strikers were joined by thousands of supporters who helped tirelessly organize the boycott.
Cesar and the farm workers believed if consumers in communities throughout North America knew about the suffering of field laborers—and saw the grape strikers struggling nonviolently—they would respond. For Cesar, nonviolence couldn’t be understood in the abstract. It could only be seen in action. He said, “the whole essence of nonviolent action is getting a lot of people involved, vast numbers doing little things.”
He knew most people couldn’t drop what they were doing and dedicate themselves completely to the movement like the grape strikers, most of whom lost their homes, cars and worldly possessions. But Cesar and the farm workers showed ordinary people that by making little sacrifices every day—by not eating grapes—they could directly help the poorest of the poor.
The boycott connected middle-class families in big cities with poor farm worker families in the California vineyards. Millions stopped eating grapes. At dinner tables across the country, parents gave children a simple, powerful lesson in social justice.
By 1970, the grape boycott was a complete success. Table grape growers at long last signed their first union contracts, granting workers better pay, benefits, and protections.
In the decades that followed, Cesar and the UFW continued using nonviolent strikes, boycotts, marches and fasts to help farm workers stand up for their rights and gather support from ordinary Americans to aid them in their efforts. Those efforts continue to this day through the work of the United Farm Workers of America and the Cesar Chavez Foundation.
This was a famous strike but the last time I heard anyone mention it on TV? Decades ago in an episode of KATE & ALLIE. It was also a successful strike and maybe that is why there is no great desire on the part of corporate media to share the story with people.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for tonight:
Thursday, July 8, 2021. Tensions continue to flare in Iraq as two US service members are injured in an attack.
Basic truth: If US troops aren't stationed in Iraq, they can't get injured in Iraq. But they are and they do. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports, "Two US service members were injured Wednesday in a rocket attack targeting the al-Asad airbase in Iraq which hosts US, Iraqi, and coalition forces." Caitlin McFall (FOX NEWS) adds, "U.S. officials told Fox News that one of the American service members injured during the rocket attack suffered a concussion while the other had minor scrapes following the incident." Chad Garland (STARS AND STRIPES) explains, "About 14 rockets fell on al Asad Air Base at about 12:30 p.m., said U.S. Army Col. Wayne Marotto, a coalition spokesman, who confirmed the injuries and that all personnel had been accounted for."
ANI points out, "This is the second rocket attack on the Ain Al-Assad base this week. On Monday, the air base was hit by three rockets that did not result in any injuries or material damage." And if you pull back a little so you're not zooming in on just al-Assad, the picture gets even worse. Jeff Schogol (TASK AND PURPOSE) offers this context, "Wednesday’s rocket attack on Al-Asad Air Base marks the third time in as many days that U.S. installations in Iraq have come under fire — and it is still not clear who is responsible for the recent strikes." Attacks that continued today in Iraq as ARAB WEEKLY notes, "Three rockets were fired at the US embassy in Iraq early Thursday, the Iraqi army said, at the end of a day marked by rocket and drone attacks on bases hosting American forces in Iraq and Syria." NEWSWEEK's Tom O'Connor informs:
Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesperson Major General Yahya Rasool had earlier condemned such strikes in the wake of previous operations against Ain al-Asad Air Base in Al-Anbar Province, which injured two personnel of yet undisclosed affiliation, and Erbil Air Base in the capital of the northern Iraqi Kurdistan Region.
Referring to these operations as "terrorist" attacks, Rasool said that "once again, the enemies of Iraq are intrusive and targeting the country's security, sovereignty and the safety of our citizens."
He also referred to earlier attacks on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad as illegal.
Rasool said the perpetrators were "targeting the headquarters of diplomatic missions that fall under the protection of the state, which represents a flagrant violation of all laws, and an attack on the prestige of the state and its international obligations."
Iraq was raised in yesterday's US State Dept press briefing held by spokesperson Ned Price:
QUESTION: Can I just ask about Iraq? There has been quite a bit of an increase in rocket attacks. Iraqi army officials say the pace of recent attacks against U.S. bases and with rockets and drones is unprecedented. Why do you think that is on the rise at this particular moment? What is your assessment on who is behind it?
MR PRICE: Well, I’d have to correct one thing you said. There are no U.S. bases in Iraq.
MR PRICE: There are a limited number of U.S. and other coalition advisors —
QUESTION: U.S. and coalition, yeah.
MR PRICE: — at Iraqi bases, at Iraqi Government invitation that, in turn, assist and enable Iraqi Security Forces to confront the remnants of ISIS. Look, I wouldn’t want to speak to the motivation of these attacks. I will say that what we recognize is that these attacks reflect and are representative of the threat that Iran-backed militias present fundamentally to Iraq’s sovereignty and to Iraq’s stability. We —
QUESTION: Do you know for a fact that they’re carried out by Iranian-backed militias, these attacks over the past couple of days?
MR PRICE: So obviously there have been recent attacks, and I wouldn’t want to prejudge investigations that are ongoing. But as we have said in the context of attacks that have taken place in recent months, they have been carried out by Iran-backed militias and President Biden, in turn, has responded – responded in different ways. But of course, perhaps most visibly, by authorizing the military strikes – most recently late last month, but also before that as well – on Iran-backed militia infrastructure in Iraq and Syria.
US military spokesperson Col Wayne Marotto was a little more specific on Twitter regarding the al-Assad base attack. He typed:
while reTweeting the following photos of destruction:
Meanwhile, Philip Athey (MARINE TIMES) notes a US fatality in Iraq:
A Marine Corps musician died in Iraq in April while on Marine Security Guard duty, according to a Navy safety report.
Marine Sgt. Amanda Nicole Brazeal, 26, from Chunchula, Alabama, enlisted in the Corps in 2017 shortly after graduating from the University of Southern Mississippi with a bachelor’s degree in music, according to her obituary.
Jerry Genesio Tweets this morning about the passing:
And, weeks ago, Kaitain Tweeted:
In case the video in the Tweet directly above didn't show up, here it is via YOUTUBE.
US troops wouldn't be wounded or dead in Iraq if . . . they weren't in Iraq. What's the excuse -- the sorry excuse -- for US troops still being on the ground in Iraq?
Yet again, a base hosting U.S. and other allied troops was attacked by rocket fire on July 7 in Iraq. While there has been no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack, a series of U.S.-launched bombings against Iranian-backed militias that are suspected of having committed similar attacks in the past in Syria and Iraq raises the question of what happens next.
If precedent is of any relevance, however, we can expect a U.S. retaliation against whoever is believed to be behind the attacks. As Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby has made clear in the past, the U.S. believes it has full legal justification to launch such attacks.
"As a matter of international law, the United States acted pursuant to its right of self-defense. The strikes were both necessary to address the threat and appropriately limited in scope. As a matter of domestic law, the President took this action pursuant to his Article II authority to protect U.S. personnel in Iraq," Kirby said after strikes launched against Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria on June 27.
However, this is a flimsy argument since the U.S. and its allies are occupying these two sovereign countries illegally. This is not just a blanket condemnation of all U.S. military occupations around the globe, which is something not at all difficult to justify, but a mere observation of the fact that both Baghdad and Damascus have made clear that U.S. and U.S.-allied troops are not welcome.
For its part, Damascus has made this clear from the very beginning of the Syrian conflict that the U.S. is an occupying force and, for its part, the U.S. has made it clear that it does not accept the legitimacy of the current Syrian government nor respects the sovereignty of Syria as a state since it is currently occupying about one-third of the country's land.
I don't disagree with his outrage or with his argument that US troops should leave.
But we do need to note that he invoked "legally" and, legally, the occupation is not illegal. The Iraq War remains illegal. The occupation has not been. After the start of the war, the United Nations offered legal cover for various countries -- including the US and the UK. After the UN mandates were discontinued, they were replaced by agreements for each occupying country. So, for example, the US negotiated its own agreement with the Iraqi government to continue the occupation.
If Bradley had argued that the puppet government created, installed and fostered by foreign forces (such as the US) was itself illegal, he'd be on stronger ground for making the argument regarding the legality of the ongoing occupation. But even then, we'd be left with the reality that legal agreements -- by representatives of both governments (Iraq and the US) -- were in place covering the ongoing occupation.
He also doesn't know international law which he incorrectly invokes but we'll just make that observation and move on. (He can take it up with whomever fed him that interpretation he floats in his article which is histrionic but not accurate.)
Related, regarding Afghanistan, a lot of claims are being made. Including that the US is 'getting out' and the same should happen with Iraq. Anyone making those claims needs to refer to the Pentagon press briefing John Kirby held earlier this week (his only one so far this week). And then put on your thinking caps. Afghanistan? Troops can go back in. That's openly offered in that briefing. And that certainly happened in Iraq following the drawdown (not a withdrawal).
While we're noting the ridiculous, let's note a new report that Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the US Stated Dept are rather proud of. They're pride is highly misplaced for numerous reasons. We'll stay with our focus on Iraq and just note that a report entitled "The Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) Congressional Report" -- a report which is 42 pages when appendices are included -- but never manages to even name check Iraq in a single sentence is a report that's a joke. Afghanistan, Brazil, etc -- most foreign countries are mentioned throughout -- usually multiple times. Iraq?
Not once. Sometimes silence says more than words ever do.
If you have time to waste, [PDF format warning], here's the report.
That report was sent to Congress.
The same Congress that has leadership -- in the Democratic Party -- that were pressing US President Joe Biden for 'action' earlier this week when the bases in Iraq were being attacked and who are only upping the pressure now that 2 US troops have been injured.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is arguing for something "visible" and "sweeping" -- something in an aerial response. She's among those -- and again, these are Dems advocating -- insisting that a response must be carried out and it must not look ''weak.''
Did Nancy really invoke the term "savages"? I'm told she did. Hopefully, she was just referring to those she labels "terrorists" and not the Iraqi people but, with Nancy, who knows?
The latest column from Margaret Kimberley (BLACK AGENDA REPORT) went up yesterday and the excerpt below is from it:
When the people get a little help, as happened with additional stimulus funds for the unemployed, politicians across the country took up arms for the ruling class and turned down free money just to stay in the good graces of their bosses.
Currently 25 states out of 50 have rejected additional help for the unemployed. The money came from the federal government and didn’t impact state budgets, but politicians know who calls the shots. When called upon to help struggling people they chose to do just the opposite. They helped their exploiters and in the process made a mockery of what passes for democracy.
There is no labor shortage in this country. Instead, there is a shortage of jobs that pay a living wage and that is because of the power of capitalists. They have grown richer precisely because they have forced workers to live in a constant state of precarity, and now it is quite literally better to stay home than to work for a pittance.
Of course, the richest man in the world, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, is a master at coming up with new ways to subjugate workers. Any reports of job growth should be viewed with a very jaundiced eye as predatory capitalism has driven down wages and created a dystopia for workers. Bezos has mastered squeezing the most and giving the least.
Amazon warehouse workers suffer from injuries at higher rates than other employees in similar jobs but the injuries are part of the cost of doing business. It is expected that the grueling working conditions will create high turnover which is exactly what Amazon wants. A revolving door of employees serves their needs quite nicely. Bezos made a big deal about a $15 per hour starting salary but he could certainly afford to pay a lot more, a real living wage. The tight-fisted billionaire who could potentially become a trillionaire got rich the old fashioned way. He cheats workers.
Bezos also comes up with new and ingenious ways to spread the suffering. Amazon Flex delivery drivers are hired by apps and fired by algorithms. They have no interaction with human resources or any humans at all and they must pay a $200 fee to contest terminations that are rarely decided in their favor.
Even when American workers lose their jobs they are still at the mercy of corporate giants. ID.me contracts with states to provide public access to web sites such as those used for unemployment claims. Their facial recognition software doesn’t verify everyone properly and desperate people wait days and weeks for their unemployment payments to arrive. As with Amazon there is no one to speak to for help. But state governments turn over millions of dollars to ID.me in order to cheat people out of benefits they have earned. Currently 30 states contract with ID.me to make sure that the most vulnerable are kicked while they are down.
The algorithm hirings and firings and the facial recognition technology problems are not bugs in the system. They are features. They are doing precisely what they are intended to do, keep workers poor, desperate, and at the mercy of capitalists. Cruelty is the point.
New content at THIRD:
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- TV: Some stories aren't really worth telling
- The climate crisis
- KINDLE UNLIMITED (Ruth, Ava and C.I.)
- Tweet of the week
- Track to check out
The following sites updated: