Disclaimer - The opinions of the author do not necessarily match those of the IWW.  This article is reposted in accordance to Fair Use guidelines. 

By Nicole Hill, Christian Science Monitor. Posted August 22, 2007.

Weren't employers who lose access to cheap foreign labor supposed to start paying Americans fair wages?

Picacho, Ariz. -- Near this dusty town in southeastern Arizona, Manuel Reyna pitches watermelons into the back of a trailer hitched to a tractor. His father was a migrant farm worker, but growing up, Mr. Reyna never saw himself following his father's footsteps. Now, as an inmate at the Picacho Prison Unit here, Reyna works under the blazing desert sun alongside Mexican farmers the way his father did.

By Moses Njagih and agencies - The Standard, December 2, 2006.

Angry farmers from a coffee factory in Nyeri District have blasted officials of the Starbucks Coffee Company for refusing to respond to their questions on a project the multinational is undertaking in the area.

The American coffee retailer is involved in the Kenya Heartland Coffee project, to help farmers to improve the quality of their crop.

But during a visit by Starbuck officials, irate farmers of Kihuyo Coffee Factory accused Mr James Donald, the company’s president, of using them to rake in billions in profits. The American official had tough meetings with Ethiopian coffee growers earlier in the week.

Kihuyo and Kiamariga factories in Mathira division are involved in the Heartland project.

"Starbucks interests are only in making profits from our coffee, and yet they are not even mindful about our welfare," asked Mr John Kabira, a farmer.

Joe Blackstock - San Bernadino County Sun, October 31, 2006

There were no more sinister initials to an Inland Empire rancher than IWW.

Just a hint of the presence of the IWW - Industrial Workers of the World - in the neighborhood was enough to make employers quake in their boots. A strong, socialist-leaning union, sometimes nicknamed the Wobblies, it helped foment strikes throughout the nation especially during and immediately after World War I.

Some believed the IWW was associated with the Bolsheviks and the Soviet revolution in Russia, though that link was very tenuous, if one even existed. Nonetheless, most local newspaper articles did not hesitate to refer to its leaders as Bolsheviks.

The union did make some gains nationally, especially because it

welcomed minority and foreign workers that many mainstream unions did not.

In 1919, the agricultural Inland Empire was right in the sights of IWW organizers hoping to bring the area's farm workers - mostly Mexican, Japanese, Chinese and Asian Indians - into their fold.

As it turned out, the IWW never made much impact here because the combined might of ranchers and businessmen backed by the strong arm of police suppressed the union at every turn.

Disclaimer - The following article is reposted here because it is an issue with some relevance to the IWW. The views of the author do not necessarily agree with those of the IWW and vice versa.

By Elly Leary - Monthly Review, October 2005

On March 8, 2005, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) in Immokalee, Florida won a significant victory. In a precedent-setting move, fast-food giant Yum! Brands Inc., the world’s largest restaurant corporation, agreed to all the farm workers’ demands (and more!) if the CIW would end the four-year-old boycott of its subsidiary Taco Bell. (Yum!, a spin off from Pepsi, includes Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken, A&W, Long John Silver’s, and Pizza Hut franchises.) As United Farm Workers (UFW) president Arturo Rodriguez commented at the victory celebration, “It is the most significant victory since the successful grape boycott led by the UFW in the 1960s in the fields of California.”

El Acuerdo/The Agreement

Riots: Part of your Vancouver heritage - By Michael Barnholden, Oct, 20 2005

“The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life. Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth. We find that the centring of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever-growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.

Disclaimer - The following article is reposted here because it is an issue with some relevance to the IWW. The views of the author do not necessarily agree with those of the IWW and vice versa.

The footnotes are unfortunately unavailable at this time.  We will add them as soon as we can locate them.

By John E. Haynes - Minnesota History Quarterly, Spring 1971 (Volume 42, number 5, pages 163-174)

The brawny lumberjack who tells tall tales, fells giant trees, wears checkered shirts, and loves flapjacks is familiar in American folklore. This romantic image, though based partly on fact, glosses over dark and frightful features of the lumberjack's life that in 1917 prompted Minnesota's sons of Paul Bunyan to down their saws and axes and walk out of their camps. Led by the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), a radical labor group advocating industrial unions and the overthrow of capitalism through strikes, sabotage, and eventual revolution, the jacks' strike for a time paralyzed the lumber industry of northern Minnesota. The resolution of that strike helped redefine the boundcanes of permissible political and economic dissent in Minnesota, virtually erased the specter of strong IWW influence on the iron range, and served as a precedent for the state's treatment of dissenters during World War I. 1

Disclaimer - The following article is reposted here because it is an issue with some relevance to the IWW.  The views of the author and the publisher do not necessarily agree with those of the IWW and vice versa.

By Jeff Shantz (Toronto-NEFAC)

INTRODUCTION

In recent years a variety of social movement and environmental commentators have devoted a great deal of energy to efforts which argue the demise of class struggle as a viable force for social change (See Eckersley, 1990; Bowles and Gintis, 1987; Bookchin, 1993; 1997). These writers argue that analyses of class struggle are unable to account for the plurality of expressions which hierarchy, domination and oppression take in advanced capitalist or what they prefer to call "postindustrial" societies (See Bookchin, 1980; 1986). They charge that class analyses render a one-dimensional portrayal of social relations. The result of this has been a broad practical and theoretical turn away from questions of class and especially class struggle.

In my view, both orthodox Marxist constructions of class struggle and the arguments raised against that conceptualization have been constrained by conceptually narrow visions of class struggle. Commentators have either taken class to mean an undifferentiated monolith (Bookchin, 1986; 1987) which acts, or more often fails to act, as the instrumental agent in history or else as a fiction generated to obscure hopelessly divided and antagonistic relations within the working class (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985; Bourdieu, 1987). What is generally missing from these otherwise disparate accounts is a dynamic understanding of people as workers and workers as activists.