5 Aug 2022

Lufthansa pilots vote overwhelmingly in favour of strike action

Gregor Link & Ulrich Rippert


In a recent strike ballot, 97.6 percent of Lufthansa passenger airline pilots and 99.3 percent of Lufthansa Cargo pilots voted in favour of taking action, the Vereinigung Cockpit (VC) pilots’ union announced last Sunday.

Lufthansa pilots in the cockpit of an Airbus A380 [Photo by Steve Jurvetson / flickr / CC BY 2.0] [Photo by Steve Jurvetson / flickr / CC BY 2.0]

Six rounds of negotiations with the Lufthansa board had failed to produce results. Management did not even present a serious offer. Under pressure from its members, the pilots’ union felt compelled to declare the negotiations a failure and hold a strike ballot.

At the same time, it signaled to the board that it did not want a strike and offered to continue the formally failed negotiations, now being called “exploratory talks.”

Even before the ballot was counted, VC negotiator Marcel Gröls declared that it was “initially” a “warning signal to the Lufthansa Executive Board.” Management was now expected to “finally make good offers.” What was needed now was “a serious will to find a solution on the part of Lufthansa, in order to jointly create creative solution spaces in the interest of the company and its employees,” the VC collective bargaining boss said.

Lufthansa’s 5,000 or so pilots confront the fact that the union is restraining and sabotaging their large, almost 100 percent willingness to strike. This, in turn, strengthens and encourages Lufthansa management to stick to its provocative wage policy aimed at reducing pay. To push through their demands, pilots must therefore wage a battle on two fronts.

They must join together in a rank-and-file action committee, independent of the pilots’ union, to put their decision to strike into practice. At the same time, such an action committee creates the prerequisite for linking the pilots’ struggle with that of other Lufthansa employees, such as the ground staff, who are also currently engaged in collective bargaining disputes.

In addition, it creates the possibility of establishing contact with striking aviation workers in other companies and countries, coordinating their struggles and mobilizing the full fighting power of the pilots and all other aviation workers.

Without breaking VC’s control, the struggle cannot be won—despite a great willingness to strike. Conflicts already arose when the pay demands were being drawn up. Pilots working for the subsidiaries Eurowings, Austrian Airlines, Swiss, Air Dolomiti, etc., which belong to the Lufthansa group, but who earn much less than employees of the core brand, demanded a significant wage increase to compensate for the losses of the past years and inflation.

VC limited its demand for this year to 5.5 percent, which, even if fully implemented, would mean a massive real wage loss, and postponed a demand for automated inflation compensation until next year.

Add to that the union’s demand for a single collective bargaining agreement covering all cockpit personnel, and it is a double-edged sword. While it is desirable to overcome the different agreements in the various flight operations, the Executive Board is trying to break the previous leading role of the core brand and make low wages the standard.

The pilots’ great willingness to strike is also a response to the massive concessions made by VC in recent years because of the coronavirus pandemic. These have led to a significant deterioration in working conditions and enormous income losses.

In spring 2020, shortly after the start of the pandemic, VC had already agreed to reduce pilot salaries by up to 50 percent, initially until the end of the year. Shortly before then, the VC leadership extended this pay cut until the end of June 2022. In addition to short-time working, the package included concessions on pay and pensions.

“The concessions agreed this spring and now additionally offered amount to a total value of over €600 million. This corresponds to salary reductions of up to 50 percent compared to the pre-crisis period,” Markus Wahl, then VC president, declared just under two years ago.

The two other unions at Lufthansa, Verdi and UFO (Independent Flight Attendants Organization), also offered to cut vacation and Christmas bonuses and accept a pay freeze and the waiving of allowances, bringing the total income give-backs by the workforce to around €1.3 billion. At the same time, Lufthansa cut 32,000 jobs, including many pilots.

The unions’ claim that the company would honour these concessions as soon as flight operations picked up and passenger numbers rose again was quickly refuted.

At the end of last year, management terminated the so-called “perspective agreement.” In it, the pilots of the core brand—Lufthansa and Cargo—were guaranteed a minimum fleet size and thus job security and predictable opportunities for promotion.

Instead, Lufthansa management now wants to further shrink the core brand and hand over the feeder traffic coming into the two hubs in Frankfurt and Munich to the planned Cityline 2.0 airline, which will again mean lower wages and worsened working conditions. In addition, staff cuts are continuing. In May alone, 281 Germanwings pilots received notice of termination.

This threat overrides the ongoing collective bargaining talks. As business daily Handelsblatt reported: “In view of this, there are also numerous voices in the pilot community who believe there can be no solution without industrial action.”

Lufthansa is particularly unscrupulous in its treatment of young pilots and junior staff. Six months after the start of the pandemic, which for the pilots-to-be meant a complete interruption of their expensive training, Lufthansa management invited its 500 or so student pilots to a video call. Stephan Klar, then managing director of LAT, the Lufthansa subsidiary responsible for pilot training, opened up by saying to the shocked students that there was “no economic or [career] perspective sense” for you to “continue your training.” The students were called upon to “reorient themselves professionally,” he said.

Around 200 Lufthansa students filed a legal complaint against this. But the Frankfurt Labour Court dismissed the suit last December, as well as injunctions against the closure of pilot schools in Bremen and Phoenix, Arizona. LAT chief Matthias Spohr (brother of Lufthansa CEO Carsten Spohr) welcomed the court ruling, citing the alleged “reduced need for pilots” due to the pandemic. In the meantime, Lufthansa is resuming pilot training, on much worse terms.

After Lufthansa and other airlines were rescued with billions of euros of government money in the wake of the pandemic, these amounts are now to be squeezed out of the staff via cuts in real wages and job reductions. Resistance to this is growing. The Lufthansa pilots’ willingness to strike is part of a wide-ranging wave of strikes in the international aviation industry that has been continuing for months.

Pilots in Spain, at Europe’s second-largest low-cost airline Easyjet, have announced a strike for August that is to last nine days. Some 900 SAS pilots from Denmark, Norway and Sweden went on strike in early July; hundreds of flights operated by the Scandinavian airline were cancelled. The company used the industrial action as a pretext to file for bankruptcy and reorganize flight operations under new conditions.

A vote on a strike by cockpit staff at British Airways is underway after a walkout by ground staff was called off at the last minute. And earlier this week, Portuguese unions announced strikes at all major airports to begin in the second half of August.

But the trade unions everywhere are trying to isolate these international strike movements from each other and prevent a joint struggle. In Germany, service sector union Verdi is desperately trying to stall the collective bargaining dispute of the 20,000 or so Lufthansa ground workers with a rotten compromise to prevent a joint struggle with the pilots.

4 Aug 2022

Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program 2023

Application Timeline: 12th October 2022

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Stanford University

About the Award: The Knight-Hennessy Scholars program will annually identify a group of 100 high-achieving students from around the world with demonstrated leadership and civic commitment to receive full funding to pursue a wide-ranging graduate education at Stanford, with the goal of developing a new generation of global leaders. The Knight-Hennessy Scholars is the largest fully endowed scholars program in the world.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: 

  • The organisers encourage applications to Knight-Hennessy Scholars from citizens of all countries. That’s natural since we expect Knight-Hennessy Scholars to have global impact.
  • Did you earn a degree at an institution outside the U.S.? To be eligible for graduate study, you must hold the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor’s degree from a college or university of recognized standing.
  • You are eligible to apply to the Knight-Hennessy Scholars program if you are applying to enroll in any full-time graduate degree program at Stanford (for example, but not limited to, DFA, Eng, JD, MA, MBA, MD, MFA, MS, or PhD) or if you plan on pursuing one of Stanford’s many joint- and dual- graduate degree options (for example, but not limited to, MD+PhD, JD+MA, MBA+MS).
  • Also, if you earned your bachelor’s degree in 2014 or later, you are eligible to apply (2012 or later for US Military).

Selection Criteria:

Independence of Thought

  • First-step mental sharpness
  • Seeks out knowledge and new experiences
  • Full of original ideas
  • Makes sense of ambiguous situations
  • Can hold a contrarian or dissenting point of view

2. Purposeful Leadership

  • Ambitious, in the best sense of the word
  • Driven to improve self
  • Willing to take risks
  • Self-aware
  • Persists and bounces back from adversity

3. Civic Mindset

  • Personally humble and kind
  • Inclusive
  • Respects differences
  • Concerned for and helpful to others
  • Low ego

Number of Awards: up to 100

Value of Program: The Stanford education of Knight-Hennessy Scholars is fully funded.

  • Full funding includes tuition, stipend, graduate program and related academic expenses, with additional financial support available.
  • Pursue any graduate degree at Stanford, from PhDs in arts, education, engineering, humanities, or social sciences to professional degrees in business, law, or medicine.
  • Build skills in leadership and communication that will empower you to work across disciplines and to scale creative solutions for complex challenges.

Duration of Program: The Knight-Hennessy Scholars program funds up to the first three years of your graduate education, and if your degree program exceeds three years – such as an MD or PhD program, or a Stanford dual- or joint-degree program – then your Stanford home department will fund the remainder of your education to the extent consistent with its standard funding commitment for that program. (That is, e.g., six years for PhDs in engineering, five years for PhDs in humanities.)

How to Apply: Where we find evidence of these criteria is throughout your application materials and, if you are selected as a finalist, at Immersion Weekend. You may apply now. We look forward to getting to know you, what you have done, your influences, ideals, hopes and dreams.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Important Notes: Please note that We highly recommend that you apply using a current version of Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.

Israel’s cover up of the 1956 Kafr Qasem massacre: “The commander said fatalities were desirable”

Jean Shaoul


After more than 60 years, Israel’s Defence Ministry has released most of the transcripts and primary documents submitted during the trial of officers responsible for the Kafr Qasem massacre of 50 Palestinian citizens in 1956. The documents have been released after years-long efforts by historian Adam Raz of the Akevot Institute for Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Research to expose the truth.

The Kafr Qasem massacre was one of scores of killings of defenceless Palestinians by Israeli forces, aimed at establishing the State of Israel via the systematic expulsion of the Palestinian people that continues to this day. Such a policy, now called ethnic cleansing, involves horrific mass killings and atrocities.

Memorial on the mosque of Kafr Qasim (Kfar Qassem) marking the Kafr Qasim massacre

While the massacre is well known, the transcripts reveal the government’s plan to exploit Israel’s planned invasion of Egypt as the pretext to drive out Israel’s Palestinian residents. Israel, Britain and France invaded Egypt in October-November 1956 to overthrow the regime of President Gamal Abdul Nasser who had nationalized the Suez Canal.

The silence of the world’s media over the release of such explosive military and court documents is testimony to the backing Israel receives from the major imperialist powers and their own disdain for and flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.

On October 29, 1956, Israel decided to bring forward a night time curfew from 9pm to 5pm with immediate effect across Israel’s Arab towns situated in the Northern Triangle area, close to its then border with Jordan.

Long considered a “hostile population,” the residents had been subject to military rule that would continue until 1966. While Israeli authorities feared a Palestinian insurgency against the Suez campaign—the first of a series of wars with Israel’s Arab neighbours—Israeli Palestinians never participated in any action against Israel, either in 1956 or in subsequent wars. Israel’s murderous assault last year on Gaza provoked the first ever protests by Israel’s Palestinian citizens.

Despite being warned by the mayor that 400 residents working in agriculture would be unaware of the new curfew, Israeli troops fired on the returning villagers, killing 50 workers, including six women and 13 children under 15.

Israeli commander Colonel Yissachar Shadmi had ordered Major Shmuel Malinki, chief of the border police responsible for Kafr Qasem, to shoot on sight anyone who was found outside their home. Malinki said that Shadmi had told him it would be a good example if, early on, the soldiers were to shoot some Arab citizens. Shadmi reportedly said, “During the hours of the curfew, they can be in their homes and do as they desire… but whomever is seen outside, who violates curfew, will be shot. Better that a few go down, and then they will learn for the next time.”

The press was subject to a gag order preventing all reporting on the massacre. Even after it was lifted two months later, journalists were not allowed to go to the village. It was only after sustained pressure that the perpetrators of the massacre were charged. The trials were a sham. One third of the evidence was heard in secret. The court convicted eight of the eleven IDF officers and soldiers, sentencing them to short terms of imprisonment that were later commuted by the president and chief of staff. All were released by 1960.

Shadmi, the highest-ranking officer prosecuted, was cleared of murder and convicted on a minor charge. He received a derisory 10 prutot fine, less than one cent, symbolising the value of Palestinian lives under David Ben-Gurion’s Labour government. Ben Gurion had promised Shadmi the best legal team and no prison sentence if he cooperated. The trials shielded Israel’s security and political chiefs from any responsibility—in the face of calls for more senior officials to be prosecuted—and appeased international public opinion. The Israeli state wanted to prevent the case from reaching the International Court of Justice, established by the United Nations following World War II.

Crucially, some of the defendants had tried to argue they were only implementing Operation Hafeperet (Mole), but were silenced when they explained that this involved imprisoning Palestinians and then forcing them to escape to Jordan amid the chaos of a war. The newly released transcripts confirm the existence of such a plan, first revealed in outline by the journalist and author Ruvik Rosenthal, providing further details.

Some of the witnesses’ statements refer to an “evacuation notice to village elders,” understood to mean a plan to deport some or all of the Arabs in the Triangle if war escalated to the West Bank, then ruled by Jordan. Others suggested they would be transferred to other parts of Israel.

According to Chaim Levy, who commanded the Border Police’s southern company overseeing Kafr Qasem, the order to drive out the Arabs was not a written but a verbal one. “The company commander said that the eastern side [to the West Bank and Jordan] should be open. When they want to leave, they’ll leave… I understood that it would be no great calamity if they took this opportunity to go away.”

Levy referred to two other aspects of the plan, “Creating enclosures” and “transporting people,” meaning the internment of Israeli Arabs in camps and expulsion from their homes. The curfew and the shooting of violators were aimed at scaring the Arabs and encouraging them to flee. Shadmi confirmed this, saying, “It may encourage that thought… that the killing of a few people as an intimidation measure can encourage movement eastward, as long as we hint to them [the Arabs] about the movement eastward.”

The transcripts indicate that soldiers understood the purpose of the curfew was to terrify residents or encourage them to flee to Jordan, with one soldier saying, “The immediate goal is to keep them in their houses, and the second goal is to not need to intimidate them in the future, as well as to require less manpower because they will eventually be like innocent sheep.”

When one soldier was asked whether Shadmi had explained to his platoon the intention of leaving several people dead in each village, he responded in the affirmative, adding “the major general said that it would be desirable to have a few casualties, meaning dead… I said it would be best to knock out a few people… so that in the future there would be quiet, and we would not need to have this much manpower overseeing these villages.”

This was confirmed by another soldier.

Today, Israel has a host of laws and regulations aimed at intimidating, suppressing and ultimately forcing both its Arab citizens and residents to leave Israel/Palestine. These include:

  • Around 200 emergency regulations that enable the government to declare any part of the country a closed military area, exercise administrative arrest and detention without trial, expel and even execute citizens.
  • The designation of the 12 villages in the South Hebron Hills, in Area C in the occupied West Bank, as a military zone and the demolition of homes around Masafer Yatta as part of a plan to drive the 100,000 Palestinians from Area C and thus pave the way for Area C’s annexation into the State of Israel.
  • Last month’s decision of Israel’s Supreme Court that it was legal for the government to revoke the citizenship of those who “committed an act that constitutes a breach of loyalty in the State of Israel,” even though they would be rendered stateless in contravention of international law. Human rights organisations say this ruling will be used to target Israel’s Palestinian citizens.
  • The gradual expansion of the criteria for revoking Palestinian residency rights in East Jerusalem, considered a war crime, that has led to the revocation of nearly 15,000 Palestinians’ residency rights since 1967.
  •  The introduction last March of a law denying naturalization to Palestinians from the occupied West Bank or Gaza married to Israeli citizens, forcing thousands of Palestinian families to either emigrate or live apart.

In 2007, President Shimon Peres issued a meaningless apology for the Kafr Qasem massacre and in 2014, President Reuven Rivlin attended annual commemorations for those killed. Last October, Israel’s parliament rejected a bill to officially recognize the massacre.

Britain joins US imperialism’s anti-China provocations

Robert Stevens


Britain is standing squarely behind US imperialism’s naked aggression against China, threatening to drag the population into a catastrophic war.

Pursuing an anti-China foreign policy has been one of the central themes of the Conservative leadership contest to replace Boris Johnson, with candidates Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak competing over who is the most hawkish.

Sunak opened his campaign with a press release declaring that China and the Chinese Communist Party “represent the largest threat to Britain and the world’s security and prosperity this century.” Truss responded that it was her Foreign Office and not Sunak’s Treasury that had taken “the toughest stance” against China.

The Conservative Party leadership candidates: Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and former Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak [AP Photo/AP Photo, File]

During last week’s debate, Sunak castigated Truss for previously saying that Britain was entering a “golden era” in its relationship with China. Truss disowned her statement, saying, “I think that was almost a decade ago.”

It was six years ago, and it was the policy of David Cameron’s Tory government. Despite warnings from the US, Britain became a founding member of Beijing’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, hoping to position itself as a key player in China’s access to European markets. A series of high-level meetings culminated in the 2015 state visit of President Xi to Britain, hosted by the queen.

The shift in policy was breakneck, with the government seeking to replace its role as a key US intermediary within the European Union, jettisoned by Brexit in 2016, with an even more slavish support for US imperialism. Washington’s price for a close partnership and the promise of a trade deal included an immediate halt to Britain’s orientation to China—its main global competitor.

In a piece published in The Atlantic Tuesday, “Why Britain Changed Its China Stance”, author Tom McTague commented that from “2020 onward… Britain transformed itself from China’s best partner in Europe to its harshest critic, sweeping away decades of foreign-policy consensus in the most drastic such shift in the Western world.”

He noted, “to look at British foreign policy now is to see almost a complete overlap with the US, whether on the Iranian nuclear deal, climate change, the importance of spending more on defense, NATO, the threat posed by Russia, or—now—China.”

Britain’s close involvement in US war plans against China was highlighted this week by the provocative visit to Taiwan staged by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. With China’s military on high alert, the Guardian reported that a delegation from the UK’s House of Commons foreign affairs select committee would make the same trip in November or early December. The committee is headed by Tory MP and former army lieutenant colonelTom Tugendhat, expected to be handed a top position in a Truss cabinet.

Behind the diplomatic provocations are extensive military preparations. By March 2021, the government’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) had published its Integrated Review of foreign and defence policy and a further strategy document, “Defence in a Competitive Age”, directly targeting both Russia and China.

In May that year, at the behest of NATO, the UK launched its largest Carrier Strike Group since the 1982 Falklands/Malvinas war, centred on the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier. It played a critical role in inflaming tensions with Russia in the Black Sea before doing the same against Beijing in the South China Sea in September 2021. HMS Richmond, a Type 23 frigate warship deployed with the carrier strike group, sailed through the Taiwan Strait—the first time a UK frigate had done so in more than a decade.

That same month, the United States, Britain and Australia announced the formation of the AUKUS anti-China military pact, focused on the deployment of nuclear-powered submarines.

HMS Richmond (bottom of image) in Portsmouth naval yard in March 2022 with the UK's two aircraft carriers, Prince of Wales (middle) Queen Elizabeth (top). [Photo: WSWS]

The Taiwan Strait provocation was authorised by head of the Royal Navy Admiral Sir Tony Radakin on the same day he was interviewed by Johnson for the position of Head of the Armed Forces. It was announced soon after that Radakin would be appointed Chief of the Defence Staff, a post he took up in November 2021.

Within the top ranks of the military, the drumbeat for war with China is relentless. Last month, the new head of the Royal Navy Admiral Sir Ben Key told the Council on Geostrategy, “Focusing solely on the Russian bear risks missing the tiger”. He warned, “The risk of focusing solely on Russia is that you miss the long-term strategic challenge posed by China.”

Key’s speech came 10 days after US Republican Representative Steve Chabot, a ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Asia-Pacific Subcommittee, intervened in the pages of the Telegraph to insist that America’s allies in Europe, particularly the British, “step up” the arming of Taiwan.

This is now the de facto policy of the UK government, despite Britain having no formal diplomatic ties with Taipei due to its abiding by the historic “One China” policy. In her role as foreign secretary, Truss gave a speech in April rejecting “the false choice between Euro-Atlantic security and Indo-Pacific security” and calling for “a global NATO.”

She continued, “We need to pre-empt threats in the Indo-Pacific, working with our allies like Japan and Australia to ensure the Pacific is protected. And we must ensure that democracies like Taiwan are able to defend themselves. All of this will require resources. We are correcting a generation of underinvestment.”

Given Britain has already sold £338 million worth of military equipment to Taiwan since 2017, Truss is writing a massive cheque to be picked up by the working class through pay and spending cuts.

The foreign secretary told the House of Commons Select Committee on June 29 that Britain and its NATO allies would seek to improve on the script used for their proxy war against Russia in Ukraine: “We should have been supplying defensive weapons into Ukraine earlier. We need to learn that lesson for Taiwan. Every piece of equipment we have sent takes months of training, so the sooner we do it the better.”

The bellicose threats and provocations of British imperialism against nuclear armed China could not be more reckless or deluded. Dominic Nicholls, the Telegraph’s defence and security correspondent, noted on Radakin’s appointment, “Since 2014, China has launched more submarines, warships, principal amphibious vessels and auxiliaries than the total number of ships currently serving in the navies of the UK, Germany, India, Spain and Taiwan, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

“In terms of tonnage, China is launching the equivalent of the entire Royal Navy every four years.”

Beijing warned in the Global Times after HMS Queen Elizabeth’s deployment that it would not hesitate to make an example out of Britain, “to execute one as a warning to a hundred”.

On Tuesday, after the UK Foreign Select Committee trip to Taiwan was revealed, Chinese ambassador Zheng Zeguang told British MPs in a press conference that the UK should not “dance to the tune of the United States”. Vowing that if any MP set foot in Taiwan there would be “severe consequences”, he warned, “those who play with fire will get burnt.”

Such is the crisis wracking British imperialism in a period of severe decline—its dependence on the US and desperate effort to redirect unprecedented social tensions outward to a foreign foe—that it is set on forcing a confrontation.

Why did Volkswagen fire CEO Herbert Diess?

Peter Schwarz


Worldwide, some 670,000 people work for automaker Volkswagen. Hundreds of thousands more are employed in the supplier industries. If you add in family members, the fate of several million people is directly dependent on the corporation. Yet it is governed by methods that make medieval despotism look like flawless democracy.

Volkswagen CEO Herbert Diess and successor Oliver Blume [Photo by Alexandr Migl / Matti Blume via wikimedia / CC BY-NC-SA 4.0] [Photo by Alexandr Migl / Matti Blume via wikimedia / CC BY-NC-SA 4.0]

At the top is an all-powerful CEO who collects an annual salary running into the double-digit millions. His fate, in turn, is decided by a conspiratorial clique on the Supervisory Board.

The majority of votes on this board are controlled by two family clans, the Porsches and the Piëchs. They owe their power to the fact that they are descendants of Ferdinand Porsche and his son-in-law Anton Piëch, who, as favourites of Adolf Hitler, built up the Volkswagen factory for the Nazis. The foundation for the Porsches’ and Piëchs’ billion-dollar fortunes was laid by 20,000 forced laborers who produced armaments for Hitler’s military, the Wehrmacht, under inhumane conditions at the VW plant during World War II.

The second centre of power on the Supervisory Board is the IG Metall trade union and the Works Council. The first chairman of IG Metall, Jörg Hofmann, is also vice chairman of the Supervisory Board and, together with the chairwoman of the General Works Council, Daniela Cavallo, sits on its Presidium (Executive Committee), where all important decisions are agreed.

In no other German company is collaboration between management and the union as polished as at Volkswagen. The IG Metall and Works Council, with an army of full-time functionaries, ensure that the decisions of the Board of Management and Supervisory Board are implemented smoothly and that there is no resistance to them.

At the Wolfsburg plant alone, there are 75 full-time Works Council members paid by the company, 66 of whom belong to IG Metall. They are assisted by 2,500 shop stewards who, in the words of Business Insider, have “eyes and ears in every corner of the factory town.” In addition, the Wolfsburg Works Council has its own 70-member administrative apparatus.

The state of Lower Saxony is also represented on the Supervisory Board and has a legally enshrined blocking minority. The Social Democratic Party-led state government works closely with IG Metall and the Works Council. And finally, the Emirate of Qatar, which holds a stake of around 17 percent in Volkswagen, has a say.

On July 22, Volkswagen’s Supervisory Board voted unanimously to fire CEO Herbert Diess, who was brought to Wolfsburg from BMW in 2014 and had been at the helm of the company since 2018. Although there had been repeated disputes concerning Diess, his dismissal came as a surprise. Just a year ago, the Supervisory Board had extended his contract until October 2025.

As is customary at Volkswagen, Diess is falling on his feet. He will work as a “consultant” for the company until his contract expires, during which time he is expected to earn another €30 million.

Diess will be replaced on September 1 by Oliver Blume, head of VW subsidiary Porsche. Blume is expected to continue to lead Porsche at the same time as the company is floated on the stock market, which is planned for the autumn. He will remain at the helm of the sports car maker thereafter.

The IPO is expected to bring up to €100 billion into the coffers of Volkswagen and the two family clans. The Porsches and the Piëchs also want to regain direct control of Porsche, which they lost in 2009 in a bizarre mutual takeover battle between Volkswagen and Porsche, by issuing voting common shares that only they can purchase.

The Supervisory Board is silent on the reasons for Diess’ dismissal. The official press release simply states that it was “by mutual agreement,” which is obviously untrue.

Elsewhere, Diess is being effusively praised. He has “impressively demonstrated the speed and consistency with which he can implement far-reaching transformation processes.” He has “steered the company through extremely difficult waters,” “fundamentally realigned its strategy,” “set in motion the clear focus on electromobility” and “driven forward the company’s capital market orientation.”

Blume, it is said, was now “the right person at the helm to further sharpen the customer focus and the positioning of the brands and products” and “continue to drive forward the transformation with the entire Board of Management—with a leadership culture that focuses on the team concept.”

New wave of attacks

There is only one explanation for the abrupt change of leadership at the helm of Europe’s largest auto company: Volkswagen is preparing a new wave of job cuts, wage reductions and productivity increases—and Diess is no longer seen as the right man to implement this in collaboration with IG Metall and the Works Council.

The entire international auto industry is undergoing a huge upheaval that is being ruthlessly carried out on the backs of workers. The switch to electric cars, whose production requires significantly less working time, is just one aspect of this. There is also the enormous pressure from financial markets to achieve double-digit profit margins, the disruption of supply chains due to the coronavirus pandemic, the rise of the energy crisis because of the Ukraine war, and the fierce battle for global markets.

Volkswagen had expanded early into China, where it sells about 40 percent of its vehicles and generates a large share of its profits. But sales are now falling, down 14 percent last year alone. Market share, which used to be between 14 and 15 percent, shrank to 11 percent. Chinese manufacturers such as SAIC, BVD, Geely and Xpeng are emerging as competitors and expanding into Europe.

Diess’ rise to the top of the company was closely linked to the fallout from the diesel emissions scandal that nearly ruined Volkswagen. Management had long relied on “clean” diesel engines to meet rising environmental regulations. When these failed technically, engineers installed software that artificially throttled emissions on test benches. The discovery of this fraud in the US cost Volkswagen billions in fines and compensation and brought the diesel project to an abrupt end.

Diess was brought to Volkswagen in Wolfsburg from BMW in Munich shortly before the scandal broke out because he was known as a merciless cost-cutter. As BMW’s purchasing chief, he had cut suppliers’ prices by €4 billion in four years. “Anyone who spoke to automotive suppliers at that time met desperate people; medium-sized companies whose prices were pushed down further and further by Diess,” the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported. “Diess became the dreaded penny-pincher. They called him the bone crusher, or the wringer.”

That impressed not only Volkswagen’s shareholders, but also IG Metall, even though its own members in the supplier factories were among the victims of Diess’ thuggish purchasing methods. Diess was put in charge of the Volkswagen brand, which, unlike the company’s luxury brands, generated only small profit margins. After the diesel scandal, he was then seen as the man to brutally turn the entire group around.

Diess then focused entirely on electric cars. Tesla and its ruthless boss Elon Musk, with whom he repeatedly met in person, served as his role model. In Wolfsburg, he set in motion the construction of a completely new Gigafactory costing €2 billion, where the Trinity electric model is to roll off the production line from 2026. In Salzgitter, a few days before his dismissal, the foundation stone was laid for a battery cell factory that will make Volkswagen independent of Chinese suppliers. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was there in person.

What ultimately cost Diess his job was—as business newspapers put it—his “confrontational management style” and his “lack of diplomatic skills.” He not only snubbed highly paid VW people, whom he attacked and embarrassed in larger gatherings, according to Business Insider, but also the Works Council and IG Metall, for whom he made it increasingly difficult to keep the impending attacks secret and the workforce calm.

At a Supervisory Board meeting last autumn, for example, he announced that 30,000 jobs would be cut at VW’s core brand. One in four jobs would be superfluous, he said, which was immediately leaked to the media. There had already been tensions between Diess and the Works Council, but this did not prevent the latter from voting last summer to extend Diess’ contract until 2025.

Diess’ fate was finally sealed when the owner families dropped him. According to consistent newspaper reports, they tipped the scales in favour of terminating his contract. In addition to his confrontational style, they also blamed Diess for delays and massive cost increases in the Cariad software division, for which he was personally responsible. Cariad develops the software for all brands of the Volkswagen company. Both Porsche and Audi had to postpone new models because of the delays.

Oliver Blume

In Oliver Blume, the owner families are placing a close confidant at the helm of Volkswagen. The 54-year-old has spent his entire professional career within the group—at Audi, Seat, VW and Porsche. He is to continue the “transformation” started by Diess, with its devastating consequences for jobs and wages, not “with a crowbar” but with “teamwork”—i.e., in close consultation with the owner families, the IG Metall and Works Council.

“The hope: The conciliatory Blume can continue Herbert Diess’ mission to trim the old, crusty VW tanker to [profitable] software and electromobility. But without constantly upsetting people in the process,” comments the Süddeutsche Zeitung.

Blume also has a direct line to the German government. As the satirical show DieAnstalt revealed, the Porsche boss boasted at a factory meeting that Liberal Democratic Party (FDP) leader Christian Lindner, now finance minister, had kept him “up to date almost hourly” during the coalition negotiations.

Above all, Blume and his “transformation” program can count on the unqualified support of IG Metall and the Works Council. “The decisions taken today allow us to keep up the pace and exploit the lead we have carved out,” said IG Metall leader Hofmann, commenting on the change at the top of the company. Cavallo, head of the Works Council, wrote that all colleagues must be “carried along” in the transformation of products and business models. Today’s decisions were a downpayment on this, she said.

Just three days after the change in leadership at Volkswagen, Audi’s board member for production, Gerd Walker, explained with brutal candour what was in store for the workforce. “We want to cut factory costs in half, double the speed,” he said during a tour of the plant by journalists. He said that while job security for Audi’s German plants remains in place until 2029, the plan is to halve manufacturing costs by doubling the number of vehicles produced.

The workforce of the Volkswagen group and its subsidiaries is facing enormous attacks. Cutting 30,000 jobs at VW, halving manufacturing costs at Audi, shutting down the Spanish Seat brand—all these proposals are on the table and are being pursued by Blume in close cooperation with the Works Council and unions.

US baby formula shortage drags on with no end in sight

Kevin Reed


Six months after Abbott Labs recalled product and the FDA shut down its infant formula factory in Sturgis, Michigan due to unsanitary conditions, the shortage of baby food in the US continues. As with the coronavirus pandemic, the public is being told that they will have to learn to live with the shortage.

An aisle at a Target store in Chicago with sparsely stocked baby formula (WSWS Media)

According to a report by the market research firm IRI, 20 percent of all types of baby formula products were not to be found on store shelves nationwide during the week of July 18-24. The IRI data show that 30 percent of powdered formula products were out of stock during the same period.

Parents of newborns, infants and children with special dietary needs are still facing stark choices as they go from store to store looking for the specific product that they need. In many cases, purchasing substitute products can be unsafe or even fatal. In some states, such as Colorado and Kansas for example, stocks on store shelves dropped below 60 percent in July.

The lack of any criticism of the government or manufacturers from the corporate news media, as well as the complete silence of the Biden administration on the crisis, demonstrates that the well-being of infants and children across the US is not on the priority list for the American ruling elite. According to the news site Axios, the baby formula shortage “is here to stay.”

A web site published by the White House called, “Addressing the Infant Formula Crisis” has not been updated since late June. Aside from announcing that it has flown in a completely inadequate quantity of baby formula from overseas, the Biden White House has had nothing to say about the fact that the wealthiest capitalist country in the world cannot feed its children.

FDA commissioner Robert Califf told NPR on July 30 that baby formula production will have to remain at high levels for another six to eight weeks to keep up with current demand. This is the same thing he said two months ago. A major factor in the continuing shortage is the fact that the Abbott Labs’ Sturgis facility, after reopening in early June, was shut down again due to flooding from heavy rainstorms in the area.

The indifference to the crisis facing millions of people was articulated plainly by Biden’s Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who said on May 15, “The government does not make baby formula, nor should it. Companies make formula.”

“Let’s be very clear,” Buttigieg said, “this is a capitalist country.” 

The baby formula supply crisis began during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 when families began clearing shelves and stocking up on products in anticipation of having to isolate at home for an extended period. This was followed by an increase in breastfeeding—and a dramatic fall in demand for formula—as women workers were either laid off or began working from home during the pandemic.

The response of the four monopoly baby food manufacturers—Abbott Nutrition, Mead Johnson Nutrition, Nestle USA and Perrigo Company—to the fall in demand was to dramatically cut back production. Then, when employees returned to work following the lifting of coronavirus restrictions, breastfeeding dropped and demand for baby formula surged, causing a shortage of supply.

The store shelf shortage was already well underway when reports emerged in September 2021 that infants were getting sick after they consumed products made by Abbott Labs. When four babies were hospitalized and two of them died from bacterial infections connected with a potentially deadly strain of Cronobacter, the FDA—after doing nothing for months—conducted an inspection of the Sturgis facility at the end of January 2022.

The conditions at the Abbott Labs factory were described by FDA Commissioner Califf at a congressional hearing as “shocking,” and he said the government agency had “no confidence in the quality program at the facility.” Remarkably, Abbott Labs was permitted to announce a “voluntary recall” of products and “agreed” to shut down the Sturgis, Michigan factory.

The close relationship between the FDA and Abbott Labs was exposed when it was revealed that the agency had a whistleblower report on unsanitary practices by the company for eight months and did nothing to act on it.

The impact on families has been devastating. So far, the FDA has admitted that a total of ten infants have died from bacterial infections after consuming Abbott Labs products such as Similac. Even though the FDA found Cronobacter sakazakii—which is known to cause meningitis in infants—at the Sturgis facility due to standing water, roof leaks and mold and moisture in the equipment used to manufacture powdered formula, the company has been allowed to deny that its products had any connection to the infections and deaths of babies.

Despite the recall, potentially contaminated product has remained on the marketplace. As Amy Dolan, a mother of three in New Jersey, told CNBC in June, “You get this sick feeling in the pit of your stomach because we had a can that had been recalled and it was empty, we had just finished it. And, you know, I’m sitting there thinking, oh my God, what have I given my child?”

On Monday, ABC News published a lengthy review of FDA documents that showed the three other manufacturers had also tested positive for Cronobacter contamination in recent years. Among the details revealed by ABC News were an FDA inspection of Mead Johnson’s factory in Evansville, Indiana showed that the company itself had found Cronobacter “in one of the plant’s room, and that the area was subsequently sanitized.”

ABC News reported that seven investigators visited Mead Johnson’s facility in Zeeland, Michigan after the company alerted the FDA that two finished batches of Enfamil formula which tested positive for Cronobacter had already been exported out of the country.

The FDA inspection found the bacteria “in critical and high hygiene areas of the processing environment in 26 locations” between January and August 2017. The FDA investigators said they found Cronobacter in areas that risked “potential contamination” of “food contact surfaces.” The FDA said that the factory had “multiple wall leaks” as well as “equipment condensation” in areas where the bacteria was found.

In August 2021, the FDA made a routine visit to Nestlé Nutrition’s Gateway facility in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, where Gerber products are manufactured. The FDA investigators found “dirty scoops used during the previous production day” lying on a stainless-steel table in one of the raw material rooms, and “debris” on the floor. Cronobacter was found in the powdered formula being made there.

Similar findings were made at the PBM Nutritionals/Perrigo facility in Milton, Vermont in August 2019. The ABC News report says, “Documents provided by the company to the FDA noted a recent roof leak had overwhelmed the drainage system, and that, upon inspection, environmental sample swabs tested positive for Cronobacter before additional cleaning.”

Ukrainian top intelligence official reveals US involvement in missile strikes against Russia

Jason Melanovski & Clara Weiss


On Tuesday, a spokesman for Russia’s defense ministry, Lt. Gen Igor Konashenkov, stated that “contrary to White House and Pentagon claims, [the US] is directly involved in the conflict in Ukraine.”

Konashenkov’s statement came in response to Monday’s interview by the British Telegraph with the Major General Vadim Skibitsky, the deputy head of Ukraine’s military intelligence service. In the interview, Skibitsky acknowledged that Ukraine was not only using US-manufactured and -delivered HIMARS long-range missiles to target Russian fuel and ammunition depots and battlefield headquarters in eastern Ukraine, but that Ukraine was also relying on “real-time information” in these strikes. 

The Telegraph paraphrased Skibitsky as saying that before every strike, discussions took place between the US and Ukraine “that would allow Washington to stop any potential attacks if they were unhappy with the intended target.” In other words, the US is directly involved in the decision-making process for Ukrainian military strikes on Russian targets. 

In his statement, Konashenkov declared that this represented an official recognition by Ukraine that “the Biden administration [that] is directly responsible for all rocket attacks approved by Kyiv on residential areas and civilian infrastructure facilities in settlements of Donbas and other regions that caused mass deaths of civilians.”  He added that the Russian military “has marked it and will keep in mind this official confession.”

The US has not denied these accusations. Following Skibitsky’s highly provocative revelations, the Pentagon issued a statement, merely declaring that the US was providing Ukraine with “detailed, time-sensitive information to help them understand the threats they face and defend their country against Russian aggression.”

The US involvement in the imperialist proxy war against Russia has become ever more overt and provocative in recent months. After ramming through a record $40 billion for weapons for Ukraine in Congress, on top of billions of direct military aid pledged by the White House to Ukraine since February 24 alone, the US began delivering HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems) to Ukraine in late May. They are now being used for a major offensive by the Ukrainian army, which is seeking to reconquer parts of southern Ukraine that have been occupied by Russia. 

In July, a Pentagon spokesman refused to preclude that these missiles would be used to attack the Russian-built Kerch Bridge, which connects the Crimean Peninsula in the Black Sea with the Russian mainland. Since then, the US has publicly acknowledged that it is considering plans to send fighter jets to Ukraine, a move that, as US President Biden stated just a few months ago, could “start World War III.”

The statements by Skibitsky to a leading British newspaper and the marked absence of an explicit denial by the Pentagon mark yet another major provocation of Washington against Russia. 

Skibitsky’s interview was published the same day as the first grain shipment from Ukraine since the start of the NATO-provoked war left the Black Sea city of Odessa, heading for the port of Tripoli, Libya. 

The ship’s departure marked the beginning of a 120-day deal brokered by the UN and Turkey and signed by Russia and Ukraine in July to resume vital grain shipments amid an ongoing global food crisis. The White House has been conspicuously absent from the negotiations around the deal with the US press insisting that it had no prospect of succeeding. 

Another 16 ships filled with corn, wheat, sunflower seeds and oil are ready to depart. They will require Ukrainian ships to lead them out as Ukraine mined its ports and shores following the Russian invasion in February.

A Joint Coordination Center (JCC) located in Istanbul is charged with overseeing the export of Ukrainian grain throughout the 120-day timeframe. 

So far the war between Ukraine and Russia—both major grain exporters—has caused a reduction to the world’s grain supplies of 27 million metric tons. According to the UN’s World Food Program, the war has caused 47 million people to experience “acute hunger.” 

Prior to the war, Ukraine was expected to be the world’s third largest exporter of corn and fourth largest exporter of wheat for the 2021-2022 harvest year, according to the International Grains Council. In addition, the former Soviet Republic is also a major exporter of barley, sunflower oil and rapeseed. Russia, meanwhile, is the world’s largest wheat exporter and was expected to export 36.5 million metric tons of wheat for the 2021-2022 harvest year.

Countries in Africa and Asia, such as Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, Lebanon, Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh, imported a large amount of Ukrainian wheat and were already considered “food insecure” as the war loomed.

Well aware of this information and despite already skyrocketing food prices and the clear threat of further shortages and even famine and warnings by the Putin regime about its “red lines” in Ukraine, the Biden administration recklessly pushed ahead with its provocations against Russia in the weeks and months leading up to the invasion. 

Following the resumption of Ukrainian grain exports on Tuesday, Zelensky warned that any failure to continue shipments will be blamed on Russia.

“We cannot be under any illusion that Russia will simply refrain from trying to disrupt Ukrainian exports. Russia consistently provoked famine in Africa and Asian countries, which have traditionally imported significant amounts of Ukrainian food. And now … the threat of a price crisis and a certain food shortage is also present for some European countries,” Zelensky stated while turning the historical record on its head in a video address.

Should the deal actually move forward, it could double the volume of grain leaving Ukraine, according to Michael Magdovitz, a commodities analyst with Rabobank. “If this proves even reasonably successful, it will go a long way to alleviating shortages of grains across Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia,” Magdovitz told the Washington Post

While the deal could potentially alleviate food shortages in regions previously dependent on Ukrainian grain, US workers will see little reprieve as the US imports little grain from Ukraine or Russia.

In fact, the rising food prices within the US were largely due to other factors, such as climate volatility and logistical issues caused by the ruling class's homicidal COVID-19 policies. The increased use of biodiesel has also motivated farmers to produce less wheat, Pete Levangie, CEO of Bay State Milling, told the Washington Post.

In regards to US workers, “In terms of what the average consumer will feel with their weekly food budget, it won’t move the dial,” Levangie told the Post. As his comments demonstrate, the current food crisis is primarily a result of both the domestic and the war policies of the US government.

3 Aug 2022

Slovak Government National Scholarship Programme 2022/2023

Application Deadline: 31st October 2022 (16:00 CET)

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Slovakia

About the Award: The National Scholarship Programme of the Slovak Republic supports mobility of international students, PhD students, university teachers, researchers and artists for scholarship stays at higher education institutions and research organisations in Slovakia.

Type: Short Courses/Training

Eligibility: Eligible applicants for a scholarship in the framework of the NSP:

A) students who:

  • are university students at universities outside Slovakia;
  • are students of the second level of higher education (master’s students), or are students who at the time of application deadline have already completed at least 2.5 years of their university studies in the same study programme;
  • will be on a study stay in Slovakia during their higher education outside Slovakia and who will be accepted by a public, private or state university in Slovakia for an academic mobility1 to study in Slovakia.

All 3 conditions must be met. This category does not apply to doctoral (PhD) studies (or their equivalent).

B) PhD students whose higher education or scientific training takes place outside Slovakia and who are accepted by a public, private or state university or a research institution in Slovakia eligible to carry out a doctoral study programme2 (e.g. the Slovak Academy of Sciences) for an academic mobility1 to study/conduct research in Slovakia.

C) international university teachers, researchers and artists who are invited to a teaching/research/artistic stay in Slovakia by an institution with a valid certificate of eligibility to carry out research and development, which is not a business company and it has its headquarters in Slovakia.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The scholarship is intended to cover international scholarship holders’ living costs, i.e. the costs related to staying in Slovakia (food, accommodation, etc.), during their study, research/artistic or teaching stay at universities and in research organisations in Slovakia. The scholarship holder can ask for assistance concerning accommodation and formalities related to entering and staying in the territory of the Slovak Republic either his/her host institution, or he/she can handle all the necessities him-/herself.

In addition, students and PhD students (eligible applicants under the category A) and B) can be awarded a travel allowance, if they apply for it along with their scholarship application.

Duration of Program: 

  • Duration of a scholarship stay (students): 1 – 2 semesters (i.e. 4 – 5 or 9 – 10 months) or 1 – 3 trimesters, in case the academic year is divided into trimesters (i.e. 3 – 4 or 6 – 7 or 9 – 10 months).
  • Duration of a scholarship stay (PhD students): 1 – 10 months.
  • Duration of a scholarship stay (university teachers, researchers or artists): 1 – 10 months.

How to Apply: 

Scholarship applications are submitted online at www.scholarships.skOnline application system is opened at least 6 weeks prior to the application deadline. Applications can be filled in only in case that the online application system has already been opened.

Applicants must fill in their online applications and upload all the required attachments in required format to their online application. It is necessary to go through the Application Procedure in the Program Webpage (Link below) before applying.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Important Notes: Applicants are recommended not to submit their applications at the last moment. Number of operations executed within the last minutes prior to the application deadline may have an influence on the reaction time of the application system. Please, keep that in mind, in order not to miss the application deadline