The Impact of the Industrial Revolution on the Life and Health of the British People :: Free Essays

The Impact of the Industrial Revolution on the Life and Health of the British People Trade and industry changed dramatically during the Victorian period. The invention of new machines and the growth of factories affected the working lives of many people. The invention of steam power meant that many jobs could now be done by machines and steam powered machines meant that more goods could be made and much faster than before, when they were made by hand. When manufacturers realised this, they put their machines into huge factories so that all the work could be done in one place. Coal was needed to help make steam to power the machines. Many Victorian factories were built near coalmines to make it easier to get the coal to the factory. The coal mining industry grew. Many workers were needed to keep the new machines running in the factories and more workers were needed to work in the coalmines. Huge industrial towns grew around the factories as people moved to factory areas to look for work. In 1800, 75000 people lived in Manchester. By 1850, more than 300 000 people lived there. This made more goods for sale at home and abroad. The revolution had many impacts on Victorian life and many people benefited from industrialization but many people did not. For most people the Industrial Revolution was a good thing. Farm workers now had machines to help them and owners of the new factories and mills were making lots of money from the goods, made in their factories, being exported and sold. New inventions such as the telegraph and the typewriter created different kinds of jobs. However, for many people, life was made much more difficult. Factory workers had no rights and had to work long hours in dreadful conditions for a very low pay. The new machines were often not very safe and the workers' lives were at risk when they were running them. Factory owners exploited their workers, especially women and children. But people were desperate for work and those without jobs were not

The Labor Orgnizations

I intend to explain in great detail the major issues relative to the unionization process, the act, which governs, and the independent agency, which polices it. I will also show what organizations do to make it difficult to implement the process relative to unfair practices. The NLRA (National Labor Relations Act) was enacted by Congress in 1935. It has the power to regulate interstate commerce and to govern the employer/employee bargaining and union relationship on a national level. The NLRA was amended by the Labor Management Relations (Taft-Hartley) Act in 1947 and the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure (Landrum-Griffen) Act in 1959. Most employers and employees involved in businesses that affect interstate commerce in any way are regulated by the act. The NLRA gives employees the right to determine for themselves whether they wish to be represented by a union. If the majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit indicate that they support a union a certification of representative is issued. Generally, this designation or †showing of interest† contains a statement that the employees want to be represented for collective bargaining purposes by a specific labor organization. The showing of interest must be signed by each employee and each employee's signature must be dated. These elections are conducted under laboratory conditions to ensure that the election represents the free choice of the employees. Violation of the laboratory conditions, or of the 24-hour silent period rules may result in the NLRB invalidating the election results. The twenty-four-hour silent period is intended to give the employees time to reflect upon their choice free from electioneering pressures. The NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) is an independent federal agency established to enforce the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). As an independent agency, they are not part of any other government agency such as the Department of Labor. Congress has empowered the NLRB to conduct secret-ballot elections so employees may exercise a free choice whether a union should represent them for bargaining purposes. A secret-ballot election will be conducted only when a petition requesting an election is filed. Although representation elections conducted by the NLRB are the most common means through which unions acquire representation rights, an employer may also voluntarily recognize a union as bargaining representative for a group of employees when the union demonstrates majority support. This can happen provided that the employer has no reasonable doubt of the employees' preference and that recognition is not granted for the purpose of assisting one particular union at the expense of another seeking to represent the same employees. A bargaining unit is 4a group of two or more employees who share a †community of interest† and may reasonably be grouped together for collective bargaining purposes. The NLRB is responsible for ensuring that any election in a representation case is conducted in an appropriate unit. A unit is usually described by the type of work done or jobs classification of employees for example, production and maintenance employees or truckdrivers. In some cases, the number of facilities to be included in a bargaining unit is at issue, and the number of locations to be involved may describe a unit. For example, in the retail industry, the NLRB may need to determine whether employees at a single store or whether a bargaining unit consisting of several stores is appropriate. Generally, the appropriateness of a bargaining unit is determined on the basis of the community of interest of the employees involved. Union or employees may file a petition for a decertification election. This petition, which can be filed by anyone seeking an election to determine whether the authority of a union to act as a bargaining representative of employees should continue. The signatures of 30 percent or more of the employees in the bargaining unit represented must support it. These signatures may be on separate cards or on a single piece of paper. Generally, this showing of interest contains a statement that the employees do not wish to be represented for collective-bargaining purposes by the existing labor organization. Each employee must sign the showing of interest and each employee's signature must be dated. When a petition is filed, the NLRB will determine whether the contract bar rule precludes holding an election. If it doesn't the NLRB must then determine an appropriate bargaining unit. The contract bar rule is a written labor contract, which bars an election during the life of the bargaining agreement. Unions may also acquire representation rights through unfair labor practice proceedings. The NLRB may issue a bargaining order when the effect of unfair labor practices by employers prevents a fair election from being held. The unionization process is not always welcome by employers and sometimes-illegal activity will go on to make it difficult to implement the process. Section 8 of the NLRA outlines specific behavior, which is unacceptable for employers. Cornell and Harvard Universities did research on employer coercion, harassment and firings, due to union campaigns, these findings were:  § One in four employers fires workers who are active in union campaigns-in all, it's estimated that at least 10,000 workers are fired each year for exercising the freedom to join a union.  § Ninety-one percent of employers, when faced with employees who want to join together in a union force employees to attend closed-door meetings to hear anti-union propaganda. 80 percent require immediate supervisors to attend training sessions on how to attack unions; and 79 percent have supervisors deliver anti-union messages to workers they oversee.  § Eighty percent hire outside consultants to run anti-union campaigns, often based on mass psychology and distorting the law.  § Half of employers threaten to shut down if employees join together in a union. Martin Jay Levitt, who had been among the fiercest hired guns brought in to fight organizing campaigns, said there were more than 7,000 attorneys and consultants who made their living busting unions. All told, the union busting industry had grown more than a billion dollars a year. Levitt, who planned and ran more than 250 union-busting campaigns across the country before renouncing the profession, described in detail the manipulation, dirty-tricks, abuse of the law and disregard for lives that are all part of a corporate campaign against a union drive. â€Å"Some corporate executives I encountered liked to think of their anti-union consultants as generals. But really the consultants are terrorists. Like political terrorists, the consultants' attacks are intensely personal,† he wrote. â€Å"Terrorists do not make factories and air strips their victims; they choose instead crippled old men and school children. Likewise, as the consultants go about the business of destroying unions, they invade people's lives, demolish their friendships, crush their will and shatter their families.† Levitt's standard operating procedures not only included investigating police records, personnel files, medical records and the family lives of union proponents to find a way to discredit them, but in the absence of any good ammunition he would simply concoct something to do the job. â€Å"To fell the sturdiest union supporters in the 1970s, I frequently launched rumors that the target worker was gay or was cheating on his wife,† he wrote. â€Å"It was a very effective technique, particularly in blue-collar towns.† Sharon Fisher's voice quivers when she talks about it. Ed Platt gets angry still. Ron Heller was shocked when the police looked the other way. Debbie Shallenburger says it's un-American, what happened to the hard-working citizens of her community. It's been a year since UAW members recessed their 17-month strike at Caterpillar plants in three states. But in and around East Peoria, Illinois, home of Caterpillar's corporate offices, Local 974 members and spouses still talk about the gang of thugs who brought terror to their quiet communities. They would cruise up and down the streets of Peoria, East Peoria, and suburbs like Washington, Pekin, and Metamora, often parking in front of the homes of UAW members. They would videotape family members in front of their own homes, at restaurants and stores, while they were driving. They learned the names of children, and called to them by their first names. They even left a flashlight inside the locked car of one worker's daughter, just to show that they had been there. It was all part of a huge intimidation campaign, and it got even rougher on the picket line where gang members assaulted women, provoked men to fight back, and used videotape to get workers fired. When they went to the local police for help, they were treated like criminals. Later they learned that the state police were against them, too. Who are these goons who roamed the streets of working class neighborhoods, protected by the law while terrorizing decent, law-abiding people? They're employees of Vance International–the same gang of thugs hired to clamp down on coal miners in West Virginia, schoolteachers in Cleveland, aerospace workers in St. Louis, and, today, newspaper workers in Detroit. When spying and provocation aren't enough, Vance's APT goons resort to violence like the assault that has left Detroit newspaper striker Vito Sciuto permanently scarred and still suffering violent seizures more than a year after brain surgery. Sciuto, a mailer, was smashed in the skull with a heavy piece of wood when 20 APT thugs formed a tight V-shaped wedge and marched out of a distribution center gate into a circle of peaceful pickets. The goal that night, a Vance employee told a reporter, was â€Å"to hurt people.† Detroit police watched the Vance riot, but no arrests were made. I feel once again that I have thoroughly covered the questions given. I put quite a bit of time into researching each part of the question. I was appalled at a lot of the information that I read, especially at Caterpillar and in Detroit. The examples I chose were the best out of many, which I had found. I really got into this essay and I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did writing it. (Seriously)

Second Gulf War In History - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 10 Words: 2900 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2019/08/16 Category History Essay Level High school Tags: Gulf War Essay Did you like this example? The Second Gulf War took place in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq. What led to the Iraq war was what took place on September 11, 2001. The deadliest terror attack on U.S. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Second Gulf War In History" essay for you Create order soil was the biggest reason the Second Gulf War took place. This war was set out to accomplish a set of goals; one was to dethrone Saddam Hussein and his regime as Iraqi dictator. The second primary goal was the threat that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as well as weapons programs (ICB data, Iraq Regime Change2002). One major question loomed, was this the best thing the United States should have done following the terror attacks in 2001?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Second Gulf war took place for about eight and a half years. Not only was it a long war, but it had also become the largest, longest, and most costly use of armed forces by the United States since Vietnam. It was also the first major post-Cold War U.S. military action taken apart from an international organization, and the first U.S. experience as an occupying power in a Middle Eastern country (Lieberfeld, 1). One of the major reasons that made Iraq such a threat was due to previous encounters. While Iraq was not the ones who carried out the attacks on September 11th, they were one of the biggest threats against the United States. Saddam Hussein acted very suspiciously years after the First Gulf War, such as not allowing inspectors from the United Nations into Iraq following an incident in 1998. That grew to be very suspicious to the United States and also drew a major concern. Saddam Hussein also had a history of using chemical weapons against Ir an and the Kurds. After the First Gulf War, there were rumors of Saddam Hussein creating a nuclear weapons program (ICB data, Iraq Regime Change2002). It seemed to be pretty clear that the United States, as well as President Bush, wanted to start a major war with Iraq and their regime. President Bush mentioned Iraq, as well as Saddam Hussein, in his presidential campaign. Bush stated Building durable peace will require strong alliances.It will require firmness with regimes like North Korea and Iraqregimes that hate our values and resent our success. and later in his speech when asked if Saddam Hussein would continue to work on his weapons of mass destruction, Bush expressed that he would take him out (Kikalishvili, 39-40). While President Bush had strong feelings about Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq, he certainly had mixed reactions from people close to him. Former president Bill Clinton had a talk with President Bush after his campaign. Bill Clinton talked about what Preside nt Bushs main concerns should be, and he had Iraq listed at the bottom. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said that Iraq was a preoccupation of the national security team from the very beginning of the administration and in 2001, Bushs main mission was not to confront Saddam Hussein, but, instead, to confront the new and rising threat in al Qaeda and its extremist kin. (Visser, 146). Bushs vice president Dick Cheney was on board with the president, which provided relief to Bush about the actions that he was taking. There were a lot of mixed feelings about what the United States should do, and the United States decided to go to war.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   It was clear that President Bush wanted to move quickly about getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime. In 2002, President Bush moved to Congress and drew up plans to use force against Iraq. If Iraq caused problems for inspectors during their visit by looking for weapons of mass destruction as well as having a weapons program, there would be a problem (Visser, 144). Congress had fully supported President Bush and his wishes, and President Bush gave the people the opportunity to either side with him, or with the terrorists (Visser, 144). United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair gave full support to the United States if they would take military action against Iraq. While that was undoubtedly good for the United States, getting support from other nations did not come so easy. France and Germany both stated that they would not support any force against Iraq without a UN mandate (ICB data, Iraq Regime Change2002). It started to seem that Iraq was willing t o comply with the commands made by President Bush. Iraq had agreed to allow the UN inspectors back in to look over their programs. The Iraqi government had provided the inspectors with a 12,000 page report on their weapon capabilities, and when UN inspectors looked over the report, they noticed minimal changes since the last time they were in Iraq. Once again, this report that had minimal changes to it raised eyebrows as to whether the Iraqi government had been lying about their weapons capabilities. At that time, the United States issued a breach on the resolution that was agreed upon between the two nations and everything that was starting to look better ended up turning back to being bad, maybe even worse. (ICB data, Iraq Regime Change2002). After the disappointment of the progress made, Bush stated to the secretary of state Colin Powell, The inspections are not getting us there and from this point on, it had become a crisis for the United States (ICB data, Iraq Regime Change2002 ).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   With the new year beginning, the United States along with their supported ally, the United Kingdom, efforts to get a second Security resolution was underway. Also during this time, the U.S. along with the U.K. continue placing troops in and around the Gulf in case of a possible attack. United Nations inspectors had not found any weapons of mass destruction as well as no weapons programs; however the U.S did not care and were still ready to go to war whether there was a second resolution or not (ICB data, Iraq Regime Change2002). In the following days, the allies supporting the United States in full out war had given Saddam Hussein and his sons forty-eight hours of an ultimatum, to leave Iraq or to face an attack. When Hussein and his sons chose to stay, what has become known as Operation Iraqi Freedom had begun in the following days. The plan was laid out, first was to rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime, the second was to rid the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and third was to free the Iraqi people (ICB data, Iraq Regime Change2002).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   While it was evident when the war started, dethroning Saddam Hussein and his regime was the number one priority. The United States was able to do that in about two and a half weeks of entering the war known as Operation Iraqi Freedom. The next most important task to do was to destroy Iraqs weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence agencies believed that Iraq had weapons programs as well as any nuclear or chemical type weapons in their possession. Intelligence agencies thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and they also shared the same mindset as the president of the United States. They had come up with many different assessments of what they really believed was going on in Iraq. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, agencies thought that Baghdad had chemical and biological weapons and missiles that went well beyond UN restrictions. They also believed that if these weapons, as well as their missiles, were not checked from inspect ors of the UN, then Iraq would be able to create a nuclear weapon in a short period (National Intelligence Estimate, 9). What also drew the eyes of intelligence agencies was the oil that Iraq has. With Iraq being a major player in the oil industry, and being able to sell oil to other countries raised eyebrows. Listed in the key judgments, Iraqs growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdads capabilities to finance WMD programs: annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled, from $580 million in 1998 to about $3 billion this year (National Intelligence Estimate, 9). For Iraq to increase as much as they did in profits from oil to where they were at during this report is remarkable. It was also a growing concern to the U.S. because growing that much in that short of time can certainly help either start or improve programs of weapons of mass destruction. The agencies had come up with what they believed was the knowledge or confidence of Saddam Hussein and Iraq on using any weapons of mass destruction. There was a specific criterion of confidence levels (high, moderate, and low) about what they believed to be true. Some of the issues that they felt high confidence was the thought that Iraq was improving on their weapons programs, that Iraq possessed chemical, biological, and missiles. They were also high on the idea of precisely when Iraq would be able to produce a nuclear weapon, and they believed that it could be in a very short span. What they had knowledge on but were not exactly sure about was whether they could make one in such a short span, but they could have a nuclear weapon in the upcoming years. Lastly, what they did not precisely know was if or when Saddam Hussein would use these weapons, whether he would engage in an attack such as what Al-Qaeda had done to the United States, and whether he would share these weapons with Al-Qaeda (National Intelligence Estimate, 13).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Even though we know the truth of the matter that we found out that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction, nor were they in the midst of making any in their weapons programs, they certainly drew red flags to the United States and their intelligence agencies. Whether it was not cooperating with the UN inspectors back in 1998 or Saddam Husseins previous use of weapons of mass destruction a decade earlier, they continued these types of actions. Up until this point, Iraq never has never fully accounted for major gaps and inconstancies in its declarations and has provided no credible proof that it has destroyed its weapons stockpiles and production infrastructure (Department of Central Intelligence, 3). Iraq has also never accounted for missing materials used in the making of chemical weapons. Chemical precursors and unfilled munitions are not accounted for because inspectors have no idea where they are and if they have destroyed them. They also do not know where 15,000 artillery rockets are or where 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent are (Department of Central Intelligence, 10). Iraq even upgraded one of their chemical production facilities, with bringing in more product of reactor vessels. Iraq has shown support for weapons of mass destruction programs, Iraq has been able to import dual-use, WMB-relevant equipment, and material through procurements both within and outside the UN sanctions regime. Baghdad diverts some of the $10 billion worth of goods now entering Iraq every year for humanitarian needs to support the military and WMD programs instead (Department of Central Intelligence, 23). Iraq has also seemed to have worked around some of the guidelines concerning what the UN inspectors look at when materials come into the country. Inspectors do not check any of the cargo that enters through the country, and some of the cargo that comes through make intelligence agencies believe that the unchecked cargo is used to support the weapons of mass destruction programs. Also, Iraq uses many different travel methods to get the imported goods through the country without that cargo getting inspected from UN inspectors, which is a violation regarding the UN Security Council resolutions. Baghdad, the capital of Iraq, has mentioned in the past that the goods that they receive are designed to rehabilitate facilitiessuch as the Al Qaim phosphate plant and Fallujahthat in the past were used to support both industrial and weapons of mass destruction programs (Department of Central Intelligence, 25).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The people looking into all of Iraqs potential weapons of mass destruction came from Senator Pat Roberts, Chairman and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Vice Chairman. What exactly they were looking for was the quantity and quality of U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs, ties to terrorist groups, Saddam Husseins threat to stability and security in the region, and his repression of his people (Select Committee of Intelligence, 1). There were still many questions about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was continuing the programs that they already had. Issues about exactly how long it would take for Iraq to build a nuclear weapon stating that IC analysts believed that Iraq had started reconstitution efforts in 1999 by starting to put the nuclear program back together.The five to seven-year clock started in 2002in other words, the time of the estimate (Select Committee of Intelligence, 86). The committee had also given multiple reasons why they considered Iraq to build up their nuclear program. Aluminum tubes, used for uranium enrichment, was one of the major reasons why they believed Iraq was building its weapons program. The second observation that the committee had come to was magnets, third was a high-speed balancing machine, machine tools, Iraqs support of wanting better weapons personnel, and activity at several suspect nuclear sites. The CIA even published a one-page article about the reasons they believed that the aluminum tubes were brought there specifically for their weapons program, stating In August of 2002, the CIA published its first detailed paper explaining its assessment that the aluminum tubes were destined for Iraqs nuclear program.provided a one-page outline of the CIAs assessment that the tubes materials, exceedingly stringent tolerances, high cost, and the secrecy surrounding procurement attempts, indicated that the tubes were destined for Iraqs gas centrifuge program (Sele ct Committee of Intelligence, 93). U.S. intelligence agencies also believed that Iraq was high on their biological weapons program. Analysts were a little frightened that Saddam Hussein may have got his hands on a clandestine BW production capability which increases to turn out several hundred tons of unconcentrated BW agents a year (Select Committee Intelligence, 144). Agents had also become concerned with the fact that Iraq did not get rid of their biological weapons. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) had truly believed that Iraqs BW program was more equipped than it was before the Gulf War, and they had come up with a list of reasons of why they believe that. The facilities that Baghdad has for producing their BW agents raise a concern to the NIE. Baghdad has moved to bigger facilities to produce their production. Also, with UN inspectors not being in Iraq since 1998, Iraq has helped maintain the BW program, as well as being able to develop genetically engineered BW agents (Select Committee Intelligence, 147-148). As far as Iraqs chemical weapons program goes, analysts were also unsure about their program but had suspected that after the First Gulf War, nothing much has changed with their chemical weapons. The NIEs report on their chemical weapons remains exactly unsure stating We have seen no indication since the Gulf War that Iraq has engaged in large-scale production of CW agents, but we cannot rule out the small-scale production has occurred (Select Committee Intelligence, 196). As with the other intelligence report, this report also lists what the analysts had high confidence, moderate confidence, and low confidence. One of the reports listed in the high confidence part was we are not detecting portions of these weapons programs (Select Committee Intelligence, 208). The major problem with all of these reports from the NIE is that they believe or assume that Iraq has weapon programs, and it seems none of them are certain of what Iraq is doing. It even states in the report that None of the intelligence reporting provided to the Committee showed that Iraq was expanding its chemical infrastructure primarily to support CW production (Select Committee Intelligence, 204).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Overall, after the war had ended in December 2011 reports had come out about the war. When President Bush entered the White House, one of his main goals was to dethrone Saddam Hussein as president of Iraq. All of the reports leading up to the war of Iraq having a weapons program were not true. From the Origins of the Second World War, reports of the weapons of mass destruction were not confirmed even after the end of the war. In 2008 while the war was still going on, President Bush talks about his biggest regret during his presidency, and he replies I dont knowthe biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq (Kikalishvili, 41). President Bush also spoke a lot about Iraq in his memoir, Decision Points, where he talks about Saddam Hussein stating Before 9/11, Saddam was a problem America might have been able to manage. Through the lens of the post-9/11 world, my view changed. I had just witnessed the damage inflicte d by nineteen fanatics armed with box cutters. I could only imagine the destruction possible if an enemy dictator pass his WMD to terrorists (Bush, 229). Former Secretary of State under George H.W. Bush, James Baker, brought to light of the brilliance of the First Gulf War. He also talked shortly about the Second Gulf War, stating that by 2003, Saddam Hussein had violated numerous United Nations resolutions, that Congress authorized military action and that intelligence agencies believe (erroneously) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (Jackson, Academic OneFile). There is one major part to take away from this war, that it was a crisis created by the United States.