Industrial action is used to put pressure on employers and the government to change working conditions/pay among other things. At school you'll probably have celebrated having a day off because your teachers were striking but it's not the same for everyone. Although industrial action can only take place if a fair ballot of the union is taken not all jobs allow you to do this, and it will not always earn your sympathy or support form the general public.
Striking is banned to some professions (police) and greatly frowned upon in others (doctors) but only last year both of these groups talked of striking with the latter taking action. Firefighters however, despite holding a similarly 'life-saving' job have used their right to strike a number of times in the last two decades (my own living memory) and are planning to do so again, on Sept 25th.
Why are they striking?
Current proposals mean that firefighters have to work until the age of 60 in order to receive a full pension while retiring earlier sees them lose half of this. The argument is that pressuring them to work into their late 50s, when their health and fitness is not as high as it was, endangers lives - either that or they are forced to retire and lose a large amount of their pension.
What is being done about it?
While all parties hope for a solution to be found without a strike contingency plans are in place to ensure lives are still protected. While armed forces were used in 2002 and 2003 they will only be called in in the event of a major incident. Firefighters will respond only to confirmed fires.
Will it work?
Being only 4 hours long the strike is being called a 'warning shot' hinting that a lengthier strike make take place if union members do not feel the government responds well enough to the action. It is however a warning to the government that the union is serious about the issue and will take greater action if required, this may prompt more progressive negotiations over the pensions.
Is it right?
Union workers have the right to strike providing a ballot has been taken - one was, with ~78% in favour. With the strike being only 4 hours they have taken the responsible ground as it shows the government that the union is serious without endangering as many lives as it would be if it was a whole day's strike. Given their essential role in society a short strike allows them to keep public favour.
***
References
www.gov.uk
www.bbc.co.uk
www.dailymail.co.uk
Tuesday 17 September 2013
Tuesday 27 August 2013
Syria: Is military intervention the answer?
The brewing cauldron of the Syrian civil war overspilled last week after a chemical attack in the capital, Damascus, killed over 300 people. With the US earlier stating that the use of chemical weapons would be crossing a red line, is this event enough to prompt military intervention from the West?
Yes.
Supporters include Ex Prime Minister Tony Blair, US Senator John McCain. France and Germany have voiced support.
Ethically we must intervene
The use of chemical weapons is prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Do we really want our children to grow up in a world where it is ok to use chemical weapons without fear of repercussions? - A great article devoted to this argument can be found here here
Syria's chemical capabilities are unknown
They did not sign the CWC so we do not know what weapons they have and their number. If they are prepared to use them against their own country what is to prevent them from using them against other countries.
The government must be held accountable
It took the government nearly a week to allow UN inspectors to visit the site which enhances the argument that the attack was the work of the government. Furthermore shots were fired at the inspectors from known government positions though this may have been rebels hoping to prompt the West into action.
Air strikes will not put our troops at risk
The most likely military intervention at this state would be guided missile strikes at military targets. This would harm Al Assad and his regime hopefully prompting a change of tactics and the stepping down of Al Assad without any civilians coming to harm.
No.
Those against include Iran, Russia, China
We are not the police of the world
We saw it with Iraq and with Afghanistan, little old UK throwing our weight in with the US but during the reformation of our forces we have reduced and reduced; we cannot afford another war. Not only is our Regular Army suffering redundancies as it is cut to almost half the size it was during the cold war (82,000 by 2017) but recruitment into the reserves is failing to fill the gap.
Why waste lives of our soldiers on something that doesn't affect our country? ... again
How many British lives have been lost fighting the Middle East? Does Syria pose a threat to our country? No. If we send in troops we are putting our own soldiers at risk - yes its their job but they sign up to protect and serve our country, not necessarily someone else's.
UN inspectors have been unable to conclusively prove which side is responsible for the attack
Its one things to intervene on ethical grounds but when you cannot prove that the side you are targeting was the perpetrator then you are ethically in the wrong. It is impossible to prove that the government is responsible and the attack was not conducted by rebels attempting to gain support from the West.
It is unlikely to be backed by the UN
The five permanent member states (UK, US, France, China, Russia) all have the power to veto any resolution. With Russia openly supporting the Syrian government and China joining them in warning the West against action not only is any response likely to be vetoes but acting without a mandate could end up with us inadvertently going to war with one of these two countries.
It may cause increased instability in the region
Syria is an important player in the Arab world, disruption here may threaten nearby countries as occurred during the Arab Spring in 2011.
No-one really wants to rebels to win. The regime is doomed anyway.
Al Assad can only hang on for so long, with or without intervention. Toppling the government through military means leaves an opportunity for a rebel faction to assume control of the country. Control passing to one of the more radical factions would only worsen the country's situation both internally and globally; one faction is being armed by Al Qaeda. A political solution must be found involving the stepping down and replacement of Al Assad in a democratic way.
* * *
Decide for yourself. If you think I've missed any points off just comment and I'll do my best to cover any other (reasonable) arguments.
Yes.
Supporters include Ex Prime Minister Tony Blair, US Senator John McCain. France and Germany have voiced support.
Ethically we must intervene
The use of chemical weapons is prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Do we really want our children to grow up in a world where it is ok to use chemical weapons without fear of repercussions? - A great article devoted to this argument can be found here here
Syria's chemical capabilities are unknown
They did not sign the CWC so we do not know what weapons they have and their number. If they are prepared to use them against their own country what is to prevent them from using them against other countries.
The government must be held accountable
It took the government nearly a week to allow UN inspectors to visit the site which enhances the argument that the attack was the work of the government. Furthermore shots were fired at the inspectors from known government positions though this may have been rebels hoping to prompt the West into action.
Air strikes will not put our troops at risk
The most likely military intervention at this state would be guided missile strikes at military targets. This would harm Al Assad and his regime hopefully prompting a change of tactics and the stepping down of Al Assad without any civilians coming to harm.
No.
Those against include Iran, Russia, China
We are not the police of the world
We saw it with Iraq and with Afghanistan, little old UK throwing our weight in with the US but during the reformation of our forces we have reduced and reduced; we cannot afford another war. Not only is our Regular Army suffering redundancies as it is cut to almost half the size it was during the cold war (82,000 by 2017) but recruitment into the reserves is failing to fill the gap.
Why waste lives of our soldiers on something that doesn't affect our country? ... again
How many British lives have been lost fighting the Middle East? Does Syria pose a threat to our country? No. If we send in troops we are putting our own soldiers at risk - yes its their job but they sign up to protect and serve our country, not necessarily someone else's.
UN inspectors have been unable to conclusively prove which side is responsible for the attack
Its one things to intervene on ethical grounds but when you cannot prove that the side you are targeting was the perpetrator then you are ethically in the wrong. It is impossible to prove that the government is responsible and the attack was not conducted by rebels attempting to gain support from the West.
It is unlikely to be backed by the UN
The five permanent member states (UK, US, France, China, Russia) all have the power to veto any resolution. With Russia openly supporting the Syrian government and China joining them in warning the West against action not only is any response likely to be vetoes but acting without a mandate could end up with us inadvertently going to war with one of these two countries.
It may cause increased instability in the region
Syria is an important player in the Arab world, disruption here may threaten nearby countries as occurred during the Arab Spring in 2011.
No-one really wants to rebels to win. The regime is doomed anyway.
Al Assad can only hang on for so long, with or without intervention. Toppling the government through military means leaves an opportunity for a rebel faction to assume control of the country. Control passing to one of the more radical factions would only worsen the country's situation both internally and globally; one faction is being armed by Al Qaeda. A political solution must be found involving the stepping down and replacement of Al Assad in a democratic way.
* * *
Decide for yourself. If you think I've missed any points off just comment and I'll do my best to cover any other (reasonable) arguments.
Wednesday 31 July 2013
Syria made Simple
The Basics
Protests began in Damascus in March 2011 and quickly became nationwide. Security forces fired on protestors with army presence increased in May in an effort to prevent/crush anti regime protests. Suicide bombings in Damascus (December 2011) were the first of many that continued into the new year with each side blaming the other. A year later the US and Britain, among others, recognised the opposition (National Coalition) as the people's representative, later pledging non-military aid.
Current Situation
Though rebels control areas to the North and East of Aleppo the city itself is still contested. Recent regains by government forces would indicate that they are gaining the upper hand.
The UN estimates that over 100,000 people have died in the conflict so far with over 1.7 million being displaced but no-one seems to be doing anything about it.
"Is the world simply watching?"
With the US and UK already fighting wars in two countries the situation in Syria can be slightly overlooked. Despite the lack of forceful intervention this doesn't mean nothing has been done. The US, EU and the Arab League were quick to tighten sanctions on Syria as 2011 with demands for President Assad's resignation in August 2012.
Russia, despite Western pressure, and Iran are both arming the government. Arming the rebels is proving a delicate issue with many countries suspected of doing so denying it. The decisions of who to arm (within the rebel factions) is a complex one, many are extreme and affiliations questionable. If consideration is not made we may find ourselves arming our own enemies; Al-Qaeda (Iraq) is among those openly arming rebel groups
"Is a heavier handed approach needed?"
All you have to do is look at Iraq and Afghanistan to see where going in guns blazing has got us before. Not only are we already fighting two wars but we're also restructuring and reducing our forces. It's arguable that we're not even in a position to launch a military operation in the area.
"What happens next?"
A red line was drawn by Barack Obama last year; the use of chemical weapons. It's now agreed that this has occurred and in June the US pledged military aid to the rebels though what this will entail is unclear. If troops are inserted it is difficult to imagine other countries not following. With withdrawals from Afghanistan almost complete we may find ourselves fighting yet another conflict in the Middle East.
Definitions
Arab League: 22 members. Facilitates political, economic, cultural and social progress and protection within the Arab world.
Sources
www.bbc.co.uk
- President: Bashar al-Assad (Ba'ath Party)
- Capital: Damascus (Largest city: Aleppo)
- Protests against the holding of political prisoners escalated into armed rebellion after security forces intervened in March 2011
Protests began in Damascus in March 2011 and quickly became nationwide. Security forces fired on protestors with army presence increased in May in an effort to prevent/crush anti regime protests. Suicide bombings in Damascus (December 2011) were the first of many that continued into the new year with each side blaming the other. A year later the US and Britain, among others, recognised the opposition (National Coalition) as the people's representative, later pledging non-military aid.
Current Situation
Though rebels control areas to the North and East of Aleppo the city itself is still contested. Recent regains by government forces would indicate that they are gaining the upper hand.
The UN estimates that over 100,000 people have died in the conflict so far with over 1.7 million being displaced but no-one seems to be doing anything about it.
"Is the world simply watching?"
With the US and UK already fighting wars in two countries the situation in Syria can be slightly overlooked. Despite the lack of forceful intervention this doesn't mean nothing has been done. The US, EU and the Arab League were quick to tighten sanctions on Syria as 2011 with demands for President Assad's resignation in August 2012.
Russia, despite Western pressure, and Iran are both arming the government. Arming the rebels is proving a delicate issue with many countries suspected of doing so denying it. The decisions of who to arm (within the rebel factions) is a complex one, many are extreme and affiliations questionable. If consideration is not made we may find ourselves arming our own enemies; Al-Qaeda (Iraq) is among those openly arming rebel groups
"Is a heavier handed approach needed?"
All you have to do is look at Iraq and Afghanistan to see where going in guns blazing has got us before. Not only are we already fighting two wars but we're also restructuring and reducing our forces. It's arguable that we're not even in a position to launch a military operation in the area.
"What happens next?"
A red line was drawn by Barack Obama last year; the use of chemical weapons. It's now agreed that this has occurred and in June the US pledged military aid to the rebels though what this will entail is unclear. If troops are inserted it is difficult to imagine other countries not following. With withdrawals from Afghanistan almost complete we may find ourselves fighting yet another conflict in the Middle East.
* * *
Definitions
Arab League: 22 members. Facilitates political, economic, cultural and social progress and protection within the Arab world.
Sources
www.bbc.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)