Two Major Unions in America Essay -- History Job Labor Work Unions Ess

Two Major Unions in America Unions in America were created to improve the working conditions of its labor force. These labor force consisted of the men, women, and children that were employed by the owners of industry. Many unions were established in the early 1800s, but due to the widespread fear of socialism and the repression from the courts, the majority of them eventually failed. Most capitalist, at the time, felt there was no need to share with its employees the profits of their businesses (Murrin et al. 2002:685-702). Management, for the most part, paid little attention to salary and provided few, if any, safety measures and health protection for the people actually doing the work. Employees worked long hours weekly, often twelve or more daily. These abuses and corruptions by owners towards the working-class were some of the reasons why the U.S. Department of Labor, the Industrial Workers of the World, and the American Federation of Labor came into existence. John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan, to name a few, started their fortunes during the 1800s. The methods used by these men to get rich stirred people to refer to them as â€Å"robber barons.† Rockefeller formed Standard Oil after buying several oil refineries with the enormous profits he made during the Civil War. Similarly, J.P. Morgan had his hand in creating several of the major industries of the day, which included investment banking, General Electric, and International Harvester (Murrin et al. 2002:685-686). The successes these men experienced were usually attained at the expense of the common laborer. With their wealth and influence, even the anti-trust government laws of the time that were supposed to dissolve monopolies, were used as weapons agai... ...ions. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1914: BoondocksNet Edition, 2001. Retrieved April 9, 2003 http://www.boondocksnet.com/editions/marot/ Murrin, John M., Paul E. Johnson, James M. McPherson, Gary Gerstle, Emily S. Rosenberg, and Norman L. Rosenberg. 2002. â€Å"An Industrial Society.† Pp. 685-686, 701-702, 704 in Liberty Equality Power. Harcourt College Publishers, 6277 Sea Harbor Drive, Orlando, FL. Summary of the Major Laws of the Department of Labor.† U.S. Department of Labor. 9 Apr. 2003. Retrieved April 9, 2003 http://www.dol.gov/opa/aboutdol/Lawsprog.htm This is the AFL-CIO. 2003. Retrieved April 9, 2003 http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/about/thisis/index.cfm â€Å"Who was Samuel Gompers, Anyway?† Samuel Gompers Papers Project. 2003. Retrieved April 9, 2003 http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/colleges/ARHU/Depts/History/Gompers/page6.html

Malthusian View Relevant Today?

â€Å"Malthusian views of the relationship between population and food remain relevant today. † Discuss this statement. According to Malthusian theory of population, population increases in a geometrical ratio, whereas food supply increases in an arithmetic ratio. This imbalance would lead to widespread poverty and starvation, which would only be checked by natural occurrences such as disease, high infant mortality, famine, war or moral restraint. However, this theory is wrong in circumstances now, because it only considered two factors—food and population. But these two factors can be overcome by different ways.Other factors such as improvements in technology proved him wrong. He was right at his time but development made him wrong. If it wasn't for outside influences on population growth and food supply, his mathematical reasoning which proved his theory and was right. Firstly, as I had just said, food production has increased in many different ways, unimaginable in M althus’ time. For one, food technology has rapidly improved. The emergence of Genetically Modified food (GM Food) has boosted food production greatly. GM crops can be planted even in the most undesirable places, in low developed countries like Africa and Brazil.GM crops are also enhanced so that they are pest resistant, hence increasing crop yield. From this you can already see that GM crops cannot only increase food production, living standard can also be increased. Food production has also been increased by draining marshlands, reclaiming land from the sea, cross-breeding of cattle, use of high-yielding varieties of crops, terracing slopes, growing crops in greenhouses, using more sophisticated irrigation techniques such as hydroponics, growing new food such as soya, making artificial fertilizers, farming native crop and animal species, and fish farming.From this, you can see that although population has maybe exceeded the â€Å"optimum†, there is no decrease in food supply and living standard. Moreover, concerning the aspect of population, there are actually many means of population control nowadays that weren’t there in Malthus’ time, resulting in a slowing momentum of population growth. Firstly, there is the use of birth control methods, such as condoms, contraceptive pills, and abortion. These methods are common and widely used, and also easy to access. This way, the population can be controlled through the number of births.There is also the increased education among people for safe sex, so couples will not conceive â€Å"surprise babies† and can effectively limit the number of births as well. Moreover, the status of women has changed. Women are now of a higher position than in Malthus’ time, and they will not be as likely as before have babies. This is because they have other things in mind, mostly their work, than raising a child or having a family. Migration is also made possible globally nowadays due to commu nication and technology (i. . transport), resulting in a more balanced spread of people and hence lowering the chance of a place having too few food and too many people. In conclusion, I do not agree with the statement above. It may have made sense in the time of Thomas Malthus, but it is not relevant in modern times because many things have advanced in a momentum that Malthus has not been able to predict, especially in terms of technology and gender equality. So to make it clear, I don't think the statement is correct.

How Are Federal Judges Selected

The term federal judge includes Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges. These judges make up the federal court system, which litigates all U.S. federal charges, upholding the rights and liberties contained within the Constitution. The selection process for these judges is laid out in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, while their powers can be found in Article III. Key Takeaways: Federal Judge Selection The United States President nominates potential federal judges.The U.S. Senate confirms or rejects the Presidents nominees.Once confirmed, a federal judge serves for life, with no term limits.In rare cases, a federal judge can be impeached for failing to uphold good behavior under Article II of the Constitution. Since the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the federal judicial system has maintained 12 district circuits, each with its own court of appeals, regional district courts, and bankruptcy courts. Some judges are referred to as federal judges, but are part of a separate category. The selection process for Magistrate and bankruptcy judges is separate from Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges. A list of their powers and their selection process can be found in Article I. Selection Process The judicial election process is an important part of the Second Article of the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section II, Paragraph II reads: [The President] shall nominate [...] Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. In simplified terms, this section of the Constitution states that appointing a federal judge requires both nomination by the President and confirmation by the U.S. Senate. As a result, the President can nominate anyone, but may choose to take Congressional suggestions into consideration. The potential nominees may be vetted by the Senate through confirmation hearings. At the hearings, nominees are asked questions about their qualifications and judicial history. Qualifications to Become a Federal Judge The Constitution does not give specific qualifications for justices. Technically, a federal judge does not have to have a law degree to sit on the bench. However, judges are vetted by two different groups. The Department of Justice (DOJ): The DOJ maintains a set of informal criteria used to review a potential judgeCongress: Congressional members suggest potential candidates to the President, using their own informal decision process. Judges may be selected based on their past rulings in lower courts or their conduct as a lawyer. A president may prefer one candidate over another based on their preference for the opposing practices of judicial activism or judicial restraint. If a judge does not have prior judicial experience, it is difficult to predict how they may rule in the future. These predictions are strategic. The federal judicial system remains a check on Congress legislative power, so Congress has a vested interest in seating a judge that favors the current majoritys interpretation of the Constitution. How Long Federal Judges Serve Federal judges serve life terms. Once they are appointed, they are not removed as long as they uphold good behavior. The Constitution does not define good behavior, but the U.S. Court system has a general code of conduct for judges. Federal judges can be impeached for failing to show good behavior under Article II of the Constitution. Impeachment is broken down into two elements. The House of Representatives has the power to impeach, while the Senate has the power to try impeachments. Impeachment is extremely rare, shown by the fact that between 1804 and 2010 a total of 15 federal judges were impeached. Out of those 15, only eight were convicted. The longevity of a federal judicial appointment makes the nomination and approval process extremely important to sitting presidents. Judgeships outlast the presidency by many years, meaning that a president might view a Supreme Court appointment as their legacy. Presidents do not control how many judges they can nominate. They nominate once seats open up or new judgeships are created. Judgeships are created through legislation when needed. Need is determined by a survey. Every other year, a Judicial Conference run by the Judicial Resources Committee invites members of the courts across the U.S. to discuss the status of their judgeships. Then, the Judicial Resources Committee makes recommendations based on a variety of factors including geography, age of sitting judges, and diversity of cases. According to the U.S. Courts, A threshold for the number of weighted filings per judgeship is the key factor in determining when an additional judgeship will be requested. Federal judgeships have grown in number over time, but the Supreme Court has remained constant, sitting nine justices since 1869. Sources â€Å"Code of Conduct for United States Judges.†Ã‚  United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges.â€Å"Federal Judges.†Ã‚  United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/faqs-federal-judges.â€Å"Federal Judge.†Ã‚  Ballotpedia, ballotpedia.org/Federal_judge.â€Å"Impeachments of Federal Judges.†Ã‚  Federal Judicial Center, www.fjc.gov/history/judges/impeachments-federal-judges.â€Å"Judgeship Appointments by President.† U.S. Courts, 31 Dec. 2017.U.S. Constitution. Art. II, Sec. II.