590-1 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

590-1 - Essay Example According to a report, Philip H. Knight, the CEO of Nike Inc. had felt that the University of Oregon (UO) had â€Å"broken chain of trust† by deciding to join the Workers Right Consortium which opposed the Fair Labor Association (FLA) as supported by Knight. The UO raised a dispute with the support of the student activists and the faculty that the Nike’s products which were sold in the stores of university campus, bearing the university logo apparel were manufactured by not abiding the sweatshop terms and conditions. In this connection it is worthy to mention that ‘Workers Right Consortium’ or WRC is identified as an independent labor rights organization which keeps an eye on and focuses on protecting the rights of the workers those who generally sews apparel and manufactures other products especially those which bears university and college logos being sold in the markets of United States. The FLA is a joint effort of socially responsible companies, colleges, civil society organizations and universities intended to recover the working conditions of the factories operating worldwide. It is a brand accountability system providing the responsibility towards companies for accomplishing the FLA’s labor standards as maintained in the factories which is involved with manufacture of their products. Their mission is to protect the workers and improve the working conditions of the workers globally. Their objective is to end up the sweatshop standards being followed worldwide. FLA’s code of conduct includes; abolition of child labor, discrimination, intimidation of those workers who seeks to organize unions, improving hazardous work conditions, settling payments for over time (Fair Labor Association, 2008). Whereas, WRC being a non-profit organization supervises the manufacturing of university apparel in order to make sure that

Free

Free Trade Essay Free trade, alone, explains the varying fortunes of British industry and agriculture. How valid is this view of the period 1846-68? There is doubt that during the years 1846-68, the British industry and agriculture experienced a period of vast growth and varying fortunes. Free trade has been seen by many historians as the main motive for such a successful period, it in theory makes the world a richer place, but undoubtedly there were other remarkable improvements in Britain which accounted for the varying fortunes of industry and agriculture. There had been good developments in agriculture, seeing an increase in prices and exports. Firstly, there was stability in the price of wheat and other prices rose steadily; wheat in 1851-55 was 3% above the 1840 price. However, the best growth in prices laid in livestock related areas. A steady increase in major elements of production also had a good impact on farmers generally. There was a huge increase in drainage projects to help the quality of land and amount of land that was cultivated. This ignited a growth of technical efficiency; with much more intensive farming developments in production and use of fertilisers. Machinery, such as the steam-driven threshing machines made it possible for farmers to produced more output per acre and a lot of attention went into the correct feeding of animals, they way land was used and crops rotated. The British industry also saw great improvements in exports and growth. Over the period, the British industry enjoyed a remarkable export boom like which they had never experienced before. For example, exports in steel increased from 458,000 tones in 1845-9 to over 2,027,000 tones by 1856-9. Coal also endured the same growth in exports, with 2.5 million tones in 1845-9 to 9.86 million tones by 1865-9. The total value of exports from Britain in 1840-9 was set at à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½83 million, this figure rose to à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½244 million by 1870. This was down to a steady rise in prices, although real wages grew, as did investment and production increase too. Free trade was a major cause for the growth in this area, due to a number of reasons. It allowed Britain to make a great deal of money in opening up and developing industries in other countries, e.g. at one stage in the early 18602, Brassey, the English Contractor, had railways building on five separate continents. In the period of 1846-68, between 20% and 25% of world trade was British. In addition, free trade gave more choice to consumers, adding to the GDP and growth of economy. This also allowed Britain to flood the world with cheap manufactured goods. Free trade was finally introduced by Sir Robert Peel in his controversial 1845 budget act, influenced greatly by the Manchester School, a group of northern industrialist who came to believe that tariffs were stifling British industry. Their judgement was by no means wrong, as import duties on raw material made them more expensive less foreign countries were willing to trade than they would be otherwise. This was also keeping production costs too high the British businesses and reducing their sales, hence corrupting the economy. In Peels budget of 1842 and 1843, Peel demolished large number of the remaining duties, so that after 1845, duties on over 600 articles had been removed completely. By 1853, the attack on tariffs had initiated yet again. Gladstones 1853 budget abolished nearly all remaining duties on partially manufactured goods, food and nearly all remaining duties on fully manufactured goods, effecting over 350 separate articles. The 1860 budget continued this trend; only 48 import duties on articles left once duties were abolished on a further 375 articles. This was restricted down further in 1864 when Gladstone reduced the duty on sugar and halved the duty on tea. This provided a great stimulus to the British economy and industry. The 1860 Cobden Treaty alone produced a three-fold increase in trade with France by 1880. Nevertheless, with the benefit of hindsight, you can clearly see that there were other causes for such a period of success in both industry and agriculture. Firstly, Britain was still enjoying the advantage of being the first nation to industrialize and competition from abroad was limited. The US were having tremendous difficulty in supplying their own rapid increase of population and was held back by the Civil War of 1861-5; Germany did not become unified until 1871 so both of these countries were interdependent on British manufacturing exports. Secondly, the population growth increased the demand for such manufactured products domestically. Britain saw population increase from 27.4 million in 1851 to 31.5 million in 1871, which acted as a stimulus to industry. One major factor which contributed to the boom was the spread of railways. The decade saw immense investments in railway building. In 1843 there was only 2000 miles of track, but this soon resulted in the construction of a further 5000 miles of track by 1850, and in 1873 a total of 14,510 miles of track was opened. The industry employed large amounts of labour which were spending their wages on item such as clothing and housing which was being pumped back into the economy and helped the growth of domestic demand. In addition, the industry also encouraged technological developments in the iron and steel as vast amounts were demanded for construction. The demand for coal grew, as did the demand for service from mechanical and civil engineers. Most important of all, railways made it possible to transport manufactured goods to the ports much moor quickly. One last factor which also contributed to the boom of British industry was the vast sums of capital available for investment. Banking and credit facilities became more reliable after the Bank Charter in 1844. Even investments abroad helped the demand of British manufactured goods, as railways and factory projects were implemented overseas; the foreigners were able to buy British goods. Motives for the prosperity in agriculture differ slightly. James Caird, a farmer, wrote the famous pamphlet high farming explaining his ideas how farmers should respond to the threat of foreign competition once the Corn Laws were abolished in 1843. He believed the answer was to maintain their land more intensively, using the latest techniques and inventions to increase yield at the lowest price possible. High farming resulted in much higher productivity. Farmers begun to use clay piping to improve drainage, and Britain saw an increase in mix farmer, ranging from crops and wheat, to cattle, sheep and pigs. Overall profit for farmers doubled, even farm labourers were becoming slightly better off as far as wages, housing and food were concerned. Another factor for varying fortunes in agriculture is the rapid growth in population, increasing the demand for farmers products, which consequently meant higher prices and profits. This was also a result from very little competition from abroad. In addition, the railway boom enabled livestock to be transported quickly and cheaply over long distances. This allowed farmers to sell into new markets. Finally, even the weather was kind to the farmers and gave mostly good summers and harvest between 1850 and 1873. In conclusion, you can see that free trade did help the British industry, by allowing cheap raw materials to businesses meaning cheaper products for consumers. This stimulated the economy and made British businesses more efficient from foreign competitors. However, you can only assume that free trade would not be as positive on agriculture, as farmers faced much competition from cheaper products abroad, and to an extend, you could say that there were weaknesses in British Agriculture. There was still a great deal of conservatism in farming, large amounts of investments were often had a poor return, and there was still insecurity of tenure for tenant farmers. There were other factors, arguably more important than free trade, for the varying fortunes in both British industry and agriculture. Large increase in population meant demand rose substantially, the railway boom stimulated jobs, provided more money for citizens, helped technical developments in steel and iron industry and enabled farmers to sell in new markets. Therefore, the validity of this view is weak, as there are many more factors contributing the varying fortunes of industry and agriculture.

NAFTA :: essays research papers

The United States signed an agreement with all the North American countries. [The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)] This gave the U.S. the right to place their large factories in other countries, one of them, Mexico. It also gave them the right to obviously trade their products freely. So after the agreement was signed, the corporations went ahead and built their factories exclusively in depressing little â€Å"dictatorships† like Mexico. Where collective bargaining and governmental concern for anything other than the next opportunity to better up are nonexistent. Mexican/American factories continue to spew toxic filth into tributaries of the Rio Grande lined with squalid shacks housing of their underpaid employees. Many people concerned for the care of the environment think that in the absence of NAFTA, the amount of hazardous waste from Mexico would simply stop. The problem is the increasing industrial activity in the border area, with associated growth in the generation of hazardous waste. The damage to the environment and public health caused by illegal dumping of hazardous waste along the United States/Mexico border has increased. The increase in border industrial activity has led to an increase in the creation of hazardous waste, with data showing an increase in hazardous waste production since January 1994. Much waste still simply is washed down the drain. And only 70 of the 352 industries generating hazardous wastes reported proper disposal. Which I personally think is astonishing. And according to a 1995 report, one quarter of the hazardous waste from the â€Å"maquiladora† zone, approximately 44 tons daily, has an unknown end. Each year, seven million tons of toxic wastes are, without control, illegally dumped in drains and marine waters. Only one percent is under surveillance in the country, the inspection of the maquiladora industry is virtually non-existent which is a great environmental problem for Mexico. But like anyone cares. This industry both ben efits the Mexican and U.S. government. But soon both Texan and Mexican people will urge to put a moral stop to this because it causes birth defects in local areas. The incidences of neural tube birth defects have not improved since NAFTA took effect in 1994, and may actually be increasing. In December 1994 through February 1995, three cases were reported, one per month.

Models of Organized Crimeexecutive Summary

Models of Organized Crime Executive Summary Jennifer Peel CJA/384 November 26, 2012 Marco Faggione Models of Organized Crime Executive Summary Within the criminal justice field there are two different types of organizations and those organizations are bureaucratic and patron-client organizations. This paper will discuss the several assorted reasons why and how the bureaucratic and patron-client organizations are different. The patron-client organization chooses to break the law. On the other hand, the bureaucratic organizations are those that are there to enforce it.Although there are many differences between these two organizations, they also have commonalities. This paper will address so many more ways that make these two unique types of organizations different. The Patron-client Organization A patron-client organization is an assembly of criminal individuals who swapped data and assembled a successful system between the main bosses and important political figures. The patron-clien t organization is typically organized using a hierarchy system which consists of one boss, an underboss, an advisor, captains, and members.The main boss hands down commands to the underboss. The underboss relates the information to captains, who also has lackeys to do the dirty work. All members of a patron-client organization must go through prior initiation. Moreover, patron-client organizations are similar to a very close family in the top tier. The patron-client appears to recruit solely within their group. They tend to identify members with a common factor for recruitment. All members may be of the same ethnic group, family or other common factor.When it comes to the lower level, with the members, that tightness spreads out some. With this allowance of a somewhat spider web manner, there is a better chance of elusiveness when it come to the head figures. This way, the main bosses are able to evade apprehension as well as initial detection form the justice system. The organizati on is then able to continue daily operations with no issues (Lyman, 2007). When it comes to the patron-client organization control is a special problem ecause of the amount of people in the organization and the length of communication of commands have to travel. So the inability to establish command oversight with the leaders in management with the members in the lower tiers is a large problem (â€Å"Florida International University†, 2007). Something that this group provides is economic aid and protection from outside influences that their clients may be facing. While the group is providing this service, the client will repay the organization with such things like intangible items like loyalty to the organization in the future and esteem.The patrons of the organization will act as power brokers for their clients and the rest of society. The Bureaucratic Organization Bureaucratic organizations are more official consisting of hard guidelines, protocols, practices, and procedur es. This is unlike the patron-client organization because without administrative approval, the low ranked members may not make any decisions. Called the red tape rule, administration must process the formal documentation before processing all major decisions.Unlike the patron-client organization, which the lower level members can make small decisions without any approval as long as it benefits the organization. If there are no benefits to the organization, the member will receive some sort of punishment. A bureaucratic organization, blames financial troubles solely on the administrations whereas in a patron-client organization, holding everyone financially responsible and involving all members in the success or failure of the organization (WeeKoh, 2009). The SimilaritiesAll criminal organization models consist of comparisons and contrasts but the main purpose is to benefit law enforcement, researchers, society, and professionals with a better understanding of how criminal organizati ons develop domestically and internationally. Professional psychologists, sociologists, and criminologist’s base models on corroborating studies, data, facts, and creditable arguments collected. The information that presented focuses on organizational structure, function and reason, participants, and clients.In addition, each model incorporates detail specific unique features. The models presented are tools that provide answers to questions, offer an explanation to why individuals engage in illegal activity, how criminal organizations develop, and why most criminal organizations are successful. These are just a few of the similarities that exist (Lyman, 2007). Although it appears there are more similarities in both the bureaucratic and patron-client organizations such as their involvement in both legitimate and illegitimate means of business.Both parties hide behind legitimate businesses to cover alternative means of business opportunities, and both parties follow a structure d and strictly regulated organization with various levels of power. The Differences The main difference between the two organizations is the shared opportunities and contributions to the organization. The patron-client appears to welcome the input and contributions of each member which gives each member the sense of pride and empowerment as a group that is lacking with the bureaucratic organization.Failure in the bureaucratic organization is blamed on the negligence of those in charge, not in the failure as a group which would be the perception of the patron-client organization. The differences between bureaucratic and patron-client organizations are visible as bureaucratic deals with offices that do things by the law. They do not take extensive training in customer service and do not concentrate on being nice. The offices that are being referred to are government offices such as Welfare, DMV, and Section 8.In contrast, patron-client facilities are offices or places that focus upon pleasing their clients because if they don’t, the patron will go to another facility to get their needs met. This brings us to the similarities and differences of the models of organized crime. These types of models are exceedingly important to understanding organized crime as each provides a wide-range of valuable information. Models just like theories can present what environmental locations are more likely to show signs of developmental progress of criminal organizations than other sites.This in return can be extremely useful in many ways as it allows law enforcement the ability to implement methods that will deter, prevent, detect, and apprehend individuals involved with illegal organizations and operations. Furthermore, law enforcement can educate society on crime prevention methods, and establish numerous anti-crime and awareness programs, such as neighborhood watch (Lyman, 2007). After carefully researching the patron-client and bureaucratic organization, one clearly c an see that legal and illegal organizations have one main purpose to profit.Each organization has numerous similarities and differences, but structuring both in such a fashion that there is always someone who is in charge of maintaining the organizations success. Models just like theories provide useful information to law enforcement, society, and professionals. Consider these models as tools that allow law enforcement and society an opportunity to protect assets while detecting, preventing, apprehending, and deterring the individual wrongdoer or a highly developed criminal organization.References Florida International University. (2007). Retrieved from http://chua2. fiu. edu/faculty/byrnesj/organizedweek1-1. htm Lyman, M. D. , & Potter, G. W. (2007). Organized crime (4th ed. ). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. WeeKoh. (2009). Bureaucratic organization. Retrieved from http://weekoh. wordpress. com/2009/02/28/briefly-identify-the-main-features-of-bureaucratic-organizati ons-why-has-bureaucracy-been-accused-of-wiping-out-the-individual-responsibility-of-the-employee/

Epistemologies; Plato vs. Aristotle Essay

Plato, the father of philosophy, was a rationalist. He was the first systematic metaphysician and epistemologist. He believed that we had innate knowledge; a priori. So to him learning was only a matter of remembering. Plato believed that the â€Å"ideal† world existed beyond our own physical earth because according to him realty could not be changing or imperfect. From his point of view what we see are only the particulars, the mimics of the real thing, therefore, we have to pull back from the world of peculiars and search in our own minds. Things like justice or moral virtues do not exist in this world in a proper form. In Crito & Meno we can clearly see these ideas. The essential argument in Crito is ‘The Many vs. The One’. Socrates says â€Å"We should’t care all that much about what the populace will say of us, but about what the expert on matters justice and injustice will say, the individual authority, or Truth. † With this phrase he is saying that we should never pay attention to the opinion of the many but always find the one who knows because that is the only person whose opinion is valuable. And later on he goes on to say that if it is never good to do injustice then it is also wrong to do injustice in response to injustice which is why he refuses to escape. In Meno we get more in depth into the idea of inborn knowledge. Meno starts with the question ‘What is Virtue? ’ but Meno always answers the question by giving examples of virtue instead of defining the word and going to the roots of what all those virtues have in common. Down in the world of particulars there are many kinds of virtues for example for the male it’s to run the state, female it’s to run the household but what is important, essential is the traits they both have in common; temperance and justice. Socrates uses the dialectical method in order to get answers out of Meno and also clearly demonstrates this method on a slave of Meno to prove his theory about innate knowledge. Even though it can always be used, using the dialectical method is specifically significant when a person believes that we have innate knowledge, because if what we call learning is just remembering then teaching is just pulling out that knowledge, giving opportunities for that innate knowledge to spring forth. Aristotle on the other hand was an empiricist. He believed that we â€Å"learned† through our senses, by gathering knowledge from the world around us; â€Å"a posteriori†. By reading ‘On the soul’ and ‘Metaphysics’ we get a clear sense of Aristotle’s epistemology. Aristotle encourages embracing the particular in order to possibly gain a sense of the universal. According to Aristotle forms are the essence and when we combine form and matter we get human. The reading ‘On the Soul’ discusses that the body and the soul is not one, that sight allows us to absorb the world in very abstract ways and that memory is learning. In the reading ‘Metaphysics’ Aristotle sets forth causes for the explanation of change: Substance (essence), Matter (or substratum), Source of change and the cause opposed to this. Plato and Aristotle both believed in a universal purpose but the ways in which they got to these universal purposes were very different. Plato was an idealist, he despised the physical whereas Aristotle was a scientist, he loved facts and commonsense. Aristotle would argue that we gain knowledge after experience (a posteriori) but Plato would certainly disagree and say that we gain knowledge before experience (a priori). Plato believes that there is a world of ideas where ideas exist perfectly, the objects in our world are just mimics whereas Aristotle says that the ideas we perceive are inside the particular object. By saying that matter and form combined is what makes an individual Aristotle brings Plato’s Forms â€Å"down from the heavens to concrete reality. †