Return To Work Agreement: Fill & Download for Free

Yes. When Reagan fired the 11,345 striking controllers who refused to return to work on 5 August 1981, he banned them all for life from ever working in the civil service again.However, the ban on some of the striking controllers was lifted by Reagan five years later, and they were allowed to reapply and return to work. Bill Clinton completely lifted the ban in 1993. I have read somewhere something like 800–850 of the controllers eventually returned to the civil service.Reagan is often demonized for this action, but the controllers had pledged not to go on strike when they accepted federal jobs that were considered paramount to public safety. It was part of their employment agreement. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 allowed the President to order striking workers in an essential industry or service to go back to work in the national interest.President Harry S. Truman, a Democrat, vetoed Taft-Hartley when it was passed, but Congress overrode his veto. Ironically, Truman became the first President to invoke the law, using it a dozen times between its passage and the end of his presidency in 1953. Before its passage, Truman had threatened to draft striking railroad workers into U.S. Army when their strike paralyzed the U.S. economy in 1946–47. The House actually passed such a bill, but a compromise was reached and it was killed in the Senate.I’m sure Reagan thought that the PATCO controllers would return to work when he invoked Taft-Hartley, and I don’t think he intended to fire them all. But when they defied the order, he had no choice but to fire them, or else lose his own credibility and affirm the belief of the PATCO leaders that the government didn’t have the guts to enforce the law against them.

The number one country I won't visit ever again would have to be the UAE (United Arab Emirates). For those of you wondering, it’s located in the Persian Gulf.​Whenever someone mentions cities within the UAE, such as Dubai, Abu Dhabi, etc., the first images that come to mind are that of skyscrapers and glorious beaches, as well as other unique modern landmarks that can be seen:​​​​​(All images are taken from Google)Looks wonderful, doesn't it?However, what most people don't realize is that these massive buildings, which have granted this country its modern civilization, are mostly constructed and built by workers, the majority of which are expats in the UAE, and which have been denied their respective wages for months by the companies they're working for.The process of recruiting these workers is simple; companies would typically post ads or contact foreign recruitment/employment agencies based in multiple countries (Mostly Southeast Asian countries; i.e. Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, The Philippines, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, China, etc.) to recruit workers for them. The agencies would act as the middlemen between the two; they would find those interested in working abroad, or in the tempting offers and swaying promises made by the construction companies. The recruitment agencies would help the workers fill in their application forms and necessary documents for the job and the visa, and assist them in booking their airline tickets once their visa has been approved. Ultimately, they would get a fee from the workers and a percentage from the company.The unsuspected laborers would take off to their destination in the hopes of being paid a high salary; and making a fortune to support their families back home.Unfortunately, once they land in the UAE, they are given a lengthy contract to sign with the company, taken to their accommodation, and their passports are stripped away from them and kept by their employers. This makes them unable to leave the country unless they obtain their passports back somehow. Some of them never do, and are trapped for years.If that wasn't bad enough, the workers are made to stay in terrible accommodations. The places they are kept in are unhygienic and filthy for people to live in. Some of them are kept in old buildings, just on the outskirts of the city they helped build.The issue generated some controversy and international attention by the media when a couple of journalists investigated the situation. Here are some pictures that have been taken by an Iranian investigative journalist who did an article about the mistreatment of these expats:​​(Due to lack of proper cooking facilities, workers cook in unhygienic conditions)(Some workers are paid so little, but are forced to stay in horrible conditions)​(Source: 0ss0.com)The workers are forced to share a room, sometimes 7–8 workers share one room to sleep in.They are not offered running water for showering or cooking, and they aren't offered proper cooking facilities either. Which means that, for most of the time, they are forced to find unconventional means to cook for themselves.Due to the lack of sufficient plumbing, the men’s living compartments are engulfed by a river of sewage.Some are paid as little as €150 a month, some are paid nothing whatsoever. Most are unable to protest because they are unable to leave, due to not having their passports, and are forced to stay and complete their contract work agreement.Most are in debt back home because they had to take loans and borrow money to pay the agencies and buy an airline ticket, and their minimum wage income isn't helping them to pay off their debts or to support their families back home or themselves.The working conditions themselves are atrocious. Workers are forced to work for as long as 12 hours per day, sometimes more. They are made to work during day shifts. Even when the temperature outside reaches 50 Celsius, workers have to work under the sun.The UAE government officials have been criticized for allowing such treatment to take place. However, the government’s response was to deny such accusations and ensure all the migrant workers in the UAE are treated well and are taken care of by their employers. Even if reality revealed otherwise.A lot of this is termed as “modern slavery.” A mini documentary made by Vice has been uploaded to YouTube ,in which reporter Ben Anderson poses as a British tourist and exposes the mistreatment of migrant workers in the UAE. I know it's a bit outdated, but this remains a pressing issue that's still going on to this day.Slaves of DubaiI'm not bashing the people of the UAE. I'm sure there are wonderful people there. On the plus side: the food was great, and it was a lovely getaway. The hospitality we recieved was great. On the down side: it was incredibly expensive, and I'm not entirely sure the cost was entirely worth it for the tourist experience you're looking to get.However, unfortunately, the government doesn't care about making a reform or changing the laws to protect the rights of the migrant workers that seek a better life and are kept in the dark about the circumstances that might await them. I'm not in support of that.I realize that such activities go on, and do happen, in different countries across all of the continents. The only difference between the UAE and other countries is that most countries have laws against such actions and reward migrant workers with their proper rights. I understand migrant workers from everywhere might face discrimination and racism while they're working in different countries, but at least their legal rights are preserved and they are protected. The UAE workers are not, because the UAE doesn't grant them their legal rights. On top of that, in case the workers attempt to escape their forced labor, once they're caught by authorities, they are rejoined with their abusive employers despite any protests.A lot of the workers who succeed in running away spend years hiding from the authorities. During that period, they try to gather as much money as possible to be able to afford a return ticket back home, since the government won't legally deport them or ask the company they work for to pay for their return ticket, either.https://strawberryjamm.com/

The Koh-i-Noor was handed over to the Queen of England as per a legal agreement. See Treaty of Lahore. On what basis do you expect the Queen to return the diamond? On the basis that it was a "theft"? Or as a symbolic gesture? Or on the basis that all things should be returned to the place they originated?Pakistan also claims the diamond on the basis that it was taken from the Sikh Empire of Lahore, not from the present-day Republic of India.Several people claiming to the descendants of Ranjit Singh have also claimed the diamonds, including Jaswinder Singh Sandhanwalia of Amsterdam and William D. Forbes of Canada.The Afghans want it too, since Ranjit Singh forced the Durranis to surrender it. In 2000, the Taliban asked the Queen to return Koh-i-Noor to Afghanistan.Maybe the Iranians will also claim it, saying that it was their king Nader Shah who gave the diamond its name and possessed it before Ranjit Singh or Abdali.Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Otherwise, the United Kingdom will have to return a lot more stuff to India. And the Government of India will have to return a lot of stuff to the descendants of the former princes. And they will have to return a lot of stuff to other people. That makes things pretty complex.The world works on a simpler principle:Victors Keepers, Losers Weepers.Even if the Queen does return the diamond only to India, we will have a huge ruckus over what the Government should do with this piece of condensed carbon.The priests of Puri will demand that the diamond be handed over to them as per the will of Maharaja Ranjit Singh.The Dalit activists would oppose it vehemently: they have long alleged that the diamond was given to the British by the treacherous Brahmins of Puri.The Sikh radicals have another conspiracy theory which disputes Ranjit Singh's "last-minute testament" which bequeathed the diamond to a Hindu temple. They say that no actual, formal will states this: only a letter written by the British political agent says that "he directed the well-known Kohinoor diamond to be sent to the temple of Jagannath."The Muslims of Hyderabad will demand that the diamond be returned to Golconda, where it originated.The Telugu Hindus will claim that the diamond was looted by the Muslims from the Kakatiya royals, and therefore, should be placed in a Hindu temple of Warangal.The priests of Dwarka have their own theory that Koh-i-Noor originally belonged to Krishna, and has been mentioned in the Sanskrit writings as Syamantaka.The Government will probably decide to display it in a museum or the Rashtrapati Bhavan. And it will get stolen just like the Nobel Prize medal of Tagore. Or we will end up spending millions of taxpayers' money on impregnable security at a cost that cannot be recovered with an entrance fee to the museum.Why would you want to waste the taxpayers' money on misplaced national pride when we have greater issues to worry about? The Government is also in the possession of the Jewels of the Nizams (including the famous Jacob Diamond), which are not on regular public display because of similar reasons.There is little point in arguing about ownership of things that are hundreds of years old, and have changed hands several times.Maybe not the most relevant place to post a quote from the Gita Saar, but:What belongs to you today,belonged to someone else yesterday,and will be someone else's tomorrowChange is the law of the universe.Koh-i-Noor wasn't even ever owned by the present-day Republic of India, only some historical kingdoms. Let's get over it.