Wiki Actu en

August 30, 2013

UK beer, soft drinks delivery drivers vote to strike

Filed under: Labor — admin @ 5:00 am

UK beer, soft drinks delivery drivers vote to strike

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Friday, August 30, 2013

Labour

Syndicalism.svg

on Wikinews
Collaborate!
  • Newsroom
  • Style Guide – how to write
  • Content Guide – what to write

Workers including drivers for Kuehne and Nagel Drinks Logistics (KNDL) have voted in favour of striking. KNDL, which delivers beer and soft drinks to about 30,000 locations in the UK, was in talks with Unite yesterday to try and resolve the dispute.

Trailers belonging to the firm, from file.
Image: G®iffen.

The vote is a response to a proposed restructuring in which a number of operations currently performed at the firm’s 29 distribution centres would be relocated to three new ‘super-hubs’. Although no distribution centre closures are currently planned, the union says workers fear future job losses, and are also concerned products will spend more time on the road, spoiling the taste of beer.

A Unite official said “We have tried to engage with the company but they have repeatedly failed to resolve this dispute.” A KDNL spokeswoman said “We are committed to continuing dialogue with Unite in order to reach a resolution before any action is taken.” She also pointed out Unite is yet to decide dates for the strike; Unite has described “one final chance” to resolve the dispute.

A Unite ballot of 970 KNDL employees produced a turnout of 64% of which 85% voted to strike. The distribution centres involved are mostly in England, but sites in Aberdeen, Dundee, Bathgate, and Inverness in Scotland and Swansea in Wales are also affected.

KNDL delivers high-profile brands including Britvic soft drinks and and Heineken, Kronenbourg, and Fosters beer. Customers include chains Weatherspoons, Enterprise Inns, and Trust Inns, and airports, cinemas, and leisure centres. Even Premier League football clubs are among KNDL’s delivery rounds.


Sources

Bookmark-new.svg


This text comes from Wikinews. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 licence. For a complete list of contributors for this article, visit the corresponding history entry on Wikinews.

UK House of Commons vote against Syria intervention

Filed under: Archived,Politics and conflicts,United Kingdom — admin @ 5:00 am

UK House of Commons vote against Syria intervention

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Friday, August 30, 2013

United Kingdom
Related articles
Location of the United Kingdom
United Kingdom (orthographic projection).svg
Collaborate!
  • Pillars of Wikinews writing
  • Writing an article

The United Kingdom House of Commons voted 272–285 last night against proposed possible military action against Syria following claims the Assad regime used chemical weapons against civilians. The government motion was defeated by opposition from the Labour Party, as well as rebel MPs from both the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties.

David Cameron argued the recent events in Syria were a “humanitarian catastrophe, and if there are no consequences for it, there is nothing to stop Assad and other dictators from using these weapons again and again”. The motion rejected by the Commons said the House “agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action”, and such action would be “legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons”.

Thirty Conservative MPs and nine Liberal Democrats voted against their party against military intervention. Ed Miliband, leader of the opposition Labour Party, said the proposal to go to war was an “ill-thought through action”, it lacked international support, and Cameron had acted in a “cavalier and reckless” manner.

Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg said the sole intention of the government’s motion was to “relieve humanitarian suffering by deterring and disrupting the further use of chemical weapons. Nothing more, nothing less. Not invasion. Not regime change… President Obama’s intentions are highly limited and so are ours.”

The former foreign secretary and Conservative MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind said during the debate: “The Assad regime in Damascus are watching very carefully as to whether they will get away with what they have done.”

Opposition came also from Britain’s smaller parties: Caroline Lucas from the Green Party said the actions “cannot be justified”, and expressed concern that the United Kingdom would be “flouting international law” by going into Syria. Respect MP George Galloway argued there was “no compelling evidence” of Syrian government involvement in the chemical weapons attack.

Labour proposed an opposing motion that called for the government to present “compelling” evidence before action, which was rejected as well as the government’s motion. The defeat of the government motion for military intervention has surprised some. Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy said “Parliament is entirely unpredictable sometimes and I don’t think many people saw this coming.”

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, confirmed that following the vote, the country would not participate in any action in Syria, but he noted he expected the United States to carry on without the UK, anticipating “the US and other countries will continue to look at responses to the chemical attack. They will be disappointed that Britain will not be involved. I don’t expect that the lack of British participation will stop any action.”

Hammond noted the rejection of military intervention would strain the “special relationship” between Britain and the United States.

The former leader of the British Army, General Lord Dannatt, said the vote in the Commons was a “victory for common sense”.

The United States has said they will still seek military action against the Syrian regime. US defense secretary Chuck Hagel said the US would seek to build an “international coalition”. Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House, reacted to the British vote by saying: “The US will continue to consult with the UK Government — one of our closest allies and friends.”

Hayden said that President Obama “will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States”, and that Obama “believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States… countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable”.

Representative Eliot Engel, a Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the White House had told them “beyond a doubt […] chemical weapons were used, and used intentionally by the Assad regime”, and that there is evidence from intercepted communications of involvement by “high-level Syrian officials”.

The Parliamentary vote on intervention in Syria is on the front pages of many of the national newspapers in Britain, with The Times claiming Cameron was “humiliated” by the vote.



Sources

Bookmark-new.svg


This text comes from Wikinews. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 licence. For a complete list of contributors for this article, visit the corresponding history entry on Wikinews.

Powered by WordPress