Latest news with #ThomasFarrell
The Hindu
4 days ago
- General
- The Hindu
Eighty years on from Hiroshima
At 8:15 a.m. on August 6, 1945, a nuclear bomb exploded just above Hiroshima, instantly killing at least 70,000 people. Another 70,000 died of injuries and radiation sickness before the year ended. Three days later, a second weapon exploded over Nagasaki, killing 40,000 on the day. In the 80 years since, nuclear weapons have not been detonated again in anger even though the possessor states have swelled from one to nine, and the number and sophistication of the weapons has increased considerably. A norm of non-use appears to have been established. However, norms — shared expectations of behaviour — are not immutable. Recent developments including hostilities involving nuclear possessors, an undermining of the global rules-based and treaties-based order, and nuclear modernisation are putting the norm of non-use under immense strain. Lessons from 1945 Arguably, no one has worked more passionately to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely than the Hibakusha, the survivors of the atomic attacks. Their testimony created a powerful moral and ethical case against nuclear use, reminding us of the human consequences of — arguably for some — a demonstration of American resolve and technological prowess. Yet the respect that they are accorded today was hard won. Japan was under American occupation after the war, and information on the effects of the nuclear bombings was suppressed. According to one survivor from Nagasaki, shortly after the bombing, U.S. Brig Gen Thomas Farrell announced that all those affected by the attack had died and that there were no continuing effects of the bomb. Relief centres were shut down. An additional 50,000 people died by December without understanding what ailed them. Knowledge about radiation sickness became widespread in Japan only after a fishing boat, Fukuryu Maru, was accidentally exposed to nuclear fallout. The U.S.'s 1954 thermonuclear test, codenamed Castle Bravo, ended up twice as powerful as estimated, spreading radioactive ash well beyond the officially designated warning zone and to the vessel floating 86 miles away from the test site. All crew members fell seriously ill from acute radiation poisoning. Thus it was that nine years after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that Japan began to understand the nature of radiation sickness: the bomb killed not just by explosion, instantly, but painfully, over time. The survivors then grouped together as the Nihon Hidankyo and fanned the globe to educate people on the horrors of their experience. It is debatable whether the norm of non-use owes more to the moral and ethical case against nuclear use made by the Hibakusha or by the logic of nuclear deterrence. 'What deters' is a question that has occupied policymakers for decades. And while the total number of nuclear weapons has fallen from their Cold War peak, today's nukes are more sophisticated and designed for use in a range of situations. Much money and effort has been spent in developing more 'useable' nukes. It is difficult to know whether to worry more about a thermonuclear weapon that could destroy a city several times over, or to fear tactical weapons that are designed to target a specific location with deadly accuracy. For 80 years we have decided that nuclear weapons are beyond the pale: any nuclear use now would let the genie out of the bottle. The norm of non-use Ultimately, the norm of non-use rests on a conscious decision to brand nuclear weapons as different. There is no legal basis for the circumscribing of their use. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) limits the spread of nukes; the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty bans nuclear tests; neither prohibits use. (The 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has not been signed by any nuclear possessor.) However, the NPT's exhortation to nuclear states to work towards total nuclear disarmament 'in good faith' puts the weapons in a separate category. The International Court of Justice's 1996 advisory opinion on nuclear weapons constrains their use by stating that the use or threat of use 'would generally be contrary' to humanitarian and other international law, even though the Court was unable to reach a clear decision on their legality. Together, these treaties shore up the norm of non-use, without legally proscribing them. Against this backdrop, recent nuclear threats bandied about by Russia over Ukraine have severely tested the special categorisation of nukes. Closer home, during Operation Sindoor, Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared that India 'will not tolerate any nuclear blackmail'. A 'limited' operation appears to have escalated quickly to acquire a nuclear element. We are influenced by the Hibakusha's testimony today only because Fukuryu Maru's misfortune connected radiation sickness to nukes. It is also unlikely to be a coincidence that the Nihon Hidankyo were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2024 for their disarmament efforts after the nuclear genie reared its head in Europe. They had been nominated multiple times, but it took almost 70 years for the survivors' efforts to be recognised. Eighty years after nuclear weapons were used in anger, we are in danger of slipping into complacency over nuclear use. It took the miscalculation of America's thermonuclear test for the truth about nuclear fallout to become widely understood. We should not wait for another misstep before the dangers of nuclear miscalculation are appreciated again. Priyanjali Malik writes on politics and international relations
Irish Times
06-05-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Salesforce recruiter becomes first person to get compensation over delayed response to remote working request
A recruiter at Salesforce has been awarded €1,000 compensation after his employer breached remote-working legislation which came into force last year. Thomas Farrell moved to the west of Ireland with his family under a remote work arrangement, but was ordered back to an office 275km away after less than a year by the company, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) heard. The WRC made the €1,000 award solely for the software company's failure to respond in time to a formal request for a remote work arrangement by Mr Farrell after he was told last year that he was required back in the office three to four times a week. Salesforce, which has its European headquarters in Dublin, was found to be in breach of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 for missing a four-week deadline for a response. READ MORE Mr Farrell told the WRC at a hearing in February how his managers approved an arrangement in June 2023 under which he would be allowed to relocate to the west of Ireland and 'continue working remotely, attending the office as needed'. The tribunal heard there were personal circumstances for the move and that it was required for his partner's employment. But Mr Farrell's line manager told her team 11 months later that they would have to attend the office three to four times a week, he said. In a formal request under the legislation, Mr Farrell told his employer he needed to work remotely because of 'the unsustainability of a 550km daily round-trip commute'. He also pointed to 'proven performance in a remote capacity' and 'inconsistencies' in Salesforce's return-to-office policy, which he stated 'allowed other employees in similar roles to work remotely'. His request was filed on June 10th last year, but the company failed to reply within the four-week deadline specified in the legislation, the WRC noted. Salesforce then wrote to Mr Farrell on July 11th, after the expiry of the deadline, looking for more time. It rejected his request on July 26th, nine days after he filed a complaint to the WRC. The reasons given for requiring Mr Farrell in the office were 'the promotion of collaboration', a need for 'in-person meetings with hiring managers' and 'alignment with [Salesforce's] global hybrid working strategy', the tribunal was told. Mr Farrell said these reasons were at odds with 'prior agreements and internal communications' which he said had 'explicitly removed' in-person meetings from his duties. Zelda Cunningham, for Salesforce, said the failure to respond to Mr Farrell's request in time was 'attributable to human error'. She argued the company had complied with the legislation by responding to the request. WRC adjudication officer Breiffni O'Neill accepted Salesforce's position that he could not consider any aspect of the complaint except for its failure to respond to Mr Farrell's request within the four weeks required by the legislation. That ruled out any consideration of the substantive reasons for denying the request, he wrote. Mr O'Neill found Salesforce gave 'no compelling reasons' for failing to meet the deadline, but that he considered the delay 'minor'. He directed the company to pay Mr Farrell €1,000 for the breach. Mr Farrell's case is the ninth complaint decided by the WRC under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, which came into force last year, and marks the first award of compensation under the legislation. In one case last year, the WRC said that staffing agency Cognizant Technology Solutions Ireland Limited had contravened the Act by missing the deadline for responding to such a request by a worker. However, the adjudicator in that case awarded no compensation as she considered that the volume of requests by staff at the firm made the delay 'inevitable'.
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
Teen hurdler's incredible grit to cross finish line after three falls
Teen hurdler's incredible grit to cross finish line after three falls Three medals for Thomas Farrell - gold in the soft javelin, bronze in the 600m and bronze in the standing long jump (Image: Contributed) A WARRINGTON athlete fell over three times in a race and showed incredible grit to cross the finish line. And not put off, tough cookie Leah Russek showed her mettle again when she returned to the track later in the day in a different event and achieved a personal best time. The day started well for the Warrington Athletics Club under 13s competitor. Russek made her debut in the 70m hurdles in the Warrington AC Hurdles Festival and Junior Open staged at Victoria Park on Sunday. She won in 17.13secs but it was in the second running of the event a little later that she suffered three falls. Russek hit a hurdle and fell but did not give up, returned to her feet and continued. But she hit the next hurdle and hit the deck again. Undeterred she got up again and continued only to hit the final hurdle and fell for a third time. The determined youngster got up to finish in 26.32 seconds - after picking up her shoe which had come off! For some, that might have been enough for one day but not Russek. After having been persuaded to get first aid treatment, she ran in the 800 metres and finished fourth in a personal best 3mins 05.01secs. Meanwhile, Olivia Crawford won both runnings of the under 17s women's 80m in 11.79secs and 11.73secs respectively. In the under 20s men's 110m, Lewis Shaw continued his winning streak by smashing his PB with 14.76secs – going under 15 seconds for the first time and moving to third place on the UK rankings. In the under 17s women's 300m hurdles second claim member Evie Elliott running under Bury AC set a new personal best time of 46.50 seconds. Luis Davidson ran superbly in the under nines boys' 600m to win in 2mins 00.05secs. Behind him in third place, Thomas Farrell, who was also third in the standing long jump, won the soft javelin in 15.72m. Georgia Clarke won the under nines girls 75m in 13.98 seconds, while in the standing long jump and soft javelin Linda Szekely came out on top with 1.41m and 7.33m respectively. In the under 11s age group, Otis Milliken won the soft javelin in 16.36m.
RTÉ News
06-05-2025
- Business
- RTÉ News
WRC - Salesforce ordered to pay €1,000 over delay in response to 550km office commute
A recruiter at Salesforce who moved to the west of Ireland with his family under a remote work arrangement - only to be ordered back to an office 275km away after less than a year - is the first person to win compensation for a breach of legislation which came into force last year. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) made the award solely for the business software company's failure to respond in time to a formal request for a remote work arrangement by the worker, Thomas Farrell, after he was told last year that he was required back in the office three to four times a week. Salesforce, which has its European headquarters in Dublin, was found in breach of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 for missing a four-week deadline for a response. Mr Farrell told the WRC at a hearing in February that his bosses approved an arrangement in June 2023 under which he would be allowed to relocate to the west of Ireland and "continue working remotely, attending the office as needed". The tribunal heard there were personal circumstances for the move and that it was required for his partner's employment. Around 11 months later, in May 2024, Mr Farrell's line manager told her team they would have to attend the office three to four times a week, the complainant said. In a formal request under the legislation, Mr Farrell told his employer he needed to work remotely because of "the unsustainability of a 550km daily round-trip commute". He also pointed to "proven performance in a remote capacity" and "inconsistencies" in Salesforce's return-to-office policy which he stated "allowed other employees in similar roles to work remotely". His request was filed on 10 June 2024, but the company failed to reply within the four-week deadline specified in the legislation, the WRC noted. Salesforce then wrote to Mr Farrell on 11 July 2024, after the expiry of the deadline, looking for more time. It rejected his request on 26 July 2024, nine days after he filed a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission. The reasons given for requiring Mr Farrell in the office were "the promotion of collaboration", a need for "in-person meetings with hiring managers" and "alignment with [Salesforce's] global hybrid working strategy", the tribunal was told. Mr Farrell said these reasons were at odds with "prior agreements and internal communications" which he said had "explicitly removed" in-person meetings from his duties. Zelda Cunningham, internal counsel for Salesforce, said the failure to respond to Mr Farrell's request in time was "attributable to human error". She argued that the company had complied with the legislation by responding to the request. Adjudication officer Breiffni O'Neill accepted Salesforce's position that he could not consider any aspect of the complaint except for its failure to respond to Mr Farrell's request within the four weeks required by the legislation. That ruled out any consideration of the substantive reasons for denying the request, he wrote. Mr O'Neill found Salesforce gave "no compelling reasons" for failing to meet the deadline, but that he considered the delay "minor". He directed the company to pay Mr Farrell €1,000 for the breach. Mr Farrell's case is the ninth complaint decided by the WRC under the Work life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, which came into force last year, and marks the first-ever award of compensation under the legislation. In one case last year, the WRC concluded that staffing agency Cognizant Technology Solutions Ireland Limited had contravened the Act by missing the deadline for response to such a request by a worker. However, the adjudicator in that case awarded no compensation because she considered that the volume of requests by staff at the firm made the delay "inevitable".
