Despite being a developed country, those who are living at the lower end of the income distribution in the United Kingdom have a relatively low standard of living. Data based on incomes published in 2016 by Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) show that, after housing costs have been taken into consideration, the number of people living in the UK in relative poverty to be 13.44m (21% of the population). In 2015, a report by Institute for Fiscal Studies reported that 21.6% of Britons were now in relative poverty. The report showed that there had been a fall in poverty in the first few years of the twenty-first century, but the rate of poverty had remained broadly flat since 2004/5.
Full Fact found that the UK poverty rate is "almost exactly the same level as the EU average (17%)", much lower than the DWP figures due to differences in calculation methods between countries.
In 2018, Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights found that UK Government policies and cuts to social support "are entrenching high levels of poverty and inflicting unnecessary misery", "driven by a political desire to undertake social re-engineering rather than economic necessity". However, his report was rejected by the UK Government, pointing to rising household incomes, declining income inequality and one million people fewer in absolute poverty since 2010.
By the end of the 19th century more than 25% of the population was living at or below the subsistence level due to low wages. Only 75 per cent of population had enough money to access to food, clothes, rent and fuel. In 1900, millions of population lived in terrible conditions such as damp and badly built houses. At the same time, overcrowding led to the spread of disease. Things greatly improved after the First World War, and although poverty had not completely disappeared by the 1930s, it was much less than ever before.
According to this definition, between 2-5 million Britons were trapped in poverty. In addition, some 2.6 million people were in receipt of Supplementary Benefits and therefore living on the poverty line. This meant that at least 10% of the population were in poverty at his time. Bad housing conditions also constituted a major cause of poverty in the postwar era. In the early Sixties, it was estimated that three million families lived in "slums, near slums on grossly overcrowded conditions," while a 1967 housing survey of England and Wales found that 11.7% of all dwellings were unfit.
In their 1965 study on poverty, "The Poor and the Poorest," Professors Peter Townsend and Brian Abel-Smith decided to measure poverty on the basis of the National Assistance levels of living and estimated that some 14% (around 7.5 million) of Britons lived in poverty. Townsend and Abel-Smith also estimated that since the mid-1950s the percentage of the population living in poverty had risen from 8% to 14%.
The continued existence of poverty in the 1960s was also characterised by differences in health between different social classes. In 1964-65 the incidence of infant deaths was more than half as much higher in the two lowest social classes than in the two highest social classes. In 1961-62 28% of all men recorded at least one spell of sickness of four days or more. For the lowest social classes, however, 35% of men had experienced this, compared with 18% of men in the highest social classes. There is evidence that in large families the height of children was less than that for the average, while families with three or more children were more likely to be inadequately nourished.
In his 1979 work "Poverty in the UK", Townsend suggested that 15 million people lived in or on the margins of poverty. He also argued that to get a proper measure of relative deprivation, there was a need to take into account other factors apart from income measures such as peoples' environment, employment, and housing standards.
According to one study, 365,000 families in Britain (excluding Northern Ireland) in 1966 were in poverty by an old assistance standard, and 450,000 families by a new standard. In another study on poverty, Wilfred Beckerman estimated that 9.9% of the British population lived below a standardised poverty line in 1973, compared with 6.1% of the population of Belgium.
Low pay was also a major cause of poverty, with a report by the TUC in 1968 finding that about 5 million females and about 2.5 million males earned less than £15 a week. According to one study, around 20% to 23% of employees in the late 1960s had low hourly wages. In 1974, a quarter of adult employees in Britain earned less than £27 a week or less before tax, only slightly above the officially defined poverty line for an average family. Regional differences in pay also remained pronounced during the post-war period. Slum housing also remained a problem, with 12% of British households living in houses or flats considered to be unfit for human habitation in 1972. In 1975, government statistics estimated that 1,800,000 children lived in poverty.
During the late 1960s and 1970s, progress was made in reducing the level of post-war poverty and inequality, with 3 million families in Britain in poverty in 1977, compared with 5 million in 1961. According to the 1971 Supplementary Benefits scale, the percentage of individuals living in poverty fell from 9.4% in 1963 to 2.3% in 1973. Low pay continued to remain a major problem by the end of the 1970s, however, particularly amongst manual workers.
Based on various measurements, however, the number of Britons living in poverty rose significantly from 1979 to 1985. The number of Britons living in poverty (when defined as living below the Supplementary Benefit level) rose from 2,090,000 to 2,420,000 during that period, while the number of people living in poverty when defined as living on or below the Supplementary Benefit level rose from 6,070,000 to 9,380,000. Using a poverty measurement of living at 140% of the Supplementary Benefit level or below, the rise was from 11,570,000 to 15,420,000.
From 1979 to 1987, the number of Britons living in poverty (defined as living on less than half the national average income) doubled, from roughly 10% to 20% of the whole population. In 1989, almost 6 million full-time workers, representing 37% of the total full-time workforce, earned less than the "decency threshold" defined by the Council of Europe as 68% of average full-time earnings. In 1994, 76.7% of all part-time workers earned less than this threshold.
From the late 1990s onwards, however, poverty began to fall steadily, helped by policies such as big increases in National Insurance benefits and the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Using the 60% of median income after housing costs poverty line, the percentage of the British population living in poverty rose to 25.3% in 1996/97, compared with 13.7% in 1979.
From 1997/98 to 2004/05 (using the same 60% of median income after housing costs measurement), the percentage of the population living in poverty fell from 24.4% to 20.5%. A 2000 report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimated that 4 million people lacked access to a healthy diet, while a review of EU food and health policies estimated that food poverty was far higher in the UK than any other EU member state.
REQUIRES CITATION Relative poverty rates (After Housing Costs) in the UK, 1997-2014. Figures are for Great Britain until 2001–02 and for the whole of the UK (i.e. including Northern Ireland) from 2002–03 onwards. The relative poverty line is defined as 60% of median income in 2010–11.
Rates of poverty fell just before the turn of the century and continued to do so until 2004-5. The Institute of Fiscal Studies has counted the number of people in Absolute Poverty as falling from c.37% in 1996/7 (21.8m people) to c.22% in 2004/5 (13.2m), a figure that remained the same in 2014/5 (14.1m taking population growth into account).
The trend for Relative Poverty is the same (a fall in the number of poor from 1997/8 until 2004/5 and a relatively stable amount since then), although the earlier numbers are lower. Alternatively it is suggested poverty rose from about 2008 to 2012 but remained stable since then. Socially excluded people are ten times more likely to die early than the general population.
Changes to the benefit system from April 2017, such as not allowing some claimants to claim for more than two children, are predicted to increase the number of families in poverty and push a quarter of a million additional children into poverty. Policy in Practice estimates the two child limit will increase child poverty by 10% during this parliament. The Child Poverty Action Group charity (CPAG), claim it will reduce children's life chances. Alison Thewliss said, "When Theresa May stood on the steps of Downing Street last year, she said that her new government would strive to help the 'just about managing' in society. It appears that this was just empty rhetoric. (...) The reality is that two-thirds of those affected are already in work." A doctor claims it is not unusual for up to seven people to live in a one bedroom flat. Parents sometimes do without food themselves in order to care for children, and others cannot afford clothes, toothbrushes, or toothpaste. Basic hygiene products like shampoo and sanitary towels are sometimes hard for poor people to afford, and some must choose between buying hygiene products and buying food. Just under one in five UK children under 15 suffers food insecurity. That means sufficient safe, nutritious food cannot be guaranteed. The minimum wage is insufficient to cover basic living expenses. Nearly half of schools provide anti poverty services like food banks, clothes banks or emergency loans to families. Alison Garnham of the Child Poverty Action Group said, "With nine children in every classroom of 30 falling below the official poverty line, it is time to rebuild the safety net for struggling families."
Children become sick because they cannot keep warm at home; overcrowding and damp worsens respiratory conditions. Alison Garnham of CPAG said, "Day in, day out, doctors see the damage rising poverty does to children's health. Low family incomes, inadequate housing and cuts to support services are jeopardising the health of our most vulnerable children. (...) Re-instating the UK's poverty-reduction targets would be an obvious place to start."
Eurostat figures show that the numbers of Britons at risk of poverty fell to 15.9% in 2014, down from 17.1% in 2010 and 19% in 2005 (after social transfers were taken into account). However, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) fears that people who are "just about managing" could fall into poverty, as it forecast that the wages of people in low income and benefits might not keep pace with inflation. One third of UK households are living below what is considered an adequate income according to the JRF research. Campbell Robb of the JRF said, "Millions of families across the country are teetering on a precipice, with 400,000 pensioners and over one million more children likely to fall into poverty and suffer the very real and awful consequences that brings if things do not change. One of the biggest drivers of the rise in child poverty is policy choices, which is why it is essential that the Prime Minister and Chancellor use the upcoming Budget to put in place measures to stop this happening. An excellent start would be to ensure families can keep more of their earnings under the Universal Credit."
Poverty exists in rural communities as well as in urban areas. Rural poverty is frequently overlooked.
In work poverty can be compounded by employees who do not get the pay that they are entitled to. A 2017 report by Middlesex University and Trust for London revealed that at least 2 million workers in Britain are losing an estimated £3 billion in unpaid holiday pay and wages per year. It suggested that withholding holiday pay, not paying wages and workers losing a couple of hours money per week are some of the deliberate strategies used by employers to improve their profits.
Food Standards Agency (FSA) research suggests some poor people miss meals or do without healthy food due to financial pressure. One third of unemployed people have cut out meals or reduced the quality of their diet due to lack of cash. 8% of respondents to a survey have low or very low food security, implying just under four million adults regularly struggle to get enough to eat. Other studies showed benefit freezes together with rising food prices are major factors in food insecurity. Rachel Loopstra who lectures in nutrition at King's College London, said: "These robust survey data confirm how serious the scale of the problem of people not having enough money for food to eat is in the UK, and are consistent with reports of increasing food bank usage. Anna Taylor of the 'Food Foundation' thinktank, said: "To take so many British people off the breadline the government must drive uptake of the Healthy Start programme for young and low-income mothers, tackle gaps in food provision during school holidays, and review our welfare policies to protect the diets of society's most vulnerable." Campaigners and MPs have urged the UK government to monitor food insecurity. Ministers so far refused but the Scottish government agreed to enact a food insecurity measure. Women and young people are more likely to live in food insecure households.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the benefit rate freeze and child tax credit cuts, together with the rollout of universal credit, which is less generous due to changes in work allowances, means, "large losses" for low-income households. John McDonnell said the IFS analysis showed a "clear threat" to working people's living standards, while the Liberal Democrats said that the "savage cuts" would make millions of households poorer. Projected benefit cuts will lead to the poorest working-age households losing between 4% and 10% of their income a year, according to the IFS. Fewer than one in ten British people believe all work is fair and decent, and 75% think more should be done to make work fairer. Many British people suffer insecure work with zero hours contracts. Nearly half of workers are anxious over basic household expenses like food, transport and energy. One in six workers had left the heating off despite it being cold to save on fuel bills, and similar numbers had pawned possessions in the previous year because they were short of money. Rents are rising and housing benefit is not rising to match this. Families are forced into increasing poverty, some facing a daily struggle to pay their rent and put food on their table. Some risk homelessness. Families with children are most affected and two thirds of affected families are in work. Homelessness has risen over the last six years and the National Audit Office thinks welfare reforms and a freeze in housing benefit are a likely cause. Over a million vulnerable people with low incomes are experiencing worse poverty because they have to rent in the private rental sector since social accommodation is in very short supply. A shortage of social housing caused the private rented sector to double over 25 years. That forced more households, sizable numbers on benefits with dependent children or a disabled person, to pay appreciably more for inappropriate housing. Benefit sanctions drive tennants into rent arreas, can lead to evictions and homelessness. Dr Julie Rugg of the centre for housing policy at the University of York said, "Because of sanctions you're more likely to fall into arrears and to be asked to leave because you are in arrears, The welfare system change has created vulnerability. It didn't used to be the case 10 years ago but it is now. People know the benefits system is tightening up but they might not realise that if you're at the bottom end and receiving benefits then your situation can be pretty precarious indeed." 38% of the private rented sector today is low income households, classed as vulnerable and 90% of these are either in poverty or living in overcrowded conditions. The short supply of social housing enables private landlords to charge more than housing associations, frequently for worse accommodation.
An All Party Parliamentary Group on Hunger warned that too many poorer UK children are hungry or malnourished during school holidays. Some subsist on a diet of crisps or stodgy food. One million children who receive free school meals during term time are at risk, as are two million more from working poor families. For both types, school holidays add to financial pressure on families through the need to pay for childcare, food and fuel. These children return to school in bad physical shape, learn less well and get behind children who were better fed during school holidays. The life chances of underfed children are damaged.
When housing benefit does not fully cover rent, people can struggle to pay rent and buy other necessities as well. This can lead to increasing debt. Anne Baxendale of Shelter, said: "We are deeply concerned that the current freeze on housing benefit is piling a huge amount of pressure on to thousands of private renters who are already teetering on the brink of homelessness." People are forced out of their homes because they cannot pay their rent and all their other bills.
As of 2017, 20% of UK people live in poverty including 8 million working-age adults, 4 million children and 1.9 million pensioners. Research by the JRF found nearly 400,000 more UK children and 300,000 more UK pensioners were in poverty in 2016-17 compared with 2012-13.
From April 2018, child benefit will be limited to the first two children, which will affect 150,000 families. Withdrawal of family element from new Universal Credit claims and tax credit claims for families with children will affect 400,000 families.
Single parents are particularly heavily affected by benefit sanctions. A 2018 report from Gingerbread and Trust for London showed that three times as many single parents were sanctioned under JSA in 2016/17 than 2005/06. These sanctions can compound the financial hardship of those already on a low income.
In 2018, Citizens Advice stated that up to 140,000 households went without power as they could not afford to top up prepayment meters and most such households included children or someone with a long term health problem. The Living Wage Foundation stated many poorest parents went without meals, a third of parents on low incomes do this regularly through lack of money. Roughly half of those families are behind with household bills.
TUC sponsored research indicates that 3.1 million children in working families will be below the official breadline in 2018, this is a million more than in 2010. About 600,000 children with working parents became poor due to the government's benefit cuts and public sector pay limits, the report by the consultancy Landman Economics stated. The research found that the biggest increase in child poverty among working families will be in the East Midlands, followed by the West Midlands and Northern Ireland. Teachers and teaching assistants bring items into schools like food, sanitary products and toilet paper for children from families that are short of these things.
Inflation has been rising while the level of many benefits has remained fixed in money terms. This is causing hardship to low-income families and there are calls for the level of benefits to be increased. Over 14 million people, as well as 4.5 million children, live below the breadline, and over half are trapped in poverty for years. Poverty is particularly frequent in families with a disabled person, single-parent families, and households where no one works or that are dependent for income on irregular or zero-hours jobs. 12% of the UK population have spent the bulk or all of the four years to 2018 below the breadline. Alison Garnham of the Child Poverty Action Group said, "What we now need is for government to move on from its denial of the problem, set targets for reducing and eradicating child poverty, and implement policies to support low-income families." The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicted children living in poverty will reach a record 5.2 million over the five years from 2018 as government welfare cuts take effect, more than reversing all the progress made over the previous 20 years.
Many poor people live in areas where there is no large supermarket nearby and must rely on corner shops where food is less healthy. Poor people in these areas cannot easily afford to buy fresh fruit and vegetables or to travel to large supermarkets where there is healthier food. Such areas include Marfleet in Hull, Hartcliffe in Bristol, Hattersley in Greater Manchester, Everton in Liverpool and Sparkbrook in Birmingham. Eight of the ten most deprived areas in Scotland are in Glasgow, and three of the nine worst in Wales are in Cardiff. Poor people, older people and disabled people are most affected when fresh food is not available locally. nearly 4 million UK children are judged to live in households that would find it difficult to afford enough fruit, vegetables and other healthy foods to reach official guidelines, the Food Foundation maintains. Food prices increased by 7.7% from 2002 to 2016, while the poorest families' incomes fell by 7.1%.
Rising poverty and austerity put perssure on low income families and increase the number of children taken into care. Children in the poorest areas were 19 times more likely to be subject to a child protection plan or to be subject to care proceedings than children in wealthier areas.
The Office for National Statistics has estimated that in 2011, 14 million people were at risk of poverty or social exclusion, and that one person in 20 (5.1%) was now experiencing "severe material depression." Poverty among young people increased by 3.9% from 2007 to 2010. In assessing social inequality in Britain, Danny Dorling has noted that "people in different parts of Britain and people living within different quarters of its cities are living in different worlds with different norms and expectations. This was not the case a few decades ago. This is not the case to the same extent in the majority of affluent nations in the world."
The Resolution Foundation claims that the incomes of the poorest 10% in the UK will fall by 3% in real terms by 2020 due to government policies on tax and welfare. The lowest third of incomes will suffer falls in income over the coming years. Incomes will fall because many welfare benefits that poorer people receive have been frozen in cash terms and with inflation cash will be worth steadily less.
In 2017-18 the Resolution Foundation reckons the official poverty rate increased from 22.1% to 23.2%, the child poverty rate rose in 2017-18 from 30.3% to 33.4%. Cuts to benefits and inflation are blamed for the rise, benefit levels have remained unchanged in money terms while inflation erodes their real value.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies reported the numbers of poor United Kingdom children in wage-earning families increased from 2009 to 2014 and more poor children currently live in working families than live in families on benefits. The IFS reported "Recent falls in inequality are likely to prove temporary. Stronger earnings growth and the Conservatives' planned income tax cuts would do most for incomes towards the top of the distribution, while planned benefit cuts will hit low-income households [both in and out of work] hardest." The number of workers becoming poor despite working is rising faster than employment. Four million are now classed as working poor, that is one in eight of workers. Growing numbers of working parents find it more difficult to earn enough money for food, clothing and housing because of weak wage growth, reduction in welfare support and tax credits and the increasing cost of living. Children trapped in poverty increased by half a million during the five years to 2018 and reached 4.1 million in 2017. In a typical class of 30 children, nine would be in poverty. Campbell Robb of the Joseph Rountree Foundation said, "We are seeing a rising tide of child poverty as more parents are unable to make ends meet, despite working. This is unacceptable." Over 14 million people, about one in five of the UK population are in poverty, according to the Joseph Rountree Foundation. Of them 8.2 million are working-age adults, 4.1 million are children and 1.9 million are pensioners. Eight million people live in poverty in families where at least one person is working.
Anne Longfield, Children's Commissioner for England wrote: "The majority of children living in poverty have at least one parent who is working. Employment is important but if wages do not rise substantially in relation to living costs it will not provide a route out of poverty alone. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has today published a report stating that families with children working full-time on the National Minimum Wage are now 15% short of the Minimum Income Standard that people believe offers an acceptable standard of living. Today's announcement will effectively confine to history any figures on the millions of children being raised in families who experience in-work poverty denying them necessities such as adequate food, clothing and heating."
Julia Unwin of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said: "A strong economy and rising employment have masked the growing problem of in-work poverty, as years of below-inflation wage rises have taken their toll on people's incomes. The upcoming minimum wage rise will help, but many low-income working families will still find themselves worse off due to tax-credit changes. Boosting productivity and creating more jobs which offer progression at work is vital to make work a reliable route out of poverty."
Campbell Robb of Shelter said: "It's heart-breaking to think that so many people are having to make a choice between paying the rent and putting food on the table, or living in fear that any drop in income would leave them unable to cover their housing costs. The sad truth is that far too many people in Britain right now are living in homes that just aren't up to scratch - from the thousands of families forced to cope with poor conditions, to a generation of renters forking out most of their income on housing each month and unable to save for the future."
For the poorest in our society, up to 35% of disposable income will now be needed for food, compared to less than 9% for the more wealthy. This will increase reliance on cheap, highly processed, high fat, high sugar, high salt, and calorie-dense, unhealthy foods. Re-emerging problems of poor public health nutrition such as rickets and malnutrition in the elderly are also causes for concern.
In 2016, 10% of UK households lived in fuel poverty. Fuel poverty is calculated by gauging if a household's income would fall below the official poverty line after spending the actual amount needed to heat the home. The average fuel poverty gap of these households – that is, the amount needed to escape fuel poverty – is £371 a year, the latest figures indicate, with those in privately rented properties hit hardest.
In a 2013 report commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation poverty and participation are analyzed as a social phenomenon characterizing UK society following the tradition initiated several decades ago by Peter Townsend. Participation in society is measured in terms of social relationships, membership of organisations, trust in other people, ownership of possessions and purchase of services. The study finds out that all these dimensions of participation are lower among people with low incomes. While participation generally drops as income declines, participation stops falling among the 30 percent or so of people with the lowest incomes, creating a participation 'floor'. The 30 percent of people with the lowest incomes are forced to choose between the basic necessities of modern life; they must decide which needs to neglect.
For people affected by the floor, additional income may well be spent on upgrading the quality of necessary goods and services rather than adding to them. Averages mask important variation. The participation floor for benefit recipients is lower than for other groups on the same income. Most minority ethnic groups experience greater material deprivation than the white majority but social participation is, on average, higher. Children's engagement in school life and friends is not directly affected by household income. However, parents on low incomes, on average, play less often with their children and spend less on activities. This is associated with poorer educational outcomes as judged by teachers. Low-income parents frequently spend more time than affluent ones assisting children with their school work because they have fallen behind their classmates.
Poverty and economic insecurity increase the risk that a person will commit suicide. The Samaritans claim that the British economic condition – including low incomes, job insecurity, zero-hours contracts, unmanageable debts and poor housing – all add to suicide risk. A report titled Dying from Inequality describes "overwhelming evidence of a link between socioeconomic disadvantage and suicidal behaviour". "Men in the lowest social class, living in the most deprived areas, are up to 10 times more at risk of suicide than those in the highest social class living in the most affluent areas," the report says. Unemployed people are more at risk of suicide than people with work, people with low education and people living in deprived areas are also at increased risk.
The persistence of high poverty rates in the UK is associated with the relatively low generosity of the welfare state. The UK social security system is characterised by a residual welfare state model based on the notion of market dominance and private provision. The state only intervenes to moderate extreme poverty and provide for basic needs, largely on a means-tested basis.
In 2017, inequality has been forecast to return to the levels of the Thatcher years. Torsten Bell of the Resolution Foundation, said: "[A] boom is slowing rapidly as inflation rises, productivity flatlines and employment growth slows. ... This time around it's low- and middle-income families with kids who are set to be worst affected. This could leave Britain with the worst of both worlds on living standards – the weak income growth of the last parliament and rising inequality from the time Margaret Thatcher was in Downing Street. The prime minister's focus on supporting just managing families is absolutely right."
Poverty within the UK is particularly concentrated in Wales. While the relative income-poverty rate for the UK stood at 16.8% in 2014, the same poverty rate for Wales stood at 23% in the same year. Poverty in Wales has remained in the 25% range, with only small dips throughout the last decade. While the trends correlate with overall reductions in less impoverished areas of the UK, it does not correlate with Scotland, who in the 1990s, had a relative similar poverty trend as Wales. Conservative attitudes began to grow during the reign of the Labour party in the 2000s, culminating in an overall negative opinion towards public spending increases beginning in the 2010s.
Data published in 2017 by the New Policy Institute and the Trust for London found that 27% of Londoners live in poverty, six percentage points higher than in the rest of England. This represents 2.3 million Londoners, 58% of whom are in a working family. Further research published by Trust for London, carried out by Loughborough University, found that two in five Londoners cannot afford what the public regard as a decent standard of living – one that allows them to meet their basic needs and participate in society at a minimum level. This is significantly higher than the 30% that fall below the standard in the UK as a whole, and represents 3.3 million Londoners.
The United Kingdom currently does not have an official measurement of poverty.
The most common measure for poverty, as used in the Child Poverty Act 2010, is 'household income below 60 percent of median income'. The median is such an income that exactly a half of households earn more than that and the other half earns less.
Income distribution (before housing costs) for the UK total population (2014/15). In 2014/5, the median income in the UK was £473 per week (£24,596 a year). Those earning 60% of this figure (£284 a week / £14,758 a year) were considered to be in the low income bracket.
In 2014/5, the median income in the UK was £473 per week (£24,596 a year). Those earning 60% of this figure (£284 a week / £14,758 a year) were considered to be in the low income bracket.
This is the definition that is used by the UK government's Department of Work and Pensions in its yearly survey Households below average income. However, their reports expressly avoid using the word poverty, using low income instead. Reports from others agencies, such as the Institute of Fiscal Studies Living Standards, Poverty and Inequality in the UK, use the same methodology, but specifically use the word poverty.
This measure can be further divided.
Those who live in absolute poverty have a 'household income below 60 percent of median income' as compared to a rate fixed in 2010/11 and that only changes in line with inflation.
Those who live in relative poverty have a 'household income below 60 percent of median income' as compared to all other incomes in the same year.
Absolute poverty is better at judging poverty in the short term, whereas relative poverty is better at seeing long-term trends. This is because general concepts of poverty change with time, and relative poverty reflects this better.
Reports on poverty also tend to take housing costs in to account, distinguishing between before housing costs (BHC, where housing costs such as rent and mortgage interest payments have not been deducted) and after housing costs (AHC). Different social groups in the UK tend to have vastly different costs for housing, affecting available income.
Relative poverty was used before its formal adoption now. In the early 1980s, Tony Byrne and Colin F. Padfield defined relative poverty in Britain as a situation in which people are able to survive adequately, but they are either less well off than they used to be (such as when they retire from paid employment) or that they are at a serious disadvantage "in their ability to experience or enjoy the standard of life of most other people – for example, not being able to afford an annual holiday."
In 2011, there was some discussion of the measurement for poverty being changed (from households earning less than 60% of median income) to a broader analysis of poverty.
Six specific surveys of low standards of living in the UK have made use of this method.
In 2018, the bipartisan Social Metrics Commission proposed a New Poverty Measure to more fully capture the overall income and inescapable costs, and better identify who is in poverty. It found 14.2 million people in poverty, 7.7 million of whom are in persistent poverty. It is however still a relative measurement and does not evidence the real increases in the incomes of the poorest picked up by the standard absolute measurement of poverty.
Fuel poverty. A fuel poor household is one that struggles to keep adequately warm at reasonable cost. The most widely accepted definition of a fuel poor household is one which needs to spend more than 10% of its income on all fuel use and to heat the home to an adequate standard of warmth. This is generally defined as 21 °C in the living room and 18 °C in the other occupied rooms. Fuel poverty affects over a million British working households and over 2.3 million households in total and increases in energy prices affect poor people severely.
Low intelligence - People with an IQ of 60 or below are speculated to be in danger of poverty and homelessness in the US in 2006.
Seebohm Rowntree chose a basic 'shopping basket' of foods (identical to the rations given in the local workhouse), clothing and housing needs – anyone unable to afford them was deemed to be in poverty. By 1950, with the founding of the modern welfare state, the 'shopping basket' measurement had been abandoned.
The vast and overwhelming majority of people that fill the government's current criteria for poverty status (see above) have goods unimaginable to those in poverty in 1900. Poverty in the developed world is often one of perception; people compare their wealth with neighbours and wider society, not with their ancestors or those in foreign countries. Indeed, this is formalised in the government's measure of poverty. A number of studies have shown that though prosperity in the UK has greatly increased, the level of happiness people report has remained the same or even decreased since the 1950s. However, measures of national wellbeing as used by the Office for National Statistics, in more recent times have shown both a decline in the share of people saying they find it difficult to manage financially, rising levels of household income and income satisfaction, as well as rising levels of happiness.
People enter the world of poverty due to: problems at the individual/family level and problems with the economy as a whole. Problems at the individual level include: race (human categorization), gender, sexual orientation, drug use, and level of education. Problems with the economy can include: low labor participation and high levels of unemployment . Welfare is financial support given by the government to people in need. There are pressures on the welfare state because welfare must be justified in terms of its contribution to economic success. Welfare must contribute positively to the economy otherwise there is a risk of damaging currency values. Damage to currency values will damage trading positions and investment which will, in turn, hurt the economy overall.
The Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS) is responsible for the welfare services in the United Kingdom. Income maintenance is centrally administered through DHSS offices (regional and local level). Those who earn 39 pounds a week (except some married women) or more must contribute to the National Insurance Scheme. The National Health Service (NHS) provides virtually free healthcare for all residents – this is also centrally administered.
Persistent poverty is the effects of experiencing low income for long periods of time. In 2014, 6.5% of the United Kingdom's population was classified as being in persistent poverty; that equates to approximately 3.9 million people. The UK's poverty rate overall in 2014 was the 12th highest amongst all European nations at 16.8%, however; it has the third-lowest persistent poverty rate. Income tends to be measured before or after housing costs are accounted for (BHC or AHC). Poverty levels tend to be higher after housing costs are accounted for because the poorer households need to spend a higher percentage of their income on housing. In 2014-2015, 13.5 million people were in relative low income AHC (an increase of 300,000 from the year before) and 12.9 million people were in absolute low income AHC (a decrease of 700,000 from the year before). Relative low income means that people live in households with income below 60% of the median in a specified year. Absolute income means that people live in households with income below 60% of the median income in some base year.
In 2016, the incomes of poor households are extremely sensitive to the activity in the labor market. When any downturn in the labor market occurs, the poorest people in the UK are increasingly more vulnerable and at greater risk. Median income (overall) has moved 2% above pre-crisis (2007-2008) levels. During the recovery period, inequality in workers' earnings has decreased. There has been strong employment growth along with weak earnings growth which have kept inequality low for several years.
In 1999, Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, pledged that child poverty in the United Kingdom will end within a generation. The goal was to completely eradicate child poverty by 2020. Poverty is a result of several different factors, some of which include a lack of education and training, low participation in the labour market, poor working conditions and affordable housing.
To increase labour market participation of those eligible to work.
To make work more advantageous for those receiving benefit.
To promote financial security for families.
To improve access to public transportation.
One of the most crucial ways to reduce poverty is to increase benefit take-up. In 2009-10 almost a third of those who were eligible for means-tested benefit did not claim. In 2011-2012, 15% of those eligible for Child Tax Credit did not claim, neither did 35% of those eligible for Working Tax Credit. Improving these numbers and getting those people to claim their entitlements would significantly help reduce poverty.
Simplifying the procedure so that claimants could better understand their entitlements.
Improvements to mental health services and support.
Improving child welfare, thus enabling children to benefit from a quality education.
A decrease in poverty would mean a more active economy because more people would have the ability to purchase more consumer goods.
"The traditional Conservative vision of welfare as a safety net encompasses another outdated Tory nostrum – that poverty is absolute, not relative. Churchill's safety net is at the bottom: holding people at subsistence level, just above the abyss of hunger and homelessness. It is the social commentator Polly Toynbee who supplies imagery that is more appropriate for Conservative social policy in the twenty first century."
Most people's ability to sustain their lifestyle and to participate socially comes under threat at around the bottom 30% of the income distribution, creating a sort of 'participation floor' that seems to demarcate a major divide in British society. The floor begins around the point in the income distribution when the benefit system starts to contribute substantially to people's incomes but is not entirely rigid or for example, it is lower for recipients of social security benefits mainly on account of the greater material deprivation that they experience. For those on the floor, participation is severely constrained with people negotiating a zero-sum world in which spending on one area means reduction in another. Whereas for those above the floor, additional income translates into more evident consumption, greater social participation and trust; for those on the floor it means a slight easing of pressure, but no major change in lifestyle sufficient to be identified in survey evidence. The implications for policy and our understanding of society are profound. Much policy, notably the new Universal Credit that was the flagship policy of the past Coalition Government, seeks to maximise work incentives premised on the notion that additional income brings rewards for individuals in terms of higher living standards, and benefits society through greater consumption and a shared work ethic. Similarly, as emphasised by Lansley and Mack, New Labour during the period 1997–2010 (despite trying to tackle child poverty) intervened mainly through more generous and wide-ranging tax-credits rather than fighting poverty and inequality at source.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is one of the largest social policy research and development charities in the UK and takes particular interest in the issue of poverty, with over 2,000 reports on poverty and disadvantage available on its website.
The Child Poverty Action Group campaigns for the elimination of poverty amongst children.
End Child Poverty coalition also seeks the eradication of child poverty.
The Oxfam UK Poverty Programme works with people and policy makers to tackle the causes of poverty.
In July 2013, Freedom from Torture published its report "The Poverty Barrier: The Right to Rehabilitation for Survivors of Torture in the UK which highlights the failings of the UK Asylum System in their handling of torture survivors arriving in the UK. The evidence included in the report comes from the testimony of over 100 survivors of torture and eighteen members of Freedom from Torture's clinical department. The report highlights financial insecurity, social exclusion and hopelessness and how poverty prevents the rehabilitation process. One survivor stated: "... Our current living conditions keep our torture trauma still alive. We can't move on."
^ "Households below average income: 1994/95 to 2014/15". Department for Work and Pensions. Retrieved 21 January 2017.
^ "Living Standards, Poverty and Inequality in the UK: 2015" (PDF). p. 43.
^ "The UK's poverty rate is around average for the EU". Full Fact. Retrieved 15 April 2019.
^ "Going backwards: 1983 - 2012 - Poverty and Social Exclusion".
^ Morris, Steven (18 June 2014). "Poverty hits twice as many British households as 30 years ago". The Guardian.
^ Green, Chris (19 June 2014). "Deprivation Britain: Poverty is getting worse - even among working families, according to major new study". The Independent. London.
^ "UN poverty expert says UK policies inflict unnecessary misery". OHCHR. Retrieved 1 February 2019.
^ Booth, Robert; Butler, Patrick (16 November 2018). "UK austerity has inflicted 'great misery' on citizens, UN says". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 February 2019.
^ "Ministers in 'denial' over UK poverty". BBC News. 16 November 2018. Retrieved 30 November 2018.
^ a b c "A Brief History Of Poverty In Britain". A World History Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
^ "History Poverty". Bitesize. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
^ Townsend, Peter (1979). "18". Poverty in the United Kingdom (PDF).
^ Townsend, Peter (1979). "12". Poverty in the United Kingdom (PDF).
^ Millar, Jane; Gardiner, Karen (2004). "Low pay, household resources and poverty" (PDF). Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 December 2013. Retrieved 12 July 2013.
^ Irwin, John (1996). Modern Britain: An Economic and Social History. Routledge. ISBN 9780203138199.
^ Lourie, Julia (17 January 1995). "A Minimum Wage" (PDF). House of Commons Library.
^ "UK: State benefit levels - The Poverty Site". Poverty.org.uk. Retrieved 3 December 2013.
^ National Minimum Wage, Low Pay Commission Report 2006 (PDF). HMSO. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 June 2013.
^ a b "UK: numbers in low income - The Poverty Site". Poverty.org.uk. Retrieved 3 December 2013.
^ The Government's Public Health White Paper (Cm 6374): Written Evidence -. Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Health Committee. 16 November 2004. ISBN 9780215025067.
^ Lang, Tim; Heasman, Michael (2004). Food Wars: The Global Battle for Mouths, Minds and Markets. Earthscan. ISBN 9781853837012.
^ a b c d Hood, Andrew; Joyce, Robert; Belfield, Chris; Cribb, Jonathan (2015). Living standards, poverty and inequality in the UK: 2015. doi:10.1920/re.ifs.2015.0107. ISBN 978-1-909463-95-0.
^ a b "People at risk of poverty after social transfers". Eurostat.
^ "IFS poverty forecasts: Budget needs to support families on a precipice". Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
^ "Unpaid Britain". Trust for London. Retrieved 7 June 2018.
^ "Unhelpful and Unfair? The impact of single parent sanctions". Trust for London. Retrieved 7 June 2018.
^ "What is it like to be 'just about managing'?". BBC News. 22 November 2016.
^ a b editor, Patrick Butler Social policy (15 July 2015). "Majority of poor children live in working families, IFS study finds" – via The Guardian.
^ "More poor children in UK working families, says IFS". 16 July 2015 – via www.bbc.co.uk.
^ "Statement on the repeal the Child Poverty Act".
^ Loopstra, R; Reeves, A; Taylor-Robinson, D; Barr, B; McKee, M; Stuckler, D (2015). "Austerity, sanctions, and the rise of food banks in the UK". BMJ. 350: h1775. doi:10.1136/bmj.h1775. PMID 25854525.
^ Emanuele Ferragina, Mark Tomlinson and Robert Walker (28 May 2013). "Poverty, Participation and Choice". Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Retrieved 13 April 2019.
^ Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
^ a b "Persistent Poverty in the UK and EU - Office for National Statistics". www.ons.gov.uk. Retrieved 28 November 2016.
^ a b "Welsh Government | Poverty & Wealth". gov.wales. Retrieved 28 November 2016.
^ Defty, Andrew (1 January 2011). The Conservative Party and social policy. Policy Press at the University of Bristol. pp. 61–76. ISBN 9781847424334. JSTOR j.ctt9qgwb8.8.
^ "London's Poverty Profile 2017". Trust for London. Retrieved 8 February 2018.
^ "Minimum Income Standard London 2017". Trust for London. Retrieved 8 February 2018.
^ "Social Metrics Commission launches a new measure of UK poverty". Social Metrics Commission. 17 September 2018. Retrieved 1 February 2019.
^ Townsend, Ian; Kennedy, Steven (4 March 2004). "Poverty: Measures and Targets" (PDF). Research Report 04/23. House of Commons Library.
^ "How low income is measured in households below average income - GOV.UK". www.gov.uk. Retrieved 10 January 2017.
^ "Households below average income: 1994/95 to 2014/15 - Publications - GOV.UK". www.gov.uk. Retrieved 9 January 2017.
^ Winnett, Robert (1 December 2011). "Feckless parents would only spend extra benefits on themselves, says Iain Duncan Smith". The Daily Telegraph. London.
^ "Consensual method | Poverty and Social Exclusion". www.poverty.ac.uk. Retrieved 16 January 2017.
^ Mack, Joanna. "Attitudes to necessities in the PSE 2012 survey: are minimum standards becoming less generous?" (PDF). p. 8. Retrieved 16 January 2017.
^ "Water and Sewerage Charges (Limit on Household Expenditure)". They Work For You. 15 March 2006. Retrieved 3 December 2012.
^ "Fuel Poverty". They Work For You. 18 October 2006. Retrieved 3 December 2013.
^ "Raising awareness of fuel poverty". BBC website. 24 November 2006. Retrieved 3 December 2013.
^ Association, Press (8 January 2015). "More than a million working households are in fuel poverty" – via The Guardian.
^ a b "Key Facts". Poverty.org.uk. Archived from the original on 12 December 2006.
^ Hunt, Earl (July 1995). "The Role of Intelligence in Modern Society (July-Aug, 1995)". American Scientist. pp. 4 (Nonlinearities in Intelligence). Archived from the original on 21 May 2006.
^ Heath, A. and Cheung, S. Y. (2006) Ethnic penalties in the labour market: Employers and discrimination. DWP Research Report No. 341. Leeds: Corporate Document Services.
^ Tackey, Nii Djan (2006). "Barriers to employment for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in Britain and constraints". et al. Archived from the original on 28 January 2013.
^ Knight, Julian (1 August 2005). "First-time buyers on poverty 'knife-edge'". BBC News. Retrieved 3 December 2013.
^ Easton, Mark (2 May 2006). "Britain's happiness in decline". BBC News. Retrieved 3 December 2013.
^ "Wealth warning". The Guardian. 5 June 2005. Retrieved 3 December 2013.
^ "A history of milestones, information on historical measurements of poverty". BBC News. Retrieved 3 December 2013.
^ "Measures of National Well-being Dashboard - Office for National Statistics". www.ons.gov.uk. Retrieved 30 November 2018.
^ a b Reducing Poverty in the UK: A Collection of Evidence Reviews. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 2014. ISBN 978-1-90958-630-7.
^ Taylor-Goobey, Peter; Larsen, Trine; Kananen, Johannes. "Market Means and Welfare Ends: The UK Welfare State Experiment" (PDF). www.cambridge.org. Cambridge University Press.
^ Dixon, John; Scheurell, Robert. P (1989). Social Welfare in Developed Market Countries. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-94701-6.
^ "Persistent Poverty in the UK and EU - Office for National Statistics". www.ons.gov.uk. Retrieved 2 December 2016.
^ a b McGuinness, Feargal. "Poverty in the UK: statistics".
^ a b Cribb, Jonathan; Belfield, Chris; Joyce, Robert; Hood, Andrew (2016). Living standards, poverty and inequality in the UK: 2016. doi:10.1920/re.ifs.2016.0117. ISBN 978-1-911102-17-5.
^ "2010 to 2015 government policy: poverty and social justice - GOV.UK". www.gov.uk. Retrieved 2 December 2016.
^ "2015 POLITICAL MANIFESTO POVERTY AUDIT" (PDF). Retrieved 24 April 2017.
^ "What is Labour doing for… families and children?". Archived from the original on 26 September 2006.
^ "Labour Party manifesto" (PDF). 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 December 2006.
^ Branigan, Tania (22 November 2006). "Cameron told: it's time to ditch Churchill". The Guardian. London.
^ "Toynbee not Churchill, Tory says". BBC News. 22 November 2006.
^ Assinder, Nick (22 November 2006). "From Churchill to Toynbee?". BBC News. Retrieved 3 December 2013. , Toynbee, Polly (22 November 2006). "Leaves out of my book". The Guardian. Retrieved 3 December 2013. , "Rightwing Tories support Toynbee approach". The Guardian. 22 November 2006. Retrieved 3 December 2013. , "Churchill out, Toynbee in". The Guardian. 22 November 2006. Retrieved 3 December 2013. , "Times editorial".
^ Mulholland, Helene (24 November 2006). "Cameron: poverty is a 'moral disgrace'". The Guardian. London.
^ Lansley, S. and Mack, J. (2015) Breadline Britain: The Rise of Mass Poverty, London: Oneworld.
^ Ferragina, E. and Arrigoni, A. (2016) 'The rise and fall of social capital: requiem for a theory?', Political Studies Review http://psw.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/04/06/1478929915623968.abstract.
^ "Poverty in the UK". Oxfam GB.
"Measuring Child Poverty" (PDF). Department for Work and Pensions. December 2003. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 June 2014.
"Understanding older people's experiences of poverty and material deprivation" (PDF). DWP. July 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 June 2009.
UK Poverty 2017, The Joseph Rowntree Foundation - This report examines poverty rates in the UK, and looks at how figures have changed over the past two decades.
This page was last edited on 24 April 2019, at 15:32 (UTC).


text:
Clem Haskins
Clem Smith Haskins (born August 11, 1943) is an American retired college and professional basketball player and college basketball coach. In the fall of 1963, he and star player Dwight Smith became the first black athletes to integrate the Western Kentucky University (WKU) basketball program.[1] This put Western Kentucky at the forefront to integrate college basketball in the South.[2]
(1943-07-11) July 11, 1943 (age 76)
Campbellsville, Kentucky
Listed height
Listed weight
(Campbellsville, Kentucky)
Western Kentucky (1964–1967)
1967 / Round: 1 / Pick: 3rd overall
Selected by the Chicago Bulls
Western Kentucky (assistant)
Consensus first-team All-American (1967)
3× OVC Player of the Year (1965–1967)
No. 22 jersey retired by Western Kentucky
3× OVC Tournament champion (1977, 1980–1981)
3× OVC regular season champion (1980–1982)
NIT champion (1993)
Career NBA statistics
8,743 (12.8 ppg)
2,087 (3.1 rpg)
2,382 (3.5 apg)
Stats at Basketball-Reference.com
Assistant Coach for United States
men's national basketball team
1996 Atlanta Team
Haskins served 13 years (1986–1999) as head coach of the University of Minnesota's men's basketball team, but was forced to resign due to his part in the University of Minnesota basketball scandal.[3] Due to his actions in the scandal, he was given a seven-year show cause penalty which effectively ended his coaching career.[4]
Haskins was born and grew up in Campbellsville, Kentucky, the county seat. He is the fifth of eleven children of Charles Columbus and Lucy Edna Haskins, who were sharecroppers. During his freshman and sophomore seasons, he attended the all-black Durham High School (public schools were segregated in the South). In 1961 Haskins attended Taylor County High School, the first African American to do so in the previously segregated system. His younger brother, Merion, was a standout player at the University of Kentucky, graduating in 1977. [5]
College careerEdit
Haskins and teammate Dwight Smith were heavily recruited by Western Kentucky Hilltoppers coach Edgar Diddle and joined the team in 1963.[citation needed] They became the first African-American athletes to play for Western Kentucky. They won the Ohio Valley Conference two years in a row under the direction of the popular WKU head coach John Oldham, who succeeded Diddle their sophomore year. Haskins was the Ohio Valley Conference Player of the Year in 1966. In the 1966 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament, the Hilltoppers were 2 points away from defeating Michigan and meeting the University of Kentucky Wildcats in the Mideast regional final. A controversial foul called against Smith during a jump ball put Cazzie Russell on the free throw line for Michigan, where he scored the tying and winning baskets.[6] In 1967, Haskins had broken his wrist in a game against Murray State on February 6. His team still won the Ohio Valley Conference again. In the 1967 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament, the #3-ranked Hilltoppers lost to eventual national runner-up Dayton in overtime in the Mideast quarterfinals.
NBA careerEdit
After a successful college career, Haskins was selected by the Chicago Bulls in the first round of the 1967 NBA Draft and by the Kentucky Colonels in the American Basketball Association draft.[7] Haskins played nine years in the NBA with three teams (the Bulls, the Phoenix Suns, and the Washington Bullets). He retired in 1976 due to knee injuries, having tallied 8,743 career points.
Coaching careerEdit
After his NBA career, Haskins returned to Western Kentucky University, first as an assistant coach in 1977 and then as head coach in 1980.[8] As head coach, he led Western Kentucky to two NCAA appearances and one NIT appearance.
In 1986, Haskins was hired by the University of Minnesota to rebuild the school's men's basketball program.[9] He led the Gophers to a school-record 31 wins and the Final Four in 1997, winning the Clair Bee Coach of the Year Award in the same year. He also led Minnesota to National Invitation Tournament titles in 1993 and 1998. He joined Lenny Wilkens' staff to coach the United States men's basketball team to the gold medal in the 1996 Summer Olympics.
Haskins was known for sitting on a four-legged bar stool at Minnesota home games. Williams Arena has a raised floor which was hard on his knees, and ordinarily the team sits off the floor.
Minnesota academic scandalEdit
Main article: University of Minnesota basketball scandal
On the day before the 1999 NCAA Tournament, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reported allegations by Jan Gangelhoff, the manager of the school's academic counseling office, that she had written more than 400 pieces of coursework (including theme papers, homework assignments and take-home tests) for 18 Golden Gophers players from 1994 to 1998, including the Gophers' run to the Final Four. The Gophers suspended four then-current players, including two starters, for the school's first-round game against Gonzaga (which the Gophers lost).[10] At the time, it was not known whether Haskins was involved. The Pioneer Press was harshly criticized for the timing of their report.[11] The university forced Haskins to resign after the season for his part in violations. Minnesota withdrew its team from postseason consideration for the 1999–2000 season, docked itself 11 scholarships from 2000 to 2004, and imposed other sanctions on the basketball program.
Initially, the university bought out Haskins's contract for $1.5 million. However, it sought to recover funds after learning more about Haskins' activities and, in 2002, a state judge ordered Haskins to return $815,000 of the buyout money. The decision was based on an arbitrator's recommendation and the university's conclusion that Haskins had lied to NCAA investigators and committed fraud by accepting the buyout.[12]
The university had learned during its internal investigation that Haskins had paid Gangelhoff $3,000 to write papers for the players. Haskins had initially denied making the payment during an interview in June 1999, but acknowledged it a month later. In October 2000, the NCAA placed the Golden Gophers program on four years' probation, and stripped the school of its wins in the 1994, 1995, and 1997 NCAA Tournaments, as well as its NIT wins in 1996 and 1998. The Gophers were docked an additional five scholarships over three seasons.[13] A few days later, the Big Ten Conference stripped Minnesota of the 1997 conference title and forced it to vacate every regular season game it played from 1993–94 to 1998–99. Officially, Minnesota's record for those years is 0–0. If not for these vacated games, Haskins' 242 wins would rank second on the Golden Gophers' wins list.
The NCAA imposed a seven-year "show-cause" order on Haskins. This meant that he would have to accept sanctions from the NCAA if he ever wanted to coach again, unless his new employer could convince the NCAA that he'd served his punishment. The penalty, the harshest that can be imposed on a coach, was made because Haskins had not only lied about the $3,500 payment, but advised several of the players involved to lie to the NCAA.[14] Since most schools will not even consider hiring a coach with an outstanding "show-cause" on his record, Haskins was effectively blacklisted from coaching until 2007.
After coachingEdit
Haskins did not return to coaching when his show-cause expired. He retired to his 750-acre (3.0 km2) ranch near Campbellsville, Kentucky, where he raises cattle.[15] He has also worked as a color commentator for Western Kentucky basketball home games.[3]
AwardsEdit
High School Scholastic All-American, 1963
Ohio Valley Conference Player of the Year, 1966
First team All-American, 1967
Ohio Valley Conference Coach of the Year, 1982
Associated Press Coach of the Year, 1997
Head coaching recordEdit
Western Kentucky Hilltoppers (Ohio Valley Conference) (1980–1982)
1980–81 Western Kentucky 21–8 12–2 1st NCAA Division I First Round
1981–82 Western Kentucky 19–10 13–3 T–1st NIT First Round
Western Kentucky Hilltoppers (Sun Belt Conference) (1982–1986)
1982–83 Western Kentucky 12–16 4–10 7th
1983–84 Western Kentucky 12–17 5–9 6th
1985–86 Western Kentucky 23–8 10–4 2nd NCAA Division I Second Round
Western Kentucky: 101–73 (.580) 49–37 (.570)
Minnesota Golden Gophers (Big Ten Conference) (1986–1999)
1986–87 Minnesota 9–19 2–16 9th
1987–88 Minnesota 10–18 4–14 9th
1988–89 Minnesota 19–12 9–9 5th NCAA Division I Sweet 16
1989–90 Minnesota 23–9 11–7 4th NCAA Division I Elite Eight
1991–92 Minnesota 16–16 8–10 6th NIT First Round
1992–93 Minnesota 23–9 11–7 4th NIT Champion
1993–94 Minnesota 22–13[Note A] 10–8 4th NCAA Division I Second Round
1994–95 Minnesota 19–13[Note A] 10–8 4th NCAA Division I First Round
1995–96 Minnesota 20–13 [Note A] 10–8 4th
1996–97 Minnesota 31–4[Note A] 16–2 1st NCAA Division I Final Four
1997–98 Minnesota 20–15[Note A] 6–10 8th NIT Champion
1998–99 Minnesota 17–12 10–8 6th NCAA Division I First Round
Minnesota: 239–166, .590
(243–170, .588) 119–120 (.498)
Total: 340–239, .587
(344–243, .586)
National champion Postseason invitational champion
Conference regular season champion Conference regular season and conference tournament champion
Division regular season champion Division regular season and conference tournament champion
Conference tournament champion
Kentucky portal
Basketball portal
African American portal
List of National Basketball Association players with most assists in a game
List of NCAA Division I Men's Final Four appearances by coach
^A . Tournament appearances from 1994 to 1998 were vacated by the NCAA. Minnesota also gained 1 win each in the 1994–95 and 1995–96 seasons via forfeits by opponents.[16][17] Following a Big Ten Conference order to vacate all regular season games from 1993–94 to 1998–99, Minnesota erased all individual and team records from those seasons.[18]
^ Hilltopper Legend Dwight Smith Archived 2008-05-09 at the Wayback Machine Hilltopper Haven
^ Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem – "My thoughts on UCLA in the Final Four". Archived from the original on March 4, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-13. CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link) Los Angeles Times, 31 March 2008. Western Kentucky was at the forefront of the fight to integrate college basketball in the 1960s and early 1970s.
^ a b Thamal, Pete – Catching Up With Clem, New York Times, 27 March 2008.
^ PLUS: COLLEGE BASKETBALL; N.C.A.A. Upholds Haskins Penalties, New York Times, 7 April 2001.
^ "Haskins, Merion". Notable Kentucky African American Database. University of Kentucky. Retrieved 18 August 2018.
^ O'Donnell, Chuck – Cazzie Russell: converting two free throws with no time left advanced Michigan in the 1966 NCAA Tournament – The Game I'll Never Forget – University of Michigan versus Western Kentucky University. Basketball Digest, January/February 2004 issue
^ BasketballReference.com Clem Haskins page
^ "Clem Haskins". Minnesota Golden Gophers. Archived from the original on January 28, 1998.
^ Weiner, Jay – "COLLEGE BASKETBALL '87: CLEM HASKINS; FRESH START FOR HASKINS AND MINNESOTA". New York Times, February 1, 1987
^ Dohrmann, George (March 10, 1999). "U basketball program accused of academic fraud". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on December 30, 2001. Retrieved May 13, 2007.
^ Robertson, Lori – "Body Slam", American Journalism Review, May 1999
^ "PLUS: COLLEGE BASKETBALL; Haskins Ordered To Return Money". New York Times. May 14, 2002. Retrieved July 16, 2014.
^ "University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Public Infractions Report". NCAA. October 24, 2000. Archived from the original on August 28, 2006. Retrieved June 21, 2014.
^ "NCAA Infractions Report - University of Minnesota". Minnesota Public Radio. October 24, 2000. Retrieved 2008-07-25.
^ Chicago magazine | Former Chicago Athletes: Where Are They Now?
^ "Vacated and forfeited games" (PDF). National Collegiate Athletic Association. p. 48. Retrieved July 9, 2011.
^ https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/minnesota/
^ "Year–by–Year Records" (PDF). Gopher Basketball 2008–09. Minnesota Golden Gophers. 2008. p. 178.
NBA Stats @ basketball-reference.com
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clem_Haskins&oldid=904817359"

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


There are several positions you can actually set your coffee tables, so think concerning placement areas and also grouping things according to measurements, color and pattern, object and also theme. The length and width, pattern, character and variety of furniture in your living space can identify where they must be arranged and to obtain visual of the ways they relate with every other in space, appearance, object, design also style and color.
Recognize your 33 inch industrial round tables since it comes with a portion of character on your room. Your choice of coffee tables often reveals our style, your mood, your aspirations, small wonder also that not just the choice of coffee tables, and so its placement would require much attention to detail. Taking a bit of know-how, yo will discover 33 inch industrial round tables that meets the entirety of your requires and also needs. It is best to take a look at your provided room, make inspiration from your own home, so identify the materials used that you had choose for its suitable coffee tables.
It is always necessary to think about a style for the 33 inch industrial round tables. When you do not completely need to have a specific style and design, it will help you decide the thing that coffee tables to buy also which styles of color choices and patterns to try. You can look for ideas by checking on some websites, browsing through furniture catalogues, checking various home furniture shops then making note of variations that work for you.
Go with an appropriate area and apply the coffee tables in an area that is suitable measurements to the 33 inch industrial round tables, which is also in connection with the it's main purpose. As an example, when you need a big coffee tables to be the point of interest of a place, then chances are you need to put it in a section that would be noticed from the interior's entry locations and you should never overload the element with the room's architecture.
Again, don't be afraid to use variety of style, color and even layout. However an individual furniture of individually vibrant items may seem weird, there are actually ways to pair household furniture formed together to get them to match to the 33 inch industrial round tables surely. In case messing around with color choice is undoubtedly made it possible for, make certain you never create a room that have no impressive color and pattern, because this could make the room or space appear lacking a coherent sequence or connection also distorted.
Express your current excites with 33 inch industrial round tables, consider whether you are likely to enjoy the style for years from these days. If you find yourself with limited funds, take into consideration working together with anything you currently have, have a look at your existing coffee tables, and discover if you can still re-purpose them to install onto your new appearance. Furnishing with coffee tables is a great way for you to furnish your home a perfect appearance. Together with your own ideas, it helps to have some ideas on redecorating with 33 inch industrial round tables. Stay true to all of your theme at the time you consider other design and style, items, and also accessory ways and furnish to help make your house a comfy and pleasing one.
Similarly, it feels right to categorize parts based upon aspect and also design. Switch 33 inch industrial round tables as required, until such time you think that they are definitely beautiful to the eye and that they be a good move undoubtedly, according to their character. Use a room that currently is right in dimensions and also angle to coffee tables you wish to install. If perhaps the 33 inch industrial round tables is the individual part, a variety of items, a point of interest or perhaps a concern of the space's other benefits, please take note that you get situated in a way that remains in step with the space's measurement and also design and style.
Influenced by the valued result, you really should maintain identical color choices categorized collectively, or perhaps you may want to break up colorings in a weird pattern. Spend valuable attention to ways in which 33 inch industrial round tables get on with the other. Huge coffee tables, dominant furniture must be well balanced with small to medium sized or even less important components.


text:
Your BIGgest Game
Group Facilitation
Be Inspired and Grow (BIG!)
Monthly Livecast Series
presented by All-Star Executive Coaching
Annual Membership Subscription only $99
Martha Feeback - recently retired from Catalyst, Inc.
Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 9:00am PST
Martha Feeback
She recently retired from Catalyst, Inc. the global nonprofit research organization working globally to expand opportunities for women and business.
While at Catalyst, Martha was responsible for helping Fortune 500 companies engage in diversity initiatives and raise the awareness of unconscious biases in the workplace. Her areas of expertise include the barriers to advancement of women, inclusive leadership and engaging men in gender initiatives. Working closely with corporate diversity, equity and inclusion executives, she provided Catalyst research expertise and guidance in developing strategies and programming focused on advancing women. Her accounts included many corporations considered leaders in DEI, like KPMG, Chevron, AT&T, Kimberly-Clark, EY, and Dell. Martha represented Catalyst as a keynote speaker and facilitator at numerous global conferences, employee resource group events, and senior leadership forums.
Prior to Catalyst, she was with Coca-Cola's Fountain Field Sales Division as an Area Marketing Manager, where she built strategic plans for restaurant customers in the Southwest. Prior to Coca-Cola, Martha was Marketing Director for Tele-Communications, Inc. (Cable TV) in Seattle and Chicago. At TCI Martha helped build and launch the marketing of the first inner city cable TV systems in Chicago, St. Louis and Seattle. She started her career in Brand Management at Procter & Gamble, working on the Crest and Scope brands. During college Martha launched her marketing career as the promoter and chief negotiator for events and concerts on Miami University's campus.
Martha earned her B.S. in Business from Miami University in Ohio and her MBA from the University of Washington. She currently lives in Dallas, TX.
Register for Session Here
Ready for Change? Schedule your FREE consultation!
Email: Info@AllStarExecutiveCoaching.com
19085 Ridgeview Road Villa Park, CA 92861
Are you ready to be BIG?
Website by Vitoria | Copyright © 2021 - All-Star Executive Coaching | All Rights Reserved


By enrolling in the esforta corporate membership program, members can use esforta clubs and allied facilities nationwide as well as various services (culture class, hotels) at reduced prices. Excellent for corporate welfare.
*Fee differs by facility. Amount can be changed for each contract.
Each time a member uses a club, they are requested to submit a ticket and pay the usage fee. Rental equipment (towels, T-shirts, gym shorts, shoes, etc.) is available.
Rental fees may vary depending on your contract.
There is no limit on usage. Passports corresponding to the number of employees will be issued.
Each time members use a club, they are requested to show their membership passport and pay the usage fee. Rental equipment (towels, T-shirts, gym shorts, shoes, etc.) is also available. Rental fees may vary depending on your contract.
This is a membership system available when three or more people from the same company subscribe simultaneously.
If you have a Register-type corporate annual membership, we accept only a full payment via bank transfer.
*1 It's available to apply for the membership at all esforta clubs.
*1 Rental fee is required.
* No fee is required for Platinum Members.
Full-time and Day Plus Members can rent a towel set + 5 items (choice of T-shirt, half pants, shoes, socks, swim suit [facilities with pools], bathrobe [Shibuya, Akasaka, Yokohama, Roppongi]) each time they use a club. Platinum Members can rent any of the available items any number of times.
Copyright ©Sumitomofudosan Esforta All Rights Reserved.


text:
Q: Positioning Issue in FireFox Excuse the simple question, the issue i'm having maybe due to lack of sleep. I am having a positioning problem in my firefox browser. click here for some reason the bottom row of images are not displaying correctly in FF however they are in Chrome. Does anyone know what's causing this issue, i'll like to know this for future reference..

A: use clearfix - clear the floats.
Clear the floats - by this I mean Quirks Help

A: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't have profile-box defined anywhere in your CSS?  When I look in both Firefox and Chrome, the computed width of each profile-box is 770px, which is probably part of the problem since that appears to be the full width of the container.  Properly defining the width/height of the profile-box should solve your problem.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Ryterna was established in 1993 in Kaunas Lithuania. Today company has branches all over Europe employing more than 450 people. Our main products are custom made garage and entrance doors. Ryterna Group has a modular buildings department which designs and builds mobile houses and containers.


Nothing beats a great pair of pliers, and these are a lot of folks favorites. These pliers feature comfort grip no-slip handles, long-nose design, and wire cutters. Super handy for fishing or on the boat. Stainless steel so they stand up to the harshest saltwater or freshwater environments.


We offer a wide range of Carterstory Shower with discounts of up to 65%! You can find popular Carterstory Shower, such as Summer New Shower Curtain Fashionable Blue Generous Peva Shower Curtain Multicolor. - intl, Summer New Shower Curtain Waterproof Fashion Small Fresh Peva Shower Curtain Multicolor - intl and Promotion Of Black Line Polyester Shower Curtain Waterproof Simple European Shower Curtain. - intl. If you are not sure about having Carterstory Shower, you might want to check out the products from louis will, BolehDeals and 3d. On iPrice Singapore, you can find your ideal Carterstory Shower for as low as S$ 20.00 up to as much as S$ 100.00. iPrice Singapore has a wide range of Carterstory Shower that would suit your needs.


Adoptable cats are on site at all times.
Five to ten adoptable dogs are on site from 12 - 3:30 pm on a daily basis.
Not all dogs on our web site are at the Adoption Center on any given day.
Many are in foster care or at a boarding facility and can be met by appointment.
Animal Friends Rescue Project (AFRP) is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization based in Pacific Grove, California. We were founded in June 1998 by four individuals who were passionate about making a difference to companion animal overpopulation. We are dedicated to finding good permanent homes for abandoned, stray, and abused companion animals and ending the pet overpopulation crisis through focused spay/neuter programs.


text:
Current Stories, People
Albert Uderzo Has Died. Who Was He?
One minute read. Written by Nayantara Singh – a grade 6 student.
Albert Uderzo was a French artist, who was one of the creators of the world famous comic series, Asterix.
By I Kid You Not , in Current Stories People , at March 29, 2020 Tags: Asterix, children news, general knowledge, kidsnews, news for kids
Albert Uderzo was a French artist, who was one of the creators of the world famous comic series, Asterix. Also known as The Adventures of Asterix, these comics are set in the time of Julius Caesar (50 BC).
The series star a boy named Asterix, who, with the help of various concoctions and potions, defends his village from the Romans. It is an extremely popular series, and it has been translated into 111 languages and dialects! 13 films have been made based on this comic, and there is even an Asterix theme park!
Asterix was first started by René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo. René was the writer for this series, and Albert the illustrator. In 1959, the Asterix comic made its first appearance in a French comic magazine called Pilote. In 1961, Asterix first appeared in the form of a book.
In 1977, unfortunately René Goscinny passed away at only the age of 51! He died of a cardiac arrest (sudden loss of blood , which causes the heart to malfunction). From then on, till 2011, Albert wrote and drew for the Asterix series. In 2011, Albert retired and the writing was handed over to writer, Jean-Yves Ferri. The illustration was done by Didier Conrad.
So, enough about the Asterix, now let me tell you about Albert Uderzo's life.
Albert Aleandro Uderzo, popularly known as Albert Uderzo, was born on the 25th of April, 1927 to Silvio and Iria Uderzo . He was born in Fismes, which is in north-east France. His father was a carpenter, and his job required Albert and his family to move locations regularly. Here is a fun fact; Albert was born with 6 fingers on each hand! His parents got the 6th finger removed when Albert was young.
In 1929, when Albert's family moved to Clichy-sous-Bois in eastern France, they were looked down upon, as they were Italian immigrants. Later, in 1934, the family gained citizenship of France. Albert first started drawing in kindergarten. He was extremely talented for his age. Soon after, Albert realised that he was colour blind!. However, this did not affect his career at all.
After finishing a primary education at the age of just 13, Albert followed his brother, Bruno and became an aircraft engineer. While doing so, he also contacted Walt Disney and other American cartoon studios. It was in Albert's aircraft travels, that he met René Goscinny. They became fast friends, and started working together in 1952, when they created Oumpah-pah. They then went on to create Asterix!
Albert married Ada Milani in 1953, and they had one daughter, Sylvie Uderzo.
Unfortunately, Albert Uderzo passed away in his sleep on Tuesday, 24th March 2020. He was 92 years old!! He died after he had suffered a heart attack.
So, in memory of Albert Uderzo, why don't we all read Asterix if we have not already!!
PM Modi Announces Expansion of the NCC In 173 Border and Coastal Areas
Written by Sandhya Garg, a grade 8 student
Today, on Independence Day speech, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made an announcement about expanding the National Cadet Corps (NCC) in 173 coastal and border districts of India…
Ozone Layer Hole Over The Arctic Is Now Closed
Written by Ananya Sharma
Oil Spill In Assam During COVID-19
Written by Aryan Pratap Singh, a grade 8 student.
On the 27th of May, an oil well owned by Oil India Limited (OIL) located in the village of Baghjan in Assam burst, causing massive damage to the nearby ecosystem…
International Children's Day, World Children's Day, and Children's Day. Know the Difference
Do you know about the other Children's Days around the world?
Kobe Bryant – a Basketball Superstar Dies In A Helicopter Crash
30 second read. Written by a grade 7 student.
26th January was a sad day for basketball. One of the world's best known players – and basketball superstar – Kobe Bryant..


text:
268 F. 2d 648 - Cosentino v. Local International Organization of Masters Mates and Pilots
268 F2d 648 Cosentino v. Local International Organization of Masters Mates and Pilots
Salvatore COSENTINO, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Appellant,
LOCAL 28, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS, AFL-CIO, and E. A. Adams and Harry Rutan, its agents, Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
Norton J. Come, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B. Washington, D. C. (Jerome D. Fenton, Gen. Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Winthrop A. Johns, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Joseph I. Nachman and Fred S. Landess, Attys. N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., were with him on the brief), for appellant.
Mozart G. Ratner, Chicago, Ill. (Jacobs & Ratner, Chicago, Ill., were with him on the brief), for appellees.
Before SANBORN, VAN OOSTERHOUT, and MATTHES, Circuit Judges.
MATTHES, Circuit Judge.
The sole question for determination on this appeal is the effect of an order entered on August 26, 1958, by Judge Joseph Samuel Perry, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Madden v. International Organization of Masters, etc., 166 F.Supp. 862. This order dismissed a prior suit instituted on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter referred to as "Board"), Thirteenth Region, seeking an injunction under § 10 (l) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,1 against the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, Inc., AFLCIO, and Locals 28 and 3, and Harry Rutan, their agent (for brevity, sometimes referred to collectively as "Union"). The acts complained of concerned picketing around property of The Texas Company in Indiana and Illinois, arising from a labor dispute between Union and Ingram Barge Company.
Subsequent to this dismissal, and on December 11, 1958, Salvatore Cosentino, Regional Director of the Fourteenth Region of the Board, filed the petition giving rise to this appeal in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, seeking an injunction under § 10(l) of the Act. Although this suit involved picketing of Globe Fuel Products, Inc., in Chicago, Illinois, Commercial Barge Lines in St. Louis, Missouri, and The Texas Company in St. Paul, Minnesota, the complained of acts arose from the same labor dispute between Union and Ingram Barge Company. Following an order to show cause, appellees, respondents below, filed their motion to dismiss the petition on the ground, inter alia, that Judge Perry's order constituted a dismissal with prejudice, and that application of res judicata principles barred petitioner's right to an injunction in this case. The District Court agreed, sustained the motion, and dismissed the Board's petition. From that order, an appeal was perfected to this Court.
Since Judge Perry's order is the focal point of this controversy, we review the circumstances under which it was entered. As a defense to the Board's petition, Union alleged that the Board had not conducted a preliminary investigation prior to filing charges, as required by § 10(l) of the Act and Section 101.4 of the Board's Statements of Procedures. Ross M. Madden, Regional Director, Thirteenth Region, refused to testify or to produce subpoenaed documents concerning this preliminary investigation, and thereupon, Judge Perry entered the order of dismissal.2 From that order, the Regional Director appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Before final determination in that Court, the Board, through counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. In summary, the motion admitted that the procedures prescribed for investigation of charges in § 10(l) cases, as provided in the Board's published Statements of Procedures, were not followed.3 On October 2, 1958, this motion was sustained, and the appeal dismissed. See Madden v. International Organization, etc., 7 Cir., 259 F.2d 297, at pages 299-300, where the Court stated: "The appeal is dismissed because this Court finds the Board failed to comply with its own procedures and not because counsel decided to take the case out of our hands."
On October 7, 1958, pursuant to "Emergency Motion for Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law", filed by Union, Judge Perry entered supplemental findings and conclusions. See Madden v. International Organization of Masters, etc., supra, 166 F.Supp. 862, at pages 864-865. The substance of the findings was that Local 28 is an organization composed exclusively of persons who are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act; that the picketing by Local 28 was carried on exclusively on its own behalf; that Local 3 had terminated its strike against Ingram Barge Company. Upon these additional findings of fact, the Court made these conclusions of law: Local 28 is not a "labor organization" within the meaning of the Act; Local 28, in picketing, did not act as agent of any labor organization within the meaning of the Act; and that the picketing by Locals 28 and 3 complained of was primary rather than secondary, and not proscribed by the Act. These supplemental findings were, in effect, designed to operate as a complete adjudication on the merits, and on November 26, 1958, the Board filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to compel Judge Perry to vacate these supplemental findings and conclusions of law.
We leave the events in the Seventh Circuit for a moment, and turn again to the proceeding before us. While the petition for mandamus was pending before the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, the petition for injunction in this case was filed. Here, the Board alleged that on November 19, 1958, Ingram Barge Company filed a charge with the Fourteenth Region of the Board, asserting that Local 28, and its agents, E. A. Adams and Harry Rutan were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (A) of the Act [picketing of Commercial Barge Lines, Inc.]; that on November 7, 1958, Ingram filed an amended charge with the Thirteenth Region of the Board, alleging that the same Local and its agent, Harry Rutan, were engaging in unfair labor practices [picketing of Globe Fuel Products Company]; that on November 24, 1958, Ingram filed another charge with the Eighteenth Region of the Board, alleging that the same local and its agents, E. A. Adams and Harry Rutan, were engaging in unfair labor practices [picketing of The Texas Company]; and that the charges filed with the Thirteenth and Eighteenth Regions had been transferred to the Fourteenth Region.
It appears from the record of the argument on the motion to dismiss, and from the order dismissing the petition, that the Hon. Roy W. Harper, Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, entertained the view that the alleged unfair labor practices forming the basis of this action, although subsequent in point of time, were the same as the charges upon which the prior (Illinois) proceeding were bottomed, in that, concededly, they had their source in the same labor dispute; that notwithstanding the fact that the instant unfair labor charges were initiated by different parties, this action is substantially between the same parties to the prior (Illinois) litigation. In construing Judge Perry's order of dismissal as being based on the failure to comply with the subpoena duces tecum issued in that action, Judge Harper observed that "[u]nder Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 U.S.C.A.) dismissal of an action for failure to comply with an order of the court operates as an adjudication upon the merits unless the order for dismissal otherwise specifies." So positioning himself, Judge Harper was of the opinion that the order of dismissal operated as a bar to this action.
On February 27, 1959, and subsequent to entry of the order of dismissal by Judge Harper, and appeal therefrom to this Court, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit entered its judgment in the mandamus proceeding, Madden v. Perry, 264 F.2d 169, certiorari denied 1959, 79 S.Ct. 1450. It appears that the answer filed on behalf of Judge Perry reviewed the proceedings in Judge Perry's Court relating to the action for injunction, and alleged that the order dismissing the petition operated as an adjudication on the merits; that to protect and effectuate the benefits accruing to respondents in that proceeding by virtue of the order of dismissal, and in order to obtain relief from the operation of the order insofar as it failed to include findings and conclusions "on the already fully litigated substantive issues concerning Locals 28 and 3 which would serve to estop petitioner from relitigating those issues in a subsequent Section 10 (l) proceeding," respondents had filed a timely motion for supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law. The answer to the petition for writ of mandamus also set forth the substance of the proceedings in this case, including the order of dismissal entered by Judge Harper. See Madden v. Perry, supra, 264 F.2d at page 173.
Thus, the scope and effect of Judge Perry's order of dismissal, which is the pith and core of the controversy before us, was placed squarely before the Seventh Circuit in the mandamus proceeding. It is quite manifest that the interpretation placed by that Court on the order is contrary to Judge Harper's conclusion. The Court stated, 264 F.2d at pages 174, 175:
"Counsel for Judge Perry argues in this court —
"`The judgment of the district court, although resulting from the Board's refusal to allow its Director to testify, operated, by virtue of Rule 41(b) "as an adjudication on the merits," i. e., as a dismissal of the action "with prejudice" * *.' (Italics supplied for emphasis.)
"He overlooks the fact that the order of dismissal specifies the precise grounds upon which the petition was dismissed. He also overlooks the fact that, according to the court's order, the dismissal was based upon a failure of a jurisdictional requirement, which is expressly excepted from the operation of rule 41(b).
"We hold that, under rule 41(b), Judge Perry, having in the order for dismissal specified the grounds therefor, which, as to the Locals, did not involve the merits of the case, the dismissal order does not operate as an adjudication upon the merits. The purpose of the inclusion of the quoted sentence in rule 41(b) is to state the effect of a general dismissal in which the court specifies no grounds therefor."
In granting the writ, and directing Judge Perry to set aside and strike the supplemental findings which he made, the Court further observed, 264 F.2d at pages 175, 176:
"From a practical standpoint, there is a substantial doubt as to whether a new section 10(l) proceeding would succeed if these findings and conclusions are to remain of record and thus might be cited in an effort to defeat such new proceeding. Their continued existence would afford a pretext for citing them in an effort to bolster an argument that the record before Judge Perry is res judicata or collateral estoppel in proceedings against the same unions on new causes of action. They should be immediately nullified to remove the potential mischief inherent in them. The alacrity with which respondents cited to Judge Harper the proceedings before Judge Perry is proof that the potentialities here envisaged do not lack substance."
In the interest of uniformity, a court of appeals is not justified in refusing to follow the decision of another court of appeals unless satisfied that the prior decision is clearly erroneous. United States v. Blosser, 8 Cir., 104 F.2d 119, 121, and cases cited; Birmingham v. Geer, 8 Cir., 185 F.2d 82, 85, certiorari denied, 340 U.S. 951, 71 S.Ct. 571, 95 L.Ed. 686; Prewett v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 8 Cir., 221 F.2d 250, 252, and cf. Sokol Bros. Furniture Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 5 Cir., 185 F.2d 222, 224, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 952, 71 S.Ct. 571, 95 L.Ed. 686.
Since the identical order which was the keystone for Judge Harper's action was fully considered by the Seventh Circuit, that Court's interpretation thereof is entitled to great weight, and we should not adopt a contrary view unless it convincingly appears that the decision in Madden v. Perry is palpably wrong. We adhere to that decision. It seems clear to us, and for the reasons set forth in Madden, that Judge Perry's order, considered in context, refutes the contention that the dismissal of the petition in that case operated as an adjudication upon the merits within the meaning of Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Also urged upon us are the contentions, (1) that application of res judicata principles to Section 10(l) proceedings would be incompatible with their nature and function and impair the Congressional policy underlying Section 10(l); and, (2) that even if the principles of res judicata were applicable, they would not constitute a bar here because this proceeding is not based on the same cause of action embraced in the Illinois case. We do not reach or consider these points but rather base our decision upon the determination of the Seventh Circuit and our own conclusion that Judge Perry's dismissal of the prior action did not constitute a dismissal on the merits.
The order appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq., § 160 (l). Hereinafter referred to as "Act".
Madden v. International Organization of Masters, etc., supra, 166 F.Supp. 862, 864. The Conclusions of Law and the Order are as follows:
"1. Conduct by petitioner of a preliminary investigation of the amended charge as required by Section 10(l) of the Act and Section 101.4 of the NLRB's Statements of Procedure prior to filing a petition for injunction based thereon is a condition precedent to petitioner's right to file a petition and is a jurisdictional requirement compliance with which respondents are entitled to challenge and litigate in this proceeding. * * *
"2. Petitioner is not by law entitled to withhold evidence as to its compliance with said jurisdictional requirement in this proceeding in which petitioner is invoking the court's aid and seeking judicial relief. * * *
"3. Petitioner's refusal to testify and produce the evidence required by the subpoena deprives respondents of opportunity to establish a relevant defense, by due process of law.
"4. [Not here relevant]
"5. For the foregoing reasons, an order should be entered dismissing the petition for injunctive relief as to all respondents.
"Order
"It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the petition be and it hereby is dismissed. * * *"
The reasons forming the basis for the motion appear in footnote 5, Madden v. Perry, 7 Cir., 264 F.2d 169, 172, certiorari denied, 79 S.Ct. 1450