Search This Blog

Friday, July 21, 2023

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
Great Seal of the United States
Long titleAn Act to provide for the establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and affecting interstate commerce, and for other purposes
Acronyms (colloquial)FLSA
Enacted bythe 75th United States Congress
EffectiveJune 25, 1938
Citations
Public lawPub. L. 75–718
Statutes at Large52 Stat. 1060 through 52 Stat. 1070 (3 pages)
Legislative history
Department of Labor poster notifying employees of rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 29 U.S.C. § 203 (FLSA) is a United States labor law that creates the right to a minimum wage, and "time-and-a-half" overtime pay when people work over forty hours a week. It also prohibits employment of minors in "oppressive child labor". It applies to employees engaged in interstate commerce or employed by an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, unless the employer can claim an exemption from coverage. The Act was enacted by the 75th Congress and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1938.

Practical application

The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to "employees who are engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or who are employed by an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce" unless the employer can claim an exemption from coverage. Generally, an employer with at least $500,000 of business or gross sales in a year satisfies the commerce requirements of the FLSA, and therefore that employer's workers are subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act's protections if no other exemption applies. Several exemptions exist that relieve an employer from having to meet the statutory minimum wage, overtime, and record-keeping requirements. The largest exceptions apply to the so-called "white collar" exemptions that are applicable to professional, administrative and executive employees, though exemptions also exist for jobs such as movie theater workers. Exemptions are narrowly construed, as an employer must prove that the employees fit "plainly and unmistakably" within the exemption's terms.

The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to "any individual employed by an employer" but not to independent contractors or volunteers because they are not considered "employees" under the FLSA. Still, an employer cannot simply exempt workers from the Fair Labor Standards Act by calling them independent contractors, and many employers have illegally and incorrectly classified their workers as independent contractors. Some employers similarly mislabel employees as volunteers. Courts look at the "economic reality" of the relationship between the putative employer and the worker to determine whether the worker is an independent contractor. Courts use a similar test to determine whether a worker was concurrently employed by more than one person or entity; commonly referred to as "joint employers". For example, a farm worker may be considered jointly employed by a labor contractor (who is in charge of recruitment, transportation, payroll, and keeping track of hours) and a grower (who generally monitors the quality of the work performed, determines where to place workers, controls the volume of work available, has quality control requirements, and has the power to fire, discipline, or provide work instructions to workers).

In many instances, employers do not pay overtime properly for non-exempt jobs, such as not paying an employee for travel time between job sites, activities before or after their shifts, and preparation central to work activities. If an employee is entitled to overtime, the employer must pay them one and a half times their "regular rate of pay" for all hours they work over 40 in the same work week.

Employees employed in a ministerial role by a religiously affiliated employer are not entitled to overtime under the act.

During World War II, the Army-Navy "E" Award for excellence in war production required maintaining the fair labor standards established under the Act.

Exemptions

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in the United States sets minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor standards, but certain employees may be exempt. The exemptions include executive, administrative, professional, computer employees, and outside sales exemptions. Executives must have management duties, while administrative employees perform non-manual work related to business operations. Professional exemptions apply to learned or creative professionals, computer employee exemptions to computer-related roles, and outside sales exemptions to employees primarily engaged in off-site sales. Exemption criteria involve salary thresholds and meeting specific duties. Consulting legal counsel or the U.S. Department of Labor is advisable for comprehensive guidance.

Tipping

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, an employer has to pay each employee the minimum wage, unless the employee is "engaged in an occupation in which the employee customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips". If the employee's wage does not equal minimum wage, including tips, the employer must make up the difference. However, the employee must be allowed to keep all tips, either individually or through a tip pool. A tip pool may also contain only "employees who customarily and regularly receive tips". "The phrase 'customarily and regularly' signifies a frequency which must be greater than occasional, but which may be less than constant."

While the nomenclature of a job title is not dispositive, the job of "busboy" is explicitly validated for tip-pool inclusion by an authoritative source. "A busboy performs an integral part of customer service without much direct interaction, but he does so in a manner visible to customers. ... Thus, for a service bartender to be validly included in a tip pool, he must meet this minimal threshold in a manner sufficient to incentivize customers to 'customarily and regularly' tip in recognition" of his services (though he need not receive the tips directly).

Legislative and administrative history

The real federal minimum wage has declined by 46% since February 1968. Lower line is nominal dollars. Top line is inflation-adjusted.

1938 Fair Labor Standards Act

The Fair Labor Standards Act was originally drafted in 1932 by Senator Hugo Black, whose proposal to require employers to adopt a thirty-hour workweek met fierce resistance.

In 1938, a revised version of Black's proposal was passed. The revised version was instrumentally supported by a number of notable people, including Frances Perkins, Clara Mortenson Beyer from the Bureau of Labor Standards within the United States Department of Labor, as well as Congresswoman Mary T. Norton. The revised proposal adopted an eight-hour day and a forty-hour workweek and allowed workers to earn wage for an extra four hours of overtime as well. According to the act, workers must be paid minimum wage and overtime pay must be one-and-a-half times regular pay. Children under eighteen cannot do certain dangerous jobs, and children under sixteen cannot work in manufacturing or mining or during school hours. Though it did not cover executives, seasonal employees, and some other groups, the Fair Labor Standards Act gave raises to 700,000 workers, and US President Franklin Roosevelt called it the most important piece of New Deal legislation since the Social Security Act of 1935.

1947 Portal-to-Portal Act

In 1946, the US Supreme Court ruled in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. that preliminary work activities controlled by the employer and performed entirely for the employer's benefit are properly included as working time under the FLSA.

In response, Congress passed the 1947 Portal-to-Portal Act, which narrowed the Supreme Court's decision. It specified exactly what type of time was considered compensable work time. In general, as long as an employee is engaging in activities that benefit the employer, regardless of when they are performed, the employer has an obligation to pay the employee for that time. The act also specified that travel to and from the workplace was a normal incident of employment and should not be considered paid working time.

The act stated that employees had two years of performing the work to file a lawsuit for uncompensated time. Upon signing the act, President Harry Truman urged Congress to increase the minimum wage from 40 cents per hour to 65 cents per hour.

1949 Fair Labor Standards Amendment

The full effect of the FLSA of 1938 was postponed by the wartime inflation of the 1940s, which increased (nominal) wages to above the level specified in the Act. On October 26, 1949, President Truman signed the Fair Labor Standards Amendment Act of 1949 (ch. 736, Pub. L. 81–393, 63 Stat. 910, 29 U.S.C. § 201).

The act defined an employee's "regular rate" of pay for purposes of computation of overtime pay. The act specified that employees were covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act if they are "directly essential" to production of goods for interstate commerce. The act increased the minimum wage from 40 cents to 75 cents per hour, effective January 24, 1950. The act prohibited oppressive child labor in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. The act also included a few new exemptions for special worker classes.

1955 amendment

In 1955, President Eisenhower urged Congress to amend the FLSA in order to increase the number of employees who are covered by minimum wage laws and to increase the minimum wage itself to 90 cents per hour. At the time, retail workers and services workers were not covered by minimum wage laws.

Congress passed an amendment to the FLSA, and President Eisenhower signed it on August 12, 1955. The amendment increased the minimum wage from 75¢ per hour to $1 per hour, effective March 1, 1956. Despite a push by some members of Congress, retail workers, service workers, agricultural workers, and construction workers were still not required to be paid at least the minimum wage.

1961 amendment

The 1961 amendment added another method of determining a type of coverage called enterprise coverage. Enterprise coverage applies only when the business is involved in interstate commerce and its gross annual business volume is a minimum of $500,000. All employees working for "enterprises" are then covered by the FLSA if the individual firms of the "enterprise have a revenue greater than $500,000 per year". Under the original 1938 Act, a worker whose work is in the channels of interstate commerce is covered as an individual. "Interstate commerce" is interpreted so broadly that most work is included, such as ordering, loading, or using supplies from out of state, accepting payments from customers based on credit cards issued by out-of-state banks, and so on.

The 1961 amendment also specified that coverage is automatic for schools, hospitals, nursing homes, or other residential care facilities. Coverage is also automatic for all governmental entities at whatever level of government, no matter the size. Coverage does not apply to certain entities not organized for business, such as churches and charitable institutions. The minimum wage level was again increased to $1.25 per hour. What could be considered a wage was specifically defined, and entitlement to sue for back wages was granted.

1963 Equal Pay Act

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 was enacted to amend the FLSA and make it illegal to pay some workers lower wages than others strictly on the basis on their sex. It is often summed up with the phrase "equal pay for equal work". The Equal Pay Act allows unequal pay for equal work only when the employer sets wages pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or other factors outside of sex. For the first nine years of the EPA, the requirement of equal pay for equal work did not extend to persons employed in an executive, administrative or professional capacity, or as an outside salesperson. Therefore, the EPA exempted white-collar women from the protection of equal pay for equal work. In 1972, Congress enacted the Education Amendments of 1972, which amended the FLSA to expand the coverage of the EPA to these employees, by excluding the EPA from the professional workers exemption of the FLSA.

1966 amendment

The 1966 amendment expanded coverage to some farm workers and increased the minimum wage to $1.60 per hour in stages. The 1966 Fair Labor Standards Act amendment also gave federal employees coverage for the first time.

A 2021 study on the effects of the 1966 extension, which raised the minimum wage in several economic sectors, found that the minimum wages increases led to a sharp increase in earnings without any adverse aggregate effects on employment. The legislation also substantially reduced the racial wage gap.

1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) prohibited employment discrimination against persons forty years of age or older. Some older workers were being denied health benefits based on their age and denied training opportunities prior to the passage of the ADEA. The act applies only to businesses employing more than twenty workers.

1974 Fair Labor Standards Amendments

The 1974 amendment expanded coverage to include other state and local government employees that were not previously covered. Domestic workers also became covered and the minimum wage was increased to $2.30 per hour in stages.

1977 Fair Labor Standards Amendments

The 1977 amendment increased the minimum wage in yearly increments through 1981 to $3.35 an hour. Changes were made involving tipped employees and the tip credit. Partial overtime exemption was repealed in stages for certain hotel, motel, and restaurant employees.

1983 Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act

The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA), enacted in 1983, was designed to provide migrant and seasonal farm workers with protections concerning pay, working conditions, and work-related conditions to require farm labor contractors to register with the US Department of Labor and assure necessary protections for farm workers, agricultural associations, and agricultural employers.

1985 Fair Labor Standards Amendments

An amendment permitted state and local government employers to compensate their employees' overtime hours with paid time away from work in lieu of overtime pay. Paid time off must be given at the rate of one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime compensation would be required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Other employers may not compensate employees with paid time off in lieu of overtime pay.

The amendment exempted state and local governments from paying overtime for special detail work performed by fire-protection, law-enforcement, and prison-security employees. The amendment exempted state and local governments from paying overtime to employees working in a substantially different capacity from the employee's regular full-time employment on a sporadic basis.

The amendment stated that individuals who volunteer to perform services for a state or local government agency are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act if the individual receives no compensation or nominal compensation.

The amendment stated that state and local legislative employees, other than legislative library employees, are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

1986 Amendment

In 1986, the Fair Labor Standards Act was amended to allow the United States Secretary of Labor to provide special certificates to allow an employer to pay less than the minimum wage to individuals whose earning or productive capacity is impaired by age, physical or mental deficiency, or injury. These employees must still be paid wages that are related to the individual's productivity and commensurate with those paid to similarly located and employed nonhandicapped workers. However, paying workers with disabilities less than the minimum wage was outlawed in New Hampshire in 2015, in Maryland in 2016, and in Alaska in 2018.

Section 14(c)

Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act states that with the approval of the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) certain employers can pay employees with disabilities below the minimum wage. In order for the subminimum wage to apply, the disability of the worker must directly affect their productivity in their given position. The employer must show that the work of an employee with a disability is less productive than the standard set for employees without disabilities. If approved by the WHD, the rate of pay for the worker with a disability can correlate to their productivity in comparison to workers without disabilities. Every sixth months at a minimum, employers certified under Section 14(c) must review the special minimum wage of their hourly employees. Annually, Section 14(c) employers must also adjust the rate of pay workers receiving special minimum wages to remain comparable to that of employees without disabilities. These requirements of subminimum wage review by the employers were added to Section 14(c) through a 1986 amendment. The intention of the section is to enable higher employment for people with disabilities. The concern with enforcing minimum wage was that there would be a decrease in the job opportunities for workers with disabilities, so Section 14(c) is to be utilized only as needed to offset any opportunity loss.

The majority of Section 14(c) workers are employed through work centers, but these individuals also work through businesses, schools, and hospitals. As of 2001, 424,000 employees with disabilities were receiving the subminimum wages through 5,600 employers under Section 14(c). More than 50% of workers with disabilities were paid $2.50 per hour or less by their employers due to reduced productivity caused by a disability. There are several proposed bills that would repeal and eventually phase out Section 14(c) certifications such as H.R. 873 or H.R. 582 (Raise the Wage Act) which was passed by the House of Representatives in July 2019, but did not pass. Both political parties have expressed support to repealing this program.

1986 Department of Defense Authorization Act

The Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1986 repealed the eight-hour daily overtime requirements on all federal contracts.

1989 Fair Labor Standards Amendments

In 1989, Senator Edward M. Kennedy introduced a bill to increase the minimum wage from $3.35 per hour to $4.55 per hour in stages. Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole supported increasing the minimum wage to $4.25 per hour along with allowing a minimum wage of $3.35 an hour for new employees' first ninety days of employment for an employer. Secretary Dole said that President George H. W. Bush would veto any bill increasing the minimum wage to more than $4.25 per hour.

By a vote of 248 to 171, the House of Representatives approved a bill to increase the minimum wage to $4.55 per hour in stages over a two-year period. The bill also allowed employers to pay new employees at least 85 percent of the minimum wage during the first sixty days of employment of a newly hired employee with no previous employment. The bill also increased the exemption from minimum wage law for small businesses from $362,500 to $500,000 of annual sales. By a vote of 61 to 39, the Senate approved a bill to increase the minimum wage to $4.55 per hour. President Bush vetoed the bill, calling the increase "excessive". The House of Representatives unsuccessfully tried to override the veto, voting 247 to 178 to override, 37 votes short.

By a vote of 382 to 37, the House of Representatives approved a revised bill that would increase the minimum wage to $3.80 per hour as of April 1990, and $4.25 per hour as of April 1, 1991. The bill would allow a lower minimum wage for employees who are less than twenty years old. The bill eliminated different minimum wages for retail and non-retail businesses. The next week, the Senate approved the bill by a vote of 89 to 8. Senators Orrin Hatch, Steve Symms, and Phil Gramm were unsuccessful at passing minimum-wage exemptions for small businesses and farmers using migrant or seasonal workers. President Bush signed the bill two weeks later.

1996 Small Business Job Protection Act

The 1996 amendment increased the minimum wage to $5.15 an hour. However, the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 (PL 104-188), which provided the minimum-wage increase, also detached tipped employees from future minimum-wage increases.

2004 rule change

On August 23, 2004, controversial changes to exemptions from the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime requirements went into effect, making substantial modifications to the definition of an "exempt" employee. Low-level working supervisors throughout American industries were reclassified as "executives" and lost overtime rights. The changes were sought by business interests, which claimed that the laws needed clarification and that few workers would be affected. The Bush administration called the new regulations "FairPay". However, other organizations, such as the AFL–CIO, claimed the changes would make millions of additional workers ineligible to obtain relief under the FLSA for overtime pay. Attempts in Congress to overturn the new regulations were unsuccessful.

Conversely, some low-level employees (particularly administrative-support staff) that had previously been classified as exempt were now reclassified as non-exempt. Although such employees work in positions bearing titles previously used to determine exempt status (such as "executive assistant"), the 2004 amendment to the FLSA now requires that an exemption must be predicated upon actual job function and not job title. Employees with job titles that previously allowed exemption but whose job descriptions did not include managerial functions were now reclassified from exempt to non-exempt.

2007 Fair Minimum Wage Act

On May 25, 2007, President Bush signed into law a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 2206), which contains the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. This provision amended the FLSA to provide for the increase of the federal minimum wage by an incremental plan, culminating in a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour by July 24, 2009. Further, American territories including American Samoa and Puerto Rico were to adopt the mainland minimum wage in a series of incremental increases.

2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Section 4207 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) amends Section 7 to add a "break time for nursing mothers" provision. It specifies that employers shall provide break time for nursing mothers to express milk and that "a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public" should be available for employees to express milk.

2019 rule change

On September 27, 2019, the Department of Labor released a rule setting the salary level or amount test at $684 per week (equivalent to $35,568 per year) in order for an employee to qualify as an FLSA-exempt executive employee, administrative employee, and professional employee. In order to qualify as a highly compensated employee, the total annual compensation test was set at $107,432. When the Department of Labor had determined the total annual compensation, it based it on the eightieth percentile of weekly earnings for full-time salaried employees in the United States.

Proposed amendments

2009/2013 Paid Vacation Act

The Paid Vacation Act of 2009, introduced by Representative Alan Grayson on May 21, 2009,  proposed that all employers with 100 or more employees provide a paid vacation to all eligible personnel. This earned period of time was initially defined as seven working days and increased to fourteen working days three years after the bill passed. Additionally, employers with 50 or more personnel would have been required to provide one working week of paid vacation. This vacation period was to be used within a twelve-month period. In addition to these stipulations, the bill authorized a public awareness campaign to be overseen by the Secretary of Labor and required a study be conducted on the effect of the paid vacation time in the workplace. On May 21, 2009 the bill was referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor and two months later referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections. The bill remained in the subcommittee with no report or recommendation issued. At the time of proposal, H.R. 2563 had two original cosponsors; two additional cosponsors added July 2009.

In 2013, Representative Grayson reintroduced the Paid Vacation Act as H.R. 2096. Apart from the omission of the 2009 proposal’s findings section, H.R. 2096 was virtually identical to H.R. 2563. Representative Grayson was the sole original sponsor for the bill, which was immediately referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor. Like the original proposition, the bill was referred to the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections in July 2013. There have been no reports issued by either the committee or subcommittee. Both bills were met with opposition which cited concerns of the loss of jobs or benefits.

2014 Minimum Wage Fairness Act

In April 2014, the United States Senate debated the Minimum Wage Fairness Act (S. 1737; 113th Congress). The bill would have amended the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) to increase the federal minimum wage for employees to $10.10 per hour over the course of a two-year period. The bill was strongly supported by President Barack Obama and many of the Democratic senators, but strongly opposed by Republicans in the Senate and House.

2015 Healthy Families Act

In January 2015, President Barack Obama asked Congress to pass the Healthy Families Act under which employers would be allowed to give employees one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours they work up. This applies for up to seven days or 56 hours of paid sick leave annually instead of paying overtime to the employees. The bill, as proposed, would have applied to employers with 15 or more employees for employees as defined in the Fair Labor Standards Act.

2015 proposed rulemaking

On July 6, 2015, the Department of Labor published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, based on a 2014 presidential memorandum signed by President Barack Obama directing the Department of Labor to update the regulations defining which white-collar workers are protected by the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime standards. On May 18, 2016, the final version of the rule was published, which would require that employees earning a salary of less than $913 per week would be paid overtime, effective December 1, 2016, and the threshold would be automatically adjusted every three years, beginning January 1, 2020.

On November 23, 2016, a United States District judge imposed an injunction, temporarily stopping the rule's enforcement nationwide, in order to have time to determine whether the Department of Labor had the authority to issue the regulation. When the Trump administration took power in January 2017 they opted not to defend the rule in court, leading to a summary judgement on August 31 that the rule was invalid because the threshold was so high that it made the duties test irrelevant, and because the automatic adjustments provided by the rule were unlawful.

2016 Wage Theft Prevention and Wage Recovery Act

In September 2016, Democratic members of the United States House and Senate introduced the Wage Theft Prevention and Wage Recovery Act. It would have increased employer liability under FLSA suits to the amount promised by the employer, rather than the minimum wage, prohibit pre-dispute arbitration agreements from precluding a claim of wage theft from court, make it possible to bring FLSA class action suits without the individual consent of workers who had their wages stolen, create automatic financial penalties for violations and create a discretionary ability for the Department of Labor to refer the violators to the Department of Justice for prosecution. The bill did not make it out of committee in either the House or the Senate.

Asymmetric warfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Viet Cong base camp being burned during the Vietnam War. An American private first class (PFC) stands by.

Asymmetric warfare (or asymmetric engagement) is a type of war between belligerents whose relative military power, strategy, or tactics differ significantly. This type of warfare often, but not necessarily, involves insurgents or resistance movement militias who may have the status of unlawful combatants against a standing army. 

Asymmetrical warfare can also describe a conflict in which belligerents' resources are uneven, and consequently, they both may attempt to exploit each other's relative weaknesses. Such struggles often involve unconventional warfare, with the weaker side attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in the quantity or quality of their forces and equipment. Such strategies may not necessarily be militarized. This is in contrast to symmetrical warfare, where two powers have comparable military power, resources, and rely on similar tactics.

Asymmetric warfare is a form of irregular warfare – conflicts in which enemy combatants are not regular military forces of nation-states. The term is frequently used to describe what is also called guerrilla warfare, insurgency, counterinsurgency, rebellion, terrorism, and counterterrorism.

Definition and differences

The popularity of the term dates from Andrew J. R. Mack's 1975 article "Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars" in World Politics, in which "asymmetric" referred simply to a significant disparity in power between opposing actors in a conflict. "Power," in this sense, is broadly understood to mean material power, such as a large army, sophisticated weapons, an advanced economy, and so on. Mack's analysis was largely ignored in its day, but the end of the Cold War sparked renewed interest among academics. By the late 1990s, a new research building off Mack's works was beginning to mature; after 2004, the U.S. military began once again to prioritize responding to challenges presented by asymmetric warfare.

Since 2004, the discussion of asymmetric warfare has been complicated by the tendency of academic and military officials to use the term in different ways, as well as by its close association with guerrilla warfare, insurgency, terrorism, counterinsurgency, and counterterrorism. Military authors tend to use the term "asymmetric" to refer to the indirect nature of the strategies many weak actors adopt or to the adversary's nature itself (e.g., "asymmetric adversaries can be expected to …") rather than to the relative strength of adversarial forces.

Academic authors tend to focus on explaining two puzzles in asymmetric conflict. First, if "power" determines victory, there must be reasons why weaker actors decide to fight more powerful actors. Key explanations include:

  • Weaker actors may have secret weapons.
  • Weaker actors may have powerful allies.
  • Stronger actors are unable to make threats credible.
  • The demands of a stronger actor are extreme.
  • The weaker actor must consider its regional rivals when responding to threats from powerful actors.

Second, if "power," as generally understood, leads to victory in war, then there must be an explanation for why the "weak" can defeat the "strong." Key explanations include:

  • Strategic interaction.
  • Willingness of the weak to suffer more or bear higher costs.
  • External support of weak actors.
  • Reluctance to escalating violence on the part of strong actors.
  • Internal group dynamics.
  • Inflated strong actor war aims.
  • Evolution of asymmetric rivals' attitudes towards time.

Asymmetric conflicts include interstate and civil wars, and over the past two hundred years, have generally been won by strong actors. Since 1950, however, weak actors have won the majority of asymmetric conflicts.

Strategic basis

In most conventional warfare, the belligerents deploy forces of a similar type, and the outcome can be predicted by the quantity or quality of the opposing forces, for example, better command and control of theirs (c2). There are times when this is the case, and conventional forces are not easily compared, making it difficult for opposing sides to engage. An example of this is the standoff between the continental land forces of the French Army and the maritime forces of the United Kingdom's Royal Navy during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. In the words of Admiral Jervis during the campaigns of 1801, "I do not say, my Lords, that the French will not come. I say only they will not come by sea", and a confrontation that Napoleon Bonaparte described as that between the elephant and the whale.

Tactical basis

Oil-drum roadside IED in Northern Ireland removed from culvert in 1984

The tactical success of asymmetric warfare is dependent on at least some of the following assumptions:

  • One side can have a technological advantage that outweighs the numerical advantage of the enemy; the English longbow at the Battle of Crécy is an example.
  • Technological superiority usually is cancelled by the more vulnerable infrastructure, which can be targeted with devastating results. Destruction of multiple electric lines, roads, or water supply systems in highly populated areas could devastate the economy and morale. In contrast, the weaker side may not have these structures at all.
  • Training, tactics, and technology can prove decisive and allow a smaller force to overcome a much larger one. For example, for several centuries, the Greek hoplite's (heavy infantry) use of phalanx made them far superior to their enemies. The Battle of Thermopylae, which also involved good use of terrain, is a well-known example.
  • If the inferior power is in a position of self-defense, i.e., under attack or occupation, it may be possible to use unconventional tactics, such as hit-and-run and selective battles in which the superior power is weaker, as an effective means of harassment without violating the laws of war. Perhaps the classic historical examples of this doctrine may be found in the American Revolutionary War, movements in World War II, such as the French Resistance and Soviet and Yugoslav partisans. Against democratic aggressor nations, this strategy can be used to play on the electorate's patience with the conflict (as in the Vietnam War, and others since), provoking protests, and consequent disputes among elected legislators.
  • However, if the weaker power is in an aggressive position or turns to tactics prohibited by the laws of war (jus in bello), its success depends on the superior power's refraining from like tactics. For example, the law of land warfare prohibits the use of a flag of truce or marked medical vehicles as cover for an attack or ambush. Still, an asymmetric combatant using this prohibited tactic to its advantage depends on the superior power's obedience to the corresponding law. Similarly, warfare laws prohibit combatants from using civilian settlements, populations or facilities as military bases, but when an inferior force uses this tactic, it depends on the premise that the superior one will respect the law that the other is violating, and will not attack that civilian target, or if they do the propaganda advantage will outweigh the material loss.

Terrorism

There are two opposing viewpoints on the relationship between asymmetric warfare and terrorism. In the modern context, asymmetric warfare is increasingly considered a component of fourth generation warfare. When practiced outside the laws of war, it is often defined as terrorism, though rarely by its practitioners or their supporters. The other view is that asymmetric warfare does not coincide with terrorism.

Use of terrain

Terrain that limits mobility, such as forests and mountains, can be used as a force multiplier by the smaller force and as a force inhibitor against the larger one, especially one operating far from its logistical base. Such terrain is called difficult terrain. Urban areas, though generally having good transport access, provide innumerable ready-made defensible positions with simple escape routes and can also become rough terrain if prolonged combat fills the streets with rubble.

The contour of the land is an aid to the army, sizing up opponents to determine victory and assessing dangers and distance. "Those who do battle without knowing these will lose."

The guerrillas must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.

— Mao Zedong.

An early example of terrain advantage is the Battle of Thermopylae, 480 BC, where the narrow terrain of a defile was used to funnel the Persian forces, who were numerically superior, to a point where they could not use their size as an advantage.

In the 12th century, irregulars known as the Assassins were successful in the Nizari Ismaili state. The "state" consisted of fortresses (such as the Alamut Castle) built on strategic mountaintops and highlands with difficult access, surrounded by hostile lands. The Assassins developed tactics to eliminate high-value targets, threatening their security, including the Crusaders.

In the American Revolutionary War, Patriot Lieutenant Colonel Francis Marion, known as the "Swamp Fox," took advantage of irregular tactics, interior lines, and the wilderness of colonial South Carolina to hinder larger British regular forces.

Yugoslav Partisans, starting as small detachments around mountain villages in 1941, fought the German and other Axis occupation forces, successfully taking advantage of the rough terrain to survive despite their small numbers. Over the next four years, they slowly forced their enemies back, recovering population centers and resources, eventually growing into the regular Yugoslav Army.

Role of civilians

Civilians can play a vital role in determining the outcome of an asymmetric war. In such conflicts, when it is easy for insurgents to assimilate into the population quickly after an attack, tips on the timing or location of insurgent activity can severely undermine the resistance. An information-central framework, in which civilians are seen primarily as sources of strategic information rather than resources, provides a paradigm to understand better the dynamics of such conflicts where civilian information-sharing is vital. The framework assumes that:

  • The consequential action of non-combatants (civilians) is information sharing rather than supplying resources, recruits, or shelter to combatants.
  • Information can be shared anonymously without endangering the civilian who relays it.

Given the additional assumption that the larger or dominant force is the government, the framework suggests the following implications:

  • Civilians receive services from government and rebel forces as an incentive to share valuable information.
  • Rebel violence can be reduced if the government provides services.
  • Provision of security and services are complementary in reducing violence.
  • Civilian casualties reduce civilian support to the perpetrating group.
  • Provision of information is strongly correlated with the level of anonymity that can be ensured.

A survey of the empirical literature on conflict, does not provide conclusive evidence on the claims. But the framework gives a starting point to explore the role of civilian information sharing in asymmetric warfare.

War by proxy

Where asymmetric warfare is carried out (generally covertly) by allegedly non-governmental actors who are connected to or sympathetic to a particular nation's (the "state actor's") interest, it may be deemed war by proxy. This is typically done to give the state actor deniability. The deniability can be crucial to keep the state actor from being tainted by the actions, to allow the state actor to negotiate in apparent good faith by claiming they are not responsible for the actions of parties who are merely sympathizers, or to avoid being accused of belligerent actions or war crimes. If proof emerges of the true extent of the state actor's involvement, this strategy can backfire; for example, see Iran-contra and Philip Agee.

Examples

American Revolutionary War

From its initiation, the American Revolutionary War was, necessarily, a showcase for asymmetric techniques. In the 1920s, Harold Murdock of Boston attempted to solve the puzzle of the first shots fired on Lexington Green and came to the suspicion that the few score militiamen who gathered before sunrise to await the arrival of hundreds of well-prepared British soldiers were sent to provoke an incident which could be used for Patriot propaganda purposes. The return of the British force to Boston following the search operations at Concord was subject to constant skirmishing by Patriot forces gathered from communities all along the route, making maximum use of the terrain (particularly, trees and stone field walls) to overcome the limitations of their weapons – muskets with an effective range of only about 50–70 meters. Throughout the war, skirmishing tactics against British troops on the move continued to be a key factor in the Patriots' success; particularly in the Western theater of the American Revolutionary War.

Another feature of the long march from Concord was the urban warfare technique of using buildings along the route as additional cover for snipers. When revolutionary forces forced their way into Norfolk, Virginia and used waterfront buildings as cover for shots at British vessels out in the river, the response of destruction of those buildings was ingeniously used to the advantage of the rebels, who encouraged the spread of fire throughout the largely Loyalist town and spread propaganda blaming it on the British. Shortly afterwards, they destroyed the remaining houses because they might provide cover for British soldiers.

The rebels also adopted a form of asymmetric sea warfare by using small, fast vessels to avoid the Royal Navy and capturing or sinking large numbers of merchant ships; however the Crown responded by issuing letters of marque permitting private armed vessels to undertake similar attacks on Patriot shipping. John Paul Jones became notorious in Britain for his expedition from France in the little sloop of war Ranger in April 1778, during which, in addition to his attacks on merchant shipping, he made two landings on British soil. The effect of these raids, particularly when coupled with his capture of the Royal Navy's HMS Drake – the first such success in British waters, but not Jones' last – was to force the British government to increase resources for coastal defense, and to create a climate of fear among the British public which was subsequently fed by press reports of his preparations for the 1779 Bonhomme Richard mission.

From 1776, the conflict turned increasingly into a proxy war on behalf of France, following a strategy proposed in the 1760s but initially resisted by the idealistic young King Louis XVI, who came to the throne at the age of 19 a few months before Lexington. France ultimately drove Great Britain to the brink of defeat by entering the war(s) directly on several fronts throughout the world.

American Civil War

The American Civil War saw the rise of asymmetric warfare in the Border States, and in particular on the US Western Territorial Border after the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 opened the territories to vote on the expansion of slavery beyond the Missouri Compromise lines. Political implications of this broken 1820's compromise were nothing less than the potential expansion of slavery all across the North American continent, including the northern reaches of the annexed Mexican territories to California and Oregon. So the stakes were high, and it caused a flood of immigration to the border: some to grab land and expand slavery west, others to grab land and vote down the expansion of slavery. The pro-slavery land grabbers began asymmetric, violent attacks against the more pacifist abolitionists who had settled Lawrence and other territorial towns to suppress slavery. John Brown, the abolitionist, travelled to Osawatomie in the Kansas Territory expressly to foment retaliatory attacks back against the pro-slavery guerrillas who, by 1858, had twice ransacked both Lawrence and Osawatomie (where one of Brown's sons was shot dead).

The abolitionists would not return the attacks and Brown theorized that a violent spark set off on "the Border" would be a way to finally ignite his long hoped-for slave rebellion. Brown had broad-sworded slave owners at Potawatomi Creek, so the bloody civilian violence was initially symmetrical; however, once the American Civil War ignited in 1861, and when the state of Missouri voted overwhelmingly not to secede from the Union, the pro-slavers on the MO-KS border were driven either south to Arkansas and Texas, or underground—where they became guerrilla fighters and "Bushwhackers" living in the bushy ravines throughout northwest Missouri across the (now) state line from Kansas. The bloody "Border War" lasted all during the Civil War (and long after with guerrilla partisans like the James brothers cynically robbing and murdering, aided and abetted by lingering lost causers). Tragically the Western Border War was an asymmetric war: pro-slavery guerrillas and paramilitary partisans on the pro-Confederate side attacked pro-Union townspeople and commissioned Union military units, with the Union army trying to keep both in check: blocking Kansans and pro-Union Missourians from organizing militarily against the marauding Bushwhackers.

The worst act of domestic terror in U.S. history came in August 1863 when paramilitary guerrillas amassed 350 strong and rode all night 50 miles across eastern Kansas to the abolitionist stronghold of Lawrence (a political target) and destroyed the town, gunning down 150 civilians. The Confederate officer whose company had joined Quantrill's Raiders that day witnessed the civilian slaughter and forbade his soldiers from participating in the carnage. The commissioned officer refused to participate in Quantrill's asymmetric warfare on civilians.

Philippine–American War

The Philippine–American War (1899–1902) was an armed conflict between the United States and Filipino revolutionaries. Estimates of the Filipino forces vary between 100,000 and 1,000,000, with tens of thousands of auxiliaries. Lack of weapons and ammunition was a significant impediment to the Filipinos, so most of the forces were only armed with bolo knives, bows and arrows, spears and other primitive weapons that, in practice, proved vastly inferior to U.S. firepower.

Remnants of rifles used by Filipino soldiers during the War on display at Clark Museum

The goal, or end-state, sought by the First Philippine Republic was a sovereign, independent, socially stable Philippines led by the ilustrado (intellectual) oligarchy. Local chieftains, landowners, and businessmen were the principales who controlled local politics. The war was strongest when illustrados, principales, and peasants were unified in opposition to annexation. The peasants, who provided the bulk of guerrilla forces, had interests different from their illustrado leaders and the principales of their villages. Coupled with the ethnic and geographic fragmentation, unity was a daunting task. The challenge for Aguinaldo and his generals was to sustain unified Filipino public opposition; this was the revolutionaries' strategic centre of gravity. The Filipino operational center of gravity was the ability to sustain its force of 100,000 irregulars in the field. The Filipino General Francisco Macabulos described the Filipinos' war aim as "not to vanquish the U.S. Army but to inflict on them constant losses." They initially sought to use conventional tactics and an increasing toll of U.S. casualties to contribute to McKinley's defeat in the 1900 presidential election. Their hope was that as president the avowedly anti-imperialist future Secretary of state William Jennings Bryan would withdraw from the Philippines. They pursued this short-term goal with guerrilla tactics better suited to a protracted struggle. While targeting McKinley motivated the revolutionaries in the short term, his victory demoralized them and convinced many undecided Filipinos that the United States would not depart precipitously. For most of 1899, the revolutionary leadership had viewed guerrilla warfare strategically only as a tactical option of final recourse, not as a means of operation which better suited their disadvantaged situation. On 13 November 1899, Emilio Aguinaldo decreed that guerrilla war would henceforth be the strategy. This made the American occupation of the Philippine archipelago more difficult over the next few years. In fact, during just the first four months of the guerrilla war, the Americans had nearly 500 casualties. The Philippine Revolutionary Army began staging bloody ambushes and raids, such as the guerrilla victories at Paye, Catubig, Makahambus, Pulang Lupa, Balangiga and Mabitac. At first, it seemed like the Filipinos would fight the Americans to a stalemate and force them to withdraw. President McKinley even considered this at the beginning of the phase. The shift to guerrilla warfare drove the U.S. Army to adopt counterinsurgency tactics. Civilians were given identification and forced into concentration camps with a publicly announced deadline, after which all persons found outside camps without identification would be shot on sight. Thousands of civilians died in these camps due to poor conditions.

20th century

Second Boer War

Asymmetric warfare featured prominently during the Second Boer War. After an initial phase, which was fought by both sides as a conventional war, the British captured Johannesburg, the Boers' largest city, and captured the capitals of the two Boer Republics. The British then expected the Boers to accept peace as dictated in the traditional European manner. However, the Boers fought a protracted guerrilla war instead of capitulating. 20,000-30,000 Boer guerrillas were only defeated after the British brought to bear 450,000 imperial troops, about ten times as many as were used in the conventional phase of the war. The British began constructing blockhouses built within machine gun range of one another and flanked by barbed wire to slow the Boers' movement across the countryside and block paths to valuable targets. Such tactics eventually evolved into today's counterinsurgency tactics.

The Boer commando raids deep into the Cape Colony, which were organized and commanded by Jan Smuts, resonated throughout the century as the British adopted and adapted the tactics first used against them by the Boers.

World War I

Between the World Wars

World War II

Improvised molotov cocktails
Britain
United States

After World War II

Cold War (1945–1992)

The end of World War II established the two strongest victors, the United States of America (the United States, or just the U.S.) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR, or just the Soviet Union) as the two dominant global superpowers.

Cold War examples of proxy wars

In Southeast Asia, specifically Vietnam, the Viet Minh, NLF and other insurgencies engaged in asymmetrical guerrilla warfare with France. The war between the Mujahideen and the Soviet Armed Forces during the Soviet–Afghan War of 1979 to 1989, though claimed as a source of the term "asymmetric warfare," occurred years after Mack wrote of "asymmetric conflict." (Note that the term "asymmetric warfare" became well-known in the West only in the 1990s.) The aid given by the U.S. to the Mujahideen during the war was only covert at the tactical level; the Reagan Administration told the world that it was helping the "freedom-loving people of Afghanistan." Many countries, including the U.S., participated in this proxy war against the USSR during the Cold War. It was considered cost-effective and politically successful, as it caused a drain on the resources and manpower of the USSR and turned out to be a contributing factor to the collapse of that polity in 1991.

Post-Cold War

The Kosovo War, which pitted Yugoslav security forces (Serbian police and Yugoslav army) against Albanian separatists of the guerrilla Kosovo Liberation Army, is an example of asymmetric warfare, due to Yugoslav forces' superior firepower and manpower, and due to the nature of insurgency/counter-insurgency operations. The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (1999), which pitted NATO air power against the Yugoslav armed forces during the Kosovo war, can also be classified as asymmetric, exemplifying international conflict with asymmetry in weapons and strategy/tactics.

21st century

Israel/Palestine

The ongoing conflict between Israel and some Palestinian organizations (such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad) is a classic case of asymmetric warfare. Israel has a powerful army, air force and navy, while the Palestinian organizations have no access to large-scale military equipment with which to conduct operations; instead, they utilize asymmetric tactics, such as knife attacks, small gunfights, cross-border sniping, rocket attacks, and suicide bombings.

Sri Lanka

The Sri Lankan Civil War, which raged on and off from 1983 to 2009, between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) saw large-scale asymmetric warfare. The war started as an insurgency and progressed to a large-scale conflict with the mixture of guerrilla and conventional warfare, seeing the LTTE use suicide bombing (male/female suicide bombers) both on and off the battlefield use of explosive-filled boats for suicide attacks on military shipping; and use of light aircraft targeting military installations.

Iraq

This Cougar in Al Anbar, Iraq, was hit by a directed charge IED approximately 300–500 lb (140–230 kg) in size.

The victory by the US-led coalition forces in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq demonstrated that training, tactics and technology could provide overwhelming victories in the field of battle during modern conventional warfare. After Saddam Hussein's regime was removed from power, the Iraq campaign moved into a different type of asymmetric warfare where the coalition's use of superior conventional warfare training, tactics and technology was of much less use against continued opposition from the various partisan groups operating inside Iraq.

Syria

Much of the 2012–present Syrian Civil War has been asymmetrical. The Syrian National Coalition, Mujahideen, and Kurdish Democratic Union Party have been engaging with the forces of the Syrian government through asymmetric means. The conflict has seen large-scale asymmetric warfare across the country, with the forces opposed to the government unable to engage symmetrically with the Syrian government and resorting instead to other asymmetric tactics such as suicide bombings and targeted assassinations.

Ukraine

The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has resulted in a classical asymmetrical warfare scenario. Russia's superior military might, including its vast nuclear arsenal and seemingly superior armored forces have not helped Russia surmount fierce opposition from the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which has inflicted severe blows against the Russian Armed Forces by relying on technologically advanced weaponry supplied by the west.

Semi-symmetric warfare

A new understanding of warfare has emerged amidst the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Although this type of warfare does not oppose an insurgency to a counter-insurgency force, it does involve two actors with substantially asymmetrical means of waging war. Notably, as technology has improved war-fighting capabilities, it has also made them more complex, thus requiring greater expertise, training, flexibility and decentralization. The nominally weaker military can exploit those complexities and seek to eliminate the asymmetry. This has been observed in Ukraine, as defending forces used a rich arsenal of anti-tank and anti-air missiles to negate the invading forces' apparent mechanized and aerial superiority, thus denying their ability to conduct combined arms operations. The success of this strategy will be compounded by access to real-time intelligence and the adversary's inability to utilize its forces to the maximum of their potential due to factors such as the inability to plan, brief and execute complex, full-spectrum operations.

Lie point symmetry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_point_symmetry     ...