Answer:
3 aspects
analytical , creative and practical
<u>Millions of dollars</u> have been spent on missed income, medical expenditures, legal fees, and other costs as a result of workplace violence.
<h3><u>What is violence at work?</u></h3>
The violence that poses a risk to the health and safety of a single employee or group of employees is referred to as workplace violence (WPV), violence in the workplace (VIW), or occupational violence. Worker on the worker, personal relationships, customer/client, and criminal purpose are all categorized as forms of workplace violence by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
There are three levels of additional division between these four categories: Level one exhibits the beginnings of aggression, Level two is marginally more violent, and Level three is much more violent. Since the Occupational Health Act of 1970 mandates that employers create an atmosphere free of damage or hazardous situations, many workplaces have established plans and practices to safeguard their employees.
Learn more about workplace violence with the help of the given link:
brainly.com/question/3807227
#SPJ4
Answer:
B. Men played all the characters, both male and female
Explanation
Men played the role of both male and female in Greek theatres.
A male actor could play the role of three different people in one play. This was because of the role of the women in Greek culture which saw women as being inherently inferior to men and because of the importance of drama to the Greek, women were not allowed to participate in plays in any form so the males played all the roles that were available in a play.
Women in Greece then were seen to be lower than slaves, that's how low they were viewed in Greek society.
.
The Greeks considered allowing a female on set was too dangerous so they allowed men act all characters of a play.
Grant and Sherman used the strategy of total war to shorten the war in their favor, using the many deaths of enemies to save lives on their side. We may never know if more would've died if they didn't use the tactic, but in my opinion civilian lives were not theirs to take. Soldiers agreed to die, but civilians didn't, making total war, in my opinion, not right. Others may say that their lives were a necessary sacrifice towards a common goal, but, in my opinion, if one side uses total war, can't the other side use it too for a horrible end? Form your own opinion, but that is mine.
