Answer:
le5s come on G00.gle meet as a Friend
ybt-hdbc-hwe
Come now
The correct answer is; An employer might be liable for the actions of its employees outside the scope of employment if the employer was negligent or reckless in allowing it to occur, or for other reasons.
Further Explanation:
One way that an employer can be liable for the actions outside of work and can be considered negligent outside of work is if the employee is still clocked in at work. For example, if the employee is on a break and clocked in and hits and runs a car and someone gets hurt, the employer can be liable.
To be classified as an employee there are a few things that must be done by the employer such as;
- Withhold income tax
- Pay employers share of social security tax
- Pay employers share of Medicare taxes
- Provide unemployment insurance for all employees
Learn more about employee rights at brainly.com/question/7890057
#LearnwithBrainly
No, it is not a violation of human rights
Because "luxury and convenience" aren't considered to be human rights. Even while the situation isn't quite fair you can't just assume that because a country has a working government, economy, and welfare system (which eventually allows for luxury and ease for a bigger portion of the population), it is better at managing its resources.
Due to budgetary limitations, it is occasionally feasible that not all human rights can be realized. For instance, Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the right to education, notably the right to free and compulsory basic education, as a fundamental human right. There was heated discussion over ensuring the protection of this right when the Indian Constitution was being written.
Learn more about Human Rights here
brainly.com/question/1261546
#SPJ10
