The last strategy is to have the willingness to apologize. It is because in order to negotiate a solution or solve them, it is best that a person should know and have the willingness to apologize, whether they are the reason why it happened or not because this is one of the strategy that will fix the situation for it is a sign of showing respect and to show that a person who has that attitude has the willingness to solve the solution and dismiss the argument.
Answer:
The correct answer is A) the role of the government should be limited, since the market will always be self-correcting.
Explanation:
Principle of minimum state intervention, free market or laissez faire: at least government, the best, economic processes were considered as capable of self-regulation, in other words, economic forces themselves will direct production, exchange and consumption to Its most efficient level. State action must be confined to enforcing individual rights (especially property rights), providing national defense and some public services of general interest (justice, some types of education, etc.).
Answer:
a. $24,000
Explanation:
60,000 fixed cost which, are allocated in the base of expected copies:
total expected copies: 600,000 + 400,000 = 1,000,000
Copy Center 2 represent 400,000 / 1,000,000 = 40% of the total copies volume for the period
Therefore from the 60,000 fixed cost the 40% was applied.
60,000 x 40 % = 24,000
Answer:
In employment law, a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) (US) or bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) (Canada) or genuine occupational qualification (GOQ) (UK) is a quality or an attribute that employers are allowed to consider when making decisions on the hiring and retention of employees—a quality that when considered in other contexts would constitute discrimination and thus be in violation of civil rights employment law. Such qualifications must be listed in the employment offering.[citation needed]
Explanation:
Canada
The law of Canada regarding bona fide occupational requirements was considered in a 1985 Canadian court case involving an employee of the Canadian National Railway, K. S. Bhinder, a Sikh whose religion required that he wear a turban, lost his challenge of the CNR policy that required him to wear a hard hat.[1] In 1990, in deciding another case, the Supreme Court of Canada amended the Bhinder decision: "An employer that has not adopted a policy with respect to accommodation and cannot otherwise satisfy the trier of fact that individual accommodation would result in undue hardship will be required to justify his conduct with respect to the individual complainant. Even then the employer can invoke the BFOQ defence."[2]
United States
In employment discrimination law in the United States, both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act contain a BFOQ defense. The BFOQ provision of Title VII provides that:
[I]t shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise ...[3]
i'm not able to add the balance of the answer so pls go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualification
