I think you would have to do math to find the answer\
Answer:
$4 advantage
Explanation:
In this question we need to compare the cost between the relevant cost and the outside supplier cost
The relevant cost is
= Direct material per unit + direct labor per unit + variable manufacturing overhead per unit + fixed manufacturing overhead per unit
= $8 + $5 + $3 + $5 × 80%
= $8 + $5 + $3 + $4
= $20
Since 80% of the fixed manufacturing cost above is eliminated so we considered the same
And, the outside supplier cost is $16
So based on the above calculation, the financial advantage is
= $20 - $16
= $4 advantage
This shows the company should purchased from outside supplier as it saves $4
Answer:
B) high trust zero-sum reward practice
Explanation:
Zero sum reward practices are generally not that successful since usually only a few are benefited while several people are left out of the benefits, or lose. If someone gains a benefit at the expense of others, it will always cause friction within the organization. That friction can lead to illegitimate political behavior, which is behavior that breaks implied rules. The regular "losers" in zero sum reward practices may be tempted to break the rules or cheat in order to obtain the benefits.
For example, if the same person is always selected as the employee of the month, his/her "losing" coworkers may start to sabotage his/her work.
Answer:
B. Sue is entitled to Workers' Compensation even though her employer was not negligent.
Explanation:
Sue is performing her normal duties that is required by her being a secretary when she was injured. So the employer cannot be said to be negligent in allowing her carry paper for her unit.
She will not be able to sue for employer for her injuries.
However when an employee is injured they are entitled to Worker's compensation and paid time off work.
This is given to employees even when the employer is not negligent.
Sue can get the Worker's compensation for her back treatment.
