For American workers, the years 1894 through 1915 were a time of transition, discontent, and economic insecurity. After the Civil War, industrialism in the United States was expanding almost unfettered, leading to both new issues and jobs. Immigration was still occurring at an extraordinary rate, notably from southern and eastern Europe, permanently changing the composition of the labor force. Following two prior depressions in the previous 20 years, one had started in 1893, leading to the closure of some plants and the unemployment of many workers.
Labor and management disagreements were frequent. But many of the measures that are still in place today were born during these turbulent years, including the rise of women in the workforce, worker benefits, the prevalence of white-collar and retail employment, the requirement for appropriate work hours, vacations, and secure working conditions.
In industries, the working environment was frequently unpleasant. The days were lengthy, with ten to twelve hours on average. Oftentimes, dangerous working circumstances resulted in tragic accidents. For the sake of efficiency, tasks have a tendency to be separated, which results in repetitious and dull labor for employees.
To learn more about American workers from the given link.
brainly.com/question/7202277
#SPJ4
Answer:
The European Theatre of World War II opened with the German invasion of Poland on Friday September 1, 1939, followed by the Soviet invasion of Poland on September 17, 1939. ... Poles provided significant contributions to the Allied effort throughout the war, fighting on land, sea and air.
<span><span>IT IS an awful lot of rubbish. Since 1960 the amount of municipal waste being collected in America has nearly tripled, reaching 245m tonnes in 2005. According to European Union statistics, the amount of municipal waste produced in western Europe increased by 23% between 1995 and 2003, to reach 577kg per person. (So much for the plan to reduce waste per person to 300kg by 2000.) As the volume of waste has increased, so have recycling efforts. In 1980 America recycled only 9.6% of its municipal rubbish; today the rate stands at 32%. A similar trend can be seen in Europe, where some countries, such as Austria and the Netherlands, now recycle 60% or more of their municipal waste. Britain's recycling rate, at 27%, is low, but it is improving fast, having nearly doubled in the past three years.Even so, when a city introduces a kerbside recycling programme, the sight of all those recycling lorries trundling around can raise doubts about whether the collection and transportation of waste materials requires more energy than it saves. We are constantly being asked: Is recycling worth doing on environmental grounds? says Julian Parfitt, principal analyst at Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP), a non-profit British company that encourages recycling and develops markets for recycled materials.Studies that look at the entire life cycle of a particular material can shed light on this question in a particular case, but WRAP decided to take a broader look. It asked the Technical University of Denmark and the Danish Topic Centre on Waste to conduct a review of 55 life-cycle analyses, all of which were selected because of their rigorous methodology. The researchers then looked at more than 200 scenarios, comparing the impact of recycling with that of burying or burning particular types of waste material. They found that in 83% of all scenarios that included recycling, it was indeed better for the environment.Based on this study, WRAP calculated that Britain's recycling efforts reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions by 10m-15m tonnes per year. That is equivalent to a 10% reduction in Britain's annual carbon-dioxide emissions from transport, or roughly equivalent to taking 3.5m cars off the roads. Similarly, America's Environmental Protection Agency estimates that recycling reduced the country's carbon emissions by 49m tonnes in 2005.Recycling has many other benefits, too. It conserves natural resources. It also reduces the amount of waste that is buried or burnt, hardly ideal ways to get rid of the stuff. (Landfills take up valuable space and emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas; and although incinerators are not as polluting as they once were, they still produce noxious emissions, so people dislike having them around.) But perhaps the most valuable benefit of recycling is the saving in energy and the reduction in greenhouse gases and pollution that result when scrap materials are substituted for virgin feedstock. If you can use recycled materials, you don't have to mine ores, cut trees and drill for oil as much,says Jeffrey Morris of Sound Resource Management, a consulting firm based in Olympia, Washington.Extracting metals from ore, in particular, is extremely energy-intensive. Recycling aluminium, for example, can reduce energy consumption by as much as 95%. Savings for other materials are lower but still substantial: about 70% for plastics, 60% for steel, 40% for paper and 30% for glass. Recycling also reduces emissions of pollutants that can cause smog, acid rain and the contamination of waterways.</span></span>
Answer:
emergence of humanism insparators
Explanation:
to end the risk of exploitation
