<u>Empowerment </u> means giving employees greater involvement in their jobs and the organization's operations by increasing their participation in decision making.
What is Empowerment ?
The level of autonomy and self-determination in individuals and groups is known as empowerment. As a result, they are able to act responsibly and independently on their behalf when representing their interests. It is the process of growing stronger and more self-assured, particularly when it comes to taking charge of one's life and asserting one's rights. In order for people to overcome their sense of helplessness and lack of influence and to realize and utilize their resources, they need both professional support and the process of self-empowerment. Empowerment as a concept has its roots in American community psychology and is linked to the social scientist Julian Rappaport (1981). But the origins of the empowerment thesis go back deeper in time and are associated with Marxist sociology theory.
Learn more about Empowerment visit here:
brainly.com/app/ask?q=What+is+Empowerment++%3F
#SPJ4
If you’re talking about supply and demand, demand is how much people want of something, and the suppliers how much of it is available. If there is more demand then there is supply, the price of the product will go up. If there is more supplied and there is demand, the price will go down.
The U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Sanford v. Dred Scott, a case that intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery.
In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Scott lived in Wisconsin with his master, Dr. John Emerson, for several years before returning to Missouri, a slave state. In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued his master’s widow for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived as a resident of a free state and territory. He won his suit in a lower court, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision. Scott appealed the decision, and as his new master, J.F.A. Sanford, was a resident of New York, a federal court decided to hear the case on the basis of the diversity of state citizenship represented. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was divided along slavery and antislavery lines; although the Southern justices had a majority.
During the trial, the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Southern majority responded by ruling on March 6, 1857, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Three of the Southern justices also held that African Americans who were slaves or whose ancestors were slaves were not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. These rulings all confirmed that, in the view of the nation’s highest court, under no condition did Dred Scott have the legal right to request his freedom. The Supreme Court’s verdict further inflamed the irrepressible differences in America over the issue of slavery, which in 1861 erupted with the outbreak of the American Civil War.
<span>The Anti-Federalists I believe. :)</span>
If you're talking about the holocaust, they hid in houses with secret rooms similar to where slaves hid and they fled the places of exile
