Answer:
The answer is E. The process takes longer
Explanation:
External recruitment is the process of announcing vacancies to the people outside ones organization while Internal recruitment is the process of announcing vacancies for the internal staffs only.
The process of external recruitment is usually longer and more expensive than internal recruitment. For example, payment to publish the vacancies in any national newspapers or payment for outsourcing company that specializes in recruitment.
Option A is wrong because external recruitment discourages employee loyalty.
Option B in incorrect because this is so for internal recruitment
Answer: option 3
Explanation:
Background to the case:
The cases involving the explosion of Ford Pinto's due to a defective fuel system design led to the debate of many issues, most centering around the use by Ford of a cost-benefit analysis and the ethics surrounding its decision not to upgrade the fuel system based on this analysis.
Basis of analysis:
Should a risk/benefit analysis be used in situations where a defect in manufacturing could lead to seriously bodily harm and even worse death, such as in the Ford Pinto situation?
Rule of the court:
There hasn’t really been a definite decision about the case and arguments both for and against such an analysis have been made. It is an economically efficient method which has been accepted by courts for numerous years, however, juries may not always agree, so companies should take this into account.
Discretion is expected to be used.
Answer:
Option C, corporate-level planning, is the right answer.
Explanation:
Option C, “corporate-level planning” is the correct answer because it is the corporate planning according to which every employee has to work. If the quality of planning is good then the firm will produce higher output with lower operating cost and if the planning is not good or suitable then the firm can increase the productivity but operating cost may go very high. Therefore, option C is right.
Answer:
Multinational enterprises (MNEs)
Relationship Change as the MNE moves from Globalization 2.0 to Globalization 3.0 operations:
This move means that Indian and Chinese companies would be competing with my local small firm. The MNE may be looking for cheaper prices for my company's products and services, which the Indian and Chinese companies would more efficiently supply it. My firm may be on the precipice of liquidating if this MNE is our major customer. My firm must move fast to become more competitive by differentiating our products and services with better quality and perhaps reduced production costs, to enable it compete more favorably with the Indian and Chinese competitors. Otherwise, we may regard the relationship as nearing its end and prepare for other opportunities with other companies.
Explanation:
Globalization reduces national boundaries by integrating national economies into a globalized economy, thus enabling companies to compete globally for financial resources, goods, and services. When Globalization 1.0 happened, countries were globalized and the world became a global village. When Globalization 2.0 from which the G7 profited largely, companies were globalized. With the current Globalization 3.0, individuals are being globalized, and the highest beneficiaries are Indian and Chinese nationals who appear better prepared to take on the world, garner most of the important resources to themselves, and call the shots from the boardrooms. An example is Microsoft's current CEO, Satya Nadella, who is an Indian-American.
Answer:
her recognized gain on the sale of her old principal residence is $193,000 and her basis in the inherited home is $600,000.
Explanation:
Recognized gain on sale of old house
= ($600,000 - $125000) - $30,000 - $2000
= $443,000
Paula's recognized gain = $443,000 - $250,000
= $193,000
Her basis in the inherited home = $500,000 + $100,000
= $600,000
Therefore, her recognized gain on the sale of her old principal residence is $193,000 and her basis in the inherited home is $600,000.
