Answer:
In 1894 a car company cut its workers already low pay by about 25% causing the workers to strike and boycott the company. This effected railroads nationwide bringing american business to a halt. It also allowed the workers to voice their demands as a group. So for the most part, the boycott was successful, but the boycott did have some cons too. Many of the strike workers lost their jobs, and the new hired workers conditions didn't improve. Also, the unions leader was jailed, and the federal government had to get involved to stop the strike. The boycott was successful, but it came with many downsides.
Explanation:
I just had this question on edgenuity
Yoko believes that religion is the foundation of moral ethics and that promoting religion in society promotes social order. The perspective that best describes yoko's views is structural functionalism.
<h3 /><h3>What is structural functionalism?</h3>
It corresponds to an anthropological theory that is based on the philosophy that the different institutions existing in society, such as the state and the church, are responsible for maintaining the social order, that is, each institution aims to structure society through the fulfillment of objectives. essential for the quality of life and the preservation of citizens' rights.
Structural functionalism is related to Durkhein's theory, which understood social institutions as interdependent entities that together contributed to the unity of society and its correct functioning.
Therefore, structural functionalism is a current of thought that focuses on the importance of social institutions and their joint systematization for social organization.
Find out more about structural functionalism here:
brainly.com/question/972889
#SPJ1
Before U.S.<span> entry to WW1, a movement led by former president Roosevelt that called on the gov. to increase </span>U.S. military<span> strength and convince Americans of the need for </span>U.S.<span> involvement in the war. propaganda .... Idealist.</span>
Answer:
The possible answers are:
A
. Yes, because his actions constituted an unlawful operation of the construction equipment.
B. Yes, because he was intoxicated while attempting to move the construction equipment.
C. No, because at most he could be found guilty of criminal negligence.
D. No, because he must have been aware that his conduct would cause the damage to the trailer in order to be found guilty of reckless damage.
The correct answer is:
B. Yes, because he was intoxicated while attempting to move the construction equipment.
Explanation:
The worker should be found guilty, since he was aware of being intoxicated from the beginning of the action, knowing in advance that when operating the heavy construction equipment there would be a great threat for the people and properties around. Besides, he was also aware about the alarming signs, due to the fact that he could not reach the dum truck normally, he had to jump the fence to reach it, increasing the risk with his actions.
