wiz-icon
MyQuestionIcon
MyQuestionIcon
1
You visited us 1 times! Enjoying our articles? Unlock Full Access!
Question

The passage suggests that in the 1920’s a company in the United States was able to

A
use its own funds to set up a union
Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses
B
require its employees to join the company’s own union
No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!
C
develop a single labor policy for all its employees with little employee dissent.
No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!
D
pressure its employees to contribute money to maintain the company’s own union
No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!
E
use its resources to prevent the passage of federal legislation that would have facilitated the formation of independent unions
No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!
Open in App
Solution

The correct option is A use its own funds to set up a union

The best answer is A. The passage indicates that indicate that in the early 1930’s it became illegal for a company to maintain its own union with company funds. Thus, the passage suggests that prior to the 1930’s a company was permitted to fund its own union. Choices B, C, D, and E describe practices that are not implied in the passage.


flag
Suggest Corrections
thumbs-up
0
similar_icon
Similar questions
Q. Many United States companies have unfortunately, made the search for legal protection from import competition into a major line of work. Since 1980, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has received about 280 complaints alleging damage from imports that benefit from subsidies by foreign governments. Another 340 charge that foreign companies “dumped” their products in the United States at “less than fair value.” Even when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief.
Contrary to the general impression, this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped. As corporations begin to function globally, they develop an intricate web of marketing, production, and research relationships. The complexity of these relationships makes it unlikely that a system of import relief laws will meet the strategic needs of all the units under the same parent company.
Internationalization increases the danger that foreign companies will use import relief laws against the very companies the laws were designed to protect. Suppose a United States-owned company establishes an overseas plant to manufacture a product while its competitor makes the same product in the United States. If the competitor can prove injury from the imports—and that the United States Company received a subsidy from a foreign government to build its plant abroad—the United States Company’s products will be uncompetitive in the United States, since they would be subject to duties.
Perhaps the most brazen case occurred when the ITC investigated allegations that Canadian companies were injuring the United States salt industry by dumping rock salt, used to de-ice roads. The bizarre aspect of the complaint was that a foreign conglomerate with United States operations was crying for help against a United States company with foreign operations. The “United States” company claiming injury was a subsidiary of a Dutch conglomerate, while the “Canadian” companies included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt.

Q. The passage suggests that which of the following is most likely to be true of United States trade laws.
View More
Join BYJU'S Learning Program
similar_icon
Related Videos
thumbnail
lock
Workers and Owners
GEOGRAPHY
Watch in App
Join BYJU'S Learning Program
CrossIcon