my answers multiple choice (2 Viewers)

[*~Dazed~*]

Originally posted by juber
and 19 - (a) - this is interesting, cos i think B and C deal with equal employment on a HIRING basis and not a FIRING basis which is what the question said, so i put unfair dissmissal (A)

no because the question asks what aspect is designed to PROTECT an employee for being dismissed not WHAT you call it when an employee is dismissed for the state reasons.... so it cant be unfair dismissal because thats an action whereas anti discrimination is something which PROTECT...

 

[Suney_J]

12 is A. cuz as the expences were decreasin thus net profit ration was increasin, isn't that how u calculate net profit, sales - expences

 

[crazybrad]

jubes im on the ground..... please....

 

[Suney_J]

Originally posted by *~Dazed~*
no because the question asks what aspect is designed to PROTECT an employee for being dismissed not WHAT you call it when an employee is dismissed for the state reasons.... so it cant be unfair dismissal because thats an action whereas anti discrimination is something which PROTECT...

Man, the question asks which aspect of employment relations protects the person being unfairly dismissed. and since unfair dismissal is an aspect of employment relations, the aspect of unfair dismissal in employment relations protects the dude...

 

[*~Dazed~*]

no! but the thing is unfair dismissal doesnt protect anything.... unfair dismissal is they name they give to WHEN someone is sacked for unjust cause such as a physical disability.... AHHH fuck! it doesnt PROTECT... protect means it tries to stop it/avoid it/deal with it.... unfair dismissal doesnt do that... employers do that.... the thing that protects it is anti discrimination... hence the word ANTI.... if it said some shit like "anti unfair dismissal" or some shit then yeah maybe but no....

 

[Suney_J]

i know where ur comin from, but the Legal Aspect of unfair dismissal are the laws that protect the person from unfair dismissal, such as the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), and the Industrial Relations Commission Act 1996 (NSW), these laws protect a person from unfair dismissal, anti-discrimination laws are Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), and Racial Discrimination Act 1975, although they protect the person from discrimination, the workplace relations acts specifically protect the person against unfair dismissal, and they are the legal aspects of unfair dismissal

 

[Beaker]

anti discrimination is off the topic

unfair dismissal is the only relevant answer. it was like a band 3 question so you weren't meant to read into it.

 

[*~Dazed~*]

ok well fair enough but thats really stupid because they shouldnt have worded it the way they did... because that answer appears wrong... even my teacher said that she would have immediately eliminated enfair dismissal because thats what they did.. not protected... they should have put "workplace relations act" then because that protects...

ahh well shit happens... thats the problem with mutiple choice

 

[juber]

Originally posted by crazybrad
jubes im on the ground..... please....

Whats that sposed to mean? lol

 

[Rojc01]

i think 19 is b)
unfair dismissal refers to being fired for something that is unfair, unjust, or unreasonable. Unlawful is when it is against the law to fire the person. discriminating against a person with a physcial disability is unlawful in breach of the anti dicrimination act 1977 (nsw). therefore it can't be a)

there fore it is b)
c) is getting the job
d) is out of the question

 

[crazybrad]

jubie it mean YOu r WronGZZZ...

 

[juber]

Originally posted by crazybrad
jubie it mean YOu r WronGZZZ...

care to explain how?

See like, if there is a way to explain that sales increased, then believe me, id love to hear it, but unless you can explain why then dont say im wrong!

 

[juber]

Originally posted by juber
care to explain how?

See like, if there is a way to explain that sales increased, then believe me, id love to hear it, but unless you can explain why then dont say im wrong!

I also worked out mathematically that the only way the net profit ratio could increase if expenses are constant, is to either increase the price charged for each good (i.e. you increase the net profit on each good sold) or you reduce the price paid on each good as it is bought from the manufacturer...

 

[shazabdazla]

yeh, juber, thats what i did....because, mathematically, net profit ratio = net profit divided by sales, so if sales increased, then cogs would proportionally increase, so gpr would stay the same...

heres an example:

sales = $10
cogs= $2
expenses=$4

then gross profit=$8, gp ratio = 80%
net profit = $4, np ratio = 40%

now, if sales increased to $14, cogs would increase proportionally to $6...but, expenses may not increase proportionally....thus, if expenses only rose to $6, the net profit would be $2...hence new np ratio = some 14% which is DECREASING.....meant to be INCREASING in the first year...

now, for example, if the expenses decreased to say $2, then net profit= $6, hence np ratio= 60%...which is INCREASING from 40%.......

i rest my case....lol....any errors in that??

 

[juber]

yeah..

see it all comes down to the fact that net profit only increased because COGS reduced. (this is shown as the net profit ratio increased at the same rate as gross profit, therefore there was no change at all of the per unit costs). For this reasons, as cogs is a fixed percentage of sales. So like if you sell 10 condoms (buy for 50 cents, sell for a dollar), your gross profit ratio is 50%, but even if you sell 20, the ratio remains the same (50%) so you cant claim increased sales at all.

 

[Tdiddiy]

so to save me even reading all that, have we settled on an answer? and what is it?

 

[J2thaD]

Dazed, u obviously dunno shit bout business studies

UNfair dismissal laws fuckn PROTECT ppl from being sacked asshole. If there were no laws to protect ppl dipshit then why dun employers just sack retards all da time huh smart guy? they dont! wanna know why? CAUZ UNFAIR DISMISSAL LAWS WILL HAVE THEIR ASS FUCKED!!
GET IT?

 

[shazabdazla]

Originally posted by juber
yeah..

see it all comes down to the fact that net profit only increased because COGS reduced. (this is shown as the net profit ratio increased at the same rate as gross profit, therefore there was no change at all of the per unit costs). For this reasons, as cogs is a fixed percentage of sales. So like if you sell 10 condoms (buy for 50 cents, sell for a dollar), your gross profit ratio is 50%, but even if you sell 20, the ratio remains the same (50%) so you cant claim increased sales at all.

...exactly my point juber. i think we have a conclusion...the answer is 12(a).

 

[Suney_J]

i put down A for 12, but i think im wrong. if u look at year 1 the GP ratio and NP ratio are increasin at exactly the same rate, since sales are common to both, they must be increasin cuz sales are increasin.

 

[shazabdazla]

...suney_j...COGS are also common to both...if sales increases then cogs increases and if gross profit=sales - cogs....net profit is sales-(sales-cogs)......ie sales - gross profit....

see...if sales increased cogs would also increase...hence the profit margin would remain the same...whereas if in the first year, cogs was decreasing (a type of expense, not a profit), then both gpr and npr would increase simultaneously....however...in the second year, cogs remained the same whilst operating expenses increased thus resulting in the steady gpr and declining npr...