未知题型
职业健康安全与环境管理体系（ ），是对组织整个管理体系的整体性描述，它为体系的进一步展开以及后续程序文件的制定提供了框架要求和原则规定，是管理体系的纲领性文件。——P225
- A.程序文件
B.管理手册
C.作业文件
D.工作记录
【参考答案】
B,B
点击查看答案
相关考题
-
未知题型
下列不属于建设工程项目进度控制在管理观念方面存在的主要问题的是（ ）。——P156
A.缺乏进度计划系统的观念
B.缺乏多方案，比较和选优的观念
C.缺乏计划系统集成的观念
D.缺乏动态控制的观念 -
未知题型
The National Association of Securities Dealers is investigating whether some brokerage houses are inappropriately pushing individuals to borrow large sums on their houses to invest in the stock market. Can we persuade the association to investigate would-be privatizers of Social Security? For it is now apparent that the Bush administration's privatization proposal will amount to the same thing, borrow trillions, put the money in the stock market and hope. Privatization would begin by diverting payroll taxes, which pay for current Social Security benefits, into personal investment accounts. The government would have to borrow to make up the shortfall. This would sharply increase the government's debt. 'Never mind', privatization advocates say, 'in the long run, people would make so much on personal accounts that the government could save money by cutting retirees' benefits.' Even so, if personal investment accounts were invested in Treasury bonds, this whole process would accomplish precisely nothing. The interest workers would receive on their accounts would exactly match the interest the government would have to pay on its additional debt. To compensate for the initial borrowing, the government would have to cut future benefits so much that workers would gain nothing at all. However, privatizers claim that these investments would make a lot of money and that, in effect, the government, not the workers, would reap most of those gains, because as personal accounts grew, the government could cut benefits. We can argue at length about whether the high stock returns such schemes assume are realistic (they aren't), but let's cut to the chase: in essence, such schemes involve having the government borrow heavily and put the money in the stock market. That's because the government would, in effect, confiscate workers' gains in their personal accounts by cutting those workers' benefits. Once you realize what privatization really means, it doesn't sound too responsible, does it? But the details make it considerably worse. First, financial markets would, correctly, treat the reality of huge deficits today as a much more important indicator of the government's fiscal health than the mere promise that government could save money by cutting benefits in the distant future. After all, a government bond is a legally binding promise to pay, while a benefits formula that supposedly cuts costs 40 years from now is nothing more than a suggestion to future Congresses. If a privatization plan passed in 2005 called for steep benefit cuts in 2045, what are the odds that those cuts would really happen? Second, a system of personal accounts would pay huge brokerage fees. Of course, from Wall Street's point of view that's a benefit, not a cost.According to the author, 'privatizers' are those ______ .A．who borrow from banks to invest in the stock marketB．who invest in Treasury bondsC．who advocate the government to borrow money from citizensD．who earn large sums of money in personal accounts
A.
B.'
C.
D.
E.
According
F.
A．who
G.who
H.who
I.who -
单项选择题
《最高人民法院关于审理农业承包合同纠纷案件若干问题的规定(试行)》中将( )情形视为土地承包经营权的转让无效。
A.承包方未经发包方同意,转让承包合同,转包或互换承包经营标的物
B．承包方转让合同,转包或者互换承包经营标的物时,违反《土地管理法》关于“农民集体所有的土地由本集体经济组织以外的单位或个人承包经营的,必须经村民会议三分之二以上成员或者三分之二以上村民代表同意,并报乡(镇)人民政府批准”的规定
C．在承包有效期内,发包方强制承包方转让承包经营权,强制承包方转包或者互换承包经营的标的物
D．A、B、C都是
