Final answer:
A profit-sharing plan is not a mandatory subject of bargaining; that statement is false. Bargaining typically involves terms like wages and hours. The true/false statements about sharecroppers, proprietary colonies, the Three-Fifths Compromise, the necessary and proper clause, and the market revolution are also addressed.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that a profit-sharing plan represents a mandatory subject of bargaining is actually false. While employers can offer profit-sharing plans, they are not required by law to be a subject of collective bargaining. Collective bargaining typically includes wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
Regarding the other questions for reference:
- Sharecroppers were indeed tenant farmers who paid their rent with shares of their crops - True.
- Proprietors in a proprietary colony had various responsibilities beyond collecting profits, including governance and overseeing the colony's welfare - False.
- The Three-Fifths Compromise did address the issues of representation and taxation by determining that three-fifths of a state's slave population would be counted for these purposes - True.
- The necessary and proper clause has been interpreted to expand, rather than limit, the power of the national government - False.
- The market revolution indeed brought significant social and economic changes to the United States - True.