Amazon fined $5.9M for breaking labor law in California • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon fined $5.9M for breaking labor law in California

#181

Post by refurb » Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 2:32 AM UTC

dolni wrote: post #44

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of that was from Californian warehouses? Because if you don’t do that math, the fine gets overturned by the courts. That not only reduces the deterrence factor. It delays private enforcement by the harmed employees who would have otherwise relied on the commission’s facts in court without the colour of them being overturned on appeal.

The fine doesn't even amount to a slap on the wrist. It's like if someone stole $1000 worth of merchandise from a store and the only punishment is a $1000 fine... and you get to keep what you stole. Why be law abiding when you could break the law and potentially make more money? You'd have to be stupid to be law abiding in a system like that.

Not really.

If their revenue was $100M from breaking the law, but the margins were only 1%, then they profited $1M.

So a $5.9M fine would have been almost 6x the benefit.

Re: Amazon fined $5.9M for breaking labor law in California

#182

Post by hwillis » Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 2:37 AM UTC

Aloisius wrote: post #172

schneems wrote: post #121

Is this more or less than they made from breaking said law. I know regulatory capture is a thing but it seems like there should be some minimum “Crimes committed for financial gain that are punished with a fine must have a minimum fine of 100x the amount of money they made from the crime” The 90’s saw a constant stream of journalists and politicians praising 3 strikes laws. Where’s our “100x FAFO laws”?

> Where’s our “100x FAFO laws”? Prohibited by 8th Amendment's ban on excessive fines.

1. where's the case law that makes it apply to corporations?

2. how is 100x the crime excessive, but $150,000 per pirated song isn't? That's a lot more than 100x the cost of a song.

Re: Amazon fined $5.9M for breaking labor law in California

#183

Post by User23 » Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 2:40 AM UTC

schneems wrote: post #121

Is this more or less than they made from breaking said law. I know regulatory capture is a thing but it seems like there should be some minimum “Crimes committed for financial gain that are punished with a fine must have a minimum fine of 100x the amount of money they made from the crime” The 90’s saw a constant stream of journalists and politicians praising 3 strikes laws. Where’s our “100x FAFO laws”?

There should be personal criminal liability and jail time for officers.

Re: Amazon fined $5.9M for breaking labor law in California

#184

Post by nobodyandproud » Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 2:41 AM UTC

Aloisius wrote: post #172

schneems wrote: post #121

Is this more or less than they made from breaking said law. I know regulatory capture is a thing but it seems like there should be some minimum “Crimes committed for financial gain that are punished with a fine must have a minimum fine of 100x the amount of money they made from the crime” The 90’s saw a constant stream of journalists and politicians praising 3 strikes laws. Where’s our “100x FAFO laws”?

> Where’s our “100x FAFO laws”? Prohibited by 8th Amendment's ban on excessive fines.

That’s not a compelling argument. You have to justify that.

Re: Amazon fined $5.9M for breaking labor law in California

#185

Post by robocat » Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 2:42 AM UTC

pleasantpeasant wrote: post #164

BurningFrog wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California collected $26M in taxes every hour in 2023. Neither of the parties here lack monetary resources.

Those tax dollars go back to California and country. Amazon does everything in its power to not pay taxes or help society. It really shows little Amazon is taxed at, if at all.

> not help society

Only if you ignore consumer surplus?

Re: Amazon fined $5.9M for breaking labor law in California

#186

Post by eru » Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 2:46 AM UTC

benreesman wrote: post #168

schneems wrote: post #121

Is this more or less than they made from breaking said law. I know regulatory capture is a thing but it seems like there should be some minimum “Crimes committed for financial gain that are punished with a fine must have a minimum fine of 100x the amount of money they made from the crime” The 90’s saw a constant stream of journalists and politicians praising 3 strikes laws. Where’s our “100x FAFO laws”?

They’ve been doing this for years. It costs less to pay the fines than the loss in productivity would be, the robots didn’t pan out in the timeframe advertised and driving human labor to subsistence level (“loose labor markets”) is both policy and incidentally the reason why all the polls say “the economy is terrible” and all the pundits say “how do we convince the public that the metrics show they should be happy”.

How do you 'drive human labour to subsistence level'? Surely not by widening their job options?

Re: Amazon fined $5.9M for breaking labor law in California

#187

Post by eru » Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 2:47 AM UTC

raoulw wrote: post #154

schneems wrote: post #121

Is this more or less than they made from breaking said law. I know regulatory capture is a thing but it seems like there should be some minimum “Crimes committed for financial gain that are punished with a fine must have a minimum fine of 100x the amount of money they made from the crime” The 90’s saw a constant stream of journalists and politicians praising 3 strikes laws. Where’s our “100x FAFO laws”?

It’s ~ six minutes of revenue.

That's total global revenue I assume? Not the gain they had from breaking this law.

Re: Amazon fined $5.9M for breaking labor law in California

#188

Post by eru » Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 2:47 AM UTC

adolph wrote: post #139

schneems wrote: post #121

Is this more or less than they made from breaking said law. I know regulatory capture is a thing but it seems like there should be some minimum “Crimes committed for financial gain that are punished with a fine must have a minimum fine of 100x the amount of money they made from the crime” The 90’s saw a constant stream of journalists and politicians praising 3 strikes laws. Where’s our “100x FAFO laws”?

Is there a term similar to “regulatory capture” but where the government becomes dependent on fines? I suppose that if workers lost out on benefits of approximately the fine amount, the fine becomes a regressive tax since it goes towards general revenue rather than to whom was harmed.

People don't want to hear this.

Re: Amazon fined $5.9M for breaking labor law in California

#189

Post by smugma » Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 2:48 AM UTC

Aloisius wrote: post #172

schneems wrote: post #121

Is this more or less than they made from breaking said law. I know regulatory capture is a thing but it seems like there should be some minimum “Crimes committed for financial gain that are punished with a fine must have a minimum fine of 100x the amount of money they made from the crime” The 90’s saw a constant stream of journalists and politicians praising 3 strikes laws. Where’s our “100x FAFO laws”?

> Where’s our “100x FAFO laws”? Prohibited by 8th Amendment's ban on excessive fines.

In case anyone doesn’t want to look up said amendment, here is its text in full:

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.“

Re: Amazon fined $5.9M for breaking labor law in California

#190

Post by cj » Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 2:52 AM UTC

smugma wrote: post #189

Aloisius wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where’s our “100x FAFO laws”? Prohibited by 8th Amendment's ban on excessive fines.

In case anyone doesn’t want to look up said amendment, here is its text in full: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.“

A fine is meant to discourage a behavior. A fine isn't excessive unless (and until) it -effectively- discourages the wrongful behavior.

Or at least that’s what my argument would be in court.