231–240 of 253 posts
Retail has had labor quotas (with serious health/mental consequences) since time immemorial, but i don't see any outrage against Sears, ToysRus, or BedBath. Why ?
Did they have secret quotas that were not revealed to their employees? That's why.
I suspect there is a more political motivation to target Amazon specifically.
Why taxes are proportional to income but fines aren't?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe proportional to revenue (not profit). Plus standard baseline?
Revenue, while it would solve the fact that profit-taking vs reinvestment is arbitrary there are other flaws. For one that would make it disproportionately ruinous on low margin businesses. If the fix was so simple I suspect that we would see it tried in more places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's nonsense. You don't need any additional bureaucracy. That's just an excuse that bureaucrats use to justify their worthless existence. Do we need new courts and judges every time something new is made illegal?
> Do we need new courts and judges every time something new is made illegal? That's not what I was talking about. If you make a law saying that quotas have to be communicated to employees so they can know what they're working up to, then you need someone to physically go to the workplaces and make sure that quotas are being communicated. It's as simple as that. If you are enforcing this in, say, 500 warehouses, one p…
Retail has had labor quotas (with serious health/mental consequences) since time immemorial, but i don't see any outrage against Sears, ToysRus, or BedBath. Why ?
You do realize that all 3 of the companies you listed are all bankrupt, yeah?
Retail has had labor quotas (with serious health/mental consequences) since time immemorial, but i don't see any outrage against Sears, ToysRus, or BedBath. Why ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The $150K/song isn't a government fine, but rather statutory damages awarded to the plaintiff (the copyright holder), so it isn't limited by the prohibition on Excessive Fines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because the premise of your question would imply that trickle down economics work I’m not certain how a person could read that from my text. The premise is: 1. Employer does some harm to employees 2. State fines employer the value of employee harm 3. State general fund receives money (minus lawyering costs) 4. Employees receive no remuneration for harm 5. General fund pays for general government activities Effectiv…
I read your original comment as the company would make less money after being fined therefore take it out of their employees paychecks. Thanks for the clarification that's not what you were talking about. Regarding the premise: The purpose of the fine is to provide a disincentive to it happening in the first place (in theory). I tend to like restorative justice though.
Given the root comment's premise that the fine is "more or less than [Amazon] made from breaking said law," that the fine goes to the state rather than the harmed workforce members does not provide a disincentive nor does it right a wrong. For Amazon it is net neutral and the state gets what warehouse workers would have had. The state is the entity taking from people's paychecks in the name of "justice."
Retail has had labor quotas (with serious health/mental consequences) since time immemorial, but i don't see any outrage against Sears, ToysRus, or BedBath. Why ?
The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory doesn’t see much outrage on this forum either, because it also doesn’t exist anymore. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_... It’s really, really, really difficult to interpret your comment in good faith, can you expand on your question? Otherwise you just come across as trying to poison sentiment analysis algorithms.
I'm curious what has changed. The regulators? The sentiment. The companies I quoted are now bankrupt. But some time ago they were not. I could have said Macys, or add a few more contemporary names, but pcked them to illustrate my larger point: if amazon wasn't as profitable, it would not be a target either.
Everyone wants to bring the one at the top. I understand that sentiment, but its not healthy when its ad-hoc