241–250 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did they have secret quotas that were not revealed to their employees? That's why.
Yes, usually they do. I suspect there is a more political motivation to target Amazon specifically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> The purpose of the fine is to provide a disincentive 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 pe…
This is my comment you're responding to at the root
> [Me:] Where’s our “100x FAFO laws”?
I wrote that comment. My point was that the fines should be larger to discourage bad behavior.
You're saying that you're wanting things I want (disincentives for companies to harm, restorative justice), but you're showing opposition to my attempt to deliver those things. Or at least you've not shown support.
If that's not the case maybe something like "I 100% agree we should raise the fines until they provide a disincentive. Yes, and [...]" or if you disagree "I like where you're headed, but I disagree on how to get there. I suggest we [...] which will [...]. This is in comparison to your suggestion which will [...]" would really help me clarify your position.
> The state is the entity taking from people's paychecks in the name of "justice."
This reads as someone who would want to get rid of the fines all together (a liberatrian anti-taxation anti-regulation take). Which is the same vibe I got from your first comment. Both seem at odds to your other stated goals (restorative justice). I feel either I'm being gaslit or there's more you're not saying.
I would like you to be more explicit. Could you take one of the templates I tried earlier and see which fits what you're trying to convey and respond with that? If neither template fits, state why.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or amazon moves to hire workers who are employed by other agencies to reduce risk.
Then pass a law to make them liable even if the employees are employed by other agencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Test your theory in your new profession as lawyer, or judge if that's your prerogative, sometime soon in court. Personally, if I was in power I would disbar you immediately and pray that you never offer legal advice again.
No wonder half the comments in your comment history are downvoted! Instead of attacking me, why don't you share some sources that prove my thinking wrong?
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.
No wonder half the comments in your comment history are downvoted! Instead of attacking me, why don't you share some sources that prove my thinking wrong?
[flagged]
It’s not about being right or wrong. Also not about “having an audience”.
Legitimately just want intellectual conversation and debate. I wish everyone would contribute to the community in that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Test your theory in your new profession as lawyer, or judge if that's your prerogative, sometime soon in court. Personally, if I was in power I would disbar you immediately and pray that you never offer legal advice again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Test your theory in your new profession as lawyer, or judge if that's your prerogative, sometime soon in court. Personally, if I was in power I would disbar you immediately and pray that you never offer legal advice again.
No wonder half the comments in your comment history are downvoted! Instead of attacking me, why don't you share some sources that prove my thinking wrong?
It's also fine to simply not react. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead." a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Or you could be smart and do no inspections at all and say whoever reports it gets 20% of the fine.
Fiddling economic knobs to try to indirectly get the invisible hand to do what you can do is a terrible enforcement strategy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The reason I love HN is the constructive intelligent debate. Your comments aren’t contributing to that. It’s not about being right or wrong. Also not about “having an audience”. Legitimately just want intellectual conversation and debate. I wish everyone would contribute to the community in that way.
I'll offer my own topic: tyranny, and how it deserves to be stomped out at it's root. But that's not immediately about the subject at all.
What else is there?
Somethings are just shallow, note that no one in this wider thread goes beyond these topics at all and the same concepts keeps getting cited again and again. The longest comments in this thread is two people flinging worse things than what got both of us flagged by dang, and even there you don't get anything more complex than attacking political ideologies.
So what does "constructive intelligent debate" mean to you precisely, as I'm sure we're at the completely different ends of what that term means.