51–60 of 253 posts
That's, what? Half an hour of operation to them?
It's 5 minutes of revenue. They made it back 12X since an hour ago when the article hit HN. For comparison, for a person making $100K per year, the fine was less than a dollar.
'revenue' is not a complement to 'made it back', you have to look at profit for that.
Amazon made $64,809,782.60 in revenue every hour in Q3 2023. Source: https://www.junglescout.com/blog/how-much-does-amazon-make-i...
[1] https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/article/amazon-warehouses...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Countries should take stock equity over fines. It dilutes the owners share value and punishes stockholders who don't make a company's' boards accountable. With ownership, the government also then has the ability to 'peer behind the veil' more easily and make sure management is behaving. Finally, if a company continues to misbehave the government over time takes ownership and can then replace the board (think a corpor…
> With ownership, the government also then has the ability to 'peer behind the veil' more easily and make sure management is behaving You want every politician you don’t like in the country having this power? > if a company continues to misbehave the government over time takes ownership and can then replace the board This is expropriation. (It’s also fines with extra steps and ongoing costs.) > think a corporate equi…
What an interesting question. I personally feel like this line of thinking is a microcosm of how terrible the US frame of mind is right now.
Mostly though, you like some of them??
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if Amazon is guilty of heinous crimes for not giving workers a strict written quota The issue isn’t having or not having quotas. It’s having a quota and not telling employees about it.
Why is this a meaningful difference? Any at-will employer could stack-rank and cut the lowest 5% of workers every month. Or adjust the quota every month at the 5th percentile. There's literally no difference to workers, it's always "make sure you are a bit better than the people other people applying for the job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With ownership, the government also then has the ability to 'peer behind the veil' more easily and make sure management is behaving You want every politician you don’t like in the country having this power? > if a company continues to misbehave the government over time takes ownership and can then replace the board This is expropriation. (It’s also fines with extra steps and ongoing costs.) > think a corporate equi…
If it reduces corporate power enough we might actually be able to get some trustworthy people into office.
[flagged]
Why ?
$5.9M is not even a rounding error for a $2T corporation.
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.