Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon fined $5.9M for breaking labor law in California

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 253 posts

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

#61

Post by the_optimist »

dgfitz wrote: post #53
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31

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…

> You want every politician you don’t like in the country having this power? 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??

It’s the only question worth asking, ever, about law: when the law is inevitably misused, how bad is the outcome?

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

#62

Post by 23B1 »

1. Proportionality. Fines should be proportional to the company's size, revenue, and the severity of the violation. The financial impact should be significant enough to grab the company's attention and incentivize change.

2. Escalating penalties. Implement a system of escalating penalties for repeated violations w/increased monitoring.

3. Transparency. Publicly disclose the details of labor violations and the fines imposed.

4. Targeted sanctions. Temporary suspension of licenses, government contracts, at local, state & federal level.

5. Victim comp. Ensure that a portion of fines go towards comping the affected workers.

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

#64

Post by erikaww »

Mo3 wrote: post #60
dolni wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Surely the fines will become exponentially bigger every time they are caught doing the same, right?

They’ll learn to cover their tracks better

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

#66

Post by jedberg »

ipaddr wrote: post #63
ivanjermakov wrote: post #54

Why taxes are proportional to income but fines aren't?

Because you create a loophole where non-profitable companies commit the offense and get cash back (if fines were connected to revenue, negative revenue would become a reward)

Obviously you would have a floor, just like taxes do.

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

#67

Post by ipaddr »

altairprime wrote: post #45
elevatedastalt wrote: post #37

[flagged]

For labor laws, I’m not sure that’s as bad idea as your sarcasm might indicate. Perhaps, instead, “a mandatory fine shall be levied of 100% of direct and indirect labor expenses (including benefits, unpaid wages, and court-ordered wages) during each calendar year in which labor violations occurred”. That way there’s a natural cap on it to satisfy the courts, but it’s still large enough that any violations are actuall…

Or amazon moves to hire workers who are employed by other agencies to reduce risk.

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

#68

Post by erikaww »

ipaddr wrote: post #63
ivanjermakov wrote: post #54

Why taxes are proportional to income but fines aren't?

Because you create a loophole where non-profitable companies commit the offense and get cash back (if fines were connected to revenue, negative revenue would become a reward)

You can’t have negative revenue or if there is some obscure definition, just handle that edge case

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

#69

Post by fallingsquirrel »

elevatedastalt wrote: post #37

[flagged]

Based on numbers's numbers above, the fine is 0.001039% of their annual revenue. If your salary was $100k, an equivalent fine would be $1.04. Wouldn't people speed more often if they got caught once a year and paid a $1 fine?

Why do you think we should be so much more lenient with companies that knowingly break the law and make life worse for thousands of less fortunate people?

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

#70

Post by darth_avocado »

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.

It’s actually more like:

You stole $1000 and if you are caught, your fine is $10.

Post reply on HN