You must log in or register to comment.

1leggeddog t1_iybbp5q wrote

Amazon: "ok, we promise we won't do it again"

Amazon the next day: "Lets fire more employees that try to unionize. We can afford it."


[deleted] t1_iybcau9 wrote



mugen__870 t1_iybi5fh wrote

Fines based on percentages might help.

Oh you made $500 billion last year? Your fine will be 20% of that. That’ll put a halt on those record profits real quick.


ptd163 t1_iybobyh wrote

>Oh you made $500 billion last year? Your fine will be 20% of that. That’ll put a halt on those record profits real quick.

Everyone keeps missing the point. Fines should not just be a percentage of revenue. Corporations just build in extra margin and revenue to account for the fine like they do now. What needs to happen is ALL illegal revenue is immediately forfeited. This solves them building in extra margin and revenue. It doesn't matter what they've made if they have to forfeit it.

After that the actual fine, which has NO LIMIT, is imposed ON TOP OF the already forfeited revenue as a punitive measure to discourage further violations. Only then will corporations take fine seriously.


ArcturusTheRed t1_iybxwh9 wrote

I think this sounds great in theory, but tricky in execution. How do you calculate the amount of illegal revenue gained by union busting, or anti-trust activity? I imagine you could get 100 experts to try and figure it out and they’d each have a different number.


Moon_Atomizer t1_iyciiib wrote

Just calculate it the same way companies calculate damages for downloading music. If downloading an album is a $2 million fine for us poors then imagine how much more money actually ruining people's lives should be worth


FrankInHisTank t1_iycrs4y wrote

Oh people’s lives don’t matter. Only shareholder dividends.


tomtom5858 t1_iye15td wrote

Yeah, but if they're suddenly losing those dividends to fines, they'll get unhappy in a real hurry.


wasdninja t1_iycjmot wrote

Lots of things are tricky but that doesn't stop us from giving it a good try anyway. As long as the punishments aren't too low its way better than the pathetic shit in place right now.


Gurgiwurgi t1_iyd7vm1 wrote

You don't. You say, "you broke the law from x to y dates. We're seizing your gross revenue from that period."


themedleb t1_iyddu0j wrote

Why not take the average of that those numbers.


ArcticSphinx t1_iydksnb wrote

I was thinking a government (or third-party) audit at the company's expense. Ideally, it would also open up opportunities to catch any tax/reporting irregularities that the IRS might be interested in.


Fit-Satisfaction7831 t1_iyc8nrq wrote

Just start incarcerating the executives that make or approve the decisions. Nice and simple.


Stabbyhands t1_iyc9l5m wrote

That turns into a line of quickly replaced executives who are basically paid to “make” decisions and then go to jail.


onetwentyeight t1_iycd9xr wrote

They'd never survive doing time


ZeroExist t1_iycjkq5 wrote

That’s why they are there it’s a step by step plan, get caught, use the cheap fall guy, advertise the suffering, play the victim, executives kept safe, keep profits that’s the whole scheme nowadays


mdneilson t1_iybyon5 wrote


grampsgarcia t1_iydelu8 wrote

This is really a solution we don't use but would definitely work. Executives going to prison for their companies breaking laws; they are in charge so they do the time.


ShadowSpawn666 t1_iyemu8x wrote

It would make sense, after all, corporations are people as well. I guess that only matters when they want to buy politicians, not when they are committing crimes.


SpecificAstronaut69 t1_iycqrf8 wrote

Man, wish I were a corp.

"For stealing ptd's car, Specific is ordered to pay $500."

"Er, do I get my car back?"

"Hah, no. It's Specific's car now."


ramilehti t1_iybu0as wrote

I agree. The initial fine should be percentage based. A low percentage for the first infraction. And then grow exponentially for each subsequent infraction. Without limit.


tomtom5858 t1_iye11m5 wrote

Based on revenue is fine. That's the measure of how much money they make overall, before any expenses (rather than profit, which they can easily game). If they're losing tens of billions to fines, shareholders will quickly look for someone that doesn't incur those fines.


Riop420 t1_iycte9i wrote

Corporations are what make the economy. This won't happen.


limbodog t1_iyblafs wrote

In general, fines should be tailored to means


HiveMynd148 t1_iyc2uhq wrote

Let's base those fines on Revenue rather than Profit to make them hurt more


Mr_Mojo_Risin_83 t1_iyc7in7 wrote

With some creative accounting, I can make the main front business make $0 profits per year.


ConsultantFrog t1_iye9vx9 wrote

Thugs belong to prison. The fines are a joke. Arrest the suspects.


_PM_ME_YOUR_SYNTAX_ t1_iycv3kq wrote

Exactly! All fines should be based on a percentage of income, and not a set amount.


Umutuku t1_iycynj4 wrote

20% of shares to the workers affected.


[deleted] t1_iybms6r wrote



noachy t1_iybt2ry wrote

Fines are not tax deductible


LordCharidarn t1_iybvxuy wrote

Don’t invest in shitty companies? Why should shareholders get benefits of owning part of a company, but not have to suffer consequences when the company does something bad?

Jail time for the people that made the decision and dissolution of the company seem fair. Investment firms that handle retirement funds would be quick start relabeling risk assessments based on this new paradigm, so I don’t think it would hurt as many innocent people as you think.

Besides, if you are profiting from the misbehavior of a company (earning wealth through owning stock) why should you be allowed to have that wealth that was earned though misbehavior?


youwantitwhen t1_iybxbi2 wrote

You must do both.

People dont think they will go to jail either.

Honestly my opinion is to simply put the company out of business entirely.

Corporations will smarten up within hours.


unlock0 t1_iybrsnq wrote

People that will never be able to afford to retire give zero fucks about the people profiting from their misery.

I don't even consider myself very pro union but you simply don't have a very good argument here.


heimdahl81 t1_iyc07jw wrote

Nothing less than jail time for executives that order it and managers that carry it out.


gsvnvariable t1_iyc2y96 wrote

Or directing the SEC to issue periodic trading suspensions on them. That’ll crush the living fuck out of them


kletcherian t1_iybkmtm wrote

Who still trust a word from Amazon?


Deranged40 t1_iydhyhm wrote

I've never known them to be untrustworthy. Just corrupt is all.


LazzzyButtons t1_iybeiqp wrote

It is your right to form a union. source. You still have this right!

The only reason why Amazon employees aren’t doing it, or any other workers under a corporation, is because you are an “at-will” employee and they can fire you at any time for any reason.

Truth of the matter is that they can fire you for any reason at all, and not just because you formed a union. They could just fire you because last months numbers were down and now they need to let some people go and you happen to be in that batch. They would fire you in a second.

Corporate will fuck you over! Why not fuck them by joining a union?


AmnesiaCane t1_iyd3hcl wrote

I'm an employment law attorney, my favorite reason someone was fired so far was "My boss said I could take the day off to attend my mom's funeral and fired me after I came back." And that's perfectly legal and there was nothing I could do for her. If you don't have a union, form one.


JuNk3T t1_iybmt1u wrote

you are right that employment is, as you say, at-will, the timing between an employee's union activities and their termination is going to be quite relevant so long as they were a well performing employee. Whether that is the basis for a law suit however will depend on the law in the employee's area. For a union, negotiation power arises out of how "disposable" the unionized employees are and how many employees are a member of a union. Once unionization is achieved, it gets harder for an employee to terminate en masse at will without bringing the union into it.


FriendlyDespot t1_iybwdx5 wrote

> Truth of the matter is that they can fire you for any reason at all, and not just because you formed a union.

They actually can't fire you because you joined a union.


DneSokas t1_iyc478y wrote

Thats the point though, they didn't fire everyone who was forming a union, they just happened to fire that exact same group of people for definetaly unrelated reasons.


FriendlyDespot t1_iydbvy0 wrote

That's still illegal, and very few companies are willing to do that, because no company wants to go through discovery in the inevitable lawsuit.


Bralzor t1_iydgx2x wrote

Just pay a settlement and you don't have to bother with the lawsuit.


FriendlyDespot t1_iydh6gc wrote

You can't "just" pay a settlement. There's the NLRB and other potential civil suits to deal with, and both parties have to accept it. And even if they do settle, that sort of proves the point that it's unlawful to terminate employees ostensibly for "at-will" reasons when it's actually retaliation for organising.


Deranged40 t1_iydib3f wrote

> You can't "just" pay a settlement.

Sure you can. Amazon has fired countless people for attempting to unionize. Sure it's unlawful, but to Amazon, that means "there's a cost associated". It's not like someone's gonna go to jail for it. Show me those discovery documents!

Oh, what's that? Amazon settled out of court? On literally all of the previous cases? very weird.

>There's the NLRB and other potential civil suits to deal with

Amazon has an entire legal team on payroll. They get paid to do nothing at all if not for ongoing litigation. And that litigation will almost certainly bankrupt the ex employees.

It's a fucked system we have, and until that barrier is broken and a union gets successfully formed, Amazon has the upper hand at all turns.


FriendlyDespot t1_iydixhx wrote

This is tiresome. You keep talking about how you think the consequences are insignificant, but all you're doing is confirming that it is illegal because there are consequences.


Bralzor t1_iydm2c2 wrote

No one said its not illegal. Its just irrelevant whether it's illegal or not when the only consequence is an inconsequential fine.


FriendlyDespot t1_iydmteu wrote

The guy that I replied to above did say that when he said that employers can just pretend to fire for at-will reasons to get around anti-retaliation laws. That's the whole point of this conversation.


Deranged40 t1_iyem47u wrote

>The guy that I replied to above did say that

No I didn't. I refuted your suggestion that you can't just pay a fine and call it a day. Which is what happens all the time.

In that comment, I outright acknowledged that it was illegal. But it doesn't really matter what you call it, they're going to continue doing the thing you said they can't do either way.

You said there would be discovery documents if they did something that's illegal. So where are they? Where's the NLRB action? What Amazon did is illegal, so where's these lawsuits?


Deranged40 t1_iydjbsz wrote

It may be illegal, but there's no mechanism to prevent them from doing it. Because the consequences for doing the illegal thing is less impactful than not doing the illegal thing.

It's a financially responsible move to break the law when the consequences are so minor.

It's illegal like speeding is illegal. Yeah, there's consequences, but most people still do it every day regardless, because the consequences (and likelihood of even having to face said consequences) is so small.


Deranged40 t1_iydi3ym wrote

Nope. This is why you get fired for just suggesting you might--well before you actually join a union.

And then amazon is just gonna pay the fine. Because it's literally more profitable to do the "illegal" thing. I have to quote "illegal" because that word means something very different when talking about normal people who normally can't afford to habitually break the law


FriendlyDespot t1_iydiphy wrote

It's still illegal. You can be as nihilistic and as dismissive about the consequences as you want, that doesn't change the fact that it's unlawful to do.


Deranged40 t1_iydj2n3 wrote

> It's still illegal.

That only means it costs money! "Illegal" means "cost more". And that cost is still considerably less than allowing a union.

It doesn't mean that there's a threat of someone going to jail, or that an exec will lose their job. It doesn't even mean that their profits are going to suffer. They've calculated this legal threat in terms of the money that it costs. And that's all it is - just another line on the budget.


FriendlyDespot t1_iydjagc wrote

I don't know why you're trying to argue with me. I said that it's illegal, you agreed that it's illegal. That's pretty much it.


Deranged40 t1_iydjjwn wrote

You said they "Can't" fire you because it's illegal.

They can, they have, and they will. And they'll pay the fine.


FriendlyDespot t1_iydjx5u wrote

Please stop. I said "they can't", as in it's illegal. Obviously anyone can physically do whatever they want. That's pointless pedantry.

You said that employers can just pretend that they're firing for other reasons, but they can't. You're talking about settling a lawsuit where the employer is accused of terminating employees as retaliation under false pretense, so you're implicitly acknowledging that employers cannot simply offer an at-will argument to get around anti-retaliation laws.


Deranged40 t1_iydka5q wrote

> Please stop. I said "they can't", as in it's illegal

I'm just pointing out that they "can"--in all forms and interpretations of the word. In spite of the fact that there's a fee associated with it. Both technically, as well as financially, they "can" do this. It's indistinguishable from legal approval process up front such as getting FAA clearance to take off at an airport. When we talk about doing something illegal, often times that comes with the weight of "well, we probably can't afford the fines or the jail time to do that". But that's not what "illegal" means here.

It being illegal doesn't even mildly discourage them from doing it.


FriendlyDespot t1_iydw0pk wrote

> I'm just pointing out that they "can"--in all forms and interpretations of the word.

And I'm pointing out you're wrong about that. They can't in a legal context, as in it's unlawful, and that's the only context that we're talking about here. Christ, this is like talking to an edgy teenager who thinks that their nihilism about the consequences of legal action somehow makes illegal things legal.


StabbyPants t1_iyexi04 wrote

who cares if it's illegal if you can just write a check?


byteminer t1_iybilo6 wrote

They will appeal it all the way to SCOTUS if they have to and SCOTUS will say America has a rich heritage and tradition fucking over unions and reverse it.


ukezi t1_iyc98e2 wrote

My guess is that the current Scotus would say that the federal government hasn't any jurisdiction over labor relations because it's not explicitly in the constitution and declares nlra unconstitutional. For that they would have to reverse NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. but that didn't stop them before.

California and the other blue states will have replacement laws in place the moment the decision comes down and the red states continue their way back into the 1800s.


geekynerdynerd t1_iydvnzu wrote

Pretty sure California already has laws covering this issue anyway, it's primarily the "states rights" red states that depend upon the federal government for enforcing regulations that prevent a descent into an ancap dystopia.


ukezi t1_iye5268 wrote

Probably a lot more strict then the federal one.


StabbyPants t1_iyexnf7 wrote

huh, i guess it's time to make the union strikes more aggressive.


ukezi t1_iyf2bm0 wrote

I'm not sure if those states would not use the National Guard against the more aggressive strikes like they did back in the day.


Badtrainwreck t1_iybexkm wrote

Why? If the US government can piss on Unions why not just let it be a free for all? Fuck the American worker am I right?


putalotoftussinonit t1_iybhhjl wrote

Fuck the railroads and our glorious douchebag of a moderate republican president taking their side.


mjh2901 t1_iybm1p2 wrote

He has to get congress to OK it, I wonder if the republicans will vote no in the house just to cause El Presidente a nightmarish problem.... Frankly I am hoping they get that idea and follow through.


putalotoftussinonit t1_iybm9p8 wrote

If the railroad workers can get a day off for a sick call while damaging this administration, I would call it a win/win.


reflectivegiggles t1_iyd0nzu wrote

Not all agencies even have a union or the option for union representation. Biden claiming to be pro union or whatever the shit he said is a Fucking lie.


Objective_Ad_9001 t1_iyde6wc wrote

Admittedly not everything is a president‘s job. Also, big economy doesn’t like too much pro-unionism (look at what happened to Carter)


Halt-CatchFire t1_iybtffa wrote

I mean, back in the day when the state and the business owners conspired to screw over union men, we took up arms and burned motherfuckers houses down.

The capitalist class has gotten to comfortable. They've been so used to being untouchable for so long that they're not scared any more.


Thatguyxlii t1_iybk3as wrote

Corporate friendly Supreme Court will overturn it. Because "fuck the workers and the poor" is the GOP motto.


the_grungydan t1_iye6pg1 wrote

Not that the Dems are fighting that hard for us, either.

And this isn't whataboutism, before some dingus that saw that word somewhere once comes along, nor am I trying to be the enlightened centrist here. It's just a fact.

Neither party gives the slightest shit about anything other than power and making money.


Thatguyxlii t1_iye7ice wrote

No argument there. We live in an Oligarchy. The wealthy control everything. However, the Dems at least make a pretense of making life bearable for us peasants.


the_grungydan t1_iyerkx8 wrote

They (Dems) are less overtly hostile and insane, yes. Guess we take what we can get.


Yomat t1_iybt3pb wrote

Stop or we’ll fine you… $200! Yeah, that’ll teach you!


mcpat21 t1_iybw9nv wrote

Amazon tomorrow: Sends Cease and Desist letter to US Supreme Court


hindusoul t1_iybx6qn wrote

Haha.. with 9 contributions?


the_grungydan t1_iye6ego wrote

Oh that money? No, it didn't just fapl out of my pocket.You must have dropped that.

walks away whistling


Baby_Fark t1_iybj42d wrote

I’m sure Amazon is shaking in its space boots.


Nevermind04 t1_iyf91ul wrote

Until executives start going to jail, corporations will continue breaking the law with impunity.


Anagatam t1_iyf9qi4 wrote

Hefty fines & dismantling their corporations will work too.


Nevermind04 t1_iyfboxt wrote

Hell, I'd even be satisfied by enforcing anti-trust laws.


TheDevilsAdvokaat t1_iybtj63 wrote

What's the difference between cease and desist?


imsometueventhisUN t1_iybygw7 wrote

Nothing - it's a Legal Doublet, a relic of the transition between different languages.


TheDevilsAdvokaat t1_iybyoh8 wrote

Thank you! Dude, you should post this as a's new to me and quite interesting.


LunacyNow t1_iyd0x2g wrote

Damn. All of these years I never realized this was a thing! Thanks for sharing!


Alundil t1_iybzfdh wrote

Now do Starbucks


LurkBot9000 t1_iydbgys wrote

Im not a lawyer: Isnt anti-union retaliation already illegal?

If its illegal why would anyone ask them to stop instead of applying penalties?


Letiferr t1_iydqhbm wrote

Because it's more profitable to pay the "penalty" than to follow the law


DannyElJaxon t1_iydecdq wrote



Anagatam t1_iyf9mee wrote

But they won’t stop. Because the fines are cheaper than pensions.


Glad-Degree-4270 t1_iybm24z wrote

I have a friend who teaches at the college of Staten Islam’s and many students work for Amazon. The anti union misinformation campaign is huge in those facilities.


ebdixbd t1_iybxnhj wrote

Amazon: lol no


InGordWeTrust t1_iybztks wrote

Again? They don't care. Fine them billions.


--harumph-- t1_iyc0afu wrote

Can he issue the same order to Biden and Congress?


intellifone t1_iyc45r5 wrote

Or what? Fines should be increased every single time this shit happens with no limit. Jail time for people in the company who do it more than once.


The_Blue_Adept t1_iyct9xt wrote

And those costs get passed on to the shoppers so umm okay.


intellifone t1_iyd3fox wrote

If the fines get so large that the company can no longer compete, then they go out of business…which is the point of the fines.


S3HN5UCHT t1_iycetn5 wrote

Now it’s time for them to do it to the railroad conglomerates


Yokepearl t1_iycf5jf wrote

“Sry Americans, don’t be afraid of organizing (but be afraid of organizing”


noplay12 t1_iycffx8 wrote

The current labor laws are toothless unless the penalty is criminalized in addition to fines.


[deleted] t1_iyclr7a wrote



StabbyPants t1_iyey3cu wrote

they work for amazon, full stop. amazon exercises sufficient control that the corporate boundary is nil


ricktor67 t1_iycxmqg wrote

This right here. The 1099 scam that has infested america was done to control wages(by making you compete for your job every 2 years at contract renewal time), and preventing any way to unionize(while making sure the corporation has zero liability for anything).


Tigris_Morte t1_iycs55e wrote

How many times does this make it?


mcampo84 t1_iyctngy wrote

Amazon: sure we’ll get right on that


Sambo_the_Rambo t1_iyd4xik wrote

Good! Fuck Amazon, such a shitty company.


NoahCharlie t1_iydcavq wrote

their only profitable buisness is Amazon web services


Jasoman t1_iydexi7 wrote

What US going to do make them go out of Business lol just workflow fines and keep truckin.


Serpenta91 t1_iydiddu wrote

Instead of blaming a company for your low wage job, you should consider what changes you can make to yourself to make your labor worth more.


ryeguymft t1_iydssir wrote

Superstore really predicted this


LeicaM6guy t1_iydv4zj wrote

I’m sure they’ll get right on that.


jnemesh t1_iydvqmy wrote

Doesn't matter. Amazon will weigh whether it's more costly to accept unionization or to pay court fines...I guarantee you they will ignore the courts as long as possible.


I_proudly_Disagree t1_iydzfpt wrote

....I feel like I read this every other week. Anyone want to take bets on whether or not they comply?


Fiftycaljake t1_iyf1kq7 wrote

Funny thing is that I work for a union shop that Amazon buys all their plastic totes from...they were just here Tuesday touring the plant....


Weary_Horse5749 t1_iybw3lb wrote

Amazon seems to be a sinking ship at this point anyways


KaptainKraken t1_iycvv17 wrote

Yeah their only profitable buisness is Amazon web services


Own_Arm1104 t1_iye8cbc wrote

Talk about missing the point of the original commenter's statement. I'm sorry to hear about your mental condition.


KaptainKraken t1_iyemnxn wrote

Your condescending comment is uninformed and lacks research facts.


n0fearfrontier t1_iycmemy wrote

Why do people want to work there? Abandon and boycott.


talltad t1_iydasil wrote

Two of the richest men in the world are just shitting on employment laws and their employees and everyone is just kinda watching it happen. What has happened to us?


Letiferr t1_iydqph2 wrote

I don't just watch it happen. I voice my disagreements on Reddit, too.


downonthesecond t1_iybt8vu wrote

Maybe Amazon can piggy-back on Congress' bill to keep railroad workers from striking.


Hella4nia t1_iybxw6s wrote

Do Joe Biden next


[deleted] t1_iybe2x0 wrote



CrazyTillItHurts t1_iybl4sb wrote



ThePrankMonkey t1_iyczbsy wrote

Joe Biden wants congress to prevent a rail strike by forcing the union to accept the terms offered by the robber barons. The workers just want better sick days and a raise, but the terms Biden wants them to accept include insane restrictions like scheduling sick time off 30 days in advance and only on Tuesdays or Thursdays. Also, that's only like one day a year. The raise is 24%, but they haven't had one since 2019 and the inflation is like 19% since then so it's barely a raise.

Biden COULD force the companies to accept better work conditions for employees, but that would hurt their ability to give themselves $200M bonuses.


CrazyTillItHurts t1_iye0rjs wrote

> but the terms Biden wants them to accept include insane restrictions like scheduling sick time off 30 days in advance and only on Tuesdays or Thursdays. Also, that's only like one day a year

Your link doesn't back that up. That sounds absolutely made up, or at least incredibly spun together with crazy speculation.

It also seems like this move has bipartisan support so far, at least from the House/Senate leaders, according to that article