Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mugen__870 t1_iybi5fh wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in US judge orders Amazon to ‘cease and desist’ anti-union retaliation by nacorom

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.

153

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.

129

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.

32

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

32

FrankInHisTank t1_iycrs4y wrote

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

18

tomtom5858 t1_iye15td wrote

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

2

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.

4

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."

4

themedleb t1_iyddu0j wrote

Why not take the average of that those numbers.

1

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.

1

Fit-Satisfaction7831 t1_iyc8nrq wrote

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

13

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.

6

onetwentyeight t1_iycd9xr wrote

They'd never survive doing time

3

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

6

mdneilson t1_iybyon5 wrote

I disagree. There's only one thing that they listen to.

11

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.

5

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.

2

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."

11

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.

5

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.

1

Riop420 t1_iycte9i wrote

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

0

limbodog t1_iyblafs wrote

In general, fines should be tailored to means

14

HiveMynd148 t1_iyc2uhq wrote

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

6

Mr_Mojo_Risin_83 t1_iyc7in7 wrote

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

4

ConsultantFrog t1_iye9vx9 wrote

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

2

_PM_ME_YOUR_SYNTAX_ t1_iycv3kq wrote

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

1

Umutuku t1_iycynj4 wrote

20% of shares to the workers affected.

0

[deleted] t1_iybms6r wrote

[deleted]

−13

noachy t1_iybt2ry wrote

Fines are not tax deductible

10

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?

7

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.

1

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.

0