Deranged40 t1_jeam3rk wrote

Guilt is a legal term that refers to whether someone has violated a written law. Guilty absolutely does not inherently mean that something wrong has been done. It just means that something was (or in some cases was not) done, and that thing is against the law. The law may be shitty.

Russia has tons of shitty written laws, some of which may be flat out inhumane or strongly against our beliefs.

Going with your heart and doing the right thing will get you sent to prison in a lot of countries.


Deranged40 t1_je6aqsa wrote

I didn't read any doom & gloom in the headline. Instead, I got excited about this. The more pertinent line from the article for my instant reaction is:

>At times, the solar wind can generate aurora at higher latitudes on Earth

I live just a little bit too far south to consistently see Aurora Borealis, but far enough north that I can in the event of extraordinary solar storms such as this one. This article tells me that I should keep my eyes in the sky if there aren't any clouds the next couple nights.


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_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.


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_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.


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.


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