Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Parafault t1_j93hcja wrote

Reply to comment by openly_gray in Child labor in the United States costs $15,138 per child. by VoE_Monkey_Overlord

Or at least make the fines income-based. So if a company makes 20 billion in profits per year, make the fine $40 billion and redistribute it to help those who were impacted.

51

ChrisFromIT t1_j945rag wrote

If you make it double the amount of profit they brought it, that is a good way to pretty much shutdown the business. It should be like 20% of the revenue. Or something. And it should be based on revenue, not profit too. As they could easily lower their profits for the year when they get fined, thus lowering the amount needed to pay the fine.

5

DarthPelagiusTheNice t1_j94ok8v wrote

If a company is using child labour it should be shut down

8

ChrisFromIT t1_j94ph33 wrote

Yes, because every person that works there deserves to lose their job.

/s

−10

RadioFreeAmerika t1_j94tsu3 wrote

That's why we don't shut down criminal organizations when found out. /s

6

ChrisFromIT t1_j94w376 wrote

Do you know how stupid of an argument that is. You are comparing apples and oranges. In criminal organizations, everyone in it has broken the law in some way. In a legitimate business, not everyone has broken the law when it is found that part of the business operated in a way that constitutes a crime or an action that is punishable by a fine.

So what? You think Johnny in the mailroom deserves to go to jail and lose his job because some idiot decided to cause the company to break the law? Because that is what your argument is saying.

So I hope you see how stupid your argument is.

−4

RadioFreeAmerika t1_j94xmp8 wrote

If a company repeatedly or severly breaks the law, it needs to be shut down for good. First time, big penalty, second time, external oversight and bigger penalty, third time, forced liquidation. Besides that, jail time for the executives and managers and if the kids worked under Johnny, also for Johnny.

Maybe Johnny shouldn't have worked for a company that exploited child labour.

Companies are power-tripping and undermining the foundations of our society. Executives and managers have outsourced almost all risks while reaping all the benefits. There is no real accountability for any of them anymore. They know and act accordingly. If we don't want to end up with working conditions like a few centuries ago, we need to reign them in.

2

ChrisFromIT t1_j94y48w wrote

>third time, forced liquidation.

You are still saying we should punish people who are innocent in the affair. That is what you are advocating for.

All that needs to be done major fines, maybe oversight and fines, and/or jail time for the people responsible for doing the illegal actions.

−3

RadioFreeAmerika t1_j950rmu wrote

They are not innocent. They are complicit and enable the company they work for to do the shady stuff they are doing. It's sad for the ones that don't know about it but lose their job nevertheless. However, that's life. Have a good social security net and find a new job. It also has the benefit that companies would know that they will lose employees after the first or second strike. As an employee, these should be wake-up calls. Time to start looking for a new job before the third strike might hit your company, and you lose it.

2

ChrisFromIT t1_j950y3u wrote

>They are complicit and enable the company they work for to do the shady stuff they are doing.

Only if they are aware of it happening. Otherwise, yes, they are innocent.

1

asingleshot7 t1_j953dho wrote

His point there was that if a Company is publicly known as a 2 strike company then the positions at the company are clearly unreliable. In this case I would also be in favor the stock of a 3 strike company being invalidated. If you invest in a company and it commits major crimes that money should be lost in it's entirety and I have no sympathy for a person investing in criminal enterprise. Would change the meaning of accountability to the shareholders, and for the better.

2

ChrisFromIT t1_j954qkz wrote

>His point there was that if a Company is publicly known as a 2 strike company then the positions at the company are clearly unreliable.

The issue is they are advocating for what is known as the three strikes system. People advocate for it thinking it reduces crime. Studies are finding it doesn't.

https://www.ebpsociety.org/blog/education/205-tough-crime-policies-have-struck-out

And there are issues with it as well that make it a more complicated system to fix those issues, or lessen those issues. And you would still end up potentially hurting innocent people.

For example, say a company has 2 strikes already. It has been 10 years since the last strike, ops they accidentally did something that would result in a fine. Nope, it is the 3rd strike, business gets liquidated. Or 20 years since the second strike or 40 years.

Or what if the fine was for something completely unrelated to the first two strikes. Or what if not enough time was given to correct the issues that caused a previous strike thus requiring another fine.

The better solution is going after the c level executives or the managers or employees actively engaging in the activities that caused the need for the fine. Not shutting down the business.

1

asingleshot7 t1_j955ghw wrote

I feel like the comparison between the normal criminal three strikes rule and a corporate version is a little weak, what with the very different priorities between a person and a sociopathic company. A fall off time for strikes would be entirely reasonable. Say a decade without egregious criminal acts? Also it would be extremely simple to have a "fix within X months or receive an additional strike" as part of a judgement. Also have strikes follow any bunch of assets comprising 10% or more of the company so the "company" cant just disappear.I'm also in favor of C level individuals being culpable for egregious policies but hitting the force for change in the pocketbook seems to be necessary.

3

FoxEuphonium t1_j96dl2b wrote

> You are still saying we should punish people who are innocent in the affair.

That is the harsh reality of living in a large and interconnected society. Any change to try to improve that society on a material level will have short-term losers, and a large portion of them are guaranteed to be people who didn’t do anything wrong. That is

A.) not unique to this topic

B.) not an argument against making changes when necessary

At most, what you should be arguing is “doing this will make innocent people lose their jobs, so if you’re going to do this, have a plan for softening that eventuality.”

1

Kaidyn04 t1_j94w3aj wrote

if they didnt report the child labor? yep

0

ChrisFromIT t1_j94wktq wrote

If not reporting it, if they are aware of it happening, constitutes a crime. But that is something different and not part of the decision about shutting down the business if one part decided to conduct illegal actions on behalf of the business, which isn't what is being discussed.

0

NotATranslator t1_j9505rl wrote

Yet this happens all the time. Companies do get seized for criminal activity and people lose their jobs. Those directly involved in criminal activity get charged. That's life, sometimes you get punished for the behavior of others. I'm guessing you were never in the military or any position where you were responsible for others.

0

ChrisFromIT t1_j950eal wrote

>Companies do get seized for criminal activity and people lose their jobs.

Only if the company is solely doing criminal activities. Or that is their main source of income.

1

NotATranslator t1_j950mcn wrote

So you do agree that companies can get seized for criminal activity and innocent people can get screwed over! So your argument has been rendered moot. Better luck next time.

0

ChrisFromIT t1_j950roa wrote

>So your argument has been rendered moot.

No it hasn't. Reread what I wrote in my comments.

0

NotATranslator t1_j9510vu wrote

I already did. Apparently you can't read your own or lack the capacity to admit when you invalidated your own argument.

0

ChrisFromIT t1_j951fcn wrote

>Apparently you can't read your own or lack the capacity to admit when you invalidated your own argument.

You have to resort to ad hominems to make your point, that means you lost the debate since you cannot attack the argument you resort to attacking the person.

Ps. Just so you know, my comments were about parts of the company doing illegal activities. Which you said companies could still be seized by the government. And I corrected you in saying only if those illegal activities were the sole or main source of revenue.

Not sure why you think that correction invalidates the earlier statement.

1

imafraidofmuricans t1_j95eru4 wrote

>If you make it double the amount of profit they brought it, that is a good way to pretty much shutdown the business.

Oh no.
Anyway.

Ib4 "the people who just let it happen will lose their jobs". Well, dont you believe in the free market and that another company will appear and fill the niche? Besides, if they were employing children they probably weren't that good of an employer to the adults.

We can compromise and nationalize them instead. Or, if you want to keep things "small government" we can forcefully redistribute ownership to the employees.

Any fine less than potential loss of everything will literally just be a cost of doing business. Something you cover with insurance.

2

[deleted] t1_j94i9is wrote

[removed]

1

AutoModerator t1_j94i9lr wrote

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

0