This type of abuse will continue until execs do hard time. The get the big paychecks so the buck stops with them

In my opinion there needs to be a drastic overhaul of the current laws. Currently the kids that work in my restaurant are only allowed to work a set number of hours per week, but since their parents often have second jobs I need people to cover open and close Explaining that you can't tell the nice lady from the county you're tired from working the fryolator is hard to do with someone with a third grade education

A landlord too. Damn you speed running evil

That is disturbingly reasonable.

How else could they pay their rent?

$15k? They could pay them way less

[deleted]

This.

Dont tell me about the fine. Tell me how many people went to jail.

I paid 12k in child care last year. And I'm just now finding out I could have gotten paid at least that much instead?

Should be in the stockade on a public square with a sign: I exploited children for profit

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.

The company will just fold it in to the cost of doing business and keep on. Executives will have to be criminally responsible before such practices are eliminated.

I noticed the same thing within the article when it popped up this morning. Where’s the incentive to take the law seriously, when the repercussions are less than a slap on the wrist. White collar crime is cheap to violate, and that affects MANY more people. Buy drugs for your own consumption, and your penalty is both financial and hard time.

They'll just replace them. Government should seize the company on judgement for x years. Like jail, but for corporations.

This is one of the best ideas I’ve heard in a long time. Well done my friend

That way if they appeal they're still held by the government until they win.

The thing is, a lotnof parents want this to be expanded so they can turn their own children into virtual slaves.

Of course this should be in addition to fines and criminal penalties for anyone who individually broke the law

Yeah send them to work instead of paying someone to work for them

this doesn't really feel worthy of this subreddit

I think that part kinda depends. But I agree with the principle. Sorta why the court system exists to evaluate on a case by case basis. While they're serving their sentence, they will basically be paying 100% tax on profits. Perhaps the government can choose to collect fines in voting shares.

Edit: what I'm worried about is the government reading the 13th amendment.

Are you playing a character or what?

I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

Liquidation is a valid business decision.

$15k is probably the difference between child and adult pay over only a year or two.

What do you mean?

[deleted]

I mean, from reading these comments and a brief scan of your profile, it’s hard to believe you’re a real person

Just like I regularly tell law enforcement when they show up at my house; everything I have ever said has been entirely in earnest

[deleted]

The company was FINED $15k per child.

It's insane that this is the maximum federal penalty allowed.

$15k per child may not even cover the cost advantage of using the kids. How in the world is this proper punishment?

Well the article said that the company was fined $15,000 per child, so...not reasonable for a fine at all. Way too low.

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.

Hard to get in your 60 years of service if you don't start at 10.

That’s a good bargain. No wonder companies do it even with the fines

[removed]

I’ll take 3

>!i had no idea it was so profitable to get caught!<

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission also asserted this garbage notion 5-4 which ushered the modern system of dark money and Super PACs with donations made through non-profits which don't disclose their donors.

Be prepared to pay more for Tyson foods to cover the fines?

[removed]

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.

Munchkinflation

“Listen Timmy, if you didn’t want to work why did your mommy and daddy sign these papers saying you have to operate the 40 ton press. Now put your tiny hands on the controls and make these trump coins.”

That will be fixed in the Republican states looking to get more children into the workplace.

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

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

/s

No. This will continue till we do something about it. Pitchforks are what they kept them in check in the past. Nothing good will come up of a system meant to protect the corporations doing the damage. You are a capitalist of a worker. No other way around it. We will end up with a society sleeping in the streets or one in the streets fighting for their rights. No republicans or democrats will fix that. They are bought and paid for the same corporations

[deleted]

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

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.

if they didnt report the child labor? yep

Teensy tiny slap on the wrist. No one arrest no one held accountable just a ittle bittle fine

Tbh I feel like a lot of parent's incentive for having kids is so they can do chores and labour instead

Order the very least repay their parents for existing

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.

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.

>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.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

>So your argument has been rendered moot.

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

>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.

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

If the punishment is a fine, it is only a crime for the poor

>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.

That's actually an interesting idea. In life fines are definitely not enough to prevent normal citizens from doing crimes. Jail time and prison sure is. Maybe a system modeled after Nordic prisons would be good. Instead of fines, perhaps a government agency could be formed that "jails" a corporation. Comes in and rehabilitates the corp. Making sure it follows all applicable laws, not scamming it's employees, and auditing everything. But not from like an outside in approach. But from a "were the CEO type approach". If that's too light then maybe am American approach to jail. They are seized and held for a certain amount of time. Offices must close. Their accounts are frozen. No business can be done.

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.

>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.

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.

"Free" market, fuck yea.

XD

We're worlds eaters. This civilization will fail. Countries like ruSSia are already dead, USA is slowly falling apart, some UE countries are getting worst and worst.

That doesn't make any sense. You're supposed to turn a profit with child labor that's the whole idea of employing kids. Why does it cost 15k per child? They should make the kids work harder.

no wonder they outsource to Thailand.

I've only heard arguments for child labor made recently and only from the trump crowd, not sure what the connection is but i don't appreciate it, ngl.

Its region locked so i cant read it but my assumption is its effectively a learning cost, the inexpirienced kid is going to accidentally make mistakes which forces you to start over on the entire piece which costs you manhours and material to start over again

but you also cant become good at your job without first being the inexpirienced kid that fucks up and learns from his/her mistakes so somebody inevitably has to foot the bill

😥😥😥😥😥

I agree I think it's a troll account

>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.

The children don't deserve to lose their job?

A fine that can be shrugged off as the cost of doing business.

[deleted]

You’ve described a regulatory agency

[deleted]

support is stronger in rural areas where folks used to work at younger ages, especially farms.

Don't show my boss, this is less than I make and I don't do shit

Not to my knowledge. Or at least not the way they do regulations here.

I think they're imagining something more hands on and intensive... more like how PDs sometimes get federal oversight through something like a consent decree. Except, I guess, without the company's consent...like jail is for individuals.

Not to my knowledge. Or at least not the way they do regulations here.

I think they're imagining something more hands on and intensive... more like how PDs sometimes get federal oversight through something like a consent decree. Except, I guess, without the company's consent...like jail is for individuals.

> 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.”

If corporations are "people" we should absolutely jail them.

3rd world country pretending to be first world...SAD

[removed]

I agree.

I meant it's disturbing how reasonable that figure looks to a soulless corporation. It almost invites them to keep using children.

So... we need to either pay them less, or charge more for their work?

...this is hard...

Don't worry people, capitalism is working as intended.

That's about what I got paid by Albertson's Osco in high school