Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ChrisFromIT t1_j94y48w wrote

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

>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