4 ms·

I had been assuming that the FTC chose to give small fines. I found it interesting this article clarified they aren't allowed punitive damages in this sort of c

I had been assuming that the FTC chose to give small fines. I found it interesting this article clarified they aren't allowed punitive damages in this sort of circumstance. > In a joint statement on Tuesday, FTC Acting Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, and Commissioner Noah Phillips, a Republican, called on Congress to give the FTC the power to create gig-economy rules that more clearly explain what type of behavior is unlawful. The pair also are requesting that Congress give the FTC power to issue large civil penalties to first-time offending businesses as a further deterrent to engaging in schemes like Amazon’s, which FTC commissioners called “outrageous.” Amazon will only open itself to such a civil penalty if it violates the terms of this settlement. > Slaughter said giving the FTC power to issue penalties for first-time offenses would create a powerful “one-two punch,” along with the agency’s existing ability to recoup lost wages for workers.

danudey 6y ago
In other words, the current rules means that you should try to screw your workers maximally but surreptitiously, because the only penalty for being caught is having to give the money back like it's no big deal.
- harry8 6y ago
  Or in different (better?) words. Theft from employees is not illegal and carries no consequences. Employee theft from employers as compensation for having their property stolen, while being more justified on any moral basis, is illegal and can send the employee to jail. It's theft. A person did it. Another approved it. All of them are guilty of it and should not be able to hide behind liability limitation for investors to commit crime. Membership of a criminal syndicate should not be any kind of legal defence "I gave the proceeds to the boss." Criminal prosecution of individuals like any other criminal prosecution for theft.
  - esyir 6y ago
    Full agreement, but I think danudey's version captures it better than yours as it better captures the current ruleset incentivizing bad behavior. Screw them: Get stuff -> Net Positive Screw them, get caught: Return stuff -> Net 0 Don't Screw them: Gain nothing -> Net 0 Given these rules, a rational agent would pick to screw them over 100% of the time.
    - harry8 6y ago
      That's the game theoretic analysis from an amoral standpoint. You'll forgive me if I don't think ignoring morality captures it better because you do have to embrace being a thief to take the optimal solution of a rational agent. There are many people who won't do that. Ignoring them doesn't seem quite fair to me.

danudey 6y ago

In other words, the current rules means that you should try to screw your workers maximally but surreptitiously, because the only penalty for being caught is having to give the money back like it's no big deal.

harry8 6y ago
Or in different (better?) words. Theft from employees is not illegal and carries no consequences. Employee theft from employers as compensation for having their property stolen, while being more justified on any moral basis, is illegal and can send the employee to jail. It's theft. A person did it. Another approved it. All of them are guilty of it and should not be able to hide behind liability limitation for investors to commit crime. Membership of a criminal syndicate should not be any kind of legal defence "I gave the proceeds to the boss." Criminal prosecution of individuals like any other criminal prosecution for theft.
- esyir 6y ago
  Full agreement, but I think danudey's version captures it better than yours as it better captures the current ruleset incentivizing bad behavior. Screw them: Get stuff -> Net Positive Screw them, get caught: Return stuff -> Net 0 Don't Screw them: Gain nothing -> Net 0 Given these rules, a rational agent would pick to screw them over 100% of the time.
  - harry8 6y ago
    That's the game theoretic analysis from an amoral standpoint. You'll forgive me if I don't think ignoring morality captures it better because you do have to embrace being a thief to take the optimal solution of a rational agent. There are many people who won't do that. Ignoring them doesn't seem quite fair to me.