4 ms·
Six percent annual turnover for non-compliance seems too low. Should be six percent for first offense, 12% for second, 25% for third, etc. Until the company f
by trevortheblack 4y ago
Six percent annual turnover for non-compliance seems too low.
Should be six percent for first offense, 12% for second, 25% for third, etc.
Until the company fixes it's compliance or becomes insolvent.
- doh 4y agoFines are fine balance between motivational and liquidating. I think 6% is quite a lot, even if one has 40% margin. Investors will be highly distraught and seek remedies from the current management. But for instance at 20% they will blame the regulators and push the company to fight in courts. In any way, government wants to motivate change in behavior not taking companies out of business.
- account42 4y ago> In any way, government wants to motivate change in behavior not taking companies out of business. Taking maliciously noncompliant comanies out of business can be a way to motivate others to not try to skirt the law.
- icedchocolate 4y agoThis opinion is terrifying to me. Why has our culture become so authoritarian?
- yifanl 4y agoThe alternative is that corporations can (or rather, can continue to) factor in selectively breaking laws as a line item in their operating costs, which is unappealing for certain people for a variety of reasons.
- sumedh 4y agobecause companies knowingly violate laws then get a slap on the wrist when they get caught and no one goes to jail when they are caught.
- hiptobecubic 4y agoEscalating punishment based on repeat offense until we find a level that is convincing enough to stop you from offending is not a particularly new idea.
- account42 4y agoIf an individual continues to defy the law they get sent to jail. Why should corporations get away without similar escalating consequences?