7 ms·
Gold star for not obviously violating federal law after being told they were under investigation
by DrBenCarson 3y ago
Gold star for not obviously violating federal law after being told they were under investigation
- CWuestefeld 3y agoYou say that as if it's fair for the government to expect that everyone is fully comfortable with the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations.
- meragrin_ 3y ago> You say that as if it's fair for the government to expect that everyone is fully comfortable with the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations. Is it "only" hundreds of thousands? I would have figured it is at least tens or hundreds of millions. Also don't forget that they have to keep up on all of the changes.
- DrBenCarson 3y agoIs that an unreasonable expectation for a multi-billion dollar firm with a proportional legal department that regularly ignites explosives on public property?
- uxp8u61q 3y agoNot everyone with everything. But the HR department of a billion dollar company should be fully comfortable with federal regulations regarding HR. I don't see how that's remotely controversial.
- hollerith 3y agoIt is remotely controversial.
- DrBenCarson 3y ago[flagged]
- CWuestefeld 3y ago> spend tons of money to dodge taxes and also > Y'all literally think following the law is controversial. There's a lot of tension between those two statements. How is your "dodge taxes" any different from "follow government incentives"? A few years back I got a pile of tax credits for replacing my home windows and garage door, and as a result paid a lot less in income tax that year. Am I a tax dodger? Or was I doing exactly what the policy makers wanted me to? When corporations shuffle around their finances such that the tax codes extracts less money from them, are they being evil? If you think that this outcome is bad, I think your beef is more with the legislators and tax bureaucrats than it is with the corporations.
- DrBenCarson 3y agoNot everyone can afford to stand up the international infrastructure and accountants required to offload tax liability. Not everyone does it either. Incentives for private individuals is different from shuttling obviously domestic revenues to an Irish-registered entity.
- CWuestefeld 3y agoBut follow the chain of this argument back up to the top. I was responding to a statement implying that everyone should have the resources to thoroughly understand the vast mountain of federal regulations. You're objecting to my implication that companies should have sufficient resources to understand tax incentives - a tiny subset of federal regulation. Yet at the same time, you're supporting the idea that companies should invest sufficiently to understand a larger body of regulation, indeed a vast superset of what my statement implies.
- DrBenCarson 3y agoAll I see are references to corporations, nothing about individuals
- mindslight 3y agoDo we really want to condone this legalistic regulatory cancer, where we now have to suffer even more boilerplate drivel being copypasta'd into the job postings? This is how we've ended up with at least 7 disclaimers on everything we buy. I'd find the press release much more compelling if DOJ focused on actual harm actual people suffered, and dropped the handwaving about people being discouraged by simplistically-worded job postings. Generally if you're in a narrow corner case like ITAR-eligible but not citizen or permanent resident, you know to read through simple phrasings as stand-ins for the actual requirements.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago> In job postings and public statements over several years, SpaceX wrongly claimed that under federal regulations known as “export control laws,” SpaceX could hire only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, sometimes referred to as “green card holders.” I would say it's totally fair if you're trying to discriminate based upon said regulations.
- NotYourLawyer 3y agoThis reads more like trying to comply with the regulations and doing so imperfectly, rather than using the regs as a pretext to discriminate.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y agoThis verge article[1] lays out some of the timeline, and it seems that even a week after the investigation opened Elon tweeted about how at least a green card was required[2]. At best it feels like they were not interpreting the law in good faith. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/24/23844450/doj-spacex-lawsuit-hiring-discrimination [2] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1272973320586055682?s=20
- NotYourLawyer 3y agoCan you teach me how to read minds the way you apparently do?
- SketchySeaBeast 3y agoNo, you're right, it could also be years of ignorance from multiple levels of SpaceX combined with an obstinance to not consider changing their position even in the light of a federal investigation.
- NotYourLawyer 3y agoWhat is even the motive to misconstrue the regs here? Just a hatred of asylees?
- orhmeh09 3y agoA major government contractor such as SpaceX should be especially comfortable with the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations.