3 ms·

In general, a lot of government fees and penalties are not just about that penalty, it's about the fact that if you do it again, the next one will be much, much

by jerf 3y ago

In general, a lot of government fees and penalties are not just about that penalty, it's about the fact that if you do it again, the next one will be much, much bigger. Read the $150K as a warning shot across the bow. There are some places where this doesn't seem to operate very well, particularly in the financial world, but in general, this is often the idea behind these penalties. Especially for the first time a law is getting enforced; it isn't really very just to ignore a law for years/decades and then one day out of the blue slam someone with multi-million dollar judgments. There are even some Common Law doctrines that the targets could use to argue against such penalties holding up in court, though, as always, trying to counter a written law with common law general doctrines is tricky. But I'd say there's at least a good chance you could get a sudden, huge initial penalty argued way down in a lawsuit.

3pt14159 3y ago
Yes. And also, it's bad PR for the team responsible. Managers don't want to have trouble hiring people. After the first fine, the message can be "we're modernizing to stop this from happening!" But getting multiple fines over years is going to make the best of the talent poor essentially unavailable to hire.
- slingnow 3y ago
  You really think their hiring pool is going to shrink because they got fined for $150,000? The person they are hiring is likely going to cost more than the whole fine. And OK, let's say they keep getting fined. Seems like a badge of honor these days. Move fast and break things, right? The government just doesn't like, get us, man. We're the good guys here and they're trying to slow us down with red tape and bureaucracy.
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    I think the point you’re responding to is saying it isn’t about the money, it’s the reputation hit. If you have several choices and one is getting sanctioned for shitty practices, maybe you’ll look elsewhere. Saying you’re a rocket engineer sounds pretty neat, but the shine wears off a bit if people recognise your employer for negative reasons.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      > Saying you’re a rocket engineer sounds pretty neat, but the shine wears off a bit if people recognise your employer for negative reasons. Which is what Tesla is experiencing at the moment in their facility Grünheide [1]... a toxic mixture of low wages, bad employment conditions, and reports about unsafe practices. [1] https://t3n.de/news/tesla-gruenheide-personalmangel-und-angeblich-chaotische-zustaende-1519530/ https://t3n.de/news/tesla-gruenheide-personalmangel-und-ange...
      - parl_match 3y ago
        I don't know why this is getting downvoted? Tesla is a perfect example of the "shine wearing off".
        gorjusborg 3y ago
        That has more to do with Musk 'doing a Yeezy' than anything the company did. I agree with the sentiment that the reputation hit is imaginary, and really only serves to prevent stiffer fines. Actually, they shouldn't be charged a fine, instead, they should have to go and get it back.
        PawgerZ 3y ago
        I think the shine has legitimately worn off on Tesla, though. I mean, how many times can you lie [1] about FSD before everyone writes you off as the boy who cried wolf. [1] https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/#bottom https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/#bottom
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
willcipriano 3y ago
From the outside how would you tell the difference between this and a back door agreement between regulators to offer a low fine in exchange for favors down the line?
- mrWiz 3y ago
  If the second fine is also low that would indicate the first was not a shot across the bow.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Banks keep getting hit with (compared to revenue) low fines over and over again. This explanation is always given. Also the people who decide what the fine is going to be keep getting jobs at banks. Curious. Willing to bet some of these regulators kids end up at Dish over the next few years.
    - ohthatsnotright 3y ago
      I'm not really sure anybody wants to end up at Dish, their reputation is well deserved.
      - willcipriano 3y ago
        You seem unfamiliar with how this works: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-show_job https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-show_job
    - jerf 3y ago
      Yes. I cited the financial industry for a reason. In reference to your previous question, along with the obvious brute fact of the fines not escalating for the same infraction over time, I would take a first stab at an answer being that the stronger the "revolving door" the less likely the fines are to be serious. Note that just a one way industry -> regulator won't necessarily produce this effect, because in that situation a regulator can still want to flex by producing meaningful fines. But the more the cycle is industry -> regulator -> and back to industry, the more the regulator is going to be thinking in terms of what will come around when they're in the industry again.

by jerf 3y ago

3pt14159 3y ago

Yes. And also, it's bad PR for the team responsible. Managers don't want to have trouble hiring people. After the first fine, the message can be "we're modernizing to stop this from happening!" But getting multiple fines over years is going to make the best of the talent poor essentially unavailable to hire.

slingnow 3y ago
You really think their hiring pool is going to shrink because they got fined for $150,000? The person they are hiring is likely going to cost more than the whole fine. And OK, let's say they keep getting fined. Seems like a badge of honor these days. Move fast and break things, right? The government just doesn't like, get us, man. We're the good guys here and they're trying to slow us down with red tape and bureaucracy.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  I think the point you’re responding to is saying it isn’t about the money, it’s the reputation hit. If you have several choices and one is getting sanctioned for shitty practices, maybe you’ll look elsewhere. Saying you’re a rocket engineer sounds pretty neat, but the shine wears off a bit if people recognise your employer for negative reasons.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > Saying you’re a rocket engineer sounds pretty neat, but the shine wears off a bit if people recognise your employer for negative reasons. Which is what Tesla is experiencing at the moment in their facility Grünheide [1]... a toxic mixture of low wages, bad employment conditions, and reports about unsafe practices. [1] https://t3n.de/news/tesla-gruenheide-personalmangel-und-angeblich-chaotische-zustaende-1519530/ https://t3n.de/news/tesla-gruenheide-personalmangel-und-ange...
    - parl_match 3y ago
      I don't know why this is getting downvoted? Tesla is a perfect example of the "shine wearing off".
      - gorjusborg 3y ago
        That has more to do with Musk 'doing a Yeezy' than anything the company did. I agree with the sentiment that the reputation hit is imaginary, and really only serves to prevent stiffer fines. Actually, they shouldn't be charged a fine, instead, they should have to go and get it back.
        PawgerZ 3y ago
        I think the shine has legitimately worn off on Tesla, though. I mean, how many times can you lie [1] about FSD before everyone writes you off as the boy who cried wolf. [1] https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/#bottom https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/#bottom
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

willcipriano 3y ago

From the outside how would you tell the difference between this and a back door agreement between regulators to offer a low fine in exchange for favors down the line?

mrWiz 3y ago
If the second fine is also low that would indicate the first was not a shot across the bow.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Banks keep getting hit with (compared to revenue) low fines over and over again. This explanation is always given. Also the people who decide what the fine is going to be keep getting jobs at banks. Curious. Willing to bet some of these regulators kids end up at Dish over the next few years.
  - ohthatsnotright 3y ago
    I'm not really sure anybody wants to end up at Dish, their reputation is well deserved.
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      You seem unfamiliar with how this works: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-show_job https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-show_job
  - jerf 3y ago
    Yes. I cited the financial industry for a reason. In reference to your previous question, along with the obvious brute fact of the fines not escalating for the same infraction over time, I would take a first stab at an answer being that the stronger the "revolving door" the less likely the fines are to be serious. Note that just a one way industry -> regulator won't necessarily produce this effect, because in that situation a regulator can still want to flex by producing meaningful fines. But the more the cycle is industry -> regulator -> and back to industry, the more the regulator is going to be thinking in terms of what will come around when they're in the industry again.