3 ms·

This seems to be part of a persistent pattern of businesses thinking they are above the law, and when challenged, the filing of endless countersuits and appeals

This seems to be part of a persistent pattern of businesses thinking they are above the law, and when challenged, the filing of endless countersuits and appeals. At some point, the democratic process elected Congress and the laws passed therein, and businesses exist at the pleasure of the people and their elected representatives, not the other way around. A business that doesn’t want to unionise is free to close up shop and go out of business. They are not free to simply ignore lawful unionisation activity.

weard_beard 3y ago
Regulatory capture and non-existant enforcement mechanisms would beg to differ. It seems more and more that the US is waiting for the general public to commit egregious acts and then will crack down and that this is the ONLY function of the US government at all levels.
- sonicanatidae 3y ago
  This is the issue. Even when an entity is cornered for wrong-doing, it'll be a fine, paid with other people's money, that amounts to a pittance compared to the profits gained from their malfeasance, all while "admitting no wrong-doing". The C-suite that made the call, set the culture, and determined budgets suffers zero penalties in a majority of the cases, so there is literally no incentive to comply. We can thank congressional bribery for that.
sandworm101 3y ago
>> businesses exist at the pleasure of the people and their elected representatives As one noted politician famously said: "Corporations are people". The issue is that soo much of US jurisprudence has granted corporate entities all the rights of personhood. The only thing they cannot yet do is vote, but that too will come. They are certainly today allowed to vote with their wallets by financially supporting candidates. Part of this issue is in turn tied to how so many powerful people in the US cloak themselves in corporate status. Taylor Swift exists are a person, but all her money flows through her corporation. Trump exists as a person, but all his property is held by his corporations. Some of this is a game to avoid taxation but it is also used to shield people from liabilities. So such powerful people take any attack on corporate personhood very personally.
- trollbridge 3y ago
  A rather key difference is that people who break the law can and do get put in prison. Whereas consequences and penalties for corporations seem to be nonexistent. An obvious solution would be to revoke limited liability for a corporation, converting it into a general partnership… shareholders could either abandon or sell their shares, and ones who remain would assume both liability and control over the corporation. (Imagine something like this at Boeing.) Limited liability is a privilege, not a right, bestowed by state governments.
  - samatman 3y ago
    Revoking the charter is in fact an option, however seldom it's invoked, but it's not actually necessary. Courts can, and do, pierce the corporate veil, either criminally prosecuting responsible parties or holding them to full liability for corporate action. Corporate personhood is a useful fiction, but it's just that, a legal fiction.
dessimus 3y ago
From the article: "The board cannot impose fines or direct punishments against Apple for its violations." So there is literally no consequence to Apple, or any other company from doing these actions, meaning there is no law to be above. If the IRS could do only make public statements that people didn't pay income taxes without any repercussions otherwise, no one pay their taxes ever. If CxOs and Board could be held accountable and fined say 10% of annual compensation, maybe they would be less inclined to allow these actions to occur.
readyman 3y ago
>a persistent pattern of businesses thinking they are above the law In the aggregate, they absolutely are. Capital, not democracy, elects US politicians. Those politicians create, enact, and enforce the laws.
insane_dreamer 3y ago
> businesses exist at the pleasure of the people and their elected representatives not in late-stage capitalism they don't
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

weard_beard 3y ago

Regulatory capture and non-existant enforcement mechanisms would beg to differ. It seems more and more that the US is waiting for the general public to commit egregious acts and then will crack down and that this is the ONLY function of the US government at all levels.

sonicanatidae 3y ago
This is the issue. Even when an entity is cornered for wrong-doing, it'll be a fine, paid with other people's money, that amounts to a pittance compared to the profits gained from their malfeasance, all while "admitting no wrong-doing". The C-suite that made the call, set the culture, and determined budgets suffers zero penalties in a majority of the cases, so there is literally no incentive to comply. We can thank congressional bribery for that.

sandworm101 3y ago

>> businesses exist at the pleasure of the people and their elected representatives As one noted politician famously said: "Corporations are people". The issue is that soo much of US jurisprudence has granted corporate entities all the rights of personhood. The only thing they cannot yet do is vote, but that too will come. They are certainly today allowed to vote with their wallets by financially supporting candidates. Part of this issue is in turn tied to how so many powerful people in the US cloak themselves in corporate status. Taylor Swift exists are a person, but all her money flows through her corporation. Trump exists as a person, but all his property is held by his corporations. Some of this is a game to avoid taxation but it is also used to shield people from liabilities. So such powerful people take any attack on corporate personhood very personally.

trollbridge 3y ago
A rather key difference is that people who break the law can and do get put in prison. Whereas consequences and penalties for corporations seem to be nonexistent. An obvious solution would be to revoke limited liability for a corporation, converting it into a general partnership… shareholders could either abandon or sell their shares, and ones who remain would assume both liability and control over the corporation. (Imagine something like this at Boeing.) Limited liability is a privilege, not a right, bestowed by state governments.
- samatman 3y ago
  Revoking the charter is in fact an option, however seldom it's invoked, but it's not actually necessary. Courts can, and do, pierce the corporate veil, either criminally prosecuting responsible parties or holding them to full liability for corporate action. Corporate personhood is a useful fiction, but it's just that, a legal fiction.

dessimus 3y ago

From the article: "The board cannot impose fines or direct punishments against Apple for its violations." So there is literally no consequence to Apple, or any other company from doing these actions, meaning there is no law to be above. If the IRS could do only make public statements that people didn't pay income taxes without any repercussions otherwise, no one pay their taxes ever. If CxOs and Board could be held accountable and fined say 10% of annual compensation, maybe they would be less inclined to allow these actions to occur.

readyman 3y ago

>a persistent pattern of businesses thinking they are above the law In the aggregate, they absolutely are. Capital, not democracy, elects US politicians. Those politicians create, enact, and enforce the laws.

insane_dreamer 3y ago

> businesses exist at the pleasure of the people and their elected representatives not in late-stage capitalism they don't

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]