4 ms·
I agree the correct answer is fines, but I disagree that the government should concern itself with whether or not the company decides to take it out on employee
by CogitoCogito 2y ago
I agree the correct answer is fines, but I disagree that the government should concern itself with whether or not the company decides to take it out on employees who don't deserve it. It's up to the company to decide how it should be run. As long as the government disincentivizes the actions by making the fines high enough, that is good enough.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> I disagree that the government should concern itself with whether or not the company decides to take it out on employees who don't deserve it Those employees disagree with you and they vote. Every district has large employers whose employees would, as a voting bloc, flip a primary or even general election.
- CogitoCogito 2y agoI honestly don't believe this is the case. I think Americans would largely support increased fines for corporate malfeasance. I think it much more likely that the large fines aren't assessed because those in the position to be fined also as a rule have more influence over the system itself. Though the result is the same in the end I guess.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Americans would largely support increased fines for corporate malfeasance Americans do. But every time it comes up, the discussion gets derailed with these ancilliary ideas. Just look at this thread. Fines are old and boring. > the large fines aren't assessed because those in the position to be fined also as a rule have more influence over the system There is also the practical matter of the power to levy large fines being, itself, immensely powerful. You don't want to create a fine czar only to lose control of them in a term or two.