4 ms·

If I had a requirement to either do something I didn't want to do or pay a nickel, I'd just fake doing what needed to be done and wait for the regulatory body t

by iinnPP 1y ago

If I had a requirement to either do something I didn't want to do or pay a nickel, I'd just fake doing what needed to be done and wait for the regulatory body to fine me 28 years later after I exhausted my appeal chain. Luckily, inflation turned the nickel into a penny, now defunct, and I rely on the ability to pay debts in legal currency to use another 39 years of appeals.

zie 1y ago
28yrs for an appeals chain is a bit longer than most realities I'm aware of. More like a dozen years at the top end would be more in line with what I've seen out there. In general though, it's easier to just comply, even for the companies. It helps with PR and employee retention, etc. They may fudge the reports a bit, even on purpose, but all groups of people do this to some degree. The question is, when does fudging go too far? There is some gray, but there isn't infinite amounts of gray.
- iinnPP 1y ago
  For sure, it's meant to go a bit too far I guess. I'll be more real. This is to allow companies to make entirely fictitious statements that they will state satisfies their interpretation. The lack of fines will suggest compliance. Proving the statement is fiction isn't ever going to happen anyway. But it's also such low fine, that will eat inflation for those 12 years.
  - mlyle 1y ago
    In general, when you are appealing fines you have to have posted them as bond. It's a low fine, but your particular objection is invalid.
  - BizarroLand 1y ago
    12 years would also be extraordinary, the grand majority of these are dealt with within a year or two. But I also understand that you were using hyperbole to emphasize your point, so there's not actually a reason to argue this.
kbenson 1y ago
And if later on someone proposes more aggressive action if you don't do that action, they now have a record of all the times you've failed to do that thing which they can point to about how the current level of penalties are not sufficient. That said, the penalty is not just $10k. It's $10k for an unknowing violation, or $100k for a knowing violation that "does not create a material risk of death, serious physical injury, or a catastrophic risk" or a unknowing violation that does cause that, and $10m for if you knowingly violate it and it does cause risk of death or serious physical injury, etc. I imagine the legal framework and small penalty if you fail to actually publish something can play into the knowing/unknowing state if they investigate you as well.

by iinnPP 1y ago

zie 1y ago

28yrs for an appeals chain is a bit longer than most realities I'm aware of. More like a dozen years at the top end would be more in line with what I've seen out there. In general though, it's easier to just comply, even for the companies. It helps with PR and employee retention, etc. They may fudge the reports a bit, even on purpose, but all groups of people do this to some degree. The question is, when does fudging go too far? There is some gray, but there isn't infinite amounts of gray.

iinnPP 1y ago
For sure, it's meant to go a bit too far I guess. I'll be more real. This is to allow companies to make entirely fictitious statements that they will state satisfies their interpretation. The lack of fines will suggest compliance. Proving the statement is fiction isn't ever going to happen anyway. But it's also such low fine, that will eat inflation for those 12 years.
- mlyle 1y ago
  In general, when you are appealing fines you have to have posted them as bond. It's a low fine, but your particular objection is invalid.
- BizarroLand 1y ago
  12 years would also be extraordinary, the grand majority of these are dealt with within a year or two. But I also understand that you were using hyperbole to emphasize your point, so there's not actually a reason to argue this.

kbenson 1y ago

And if later on someone proposes more aggressive action if you don't do that action, they now have a record of all the times you've failed to do that thing which they can point to about how the current level of penalties are not sufficient. That said, the penalty is not just $10k. It's $10k for an unknowing violation, or $100k for a knowing violation that "does not create a material risk of death, serious physical injury, or a catastrophic risk" or a unknowing violation that does cause that, and $10m for if you knowingly violate it and it does cause risk of death or serious physical injury, etc. I imagine the legal framework and small penalty if you fail to actually publish something can play into the knowing/unknowing state if they investigate you as well.