4 ms·
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 ou
by 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 agoFor 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 agoIn 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 ago12 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.