• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I think… they should start with … paying the wages that got stiffed- with some steep interest. Then, the company gets fined to oblivion… and the individuals responsible for it go to jail.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      The cost of the crime also needs to include the probability of getting caught for any business to consider the crime more than an overhead. For example, if the probability of getting caught and having to backpay + fine is only 5%, the backpay + fine needs to be at least 20x greater in cost than if they’d not committed the crime (5% x 20 = 100%), because they are likely to get away with the crime 19 out of 20 times. That’s only to equalize the financial* consequences. Then you need to multiply again to add significant financial damage.

      When you realize the above, the absolute pittance of most fines is even more enraging.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        yeah. Every time I hear about the SEC or somebody levying fines… you look at what they made in profits and it’s basically just a solicitation of a bribe. for financial crimes, the start needs to be surrendering all profit associated with said financial crime. then a fine that hurts.

        for wage theft specifically, it’s usually happening to people who can’t afford to be stolen from, so I’m okay with a nuclear option.