return2ozma@lemmy.world to Work Reform@lemmy.world · 11 days agoAmazon hit with $5.9 million fine for violating California labor lawwww.cnbc.comexternal-linkmessage-square25fedilinkarrow-up1270arrow-down12cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up1268arrow-down1external-linkAmazon hit with $5.9 million fine for violating California labor lawwww.cnbc.comreturn2ozma@lemmy.world to Work Reform@lemmy.world · 11 days agomessage-square25fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squareFiniteBanjo@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkarrow-up1·10 days agoIt is still insufficient, but it’s also disingenuous to use the profit of their global operations to say the fine is a small cost of doing business to their California warehouses.
minus-squareMkengine@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up2·10 days agoDoes the fine have to be paid from profits made in California? If not I don’t see why this is relevant, other than semantics.
minus-squareFiniteBanjo@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkarrow-up2·10 days agoIf it costs a company more to do something than not do it: Then they won’t do it. To make a truly genuine argument you would need to use their profit from abuse in warehouses in California, where they were fined.
It is still insufficient, but it’s also disingenuous to use the profit of their global operations to say the fine is a small cost of doing business to their California warehouses.
Does the fine have to be paid from profits made in California? If not I don’t see why this is relevant, other than semantics.
If it costs a company more to do something than not do it:
Then they won’t do it.
To make a truly genuine argument you would need to use their profit from abuse in warehouses in California, where they were fined.