[HN Gopher] Amazon fined $5.9M for breaking labor law in California
___________________________________________________________________
Amazon fined $5.9M for breaking labor law in California
Author : green-eclipse
Score : 98 points
Date : 2024-06-18 20:59 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| green-eclipse wrote:
| https://archive.ph/HoERr
| StarterPro wrote:
| That's, what? Half an hour of operation to them?
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| That would even be okay if there were an understanding the
| fines would continue until the problematic behaviour stops, but
| it's unclear from the article whether that's actually the case.
|
| > The fines against Amazon are small compared with the
| company's size -- it brought in $574 billion in revenue last
| year -- but significant for a state labor agency. The
| Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the federal
| agency charged with preventing workplace safety issues,
| frequently investigates Amazon workplaces and has issued dozens
| of citations, but is severely limited in the size of fines it
| can bring.
|
| I mean, so? And what is it limited by, given a limit on fines
| is essentially a limit on the size of the company that can be
| regulated?
| barnabask wrote:
| In Finland, speeding fines are based on your income. Can we
| have that, but for corporations?
| ysacfanboi wrote:
| Second this.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Countries should take stock equity over fines. It dilutes the
| owners share value and punishes stockholders who don't make a
| company's' boards accountable. With ownership, the government
| also then has the ability to 'peer behind the veil' more
| easily and make sure management is behaving. Finally, if a
| company continues to misbehave the government over time takes
| ownership and can then replace the board (think a corporate
| equiv to a death penalty, since under the law corporations
| are treated as people).
| j-bos wrote:
| Is this a novel concept?
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| Sounds like expropriation by another name, honestly.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _With ownership, the government also then has the ability
| to 'peer behind the veil' more easily and make sure
| management is behaving_
|
| You want every politician you _don't_ like in the country
| having this power?
|
| > _if a company continues to misbehave the government over
| time takes ownership and can then replace the board_
|
| This is expropriation. (It's also fines with extra steps
| and ongoing costs.)
|
| > _think a corporate equiv to a death penalty_
|
| Corporate death penalties are fines with extra steps.
| They're a red herring to avoid what companies actually
| fear, massive fines that force them into liquidation.
| Anything you want with a corporate death penalty, massive
| fines achieve more cleanly. The only function bringing the
| former up has is to distract from the latter.
| cde-v wrote:
| If it reduces corporate power enough we might actually be
| able to get some trustworthy people into office.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _reduces corporate power enough we might actually be
| able to get some trustworthy people into office_
|
| If what did? The history of expropriation is one way: the
| rulers and their families accumulate the jewels. OpenAI
| gets fined and given to Biden, Meta gets fined and given
| to Trump. The economy gets divided by the people who have
| the power to seize.
| the_optimist wrote:
| Can you articulate an equilibrium of political economy
| that reflects your redesign? Like what's the role of
| politics in economics?
| dgfitz wrote:
| > You want every politician you don't like in the country
| having this power?
|
| What an interesting question. I personally feel like this
| line of thinking is a microcosm of how terrible the US
| frame of mind is right now.
|
| Mostly though, you like some of them??
| the_optimist wrote:
| It's the only question worth asking, ever, about law:
| when the law is inevitably misused, how bad is the
| outcome?
| gnicholas wrote:
| This happens to some extent via punitive damages, which are
| designed to be large enough to get the attention of the
| offender. I don't think it happens outside of punitive
| damages though.
| doe_eyes wrote:
| I like the idea. If you're a startup that's losing money, you
| can get paid by the government to commit crime?
| jamesrr39 wrote:
| Yes. See GDPR (max fine 4% of global annual revenue) or the
| new EU Digital Services Act (max fine 6% of global annual
| revenue).
|
| These are both fairly new laws, if you look at the laws they
| replace (which themselves may not even be that old), the
| fines are a huge leap up.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| You can't. In a Capitalistic world, companies, large
| companies control the world. You are asking for the hand to
| cut itself. It might work for a few countries but is
| unthinkable for any medium-large countries when companies are
| allowed to grow to a certain extent.
| grapescheesee wrote:
| A small rounding error.
| ryandrake wrote:
| It's 5 minutes of revenue. They made it back 12X since an hour
| ago when the article hit HN.
|
| For comparison, for a person making $100K per year, the fine
| was less than a dollar.
| elwell wrote:
| > 5 minutes of revenue. They made it back
|
| 'revenue' is not a complement to 'made it back', you have to
| look at profit for that.
| riiii wrote:
| Wow, that won't teach them.
| fallingknife wrote:
| The issue here is that Amazon had productivity quotas for its
| workers that were kept secret from the workers. It's the keeping
| a secret part that is illegal. On the one hand, this seems
| reasonable, but the fact that the law only applies to warehouse
| workers (the "Warehouse Quota Law") and was passed in 2022 makes
| me suspicious that this isn't a good faith worker protection law
| but rather specifically targeted at Amazon for political reasons.
| If this practice is so bad, why is it allowed for all other
| industries?
| kstrauser wrote:
| Are secret quotas common in other settings? I don't think I've
| ever been told about one, and I had a whole lot of other jobs
| before starting this career.
| RexM wrote:
| Common or not, if the practice is bad why make the law
| specific to warehouse workers instead of making it a general
| law that applies to everyone?
| jxf wrote:
| I think it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't"
| thing. If you make the law sweeping, businesses will
| complain it's an infringement of big government. If you
| make the law targeted, businesses will complain they're
| being unfairly selective.
| vdqtp3 wrote:
| I'm not actually arguing that they existed for you, but if
| they did I wouldn't expect you to be told about _secret_
| quotas.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Well you wouldn't have been told about the _secret_ quota,
| would you? But let 's say you're right that it isn't common
| outside of warehouses. Even in that case, why would you write
| a law only for warehouses?
|
| Let's say that there was a problem where cattle ranches were
| giving out beatings for underperforming workers. Would you
| fix this by writing a law that says "it is illegal for cattle
| ranches to beat employees" or would you just outlaw all
| beatings of all employees so that you won't have to revisit
| this when another industry decides to do it?
| bpodgursky wrote:
| I really doubt there was a strict quota, more likely some
| kind of stack ranking.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _makes me suspicious that this isn 't a good faith worker
| protection law but rather specifically targeted at Amazon_
|
| It seems to target Amazon, but for good reasons [1].
|
| The law's principal mode of enforcement is private [2]. This
| fine appears to be more the state laying a trail of breadcrumbs
| for private attorneys to follow than the last word on the
| matter.
|
| > _why is it allowed for all other industries?_
|
| Defining what constitutes a quota is hard. If there isn't
| evidence of abuse in other settings, it doesn't make sense to
| expand the regulatory burden for the hell of it.
|
| [1] https://www.schneiderwallace.com/media/california-new-
| york-a...
|
| [2]
| https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2021/09/califo...
| fallingknife wrote:
| They have a good reason for targeting the practice. They do
| not have a good reason for targeting Amazon in particular.
|
| And I suspect the good reason you mean is this:
|
| > Quotas must also be limited to not prevent workers from
| taking rest breaks, meal breaks, bathrooms breaks, or prevent
| compliance with health and safety standards.
|
| Amazon is not being accused of doing this here. They are
| being fined for keeping the quota secret, not for the quota
| itself.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _do not have a good reason for targeting Amazon in
| particular_
|
| The law applies to all warehouses.
| siffin wrote:
| Did you even read the article?
|
| Amazon is the third company in California to be hit with fines
| under this law, joining Sysco and Dollar General, which were
| fined $318,000 and $1.3 million in October and November,
| respectively, according to copies of the citations shared with
| The Post.
| mrgoldenbrown wrote:
| Two other companies were hit with fines before Amazon. Amazon
| may have innovative ways of abusing workers but they don't have
| a monopoly.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| > California investigated two Amazon facilities near Los Angeles
| and in May found that the company failed to "provide written
| notice of quotas to which each employee is subject," according to
| a copy of the citation shared with The Washington Post by the
| Warehouse Worker Resource Center, a nonprofit that advocates for
| improving working conditions at warehouses.
|
| Very few workplaces have written quotas for employees. Be angry
| about Amazon or whatever, but let's just be real that if Amazon
| is guilty of heinous crimes for not giving workers a strict
| written quota, so are 98% of other employers, large and small.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The issue isn't having quotas, I don't think. It's more the
| Office Space "minimum pieces of flair" aspect of hiding the
| rules from the employees.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _if Amazon is guilty of heinous crimes for not giving workers
| a strict written quota_
|
| The issue isn't having or not having quotas. It's having a
| quota and not telling employees about it.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Why is this a meaningful difference?
|
| Any at-will employer could stack-rank and cut the lowest 5%
| of workers every month. Or adjust the quota every month at
| the 5th percentile. There's literally no difference to
| workers, it's always "make sure you are a bit better than the
| people other people applying for the job.
| lokar wrote:
| Because you are also not allowed quotas that won't
| accommodate rest breaks. If the quota is secret you can't
| enforce breaks.
| cush wrote:
| They make that every 5 minutes
| shreezus wrote:
| $5.9M is not even a rounding error for a $2T corporation.
| madboston wrote:
| cost of doing business
| ryandrake wrote:
| Can Amazon even count that low?
| m463 wrote:
| interesting that this is published on Jeff Bezos' newspaper.
| mouse_ wrote:
| humiliation ritual
| numbers wrote:
| Amazon made $64,809,782.60 in revenue every hour in Q3 2023.
|
| Source: https://www.junglescout.com/blog/how-much-does-amazon-
| make-i...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| How much of that was from Californian warehouses? Because if
| you don't do that math, the fine gets overturned by the courts.
|
| That not only reduces the deterrence factor. It delays private
| enforcement by the harmed employees who would have otherwise
| relied on the commission's facts in court without the colour of
| them being overturned on appeal.
| dolni wrote:
| The fine doesn't even amount to a slap on the wrist.
|
| It's like if someone stole $1000 worth of merchandise from a
| store and the only punishment is a $1000 fine... and you get
| to keep what you stole.
|
| Why be law abiding when you could break the law and
| potentially make more money? You'd have to be stupid to be
| law abiding in a system like that.
| Mo3 wrote:
| Surely the fines will become exponentially bigger every
| time they are caught doing the same, right?
| erikaww wrote:
| They'll learn to cover their tracks better
| 6510 wrote:
| We will keep the secret quotas secret from hereforth.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| It's actually more like:
|
| You stole $1000 and if you are caught, your fine is $10.
| 6510 wrote:
| No it is more like:
|
| You stole $1000 from me and now you have to pay $10 to
| someone else.
| bhelkey wrote:
| This fine was for two Amazon warehouses near LA. Amazon
| reportedly has over a thousand fulfilment centers in the US
| [1].
|
| [1] https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/article/amazon-
| warehouses...
| jvanderbot wrote:
| This is fair, but remember the business units are partitioned
| and extremely hierarchical in a company this size, so someone,
| somewhere, well below the top, got in trouble for this.
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| According to HN, any company found in violation of any law should
| be fined at least their annual revenue.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Eh, it's the same retributive frustration that leads people to
| conclude that any violation of any law should result in massive
| jail time. (And a history, in America, of too-low corporate
| fines.)
| optimalsolver wrote:
| That's a start. Plus jail time for all executives involved.
| altairprime wrote:
| For labor laws, I'm not sure that's as bad idea as your sarcasm
| might indicate. Perhaps, instead, "a mandatory fine shall be
| levied of 100% of direct and indirect labor expenses (including
| benefits, unpaid wages, and court-ordered wages) during each
| calendar year in which labor violations occurred". That way
| there's a natural cap on it to satisfy the courts, but it's
| still large enough that _any_ violations are actually a threat
| to megacorps.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Or amazon moves to hire workers who are employed by other
| agencies to reduce risk.
| ebiester wrote:
| Mostly labor law, and when violated at a systemic degree by the
| largest corporations against those who do not make enough money
| to have influence against the free market. (Gig workers and
| anyone not making at least 3x minimum wage - that's a good
| place to start.)
|
| I'd actually prefer that people go to jail over it. I would
| like executives and middle management to be afraid of violating
| labor law. If you have 3 employees, I could see ignorance being
| an excuse. However, these are giant corporations that have the
| economies of scale for this to be really profitable (and
| inhibit competition) and the resources to make sure they stay
| on the right side of the law.
| latentcall wrote:
| Good idea, I think that's a healthy minimum. If C level fellas
| were aware of the violations or didn't do their due diligence
| then let's say a 5 year minimum prison sentence.
| 6510 wrote:
| I agree but in this case the duration of the prison sentence
| should not be disclosed.
| hipadev23 wrote:
| Sigh. HN users aren't saying that. They get upset because the
| fine is utterly fucking irrelevant and does not serve as a
| deterrent in any way shape or form.
| fallingsquirrel wrote:
| Based on numbers's numbers above, the fine is 0.001039% of
| their annual revenue. If your salary was $100k, an equivalent
| fine would be $1.04. Wouldn't people speed more often if they
| got caught once a year and paid a $1 fine?
|
| Why do you think we should be so much more lenient with
| companies that knowingly break the law and make life worse for
| thousands of less fortunate people?
| daedrdev wrote:
| Additionally California PAGA lawsuits are notorious for nearly
| bankrupting small businesses. This case wasn't PAGA, but still
| people need to realize that sometimes these things are more
| nuanced than they appear.
|
| Infractions are 200 dollars per infraction for every employee,
| and are religiously perused by private law firms.
|
| For example, if a company with 100 employees let employees take
| lunch whenever they wanted, they would be sued for 20K per day
| this occurred since employers are required to require employees
| take lunch within 5 hours of starting the day, meaning they
| could easily look at millions of dollars of fines for trying to
| be nice to employees that a private law firm would sue them
| over.
|
| And in the end the majority of the settlement will go to the
| law firm and the actual person who sued will get 1/100th of the
| remaining amount for all this trouble.
| the_optimist wrote:
| The company "failed to provide written notice of quotas" to
| employees, as required. Tape a sheet of paper on the wall with
| the numbers, done. Meanwhile, the antipathy of jealousy is
| palpable.
| ivanjermakov wrote:
| Why taxes are proportional to income but fines aren't?
| ipaddr wrote:
| Because you create a loophole where non-profitable companies
| commit the offense and get cash back (if fines were connected
| to revenue, negative revenue would become a reward)
| jedberg wrote:
| Obviously you would have a floor, just like taxes do.
| Brybry wrote:
| Yep, plenty of fines work this way. It's how GDPR works:
| percent of turnover (revenue) or a floor, whichever is
| higher [1].
|
| And worst case scenario define revenue in the fine's terms
| in a way that it disallows accounting tricks.
|
| [1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/#:~:text=turnover
| erikaww wrote:
| You can't have negative revenue or if there is some obscure
| definition, just handle that edge case
| ThunderSizzle wrote:
| If fines were tied to revenue, then non-profit wouldn't stop
| the fine. If you had $1200 in revenue, and $1000 in expenses,
| the fine could be calculated against rhe $1200, which is
| exactly what non-companies have to do.
|
| And it would make sense to be revenue-based, as opposed to
| profit-based.
| 6510 wrote:
| The fine should be a permanent percentage salary increase.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| Retail has had labor quotas (with serious health/mental
| consequences) since time immemorial, but i don't see any outrage
| against Sears, ToysRus, or BedBath.
|
| Why ?
| eropple wrote:
| Two of those are dead and the third has coded several times
| over the last ten years. Amazon, on the other hand, is one of
| the world's biggest businesses.
| 23B1 wrote:
| 1. Proportionality. Fines should be proportional to the company's
| size, revenue, and the severity of the violation. The financial
| impact should be significant enough to grab the company's
| attention and incentivize change.
|
| 2. Escalating penalties. Implement a system of escalating
| penalties for repeated violations w/increased monitoring.
|
| 3. Transparency. Publicly disclose the details of labor
| violations and the fines imposed.
|
| 4. Targeted sanctions. Temporary suspension of licenses,
| government contracts, at local, state & federal level.
|
| 5. Victim comp. Ensure that a portion of fines go towards comping
| the affected workers.
| Arch-TK wrote:
| 5.9 cents? Where did they get the decicents from?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-18 23:00 UTC)