- Most OSHA fines aren't for accidents, there for "failure to abate" - this means, if Amazon didn't implement safeguards to stop a similar accident from happening again, they could be fined $15,000 per day.
I do think OSHA fines are to low, but it makes sense to fine for failure to abate rather than accidents, especially when you think about smaller businesses - you don't want to take money away from a company before it has a chance to use that money to fix the issue.
>then there's no reason to be proactive about safety.
As the parent poster said, Amazon is still subject to civil/criminal lawsuits. The $7000 fine is the penalty that OSHA can impose, but isn't all the penalties that Amazon can face.
Also, the standard that was being violated was "22.8(1)(1)(sec2)" which apparently is
"Employer did not provide a workplace free from a recognized, correctable and serious hazard
where a specific standard did not exist."
Given how vague this is, it seems reasonable to let the employer fix the issue before enforcing a penalty.
Unless there are punitive damages from the lawsuit, then that's not a penalty for Amazon. They are just paying what they owe for killing a guy. They might conclude it's worth cutting corners and killing someone every now and then, "cost of doing business".
Fines/penalties exist to ensure that the company (which is required to maximize profit) doesn't ever view a human life that way.
That is one way of looking at fines. Another way is that fines can penalize without anyone being harmed first. Once someone has been harmed, the generic legal mechanism can take care of it.
Even the most ruthless cartoon capitalist knows that it’s bad to lose workers and then have to pay $ to train new ones. You at least have to stop the line for the day while the 1 guy who got hurt gets a replacement scheduled. It’s better if your factory operates smoothly. Not to mention hits to morale across the board.
Heh, if you believe your most ruthless cartoon capitalist would stop the line for a whole day just because a worker bee died, you haven't met actual ruthless capitalists.
"Hey, you, take care of this line as well as yours. Keep them running, I have a phone call to make to my buddy at the police office, I'll be back any time."
If the factory is inefficient (bad capitalists) then sure, this can happen. I'm sure bad capitalists exist all over the place then get darwined out of the marketplace. No need to argue for or against the strawmen here.
If the capitalist is ruthless and the factory is efficient and every worker is necessary, then obviously this can't just happen.
I mean do you think the ruthless capitalist is just paying a whole extra worker, even though N-1 workers can do the same job?
I'm not sure it's me who's doing the strawman. In many situations (in the real world), machines are expensive, they don't like stopping, and workers are relatively cheap. You can either meticulously plan your factory so that every worker always has something productive to do and pay for expensive safety equipment that also slows down the machines, OR you can just pack your factory with enough workers and make them work overtime, making sure the machines are always working.
> You can either meticulously plan your factory so that every worker always has something productive to do and pay for expensive safety equipment that also slows down the machines, OR you can just pack your factory with enough workers and make them work overtime
A true capitalist probably wouldn't pick either side of this false dichotomy. There's a balance to things because they are forced to live in the real world. And there's no such thing in the world as making everything perfectly safe (not just in a factory setting, but everywhere in life).
Here's the comment I responded to: "If you only fine for failure to abate, then there's no reason to be proactive about safety."
I'm pointing out - 'actually, even someone interested only in money should still find an equilibrium with safety'
IMO, corporate fines like this should be structured in terms of percentages of gross annual revenue + total Market Cap + total gross assets. And start at integer percentages above 0%.
Make them start at a number that the board will actually notice and want to actively avoid.
So, if you're a trillion-dollar company, then the fines start at 1% of a trillion dollars, and goes up from there.
The fine was issued by the state of Indiana. That's stated in the article and you can confirm by looking up further sources.
OSHA is federal and under the US Dept of Labor.
The state-level IOSHA is a part of the Indiana Dept of Labor.
I have no idea why the article keeps mentioning OSHA. It clearly is not to show the disparity between state and federal enforcement. Maybe just to confuse comments on HN . . .
>Gruesbeck was driving a one-man lift when he struck his head on an overhead conveyance system, Amazon said. According to the company, he was working to fix a jam on the conveyor and was trained on how to use the lift.
It sounds like it was something that would be difficult to foresee. Without seeing the entire picture, it would be pointless to speculate beyond that.
Yes it is, but the reason that it is so ridiculously low is because of politicians in Indiana. Republican states tend to heavily favor corporations and business over individual workers.
And this is one of the many things I love about living in Indiana. (not sarcastic).
We aren't a swing state, but for sure we go blue once in a while. At the city level things are fairly blue. And my state is not broke, we were running a surplus last I checked.
- The worker's family can still sue Amazon
- Most OSHA fines aren't for accidents, there for "failure to abate" - this means, if Amazon didn't implement safeguards to stop a similar accident from happening again, they could be fined $15,000 per day.
I do think OSHA fines are to low, but it makes sense to fine for failure to abate rather than accidents, especially when you think about smaller businesses - you don't want to take money away from a company before it has a chance to use that money to fix the issue.