Yep, there needs to be real consequences. In addition, no member of that board or executive team should be able to act in those positions in any company for like 5 yrs.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 68 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They should be in prison.

[–] ProdigiousWumpus@kbin.social 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That would be a very effective way to keep them out of those positions.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Can you not be on a company board from prison?

[–] Fades@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The rich and powerful don’t live by the same set of laws, so there won’t be. Best they can do is a slap on the wrist with no further impact.

Amazon has remained untouched from their price fixing, AmazonBasic product rip offs, union busting, poor worker conditions, etc.

This too shall pass uneventfully

[–] jaspersgroove@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Corporation - n.

An ingenious method for securing individual profit without individual responsibility.

Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Damn you for being exactly right!

[–] EnderMB@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Honestly, I don't think the company needs to be dissolved, but I think that accountability for the law should exist at director level and up. For a company the size of Amazon, that's probably around 100 people that should face the consequences - and that's only the retail org.

The best description of Amazon is that it is a management company. It's not a retailer, or a tech company. It's output is its management process, and it's this that it uses to build products in different markets.

So, remove the source of those processes. Let people move up to higher roles, and let someone not breaking the law take the senior positions.

[–] Wermhatswormhat@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah but then how would I be able to get that napkin holder that I ordered in my underwear delivered tomorrow! You don’t understand how much I need this thing right now even though I can’t be bothered to get dressed and drive my ass to the store.

[–] cmbabul@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

How about if the company is so large and sewn into the fabric of the modern world then instead of dissolving the company it instantly becomes a public utility, turn the shares into treasury bonds, and jail the executives?

[+] opp@lemmy.world -14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I don't really see any other company building massive warehouses that employs millions of underserved people and providing them with decent paying jobs with good benefits. I don't think 1.6million Americans should be unemployed because of shady actions of the execs.

[–] lmaydev@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah because Amazon kills off all the competition.

[–] opp@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It wasn't necessarily Amazon that killed of the competition, it's the tech behind Amazon (e-commerce) that killed retail stores. Just like UBER demolished the taxi industry, just like cars replaced horse carriages, and just like AI's about to make knowledge workers completely obsolete. Amazon still has a great deal of competition from Walmart, Target, and lots of retailers.

[–] lmaydev@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They also killed a huge amount of e-commerce sites with their sheer size. This isn't really about tech more about their monopoly.

[–] opp@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Shopify accounts for 1/3 of all e-commerce sales in the US in 2023, and with the rise of way cheaper Chinese alternatives to amazon like shien, Temu, & Alibaba express no one really has a monopolistic control in the e-commerce space.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes but no. E-commerce got rid of many retail jobs. So did WalMart. But Amazon also uses a ton of monopolistic and dirty practices. Amazon is working hard to eliminate the competition, because capitalists would rather control the market than compete.

[–] opp@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What monopolistic and dirty practices are you referring to exactly?

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

There are so many things that we could talk about. I think the simplest thing to realize is that Amazon was losing money for years so that they could become the central hub of vast numbers of shoppers and sellers, and after they got control of the market, they had a huge amount of leverage over all of those people. Now they can increase prices and manipulate search results, as recent court cases have shown us. They also do horrible things to their workers, they try to bust unionization, many of their delivery drivers are peeing in plastic bottles because they don't have time to stop at a public restrooms, the list goes on and on.

Because it's such an exhaustive list, and because I don't think you should take my words at face value, I highly recommend that you read the newspaper. There's so much great information compiled by people online. When in doubt, start with Cory Doctorow.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People are still fling to buy shit. Maybe they have to do it locally instead? Probably some other company would step up to replace their monopoly. It's only be an improvement.

[–] opp@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So we should just make almost 2 million Americans unemployed because some execs shredded some papers. I don't know if you know anything about retail work, but they pay less than Amazon does, very few actually pay over $15 an hour, Walmart starts you out at $12 an hour.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

If Amazon were broken up it'd create more jobs. Sure, they may pay less, but Amazon has centralized a lot of work to increase efficiency.

We shouldn't break them up just because they shredded some papers. There are many more reasons than that.

[–] repungnant_canary@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think forcing people to work in inhumane conditions while paying them close to nothing, so that they still need to use food stamps, counts as employing. It sounds more like exploiting the most vulnerable people, which have no other employment option, because big monopolies like Amazon killed all the competition

[–] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

It's a myth that corporations are job creators. Their very premise is that they can do the same job for less because they have fewer labor costs.

[–] BloodSlut@lemmy.world 133 points 1 year ago (2 children)

wow, turns out that telling criminals that youre going to be looking for evidence in a few months isn't actually a good idea. who could have guessed?

[–] TheOhNoNotAgain@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you have the list of all documents before and after, you let the defendant do the discovery for you

[–] massive_bereavement@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

If you have some drugs in your home, police will do a no-knock raid.

If you steal billions, they let you know months in advance and also adapt to your schedule.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 89 points 1 year ago (2 children)

of course they did, the penalty for getting caught destroying evidence is far, far less than the penalty for the price fixing they're accused of. the law is designed to incentivize them to do this.

we could make it so that the penalty for destroying evidence in a court case once its been subpoenaed is twice the penalty of the original case, but we don't. we could make CEOs responsible for the actions of their employees (after all, they're quick to claim responsibility for the actions of their employees when those actions generate money), but we don't.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

It's not though. It usually laxed but generally rules of procedure allow a judge to accept spoliation as proof of the crime they're accused of.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

It's not going to stop until we start holding executives physically responsible for their crimes in disfiguring ways. "Why is the right half of your face missing, Bob?" "Insider trading" he writes on an index card because he's been debarked.

[–] Gork@lemm.ee 40 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I will only be surprised if someone actually ends up going to prison. More likely, the company will just get hit with a fine that's just the cost of doing business.

Although Romney said, "Corporations are people too, my friend" you can't throw Amazon in jail.

Closest they can do is a forced break up. A "Ma Bell" so to speak 🔔

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I am sure they hired a fall guy.

[–] Coasting0942@reddthat.com 4 points 1 year ago

Amazon now has to direct all managers watch a data retention video every year for the next five years, is allowed two years to roll this out, and can appeal in 3 years.

[–] MuuuaadDib@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Seems like that would be illegal and they should be on trial. I wonder if I went into Amazon and started to destroy a PC or two would I be held accountable?

[–] Gestrid@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Not if you destroy the evidence that you destroyed a PC! /s