406
submitted 11 months ago by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Daihatsu, the Japanese automaker owned by Toyota, has halted domestic production after admitting it forged the results of safety tests for its vehicles for more than 30 years.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Stamets@lemmy.world 195 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

There is no fine on earth that could be levied that would discourage others from doing this. If they have profits higher then who cares.

I'm in favor of forceful dissolution.

If you prove you cannot run a company safely, repeatedly violate safety violations and continue to do so for DECADES then you shouldn't be allowed to sell any product, ever again, to the public. The company should be scrapped and all assets sold off or let the government take it and start making cars but drop the cost massively and only sell to its citizens ala pharmaceuticals.

People get their drivers license taken away for far less than this. For pretty small things overall. Toyota laughed at customer safety for 30 years and has only admitted it when caught. Why the fuck is this company allowed to continue existing?

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 59 points 11 months ago

Similar to the VW emissions scandal:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal

That wasn't over 30 years though...

[-] Stamets@lemmy.world 39 points 11 months ago

Was the first thing that came to mind. Also should have been scrapped.

If you're violating regulations you literally cannot be trusted on anything else.

[-] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

I get the anger, but that's the worst possible solution.

Where do you think the people that have been pulling this off successfully for years are gonna go? To unemployment lines, or to the next big paycheck in some other company? Spoiler alert: publicly traded companies are the natural habitat of ambitious twats with zero scruples.

And how about the guys that actually work the shop floor, how likely are they to have some other work opportunity that pays as well?

[-] Stamets@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Translation: It is acceptable for a multi-national corporation to fuck over the general public safety of the entire fucking planet for DECADES because people will lose a job if they don't do it. Therefore you should levy some basic punishment that will not affect them at all.

Sorry. Not buying it.

[-] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Your hitting a straw man , but knock yourself out.

Nowhere was I advocating for "basic punishment". Take the fuckers who came up with this and give them good proper jail sentences. Do the same to every single guy above them who allowed this. Slap fines that are a % of the company's revenue, and not some weak ass random value. Go after the shareholders and make them pay the fine, not allowing the company bankrupt.

Closing down the company makes everything go away, the guys who benefited billions off of this get to walk away without a scratch. And you think that's the better idea... Oh man.

[-] Stamets@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Accusing me of hitting a strawman while you're actively making shit up, assuming and shoving words down my mouth trying to turn my position into something entirely different.

I do not respect you enough to put any more energy into talking with you. Bye.

[-] andy_wijaya_med@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago
[-] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 33 points 11 months ago

Fines are just the cost of doing business to these bastards.

[-] Magrath@lemmy.ca 19 points 11 months ago

I don't think that's the way to do it. The workers who have nothing to do with it get shafted by losing their jobs and there is a little less competition in a world where there isn't enough in some industries. I think long jail sentences will the best deterrent. Fines only do so much. C-level executives needs to start going to jail.

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 11 points 11 months ago

Shutter a company and instead of a fine force the company to continue paying those workers at full pay for a defined amount of time like 5-10 years.

[-] eclectic_electron@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago

where is the money going to come from if they can't sell anything?

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

If they don't have the cash on hand to survive payroll for 5 years they'll have to liquidate assets and let people know they won't be able to reopen so should try and find employment elsewhere while using the asset to pay them for the 5 year period wether they get a job elsewhere or wait to get a job after that 5 years.

[-] eclectic_electron@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Doesn't that ultimately punish not the company, but anyone who lent money or sold material to the company? Usually assets would be liquidated to pay off creditors but if all the assets go to employees creditors don't get paid. This really hurts all the small businesses who sold supplies or materials to the company and haven't been paid for them yet.

And of course, this all ignores the fact that for most companies most of their valuation is in their intellectual property, mainly their brand identity and recognition. And for manufacturing company's, even most of the tangible assets are going to be things like factory buildings and equipment. Those things are all highly specialized so it's very difficult to get someone else to come in and use that space to the same level of productivity. That will result in major damage to the local economy when a huge source of tax revenue and jobs suddenly disappears.

I'm not saying all this because I think companies should get away with whatever they want. Not at all. I just want to give some context for why these "obvious solutions" aren't being used. It's not that the entire world is in some conspiracy. Many of these problems are legitimately very difficult to solve.

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

It would require a large overhaul of how the system currently works but eventually things would be priced into the risk a company poses. History of unethical decisions, choice of CEO and board members, etc. where lenders would require higher rates. Also companies may instead be forced to sell their IP instead of liquidate assets. Also maybe 5-10 years might be overkill and more feasible lengths of time could be 1-2 months because people choosing companies to supply them will be less likely to choose those which could have a month long disruption to their supply.

Also I just thought of this in 5 minutes for a random comment. I'm sure there's plenty wrong with the idea but that doesn't mean there's not some form of the concept which could be feasible. It would probably require a committee of 10+ experts to write up something like that.

[-] evatronic@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

5 - 10 years is a bit much, but liquidate the entire company, assets, buildings, real estate, etc. pay the executives $0, and continue salaries for as long as possible with those funds.

[-] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

But that would encourage workers to speak up if they see their companies doing something wrong because it could make everyone lose their jobs. I think that would be a benefit overall.

I agree people should go to jail too. For sure

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

i agree but good luck enforcing that on capitalism

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

There is no fine on earth that could be levied that would discourage others from doing this. If they have profits higher then who cares.

when the punishment is a fine, it's only a crime if you're poor.

[-] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago

At some point there needs to be physical punishments for shareholders. Like, "Oh, you invested in a company that's been willfully flaunting safety regulations for a generation? Yeah, you don't get to have hands anymore. Maybe you should have done some more due diligence."

Stumpify a few hundred thousand wall street types and maybe there'll be a culture change.

[-] Andrenikous@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago

Due diligence

What would due diligence be by shareholders in a situation like this?

this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
406 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39356 readers
2223 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS