Read a news article, by headline because really I don’t care enough to be bothered reading why. About a mother, who was denied home-at-work and had a child die over some circumstance, was awarded $22 million. Whether she gets it or not, doesn’t matter, what matters is that nobody should ever win that much in any case. Millions have been tossed around so fruitlessly in cases like these.

Should that mom deserve some form of compensation? Yeah, probably, but not millions. It doesn’t bring back the the child, in fact, money never really heals these kinds of wounds. If so, why isn’t anyone getting some of that money anyways?

  • Jikiya@lemmy.worldEnglish
    21·
    10 days ago

    This change would definitely get companies to change their behavior, make it a rounding error in the millionth of a percent region. That will definitely get them to behave differently.

    What would be the plan, in your perfect world, to get companies not make the same mistake again? Ideal version would be nice to know, and maybe we can agree on that. But given that we’re not in the perfect world, what would you say the way to change company behavior is at this this exact point in time?

    • TheObviousSolution@thebrainbin.org
      11·
      5 days ago

      Since OP won’t make any effort to defend this, I will.

      In these sort of cases, wouldn’t it be more appropriate for the court to fine the company the $22 million to the company, award a more appropriate stipend to the victim that does not actively promote and reward with wealth gaps, pay the lawyers, and to then allow her to be the executor with what’s left in regards to being able to be spent to prevent similar abuses from happening in the future, with the responsibility falling back to the judge if she does not want to be? She would then be limited in how she could spend that, but she could spend it however she wants for that purpose - create a political campaign, finance unions, etc.