Hacker News Reader

Comment by learnstats2 | Hacker News Reader

> If the response of these workers is to ransack the place, that just tells you how bad/corrupt the legal system must be.

This suggests that the legal system ideally ought to exist for the benefit of capital owners who commit fraud, so they don't suffer material loss. Is that what you mean?

View on HN

GP may also have meant that a functional legal system could provide a better remedy to the workers by enforcing compensation. And perhaps the destruction could have been avoided.

I think what the poster means is that the workers had so little trust in the legal system that they did not bother pursing this is court. Instead, they tried to create a media narrative to get Apple to pay attention.

The reason I ask the question is that I understand differently:

1. We don't know if these workers (or other workers) are pursuing this in court. Legal and illegal pursuit are not mutually exclusive, at all.

2. If the factory owner is not paying wages because they are already bankrupt, there is nothing that the legal system could reasonably do about that.

3. The workers would not have recourse to claim funds from Apple: I'm not aware that they would even in any country with a "good" legal system.

It strikes me as a long stretch to reach "bad/corrupt legal system" as a conclusion.

1. We might reasonably assume that a worker who expects compensation through due process would also expect that same due process be used against them for causing property damage.

2. If I had assumed this to possibly be the case, I could not have reasonably made the argument. I am assuming this is a case of fraud and therefore it should be theoretically subject to legal recourse. If it's possible for the workers to cause 7 million dollars worth of property damage, it should've been possible to liquidate some of that equipment to pay the workers.

3. The company responsible for paying the salaries is not Apple.

> It strikes me as a long stretch to reach "bad/corrupt legal system" as a conclusion.

Your parent and multiple siblings interpreted my comment correctly.

1. Again - there are multiple workers; different workers do not have to take the same position (and, despite the headline, there's no evidence presented that the rioters were workers)

2. I make the opposite assumption. If the company has 7 million dollars of assets, why would it be defrauding wages?

3. Yes, we agree that Apple is not involved in this dispute. There is a good argument that they hold some responsibility for the situation, that is not currently recognised in law.

So, we simply disagree.

But, even if I were to agree with your points, I still don't reach "bad/corrupt legal system".

Do riots which occasionally happen in every country in the world illustrate a bad/corrupt legal system? I think not, and I wonder why you reach this conclusion in this case.

1. Of course, not all workers were necessarily involved, that's besides my point. I'm assuming that they are indeed workers and not, say, agent provocateurs on behalf of some sinister agency.

2. What's better than 7 million dollars in assets? Free labor plus 7 million dollars in assets. To make fraud work, there must not be doubt about your liquidity. If you promise someone to pay money that can't actually be earned, that's a Ponzi scheme. If you promise someone to pay money, but the contract says wages can be reduced arbitrarily for something vague like "underperformance", you may well get away with it, at least in a sufficiently weak legal system.

> Do riots which occasionally happen in every country in the world illustrate a bad/corrupt legal system?

I'm talking about this specific riot with its specific circumstances, not a generic riot that may occur for any reason.

I read it as implying that the workers have no faith in public institutions to give them justice.

> This suggests that the legal system ideally ought to exist for the benefit of capital owners who commit fraud, so they don't suffer material loss. Is that what you mean?

No, that is an uncharitable interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

I set out my interpretation and I was inviting you to clarify.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com