alphacyberranger@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agoCorporations are paying for worker abuse audits that are ‘designed to fail’, say insiderswww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square11fedilinkarrow-up1241arrow-down16cross-posted to: worldnews@lemmit.online
arrow-up1235arrow-down1external-linkCorporations are paying for worker abuse audits that are ‘designed to fail’, say insiderswww.theguardian.comalphacyberranger@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square11fedilinkcross-posted to: worldnews@lemmit.online
minus-squareBernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up45·1 year agoThat headline does not read right. If you fail an audit, that’s a bad thing.
minus-squarenogooduser@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up38·1 year agoYeah, I get what they mean but it doesn’t work as written. They mean that it is “designed to fail as a measure to protect workers“
minus-squareatx_aquarian@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up9·1 year ago“Designed to be ineffective”
minus-squaresome_guy@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up16·1 year ago US and UK companies with foreign operations use audits to prevent worker abuse – but auditors say the checks aren’t working I think they mean that they fail to accomplish their goal. But you’re not wrong in that it’s poorly worded.
minus-squareAnUnusualRelic@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoAnd how can you fail at worker abuse? it’s the easiest thing, everybody’s doing it.
That headline does not read right.
If you fail an audit, that’s a bad thing.
Yeah, I get what they mean but it doesn’t work as written. They mean that it is “designed to fail as a measure to protect workers“
“Designed to be ineffective”
I think they mean that they fail to accomplish their goal. But you’re not wrong in that it’s poorly worded.
And how can you fail at worker abuse? it’s the easiest thing, everybody’s doing it.