[incrudible]

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.

[throwaway2245]

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.

[incrudible]

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.