>

It's worth $250 to get a teenager to fill a shift versus shutting down for the day when they can't find anyone else. 
This removes that incentive.
For those of you who didn't read the article, the actual fine was $172,750 with 90% of it being suspended for the restaurant to "adhere to a settlement agreement and commit no additional violations."  The issues cited in the article involve teenagers below the age of 18.  Some of the violations related to the employment of a single teen, including "62 of the violations attributed to one worker" over the course of a year. >

“Commit no additional violations.” What, if they kept violating the law the state would just be like “well I already fined them a lot so I don’t care.” >

If they get caught with more violations, then the punishment would cost an extra $155,475 and the restaurant owners would actually be on the hook for all that money. >

Why defer it? Why wait? They broke the law hundreds of times. >

This allows them to more easily prevent future violations, oddly enough. The fact of the matter is, that $172,000 fine may have been seen as alright. Each time they violate the law they're only risking $250, which could easily be offset by the labor.
Now, a single future violation is risking 150 grand. >


Each time they violate the law they're only risking $250, which could easily be offset by the labor.

I think you misinterpret what they are being fined for. According to the article, it was for allowing or scheduling under-age workers too many hours. It's not that they weren't paying them.
You could argue that the labor cost of a younger worker is less. But it's not $250 less.