>

That depends what they are and the circumstances, not all crimes are equal weirdly enough, sure 691 counts of murder wouldn't look good on you, but 691 counts of littering due to a hole in your bin, they might cut you some slack
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. >

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. >

We must not have read the same article because the one I read didn't suggest this was what was happening at all. You're making a lot of assumptions based off extremely limited information.
There are lots of business with lots more egregious labor violations that you could be or should be getting mad about. This one got caught and fined and they even have to create PSAs about it. Would your preference be to see the owners drug out into the street and shot? >

Not the person you responded to, but my take is that after 691 violations, even if its all from one individual, you shouldn't be operating a business at all. I will admit, over scheduling a teen is not as bad as the headline seems to imply, but the general feeling is that business owners get off light for their crimes. If I was caught with 691 charges for basically anything I doubt I'd get a break of any kind.