10 ms·

It wasn't your boss telling you how to do that though. The direct power imbalance is pretty different, I think.

by rtpg 6y ago

SilasX 6y ago
Then I don’t understand the outrage. What’s offensive about instructions on how to fill out a ballot above and beyond the fact of them asking you to vote no? The GGP seemed to think that there was something particularly bad about the detailed six page instructions. But the GP correctly pointed out they do the same thing in regular government elections (to milk as many voters as they can).
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  > What’s offensive about instructions on how to fill out a ballot above and beyond the fact of them asking you to vote no? Nothing. The outrage is about them telling you to vote no. If they were trying to help you fill out your ballot in good faith, there wouldn't be a problem.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    No. The OP was complaining about something already assuming they're telling you to vote no, meaning the OP was adding something on top of that. I was asking what that thing-on-top is. So it has to be something more than: >The outrage is about them telling you to vote no. Which, indeed, you correct yourself on in the next sentence, to say that the issue is that it pretends to be neutral ballot instructions, but, if followed, end in you voting no, and are thus misleading (just guessing -- again, no one here seems to be making it easy to understand what they're objecting to). If so, it would have been helpful for the OP to communicate that the first time around. Remember rtpg joined in to clarify, but actually objected to something else, the power imbalance -- and yet s/he seemed to believe s/he was agreeing with the initial comment! Not everyone can read minds about what a speaker thinks is the most salient part, and we don't deserve to be ridiculed for asking. If you want others to be outraged, it helps to clearly communicate what they're supposed to be outraged about -- starting form a clear model.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      I didn't correct myself. Did you look at the article? It doesn't purport to be neutral at all. There's a giant yellow sign that says "VOTE NO" with five bullet points about why you should vote against the union. The step-by-step instructions encourage you to vote no in three different places. There's no assumption or mind reading needed. To be honest, I don't see how OP could have been more clear: > Detailed, 6 step instructions on how to open a ballot and mark no? Thanks, amazon.
      - SilasX 6y ago
        I'm not objecting to the article. I'm asking what the original comment was objecting to. We all know, before that comment, Amazon wants you to vote no. The OP was adding to that, in criticism of Amazon, by saying there are detailed six page instructions on how to vote the way they want. But that doesn't tell me what's to be outraged about -- as the first response noted, that is exactly what every other campaign does. If the OP wasn't claiming Amazon was outrageous beyond the mere fact of asking for no, then why even bring up a six page instruction set?
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        You're reading too far into this. OP is just saying that Amazon's propaganda is slimy. Everyone else is on the same page here.
        SilasX 6y ago
        So, it's only as slimy as every other organization that gives you ballot instructions. Not sure that's the message you were trying to send.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        Someone noted that it's different when your employer tells you to vote in a certain way vs. a random political party. That's where you entered the conversation, so I'm not sure how that's getting lost.
- sidlls 6y ago
  Your analogy is off: if you suggested that government officials sent police offers with instructions on how to vote it'd be closer to what is the case when an employer instructs its employees to do something work related (vote "no" on the union, in this case).
  - rtpg 6y ago
    Right, that’s what I’m saying. Maybe this was meant for GP?
- beowulfey 6y ago
  The outrage is at the inclusion of “make sure to vote no!” as a part of the seemingly well meaning instructions.
duxup 6y ago
If we argue that what is wrong about the situation is the 'balance of power'... would that mean then no employer should be able to make their case when it comes to such situation because the balance of power wouldn't be fair? That seems weird. And unions once established have their own balance of power, and that's not in favor of the individual.
- SllX 6y ago
  That is weird. The literal purpose of a corporation in all its varieties, for profit, non-profit, co-op, S Corp, C Corp etc. is to pool the resources of its owners and serve their interests. Unions are just another type of corporation.
  - duxup 6y ago
    >serve their interests. Serve the interests of the majority... and even like a corporation sometimes they don't even manage to do that. Human organizations kinda stink sometimes, although I wouldn't really endorse another kind...
    - SllX 6y ago
      Correct. People who hold more equity have more control. This is easily seen in small businesses on the Balance Sheet with only one or two owners, you can quickly determine who put more money into the business, assuming no investors. This becomes more complex as you go from small business to startup with investors to a larger business, but the principles remain the same. Nobody starts a business to have others dictate to them what to do with their business, and to be told whose interests they should really be serving. I’m not sure why you would expect that to change just because the company in question is valued at over a trillion.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    Unions serve the interests of the people with power in the union. If those interests don't align with yours, the union may be working against you and you may not want to get involved.
mc32 6y ago
Like some unions tell their members to vote for this or that party? I’m still waiting for the Teachers’ Union to endorse the Libertarian party one day soon -I’m sure it’s gonna happen.
- duxup 6y ago
  I'm waiting for the Libertarian party to embrace drivers licenses ;)
  - maedla 6y ago
    They are too worried about the toaster licenses
  - mc32 6y ago
    It’s a very large tent party though sparse in density. Some of us see the need for aspects of regulation and frameworks, others prefer the more idealist semi pastoralist view of the world. I’m more in the Johnson camp ;)
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      >It’s a very large tent party though sparse in density. I'm not so sure about that. I have strong libertarian (small 'l') leanings, specifically that government should stay the hell out of people's lives and bodies as much as possible. And that humans should be free to do pretty much whatever they want as long as they don't interfere with others doing the same. But that's where I part ways with the Libertarian (big 'L') Party. Because I do believe that, human nature being what it is, that the government does have a role to play in helping those who are disadvantaged in our society. What's more, I believe that government has a role to play in evening the playing field and attempting to make sure that everyone has equal opportunity to succeed in our society. The Libertarian Party doesn't believe in any of that, so I have no interest in supporting them. I'd note that privatized everything (not saying you support that) isn't libertarian at all. Rather it's anarcho-capitalism[0], which would completely destroy our society. While the implementation of the idea that minorities should be protected against the "tyranny of the majority" by the government has been pretty poor in the US, it has improved somewhat in recent years. I look forward to that progress continuing. And the Libertarian Party won't be the one's that help us do that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
fastball 6y ago
Not unless your boss knows how you vote.
statstutor 6y ago
Political campaigns remind everyone to vote (raise turnout) - including the people who are now indignant and will vote against you. It seems possible that Amazon may not have properly accounted for that.

It wasn't your boss telling you how to do that though. The direct power imbalance is pretty different, I think.

by rtpg 6y ago

It wasn't your boss telling you how to do that though. The direct power imbalance is pretty different, I think.

Then I don’t understand the outrage. What’s offensive about instructions on how to fill out a ballot above and beyond the fact of them asking you to vote no? The GGP seemed to think that there was something particularly bad about the detailed six page instructions. But the GP correctly pointed out they do the same thing in regular government elections (to milk as many voters as they can).

jakelazaroff 6y ago
> What’s offensive about instructions on how to fill out a ballot above and beyond the fact of them asking you to vote no? Nothing. The outrage is about them telling you to vote no. If they were trying to help you fill out your ballot in good faith, there wouldn't be a problem.
- SilasX 6y ago
  No. The OP was complaining about something already assuming they're telling you to vote no, meaning the OP was adding something on top of that. I was asking what that thing-on-top is. So it has to be something more than: >The outrage is about them telling you to vote no. Which, indeed, you correct yourself on in the next sentence, to say that the issue is that it pretends to be neutral ballot instructions, but, if followed, end in you voting no, and are thus misleading (just guessing -- again, no one here seems to be making it easy to understand what they're objecting to). If so, it would have been helpful for the OP to communicate that the first time around. Remember rtpg joined in to clarify, but actually objected to something else, the power imbalance -- and yet s/he seemed to believe s/he was agreeing with the initial comment! Not everyone can read minds about what a speaker thinks is the most salient part, and we don't deserve to be ridiculed for asking. If you want others to be outraged, it helps to clearly communicate what they're supposed to be outraged about -- starting form a clear model.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    I didn't correct myself. Did you look at the article? It doesn't purport to be neutral at all. There's a giant yellow sign that says "VOTE NO" with five bullet points about why you should vote against the union. The step-by-step instructions encourage you to vote no in three different places. There's no assumption or mind reading needed. To be honest, I don't see how OP could have been more clear: > Detailed, 6 step instructions on how to open a ballot and mark no? Thanks, amazon.
    - SilasX 6y ago
      I'm not objecting to the article. I'm asking what the original comment was objecting to. We all know, before that comment, Amazon wants you to vote no. The OP was adding to that, in criticism of Amazon, by saying there are detailed six page instructions on how to vote the way they want. But that doesn't tell me what's to be outraged about -- as the first response noted, that is exactly what every other campaign does. If the OP wasn't claiming Amazon was outrageous beyond the mere fact of asking for no, then why even bring up a six page instruction set?
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        You're reading too far into this. OP is just saying that Amazon's propaganda is slimy. Everyone else is on the same page here.
        SilasX 6y ago
        So, it's only as slimy as every other organization that gives you ballot instructions. Not sure that's the message you were trying to send.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        Someone noted that it's different when your employer tells you to vote in a certain way vs. a random political party. That's where you entered the conversation, so I'm not sure how that's getting lost.
sidlls 6y ago
Your analogy is off: if you suggested that government officials sent police offers with instructions on how to vote it'd be closer to what is the case when an employer instructs its employees to do something work related (vote "no" on the union, in this case).
- rtpg 6y ago
  Right, that’s what I’m saying. Maybe this was meant for GP?
beowulfey 6y ago
The outrage is at the inclusion of “make sure to vote no!” as a part of the seemingly well meaning instructions.

duxup 6y ago

If we argue that what is wrong about the situation is the 'balance of power'... would that mean then no employer should be able to make their case when it comes to such situation because the balance of power wouldn't be fair? That seems weird. And unions once established have their own balance of power, and that's not in favor of the individual.

SllX 6y ago
That is weird. The literal purpose of a corporation in all its varieties, for profit, non-profit, co-op, S Corp, C Corp etc. is to pool the resources of its owners and serve their interests. Unions are just another type of corporation.
- duxup 6y ago
  >serve their interests. Serve the interests of the majority... and even like a corporation sometimes they don't even manage to do that. Human organizations kinda stink sometimes, although I wouldn't really endorse another kind...
  - SllX 6y ago
    Correct. People who hold more equity have more control. This is easily seen in small businesses on the Balance Sheet with only one or two owners, you can quickly determine who put more money into the business, assuming no investors. This becomes more complex as you go from small business to startup with investors to a larger business, but the principles remain the same. Nobody starts a business to have others dictate to them what to do with their business, and to be told whose interests they should really be serving. I’m not sure why you would expect that to change just because the company in question is valued at over a trillion.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  Unions serve the interests of the people with power in the union. If those interests don't align with yours, the union may be working against you and you may not want to get involved.

mc32 6y ago

Like some unions tell their members to vote for this or that party? I’m still waiting for the Teachers’ Union to endorse the Libertarian party one day soon -I’m sure it’s gonna happen.

duxup 6y ago
I'm waiting for the Libertarian party to embrace drivers licenses ;)
- maedla 6y ago
  They are too worried about the toaster licenses
- mc32 6y ago
  It’s a very large tent party though sparse in density. Some of us see the need for aspects of regulation and frameworks, others prefer the more idealist semi pastoralist view of the world. I’m more in the Johnson camp ;)
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >It’s a very large tent party though sparse in density. I'm not so sure about that. I have strong libertarian (small 'l') leanings, specifically that government should stay the hell out of people's lives and bodies as much as possible. And that humans should be free to do pretty much whatever they want as long as they don't interfere with others doing the same. But that's where I part ways with the Libertarian (big 'L') Party. Because I do believe that, human nature being what it is, that the government does have a role to play in helping those who are disadvantaged in our society. What's more, I believe that government has a role to play in evening the playing field and attempting to make sure that everyone has equal opportunity to succeed in our society. The Libertarian Party doesn't believe in any of that, so I have no interest in supporting them. I'd note that privatized everything (not saying you support that) isn't libertarian at all. Rather it's anarcho-capitalism[0], which would completely destroy our society. While the implementation of the idea that minorities should be protected against the "tyranny of the majority" by the government has been pretty poor in the US, it has improved somewhat in recent years. I look forward to that progress continuing. And the Libertarian Party won't be the one's that help us do that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

fastball 6y ago

Not unless your boss knows how you vote.

statstutor 6y ago

Political campaigns remind everyone to vote (raise turnout) - including the people who are now indignant and will vote against you. It seems possible that Amazon may not have properly accounted for that.