> I have not sighted these ballots, but it’s a yes/no choice isn’t it? Unionize or don’t unionize: that’s a fair choice. You don’t need equal time to have a leg

> I have not sighted these ballots, but it’s a yes/no choice isn’t it? Unionize or don’t unionize: that’s a fair choice. You don’t need equal time to have a legitimate election, time can buy you mindshare but you’re not buying an election overseen by the NLRB. Yes, it's a binary yes / no. You're correct, you don't need equal time to have a legitimate election, but you do in order to have a fair election. Do you favor giving one side (Amazon) more power than the other to influence the vote? > Because no one in an employer-employee relationship is entitled to that relationship: not the employer, not the employees. This is irrelevant. There is a relationship. You want it to be an abusive one? I don't get it. > I also don’t see the government having a compelling interest here, and your proposal is toothless without government enforcement. Government has a legitimate interest in serving the people. If it does not do that, there may as well be no government. Notice I said "people," and not "unions." I am not proposing that government come down on the side of unions; rather that government come down on the side of the people, by making the employer / employee relationship as fair as possible in this context. Again, why would you oppose this? What's wrong with restoring fairness to an unbalanced relationship? I truly don't even understand the point you're trying to make here, other than "Amazon should be able to abuse workers because workers don't deserve jobs." If that's literally your point, I'm afraid we're done here.