8 ms·
Apparently the union and Amazon were both granted the ability to have four observers present during the counting. Amazon wanted wanted to watch the ballot box i
by PragmaticPulp 6y ago
Apparently the union and Amazon were both granted the ability to have four observers present during the counting. Amazon wanted wanted to watch the ballot box itself (not the votes or counts or ballots) during off hours so both parties can confirm that it wasn't tampered with.
> Amazon had sought to place a video camera in the NLRB’s Birmingham office, where votes will be tabulated, to keep an eye on the ballot boxes in the off hours between counting, according to an NLRB order denying Amazon’s request. The camera feed would have been accessible by both Amazon and the RWDSU.
That doesn't sound as nefarious as the headline suggests. In fact, it seems strange that the secure ballot box would be deliberately stored somewhere without security cameras.
- mschuster91 6y ago> In fact, it seems strange that the secure ballot box would be deliberately stored somewhere without security cameras. I've been a voting official a couple of times in Germany. Here, the ballot boxes (which are literal trash cans, just in a different color) get loaded with everything (ballots, tabulation aids, even the pencils) at the end of the day and sealed off, then over night left behind in the room where the election and counting happens (usually a school classroom), and at the beginning of the next day we verify the seals haven't been tampered with, unload the cans and continue counting.
- PragmaticPulp 6y agoAmazon requested similar measures, including tamper-proof tape: > According to the motion, Amazon asked that the NLRB change or reset the security locks to the storage room’s door where the ballots will be held, provide Amazon and the RWDSU with an electronic or physical log of when the storage room door is opened during the counting process and use tamper proof tape on the ballot boxes or storage room door to “ensure no unauthorized access to the envelopes, ballot boxes, or storage room occurs.” These measures seem rather basic and in the interest of both sides, to be honest. It's strange that there's so much resistance.
- Judgmentality 6y ago> It's strange that there's so much resistance. Not knowing the specifics, I'd imagine trust has just completely eroded for the workers where they always assume Amazon is nefariously working against them. Pure speculation on my part, but it's easy to understand psychologically.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y agoAmazon's proposal may be entirely reasonable. But I could easily imagine that it's part of a very sophisticated strategy on Amazon's part to ultimately undermine a legitimate vote. I have trouble guessing which approach approach is more desirable in this situation.
- josho 6y agoJust the rumour of "Cameras are recording who votes" could significantly alter the willingness of people to vote.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y agoIIUC, this particular article deals only with keeping a camera on the ballot box after it's been sealed, and on the subsequent vote-counting. So I don't think this poses a risk to anonymous voting per se.
- FireBeyond 6y agoBut as we see from even comments in this article, the lack of clarity around this is probably enough to chill some potential voters from participating, correctly or otherwise.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> These measures seem rather basic and in the interest of both sides, to be honest. It's strange that there's so much resistance Giving Amazon the benefit of doubt, some unions are notoriously corrupt. Giving that benefit to the union, it could have just been the latest stalling tactic in a long string of reasonable requests.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 411111111111111 6y agoUh, he just said it's about a camera that's supposed to run over night when there is no voting going on. Is what he said untrue?
- Judgmentality 6y agoSorry for responding to your comment, but I'm unable to respond to the parent comment. Since when is it possible to delete a comment after someone has replied to it, or was this done by a moderator?
- ALittleLight 6y agoI believe you can email the moderators and ask for your comment to be deleted at any time and they may oblige.
- smsm42 6y agoI can't think of a valid reason why one would object to having a camera over the box, unless they intend to tamper with it. I mean, I can understand objections to installing cameras where there might be privacy or ballot secrecy issues. But the box doesn't have privacy and it won't reveal anyone's ballot's content - so why the objection?
- lvs 6y agoIt's the federal agency itself that you're accusing of impropriety here.
- smsm42 6y agoOf course, it has been never the case that federal agents behaved improperly. In fact, once a person is hired by a federal government, they become incapable of committing a crime or even an impropriety. That's why no courts has ever convicted anyone working for a federal agency in anything inappropriate.
- JPKab 6y agoExactly. It's not like we have recent history of federal employees arresting the founder of the silk road and then concocting a conspiracy to steal hundreds of millions in Bitcoin from him for their own personal gain while hiding it from their agency, and then having employers so incompetent that they didn't realize this until an external watchdog discovered it..... Having worked in the federal government in the past I can assure you that the best rule of thumb to operate under is you can count on incompetence and you certainly can't count on the opposite.
- lvs 6y agoWhat are you on about? If the NLRB wanted to take action against this company for union busting, they have statutory tools at their disposal. What you're proposing is completely tinfoiled.
- smsm42 6y ago
- jcrawfordor 6y agoI think it's important to understand, for this decision, the context of the election process. Secret ballot union elections are conducted not by the employer or the union, but actually by the NLRB itself, a federal agency. These elections are carried out according to specifications and requirements produced by NLRB as administrative law. So consider that Amazon's request for security measures beyond what the NLRB has previously found necessary will increase the time and cost for NLRB to run the election... it seems likely to me that the NLRB would reject the request simply because they feel it to be unnecessary and to impose additional complexity and cost on the NLRB (and thus potentially the taxpayer).
- omegaworks 6y agoWe saw the impact of FUD spreading around the November Presidential election on January 6th, I'm curious to see what kind of impact a a similar effort will have on the NLRB vote.
- nine_k 6y agoWon't Amazon cover 100% of the cost, including whatever incidental costs? Adding a camera to a room is not rocket science, it's a 1-hour project at worst, after which the camera operates unobtrusively. I bet this is more of a turf war, a demonstration of status.
- nieve 6y agoI've seen that stated nowhere, but there's zero chance Amazon will compensate the NLRB for the disruption of its other work even if they asserted they'd be willing to for the core stuff.
- ddingus 6y agoActually, it's more likely a matter of law. The election process is codified in law. Changing it carries legal implications, one being the law is in question. For an election of this significance, the very best thing to do is run it by the book, the entire book, chapter and verse.
- manicdee 6y agoThe ballot box is stored in a secure building. Are the Union or Amazon going to break into the offices of a federal agency to deposit fake votes or otherwise tamper with the ballot box? Doesn’t the security of the building contribute to the security of the ballot?
- nine_k 6y agoThis assumes honesty of every agency's officer, and lack of negligence along the entire chain leading to the box. I want to believe, but an extra check won't hurt. Whether the extra check offered by Amazon may be seen as impartial is another question.
- manicdee 6y agoA camera controlled by the government department isn't going to protect the ballot box from malfeasance on the part of the government department. At some point you need to trust someone. I think it's reasonable to trust a government department with no history of questionable conduct.
- MuffinFlavored 6y ago> That doesn't sound as nefarious as the headline suggests. Why rule against it if it isn't a big deal? When is "too much security" a bad thing?
- ralusek 6y agoI mean, a police officer in every bedroom wouldn't be great. Not saying that applies here, just thought your question was a strange hypothetical.
- MuffinFlavored 6y agoWho would it have hurt to have approved the request to put a camera on the box of ballots?
- ralusek 6y agoNobody, which is why I said my example didn't apply to the situation, but rather to the broader hypothetical.