4 ms·

Amazon requested similar measures, including tamper-proof tape: > According to the motion, Amazon asked that the NLRB change or reset the security locks to the

Amazon 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 ago
Amazon'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 ago
  Just the rumour of "Cameras are recording who votes" could significantly alter the willingness of people to vote.
  - DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
    IIUC, 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 ago
      But 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.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
  This line of thinking of unions is why many Americans not in unions hate them. They benefit nobody but the people in the union.
  - babycake 6y ago
    > They benefit nobody but the people in the union. Amazon has enacted policies that are entirely employee-hostile... like creating timetables that are impossible to fulfill unless they pee in bottles or take a dump to fertilize a customer's lawn. And those policies were created that benefits nobody but Amazon itself. Why would this scenario be more acceptable than a union whose goal is to empower workers and to allow an official process to create lasting change? If anything, any union policies that get enacted by the company generally benefits all employees of Amazon, union or not. It's not like amazon will give benefits to only union members, because that would then cause non-union employees to join the union, boosting the union's power. In any case, if we're generalizing all unions like in your statement, then we can generalize corporations as well. Since all corporations just look out for themselves, and can throw you and your life under the bus at any time, having union is still better than a corporate overlord. Americans will therefore hate corporations more than unions.
zwayhowder 6y ago
When you've had a long vitriolic campaign it can be hard to agree to anything your opposition proposes even when it is clearly a fact or win-win.
- nickff 6y ago
  Unions generally oppose most of these 'safeguards', including secret ballots. The stated reason for this is that the 'safeguards' are unnecessary and costly; employers often suggest that the unions engage in pressure tactics and fraud.
brightball 6y ago
I'll never understand how opposition to improving the integrity of things like this is taken seriously, much less defended.
- bushbaba 6y ago
  Honestly makes me feel the authority managing the vote believes that something corrupt is likely to take place.
- coldelectrons 6y ago
  While every improvement is a change, not every change is an improvement.
woodruffw 6y ago
> It's strange that there's so much resistance. I can think of two plausible, good reasons for resisting these measures: 1. It's in Amazon's best interest to delay the vote as much as they can. More security edicts from Amazon means more delays, which means that Amazon can spend more time blasting both the public and their own employees with anti-union messaging. 2. Security demands from Amazon are a chilling force on the independence of the union. The union already has voting rules and mechanisms; kowtowing to Amazon makes them appear weak and establishes a precedent for future union body decisions. I think the first reason is stronger than the second, but that both are perfectly sufficient and acceptable objections to Amazon's demands, particularly in light of their established delay tactics. Absent of any evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to believe that the union and NLRB are incapable of holding a fair election on their own terms.
- smsm42 6y ago
  Who'd be chilled, the box? They ask for a camera watching the box with ballots, not voters themselves. And I can't believe installing a webcam would take much time. I'm pretty sure one could order it from... say Amazon? - and get it the next day ;)
  - woodruffw 6y ago
    > Who'd be chilled, the box? The chilling effect is on the prospective unionists -- there isn't much point in being in a union if the union unconditionally accepts orders from your employer. As a reminder: there is absolutely no evidence of impropriety at any level here. Amazon's demands amount to handwringing and FUD; acquiescing to them sends the message that Amazon, not the union, ultimately calls the shots in union elections.
    - smsm42 6y ago
      > there isn't much point in being in a union if the union unconditionally accepts orders from your employer. That's BS - nobody talking about accepting every order forever, whatever it is. The matter in question here is completely common and reasonable security measure. To refuse it just to be obstinate and play the power game is childish and pointless. Exactly what one doesn't want in a union - preferring power games to the benefit of the workers - who, I presume, would want an honest election - and an election that can be proven to be honest. > there is absolutely no evidence of impropriety at any level here So what? There's no evidence I am a terrorist, but I have to show ID and go through the security when I fly (or enter a court building). There's no evidence I am not paying taxes, but I have to submit my tax return (and sometimes undergo audit - without any evidence I cheated!). There's no evidence I am an illegal immigrant, but I still have to show my ID when passing the border. There's no evidence I am a crappy driver, but I still have to get a driver license, by passing tests. There's no evidence I am a criminal, but I still have to show ID and submit to a background check if I want to buy a firearm. There's no evidence I stole my credit card, but I still have to type in the secret code in the form. There's no evidence I am impersonating somebody else on HN, but I still have to type the password when I am logging in. There's no evidence somebody is breaking into my house, but I still have lock and keys (and cameras). I could continue for hours. There are thousands of cases where security measures are taken without evidence of somebody's personal misconduct that already happened. That's how you make sure the probability of misconduct is very low - by taking measures before it happened, not after. Somehow in this particular case it's not clear - despite widespread usage of security cameras otherwise, that could have hinted you that using security cameras does not have proof of misconduct as prerequisite - in fact, the presence of the cameras is usually the prerequisite of obtaining the evidence. > Amazon's demands amount to handwringing and FUD There was no base for FUD until people started refusing common security measures - and then there is, if they don't plan to cheat why they are so against the common security measures? If there's no misconduct, why they are so keen to ensuring there could be no possibility of having any evidence of it?
bdavisx 6y ago
This is a federal agency with legal authority: 1 - why should they have to answer to Amazon on how they conduct elections that they have been handling for longer than Amazon has existed? 2 - since it is Federal, any change to the way they handle things would likely delay the election - but perhaps that's what Amazon is really after - or they're taking a page from the Republicans and will use it to sow fake doubt about the outcome
- elefanten 6y ago
  The ability to challenge and potentially change government procedures exists in various forms at all levels of the political and legal systems. One could argue that it's a key component of the systems' strengthening and improving over time. More cynically, it's also an agency who's purpose is to support labor. So, it seems understandable that one of the biggest companies with some of the hottest labor issues would want any types of insurance it can acquire in the interest of contingency-planning.
dbt00 6y ago
The problem isn't that the steps they're requesting are onerous, it's that the process by which the ballots are stored and counted is already set forth in NLRB regulations and backed by law. Arbitrarily changing the conditions, even if each step seems practical, requires ratifying the changes, delays the counting, and potentially invalidating the vote.

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 ago

Amazon'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 ago
Just the rumour of "Cameras are recording who votes" could significantly alter the willingness of people to vote.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  IIUC, 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 ago
    But 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.

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
This line of thinking of unions is why many Americans not in unions hate them. They benefit nobody but the people in the union.
- babycake 6y ago
  > They benefit nobody but the people in the union. Amazon has enacted policies that are entirely employee-hostile... like creating timetables that are impossible to fulfill unless they pee in bottles or take a dump to fertilize a customer's lawn. And those policies were created that benefits nobody but Amazon itself. Why would this scenario be more acceptable than a union whose goal is to empower workers and to allow an official process to create lasting change? If anything, any union policies that get enacted by the company generally benefits all employees of Amazon, union or not. It's not like amazon will give benefits to only union members, because that would then cause non-union employees to join the union, boosting the union's power. In any case, if we're generalizing all unions like in your statement, then we can generalize corporations as well. Since all corporations just look out for themselves, and can throw you and your life under the bus at any time, having union is still better than a corporate overlord. Americans will therefore hate corporations more than unions.

zwayhowder 6y ago

When you've had a long vitriolic campaign it can be hard to agree to anything your opposition proposes even when it is clearly a fact or win-win.

nickff 6y ago
Unions generally oppose most of these 'safeguards', including secret ballots. The stated reason for this is that the 'safeguards' are unnecessary and costly; employers often suggest that the unions engage in pressure tactics and fraud.

brightball 6y ago

I'll never understand how opposition to improving the integrity of things like this is taken seriously, much less defended.

bushbaba 6y ago
Honestly makes me feel the authority managing the vote believes that something corrupt is likely to take place.
coldelectrons 6y ago
While every improvement is a change, not every change is an improvement.

woodruffw 6y ago

> It's strange that there's so much resistance. I can think of two plausible, good reasons for resisting these measures: 1. It's in Amazon's best interest to delay the vote as much as they can. More security edicts from Amazon means more delays, which means that Amazon can spend more time blasting both the public and their own employees with anti-union messaging. 2. Security demands from Amazon are a chilling force on the independence of the union. The union already has voting rules and mechanisms; kowtowing to Amazon makes them appear weak and establishes a precedent for future union body decisions. I think the first reason is stronger than the second, but that both are perfectly sufficient and acceptable objections to Amazon's demands, particularly in light of their established delay tactics. Absent of any evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to believe that the union and NLRB are incapable of holding a fair election on their own terms.

smsm42 6y ago
Who'd be chilled, the box? They ask for a camera watching the box with ballots, not voters themselves. And I can't believe installing a webcam would take much time. I'm pretty sure one could order it from... say Amazon? - and get it the next day ;)
- woodruffw 6y ago
  > Who'd be chilled, the box? The chilling effect is on the prospective unionists -- there isn't much point in being in a union if the union unconditionally accepts orders from your employer. As a reminder: there is absolutely no evidence of impropriety at any level here. Amazon's demands amount to handwringing and FUD; acquiescing to them sends the message that Amazon, not the union, ultimately calls the shots in union elections.
  - smsm42 6y ago
    > there isn't much point in being in a union if the union unconditionally accepts orders from your employer. That's BS - nobody talking about accepting every order forever, whatever it is. The matter in question here is completely common and reasonable security measure. To refuse it just to be obstinate and play the power game is childish and pointless. Exactly what one doesn't want in a union - preferring power games to the benefit of the workers - who, I presume, would want an honest election - and an election that can be proven to be honest. > there is absolutely no evidence of impropriety at any level here So what? There's no evidence I am a terrorist, but I have to show ID and go through the security when I fly (or enter a court building). There's no evidence I am not paying taxes, but I have to submit my tax return (and sometimes undergo audit - without any evidence I cheated!). There's no evidence I am an illegal immigrant, but I still have to show my ID when passing the border. There's no evidence I am a crappy driver, but I still have to get a driver license, by passing tests. There's no evidence I am a criminal, but I still have to show ID and submit to a background check if I want to buy a firearm. There's no evidence I stole my credit card, but I still have to type in the secret code in the form. There's no evidence I am impersonating somebody else on HN, but I still have to type the password when I am logging in. There's no evidence somebody is breaking into my house, but I still have lock and keys (and cameras). I could continue for hours. There are thousands of cases where security measures are taken without evidence of somebody's personal misconduct that already happened. That's how you make sure the probability of misconduct is very low - by taking measures before it happened, not after. Somehow in this particular case it's not clear - despite widespread usage of security cameras otherwise, that could have hinted you that using security cameras does not have proof of misconduct as prerequisite - in fact, the presence of the cameras is usually the prerequisite of obtaining the evidence. > Amazon's demands amount to handwringing and FUD There was no base for FUD until people started refusing common security measures - and then there is, if they don't plan to cheat why they are so against the common security measures? If there's no misconduct, why they are so keen to ensuring there could be no possibility of having any evidence of it?

bdavisx 6y ago

This is a federal agency with legal authority: 1 - why should they have to answer to Amazon on how they conduct elections that they have been handling for longer than Amazon has existed? 2 - since it is Federal, any change to the way they handle things would likely delay the election - but perhaps that's what Amazon is really after - or they're taking a page from the Republicans and will use it to sow fake doubt about the outcome

elefanten 6y ago
The ability to challenge and potentially change government procedures exists in various forms at all levels of the political and legal systems. One could argue that it's a key component of the systems' strengthening and improving over time. More cynically, it's also an agency who's purpose is to support labor. So, it seems understandable that one of the biggest companies with some of the hottest labor issues would want any types of insurance it can acquire in the interest of contingency-planning.

dbt00 6y ago

The problem isn't that the steps they're requesting are onerous, it's that the process by which the ballots are stored and counted is already set forth in NLRB regulations and backed by law. Arbitrarily changing the conditions, even if each step seems practical, requires ratifying the changes, delays the counting, and potentially invalidating the vote.