3 ms·

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 t

by 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?
  - woodruffw 6y ago
    > 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. Whether or not it's reasonable (which it is!) is entirely orthogonal to the fact that Amazon is making it. Corporations setting the standards for "legitimate" union voting is a precedent that every union and the NLRB wants to avoid. You've laid out a big list of things that society (or corporations) ask you to do when you exercise various rights and privileges. That's great. Now consider the following: it's not your (or my) union election. You don't get to make the rules; the union and the NLRB do. They don't see it fit to allow Amazon to engage in special pleading, for precisely the reason I stated above. > There was no base for FUD until people started refusing common security measures Common security measures would be the measures conventional to a union election, which (surprise!), are codified by the NLRB[1]. Those regulations include directives for security and certification. Nothing about a corporate dictate would be acceptable or common in the context of a labor election. [1]: https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/rules-regulations https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/rules-...
    - smsm42 6y ago
      > You don't get to make the rules; the union and the NLRB do. In other words, might makes right, go away with your stupid logic and common sense. I see.
      - woodruffw 6y ago
        I think it's a little on-the-nose to frame a baby step towards unionization against one of the largest and most powerful companies on Earth as "might makes right," don't you? The bottom line is this: the NLRB already has rules that protect the integrity of union voting activities. Amazon doesn't have a say in them, because they have no reason to have a say -- the prospective unionizers and their regulatory agency are the only relevant stakeholders. We (presumably) wouldn't allow McDonalds to impose arbitrary security considerations on our civil elections; what gives Amazon any more standing with the NLRB?

by smsm42 6y ago

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?
- woodruffw 6y ago
  > 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. Whether or not it's reasonable (which it is!) is entirely orthogonal to the fact that Amazon is making it. Corporations setting the standards for "legitimate" union voting is a precedent that every union and the NLRB wants to avoid. You've laid out a big list of things that society (or corporations) ask you to do when you exercise various rights and privileges. That's great. Now consider the following: it's not your (or my) union election. You don't get to make the rules; the union and the NLRB do. They don't see it fit to allow Amazon to engage in special pleading, for precisely the reason I stated above. > There was no base for FUD until people started refusing common security measures Common security measures would be the measures conventional to a union election, which (surprise!), are codified by the NLRB[1]. Those regulations include directives for security and certification. Nothing about a corporate dictate would be acceptable or common in the context of a labor election. [1]: https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/rules-regulations https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/rules-...
  - smsm42 6y ago
    > You don't get to make the rules; the union and the NLRB do. In other words, might makes right, go away with your stupid logic and common sense. I see.
    - woodruffw 6y ago
      I think it's a little on-the-nose to frame a baby step towards unionization against one of the largest and most powerful companies on Earth as "might makes right," don't you? The bottom line is this: the NLRB already has rules that protect the integrity of union voting activities. Amazon doesn't have a say in them, because they have no reason to have a say -- the prospective unionizers and their regulatory agency are the only relevant stakeholders. We (presumably) wouldn't allow McDonalds to impose arbitrary security considerations on our civil elections; what gives Amazon any more standing with the NLRB?