4 ms·

Oh no! A person had access to the package box where USPS leaves packages for people to pick up themselves, with a key they are supposed to have for this purpose

Oh no! A person had access to the package box where USPS leaves packages for people to pick up themselves, with a key they are supposed to have for this purpose! Sound the alarm!

smt88 5y ago
So you don't think Amazon was tempted to abuse its access to that mailbox, even though the result of the vote had multibillion dollar consequences for them? (Assuming other places were inspired to unionize, I mean.)
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  Who is Amazon? The missing link to much of this “Corp is evil” fear is that someone has to do it. A real person. Sometimes corporations do “evil” things but in my view and what I’ve seen it only seems to be when it’s easy to spread responsibility out. Who would go into the mailboxes and move ballots? Did they print out hundreds of new ballots and swap? Did they do it at a office printer? How long did they spend carrying suspicious stacks of ballots? Did any security camera see them carry it across the building? There are too many questions to this situation. Who’s idea was it to do this? Did Amazon C Suite email someone and command this? Is there a paper trail of top down commands? Why would any low level warehouse employee (incl warehouse management) be incentivized to risk this much criminal behavior when they wouldn’t ever realize the full billions that the corporation is. The whole corporation would benefit but one or two people would have to take huge personal risk when they wouldn’t likely be rewarded nearly as well.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    > Who’s idea was it to do this? Did Amazon C Suite email someone and command this? Is there a paper trail of top down commands? Possibly? There likely wouldn't be a paper trail but why wouldn't an exec or someone they trust closely approach an employee or someone external to make them an offer too tempting to refuse? > Why would any low level warehouse employee (incl warehouse management) be incentivized to risk this much criminal behavior when they wouldn’t ever realize the full billions that the corporation is. The whole corporation would benefit but one or two people would have to take huge personal risk when they wouldn’t likely be rewarded nearly as well. Because they'd get a huge "bonus". Amazon is in control of the building, greatly reducing the risk. And if whoever manipulated the vote got exposed, Amazon would pay for their legal defense because it would be its defense as well.
  - smt88 5y ago
    Your whole argument against this is that we don't know the exact chain of command? It's like saying that Navalny couldn't have been poisoned by Russia because we don't know the route between Putin and the assassins. The whole point of doing something illegal in secret is that observers can't answer these questions.
    - vineyardmike 5y ago
      My argument is that there would have to be a chain of command and someone would have to actually commit the act, and the incentive is not there for anyone to do anything illegal. Some human has that key, the human works for amazon. Amazon benefits from using that key, but no human does nearly as much. A C-Suite is almost certainly financial benefiting but they're too far removed (in most sense) to actually do it, so they'd need to convince someone else to. No one else is financially incentivized significantly, considering the act is super illegal. The logistics of actually tampering with that many ballots means it couldn't be well concealed and maybe can't be done alone. So there must be a cohort of witnesses. Why has none come forward? With all the media swirling around this and few people with adequate incentives, it seems unlikely that some big conspiracy would unfold in secret without observers.
TazeTSchnitzel 5y ago
That's not what the mailbox was used for.

Oh no! A person had access to the package box where USPS leaves packages for people to pick up themselves, with a key they are supposed to have for this purpose! Sound the alarm!

smt88 5y ago

So you don't think Amazon was tempted to abuse its access to that mailbox, even though the result of the vote had multibillion dollar consequences for them? (Assuming other places were inspired to unionize, I mean.)

vineyardmike 5y ago
Who is Amazon? The missing link to much of this “Corp is evil” fear is that someone has to do it. A real person. Sometimes corporations do “evil” things but in my view and what I’ve seen it only seems to be when it’s easy to spread responsibility out. Who would go into the mailboxes and move ballots? Did they print out hundreds of new ballots and swap? Did they do it at a office printer? How long did they spend carrying suspicious stacks of ballots? Did any security camera see them carry it across the building? There are too many questions to this situation. Who’s idea was it to do this? Did Amazon C Suite email someone and command this? Is there a paper trail of top down commands? Why would any low level warehouse employee (incl warehouse management) be incentivized to risk this much criminal behavior when they wouldn’t ever realize the full billions that the corporation is. The whole corporation would benefit but one or two people would have to take huge personal risk when they wouldn’t likely be rewarded nearly as well.
- anoncake 5y ago
  > Who’s idea was it to do this? Did Amazon C Suite email someone and command this? Is there a paper trail of top down commands? Possibly? There likely wouldn't be a paper trail but why wouldn't an exec or someone they trust closely approach an employee or someone external to make them an offer too tempting to refuse? > Why would any low level warehouse employee (incl warehouse management) be incentivized to risk this much criminal behavior when they wouldn’t ever realize the full billions that the corporation is. The whole corporation would benefit but one or two people would have to take huge personal risk when they wouldn’t likely be rewarded nearly as well. Because they'd get a huge "bonus". Amazon is in control of the building, greatly reducing the risk. And if whoever manipulated the vote got exposed, Amazon would pay for their legal defense because it would be its defense as well.
- smt88 5y ago
  Your whole argument against this is that we don't know the exact chain of command? It's like saying that Navalny couldn't have been poisoned by Russia because we don't know the route between Putin and the assassins. The whole point of doing something illegal in secret is that observers can't answer these questions.
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    My argument is that there would have to be a chain of command and someone would have to actually commit the act, and the incentive is not there for anyone to do anything illegal. Some human has that key, the human works for amazon. Amazon benefits from using that key, but no human does nearly as much. A C-Suite is almost certainly financial benefiting but they're too far removed (in most sense) to actually do it, so they'd need to convince someone else to. No one else is financially incentivized significantly, considering the act is super illegal. The logistics of actually tampering with that many ballots means it couldn't be well concealed and maybe can't be done alone. So there must be a cohort of witnesses. Why has none come forward? With all the media swirling around this and few people with adequate incentives, it seems unlikely that some big conspiracy would unfold in secret without observers.

TazeTSchnitzel 5y ago

That's not what the mailbox was used for.