3 ms·

The people voted and rejected it. You can’t keep voting until you somehow get your way. Come back in 5 years or something. Until then it just sounds like people

The people voted and rejected it. You can’t keep voting until you somehow get your way. Come back in 5 years or something. Until then it just sounds like people trying to justify their livelihoods.

bostonsre 5y ago
It's hearsay.. It's impossible to tell whether or not the employee is telling the truth.
- txru 5y ago
  It would be hearsay if the employee testifying had heard another person say they saw the box opened. This is witness testimony under oath. That doesn't make it true, but it does make it perjury for the mentioned act to have not happened.
  - ABCLAW 5y ago
    This is correct. Additionally, this isn't just someone's word. Witnesses will be cross examined. Their testimony will be compared with others, along with records. Ultimately the trier of fact will determine if they're credible or not.
  - bostonsre 5y ago
    Sorry, yea used that word incorrectly. I just mean to say one guy said something where it is impossible to know whether or not he is telling the truth.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
tablespoon 5y ago
> The people voted and rejected it. My understanding is the deck is pretty stacked in favor of the company during those votes. The documentary American Factory was pretty eye opening: the workers in that factory were trying to form a union, and in response the company hired anti-union consultants and had all workers sit through all kinds of mandatory propaganda sessions. It's like if the in the month leading up to a federal election, every registered voter was required to watch an hour of Fox News opinion programming every day. Sure it won't influence everyone, but it will definitely tip the scales.
- fsckboy 5y ago
  tipping the scales means changing the outcome, which would not definitely happen.
  - kristofferR 5y ago
    What was then the point of the mailbox Amazon created and surveilled, and removed after the election?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Any particular reason why you're so confident of this?
    - fsckboy 5y ago
      I was correcting a mistake, and my correction stands, it's really not a matter of opinion. He meant to say that some influence would take place, and he called that tipping the scales, which is not some influence, it's enough influence to change the outcome. I'm confident that you have misunderstood, I'm not confident of the reason why. edit: listen, you downvoting stooge, me saying "would not definitely happen" is not the same as saying "definitely would not happen" if that is your mistake, and what I'm saying about tipping the scales is correct if that is your mistake. You are flunking english comprehension atm.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        Since you're actually replying to me, I want to point out that I never downvote comments I reply to.
  - danaris 5y ago
    "Tipping the scales" does not necessarily mean changing which pan of the scales is higher (ie, changing the outcome). It just means shifting the balance.

The people voted and rejected it. You can’t keep voting until you somehow get your way. Come back in 5 years or something. Until then it just sounds like people trying to justify their livelihoods.

bostonsre 5y ago

It's hearsay.. It's impossible to tell whether or not the employee is telling the truth.

txru 5y ago
It would be hearsay if the employee testifying had heard another person say they saw the box opened. This is witness testimony under oath. That doesn't make it true, but it does make it perjury for the mentioned act to have not happened.
- ABCLAW 5y ago
  This is correct. Additionally, this isn't just someone's word. Witnesses will be cross examined. Their testimony will be compared with others, along with records. Ultimately the trier of fact will determine if they're credible or not.
- bostonsre 5y ago
  Sorry, yea used that word incorrectly. I just mean to say one guy said something where it is impossible to know whether or not he is telling the truth.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

tablespoon 5y ago

> The people voted and rejected it. My understanding is the deck is pretty stacked in favor of the company during those votes. The documentary American Factory was pretty eye opening: the workers in that factory were trying to form a union, and in response the company hired anti-union consultants and had all workers sit through all kinds of mandatory propaganda sessions. It's like if the in the month leading up to a federal election, every registered voter was required to watch an hour of Fox News opinion programming every day. Sure it won't influence everyone, but it will definitely tip the scales.

fsckboy 5y ago
tipping the scales means changing the outcome, which would not definitely happen.
- kristofferR 5y ago
  What was then the point of the mailbox Amazon created and surveilled, and removed after the election?
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Any particular reason why you're so confident of this?
  - fsckboy 5y ago
    I was correcting a mistake, and my correction stands, it's really not a matter of opinion. He meant to say that some influence would take place, and he called that tipping the scales, which is not some influence, it's enough influence to change the outcome. I'm confident that you have misunderstood, I'm not confident of the reason why. edit: listen, you downvoting stooge, me saying "would not definitely happen" is not the same as saying "definitely would not happen" if that is your mistake, and what I'm saying about tipping the scales is correct if that is your mistake. You are flunking english comprehension atm.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      Since you're actually replying to me, I want to point out that I never downvote comments I reply to.
- danaris 5y ago
  "Tipping the scales" does not necessarily mean changing which pan of the scales is higher (ie, changing the outcome). It just means shifting the balance.