3 ms·

> Myers’ recommendation centers on the mailbox, according to one of the people familiar with it. During the NLRB hearing, an employee said Amazon security guard

> Myers’ recommendation centers on the mailbox, according to one of the people familiar with it. During the NLRB hearing, an employee said Amazon security guards used keys to open the mailbox, testimony that former NLRB chair Wilma Liebman said could be reason enough to overturn the result. I just don't buy it. 1. The evidence seems to be based on the word of a single employee. If that's enough evidence to overturn an election, it will be hard to have one that isn't overturned. 2. The final total was 70-30. It would be impractical for Amazon to change the outcome because the size of the manipulation would have to be massive compared to the vote total, and would be easily detected. 3. It makes sense that the union lost the election because Amazon pays way above market in wages + benefits for the region. The union would be unlikely to have the leverage to increase compensation and might even be forced to take a cut, so it would be a hard sell to workers to pay dues.

ashtonkem 5y ago
On 2; so what? If it turns out Amazon broke the rules, “well they would have won anyways” isn’t an excuse. We have rules and votes so we can determine the outcome as fairly as possible, not to validate what we think would probably happen anyways. If it’s shown they broke the rules (your point on 1 is fair), then they have to redo the election. If Amazon wins again, then fair’s fair.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  Oh yeah, if it's shown (with real evidence) that they actually tampered with the votes it should be rerun and people should go to jail. Point 2 is just a reason why I think they didn't.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Ah, totally fair.
- AdamJacobMuller 5y ago
  the standard for the NLRB requires that the scale of the wrongdoing could potentially have changed the result: "The labor board has the authority to invalidate election results in response to conduct that could have changed the outcome" If a single amazon manager who wasn't eligible to vote submitted a single vote, it isn't reasonable to redo the whole election over that. You would be in a never-ending cycle of voting with each side finding tiny errors and demanding revotes.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    I think proven cheating by the losing party shouldn’t require a re-vote, because logically the cheating didn’t change the outcome. Perhaps a fine would be sufficient, or criminal prosecution of the individuals would be enough. It’s only when the winning side cheated that the prospect of the outcome having changed appears and must be dealt with. I’d be curious how they decide whether or not any given bad acting potentially changed the outcome. I can certainly say that firing Union activists and monitoring voting activity would have a chilling effect, but proving the magnitude of that would be hard to do.
- rayiner 5y ago
  Sounds Trump-y.
  - noobermin 5y ago
    Trump claims the election was stolen on little to no evidence, after losing 60+ court cases across the country trying to find evidence. The sentiment expressed is not analogous at all.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      There’s also a difference between how you run and adjudicate a ~100 person NRLB election and a ~150 million person country wide national election. It’s both easier to cheat in small elections, and easier to just call a redo. In the latter case calling a redo is literally impossible (and illegal), in the former it’s a pretty reasonable response. And yes, Trump didn’t prove anything. He’s just a sore loser.
kwyjobojoe 5y ago
It says that Amazon had cameras pointed at the mailbox, so all Amazon has to do is hand over every single second of footage they took. I'm sure they have nothing to hide.
ojnabieoot 5y ago
The problem is that the election was clearly unfair and there was a widespread sense that the people voting in it thought it was unfair. A 70-30 vote in an election where you know the authorities are watching means absolutely nothing. As for this: > The evidence seems to be based on the word of a single employee. If that's enough evidence to overturn an election, it will be hard to have one that isn't overturned. You are reading this very myopically, ignoring crucial context with a sliver of the article (and not being helped by some weak writing). The snippet should be read as this: > Myers’ recommendation centers on the mailbox [which was unquestionably on Amazon’s headquarters and which Amazon management unquestionably pressured employees to use for voting], according to one of the people familiar with it. During the NLRB hearing, an employee said Amazon security guards used keys to open the mailbox, testimony that former NLRB chair Wilma Liebman said could be reason enough to overturn the result. So there was plenty of direct evidence suggesting improper behavior, which not even Amazon contested. That was not enough to overturn the result. But just the one piece of deeply serious eyewitness testimony on top of the documentary evidence would be enough. And of course there was far more evidence than just that one employee: Liebman’s comments are obviously a rhetorical device used to illustrate the severity of Amazon’s transgressions and not a literal description of the merits of the case.

ashtonkem 5y ago

On 2; so what? If it turns out Amazon broke the rules, “well they would have won anyways” isn’t an excuse. We have rules and votes so we can determine the outcome as fairly as possible, not to validate what we think would probably happen anyways. If it’s shown they broke the rules (your point on 1 is fair), then they have to redo the election. If Amazon wins again, then fair’s fair.

fallingknife 5y ago
Oh yeah, if it's shown (with real evidence) that they actually tampered with the votes it should be rerun and people should go to jail. Point 2 is just a reason why I think they didn't.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Ah, totally fair.
AdamJacobMuller 5y ago
the standard for the NLRB requires that the scale of the wrongdoing could potentially have changed the result: "The labor board has the authority to invalidate election results in response to conduct that could have changed the outcome" If a single amazon manager who wasn't eligible to vote submitted a single vote, it isn't reasonable to redo the whole election over that. You would be in a never-ending cycle of voting with each side finding tiny errors and demanding revotes.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  I think proven cheating by the losing party shouldn’t require a re-vote, because logically the cheating didn’t change the outcome. Perhaps a fine would be sufficient, or criminal prosecution of the individuals would be enough. It’s only when the winning side cheated that the prospect of the outcome having changed appears and must be dealt with. I’d be curious how they decide whether or not any given bad acting potentially changed the outcome. I can certainly say that firing Union activists and monitoring voting activity would have a chilling effect, but proving the magnitude of that would be hard to do.
rayiner 5y ago
Sounds Trump-y.
- noobermin 5y ago
  Trump claims the election was stolen on little to no evidence, after losing 60+ court cases across the country trying to find evidence. The sentiment expressed is not analogous at all.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    There’s also a difference between how you run and adjudicate a ~100 person NRLB election and a ~150 million person country wide national election. It’s both easier to cheat in small elections, and easier to just call a redo. In the latter case calling a redo is literally impossible (and illegal), in the former it’s a pretty reasonable response. And yes, Trump didn’t prove anything. He’s just a sore loser.

kwyjobojoe 5y ago

It says that Amazon had cameras pointed at the mailbox, so all Amazon has to do is hand over every single second of footage they took. I'm sure they have nothing to hide.

ojnabieoot 5y ago

The problem is that the election was clearly unfair and there was a widespread sense that the people voting in it thought it was unfair. A 70-30 vote in an election where you know the authorities are watching means absolutely nothing. As for this: > The evidence seems to be based on the word of a single employee. If that's enough evidence to overturn an election, it will be hard to have one that isn't overturned. You are reading this very myopically, ignoring crucial context with a sliver of the article (and not being helped by some weak writing). The snippet should be read as this: > Myers’ recommendation centers on the mailbox [which was unquestionably on Amazon’s headquarters and which Amazon management unquestionably pressured employees to use for voting], according to one of the people familiar with it. During the NLRB hearing, an employee said Amazon security guards used keys to open the mailbox, testimony that former NLRB chair Wilma Liebman said could be reason enough to overturn the result. So there was plenty of direct evidence suggesting improper behavior, which not even Amazon contested. That was not enough to overturn the result. But just the one piece of deeply serious eyewitness testimony on top of the documentary evidence would be enough. And of course there was far more evidence than just that one employee: Liebman’s comments are obviously a rhetorical device used to illustrate the severity of Amazon’s transgressions and not a literal description of the merits of the case.