3 ms·

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 outco

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.

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.