>In her decision Monday, the labor board’s regional director for the Atlanta region agreed, writing that Amazon “gave a strong impression that it controlled the

>In her decision Monday, the labor board’s regional director for the Atlanta region agreed, writing that Amazon “gave a strong impression that it controlled the process” by arranging the installation of the box. “This dangerous and improper message to employees destroys trust in the board’s processes and in the credibility of the election results,” the director, Lisa Y. Henderson, concluded. In particular, this is a valid concern. In anything to do with workers organizing, Management etc Al reaching out and doing something like that is definitely a bit sus. Maybe not enough to convince me in isolation, but combined with >Ms. Henderson also found that Amazon had improperly “polled” employees — that is, it attempted to determine how they would vote — by notifying workers at mandatory meetings that they could take “vote no” items such as pins that were laid out in full view of human resources officials. this clinches it for me. process is there for a reason, and in a company where data mining is possible, and things like facial recognition have been a controversial sell in the past, I can see the Big Brother is watching effect playing a potentially bigger role in shifting around how people voted. To be frank, the best move is to just let things go organically without interference. If it was an accurate vote, going from 70% to <51% against is highly unlikely. If it does happen to swing that much, serious questions need to be asked about some of the "soft" practices involved with employee monitoring I think may be worth reassessing.