3 ms·
I mean...then it's just speculation. That's the difference between a smoking gun and opinion. Far be it for me to come off as defending Amazon, but claiming tha
by Ansil849 5y ago
I mean...then it's just speculation. That's the difference between a smoking gun and opinion. Far be it for me to come off as defending Amazon, but claiming that light patterns were altered to shave seconds off organizers engaging with cars at a traffic light seems like a reach. It's nothing I'd put past Amazon goons doing, sure, but it's also not something I'd believe without any actual proof.
Your original post was:
> They also had the red light on the public road you turn off to enter the warehouse shortened so that Union advocates would have less time to speak to workers stuck in traffic.
But the only available evidence is that the former happened, not the latter 'so that..'.
- iudqnolq 5y agoI think you need to consider it within the whole context. There's evidence of Amazon doing many other similar things to restrict unionizing, as the nrlb found. Given all that, I don't think it's reasonable to give them the benefit of the doubt in this sort of situation.
- Ansil849 5y agoI get it, which is why I said I definitely wouldn't put it past Amazon to do something like that. But I also think that this kind of talk can actively hurt organizing efforts. If I were someone on the fence about unionizing, and someone told me "you know Amazon changed the stoplight to prevent us from being able to talk to you", and I were to then look into it and find that while Amazon did change the stoplight speed, there's no evidence that they did it specifically to mess with organizing efforts, then I'd be pretty annoyed and write off the organizer as being full of shit. We need to stick to verifiable acts of union busting, especially because as you said, there are plenty of them to choose from, without rattling off speculation that can't be substantiated as if it were fact.