There are bad unions out there for sure but the idea that having an organization that is able to at least somewhat compensate the massive power imbalance between billion dollar mega corps and the average worker in negotiations is just incredibly difficult to argue against by anyone being intellectually honest.
You’ve clearly figured it out and realized it just by hearing complaints about the union workers. The people complaining should probably ask themselves why they don’t have the same protections instead. But for some reason that cognitive disconnect is so hard for some people to grasp.
> "The more I hear about things like this, the more pro-union I become."
The evidence presented in the article is "... he saw security guards approach the box, after which one of them used a key to open a large box on the bottom labeled “1P."
If you Google "1P 2P mailbox", you'll see that those labels are used for the doors on a mailbox for incoming packages, not outgoing mail.
So what conclusion are we supposed to draw about a security guard opening a door for what may have been incoming mail? Maybe we should actually wait for testimony to be given and a verdict rendered?
> If you Google "1P 2P mailbox", you'll see that those labels are used for the doors on a mailbox for incoming packages, not outgoing mail.
Usually.
Then again, usually, clustered mailboxes are installed for use of multiple recipients with a small shared outgoing mailbox, not installed on the premises of a single entity at their demand for the express and sole purpose of collecting outgoing mail for a single union election.
Given what is publicly known about the mailbox (in large part from thr controversy over its installation and use that occurred before the balloting) it doesn’t seem plausible that this was a normal clustered mailbox deployed without modification, so it doesn’t seem reasonable to make conclusion about what provides access to what based on the assumption that it is.
There is nothing in the article to suggest Amazon broke the law or interfered with the union vote other than someone who saw security open the package locker. Nobody saw the ballots being handled or moved. Nobody saw fake ballots being added. And based on the final vote, it would have had to been a massive fraud for the final vote to be 70%+ "no".
> I hear at work how our union guys are "scumbags" and how they "only do what's in the contract" and how they "won't work overtime."
Sorry, not an American, but why those are bad things? Where I work overtime is paid 130% of the base pay and no one would do something not in their contract. I mean, that's literally the reason we have contracts.
Genuinely curious about the rationale behind this mentality.
One of the issues is that the contracts are overly specific, can be extraordinarily difficult to change, and are not written by experts in the job to be done. There's always tension between "you need to be absolutely specific in order to stop people from cutting corners like crazy for profit" and "your one-size-fits-all instructions will always run into a weird special case where an expert can could just handle it without any extra effort". If they aren't permitted to, by the contract, the job can sit undone for months waiting for the organizations' legal departments to argue about it.
Unions are strict because it's too easy to backslide and lose all you fought for. Union guys will in fact work in excess of overtime if they want to, but they're absolutely not going to let you take advantage of it.
Some unions are corrupt, but most try their best to defend their workers
Oh no! A person had access to the package box where USPS leaves packages for people to pick up themselves, with a key they are supposed to have for this purpose! Sound the alarm!
So you don't think Amazon was tempted to abuse its access to that mailbox, even though the result of the vote had multibillion dollar consequences for them? (Assuming other places were inspired to unionize, I mean.)
The missing link to much of this “Corp is evil” fear is that someone has to do it. A real person. Sometimes corporations do “evil” things but in my view and what I’ve seen it only seems to be when it’s easy to spread responsibility out.
Who would go into the mailboxes and move ballots? Did they print out hundreds of new ballots and swap? Did they do it at a office printer? How long did they spend carrying suspicious stacks of ballots? Did any security camera see them carry it across the building? There are too many questions to this situation.
Who’s idea was it to do this? Did Amazon C Suite email someone and command this? Is there a paper trail of top down commands? Why would any low level warehouse employee (incl warehouse management) be incentivized to risk this much criminal behavior when they wouldn’t ever realize the full billions that the corporation is. The whole corporation would benefit but one or two people would have to take huge personal risk when they wouldn’t likely be rewarded nearly as well.
> Who’s idea was it to do this? Did Amazon C Suite email someone and command this? Is there a paper trail of top down commands?
Possibly? There likely wouldn't be a paper trail but why wouldn't an exec or someone they trust closely approach an employee or someone external to make them an offer too tempting to refuse?
> Why would any low level warehouse employee (incl warehouse management) be incentivized to risk this much criminal behavior when they wouldn’t ever realize the full billions that the corporation is. The whole corporation would benefit but one or two people would have to take huge personal risk when they wouldn’t likely be rewarded nearly as well.
Because they'd get a huge "bonus". Amazon is in control of the building, greatly reducing the risk. And if whoever manipulated the vote got exposed, Amazon would pay for their legal defense because it would be its defense as well.
My argument is that there would have to be a chain of command and someone would have to actually commit the act, and the incentive is not there for anyone to do anything illegal.
Some human has that key, the human works for amazon. Amazon benefits from using that key, but no human does nearly as much.
A C-Suite is almost certainly financial benefiting but they're too far removed (in most sense) to actually do it, so they'd need to convince someone else to. No one else is financially incentivized significantly, considering the act is super illegal. The logistics of actually tampering with that many ballots means it couldn't be well concealed and maybe can't be done alone. So there must be a cohort of witnesses. Why has none come forward?
With all the media swirling around this and few people with adequate incentives, it seems unlikely that some big conspiracy would unfold in secret without observers.
From what I've seen, this article may be truthful but still misleading. On clustered mailboxes, the doors labeled 1p,2p,...,np are used for storing incoming packages, there's no access to outgoing mail.
Its not "truthful but misleading". Its either true or not true since they are making a single claim against a specific fact. Either Amazon had keys to the mailbox used to mail ballots or they did not.
Absolutely it is, if the keys do not give access to outbound mail. It gives the impression that Amazon may have tampered with votes, which would be impossible if the keys only give access to inbound parcels.
What difference does having access to the inbound parcels make when this clustered mailbox was only installed for the union votes? Amazon should not be using it period.
> Its either true or not true since they are making a single claim against a specific fact.
The clear implication of the headline is that Amazon had the ability to tamper with the union election. That is, by definition, not "a single claim". In fact it seems to be false.
I seriously doubt Amazon would risk mail fraud (and a bevy of other federal charges) over this. If they get caught in a criminal case (not civil), they could be completely shut down.
Amazon doesn’t want unions because then it will be difficult to replace the humans with robots, and it will give the robots ideas. XD
I mean really though, it seems as though the upper class is just biding their time, and dragging things out as long as possible. Won’t be too long before they jack that vaccine price sky high to thin the heard when robots can replace the lower class. I mean, booster shots we will need annually and the government isn’t going to cover them forever.
That Bessemer vote was one of the most consequential votes of the coming decade.... hopefully there was some funny stuff for the sake of our communal well-being.
Simple question: why would a potential union use mail ballots rather than gather them in a physical box controlled by the union organizers? Given the US's history of union-busting ... this is perplexing.
Is it silly of me to think that they were more concerned about the health risk of gathering everyone to vote during a pandemic than they were about Amazon doing something this shady?
Additionally, security of the vote aside, perhaps they valued the convenience of the vote and better voter turnout to be more valuable.
39 comments
[ 0.18 ms ] story [ 88.8 ms ] threadI hear at work how our union guys are "scumbags" and how they "only do what's in the contract" and how they "won't work overtime."
what I'm starting to interpret that as is something like "those scumbags are using the law to prevent us from taking advantage of them."
we need more unions, I now believe.
You’ve clearly figured it out and realized it just by hearing complaints about the union workers. The people complaining should probably ask themselves why they don’t have the same protections instead. But for some reason that cognitive disconnect is so hard for some people to grasp.
The evidence presented in the article is "... he saw security guards approach the box, after which one of them used a key to open a large box on the bottom labeled “1P."
If you Google "1P 2P mailbox", you'll see that those labels are used for the doors on a mailbox for incoming packages, not outgoing mail.
So what conclusion are we supposed to draw about a security guard opening a door for what may have been incoming mail? Maybe we should actually wait for testimony to be given and a verdict rendered?
Usually.
Then again, usually, clustered mailboxes are installed for use of multiple recipients with a small shared outgoing mailbox, not installed on the premises of a single entity at their demand for the express and sole purpose of collecting outgoing mail for a single union election.
Given what is publicly known about the mailbox (in large part from thr controversy over its installation and use that occurred before the balloting) it doesn’t seem plausible that this was a normal clustered mailbox deployed without modification, so it doesn’t seem reasonable to make conclusion about what provides access to what based on the assumption that it is.
Sorry, not an American, but why those are bad things? Where I work overtime is paid 130% of the base pay and no one would do something not in their contract. I mean, that's literally the reason we have contracts. Genuinely curious about the rationale behind this mentality.
Some unions are corrupt, but most try their best to defend their workers
The missing link to much of this “Corp is evil” fear is that someone has to do it. A real person. Sometimes corporations do “evil” things but in my view and what I’ve seen it only seems to be when it’s easy to spread responsibility out.
Who would go into the mailboxes and move ballots? Did they print out hundreds of new ballots and swap? Did they do it at a office printer? How long did they spend carrying suspicious stacks of ballots? Did any security camera see them carry it across the building? There are too many questions to this situation.
Who’s idea was it to do this? Did Amazon C Suite email someone and command this? Is there a paper trail of top down commands? Why would any low level warehouse employee (incl warehouse management) be incentivized to risk this much criminal behavior when they wouldn’t ever realize the full billions that the corporation is. The whole corporation would benefit but one or two people would have to take huge personal risk when they wouldn’t likely be rewarded nearly as well.
Possibly? There likely wouldn't be a paper trail but why wouldn't an exec or someone they trust closely approach an employee or someone external to make them an offer too tempting to refuse?
> Why would any low level warehouse employee (incl warehouse management) be incentivized to risk this much criminal behavior when they wouldn’t ever realize the full billions that the corporation is. The whole corporation would benefit but one or two people would have to take huge personal risk when they wouldn’t likely be rewarded nearly as well.
Because they'd get a huge "bonus". Amazon is in control of the building, greatly reducing the risk. And if whoever manipulated the vote got exposed, Amazon would pay for their legal defense because it would be its defense as well.
It's like saying that Navalny couldn't have been poisoned by Russia because we don't know the route between Putin and the assassins.
The whole point of doing something illegal in secret is that observers can't answer these questions.
Some human has that key, the human works for amazon. Amazon benefits from using that key, but no human does nearly as much.
A C-Suite is almost certainly financial benefiting but they're too far removed (in most sense) to actually do it, so they'd need to convince someone else to. No one else is financially incentivized significantly, considering the act is super illegal. The logistics of actually tampering with that many ballots means it couldn't be well concealed and maybe can't be done alone. So there must be a cohort of witnesses. Why has none come forward?
With all the media swirling around this and few people with adequate incentives, it seems unlikely that some big conspiracy would unfold in secret without observers.
Absolutely it is, if the keys do not give access to outbound mail. It gives the impression that Amazon may have tampered with votes, which would be impossible if the keys only give access to inbound parcels.
The clear implication of the headline is that Amazon had the ability to tamper with the union election. That is, by definition, not "a single claim". In fact it seems to be false.
That's awfully optimistic.
I mean really though, it seems as though the upper class is just biding their time, and dragging things out as long as possible. Won’t be too long before they jack that vaccine price sky high to thin the heard when robots can replace the lower class. I mean, booster shots we will need annually and the government isn’t going to cover them forever.
Additionally, security of the vote aside, perhaps they valued the convenience of the vote and better voter turnout to be more valuable.
This is what happens when you live in an echo chamber. You are shocked when things defy your worldview.
This some some Trump level delusional. The vote wasn’t even close. Come on.