Hacker News Reader

Comment by tgsovlerkhgsel | Hacker News Reader

No idea about the camera (there's lively discussion here about that already), but the other measures like sealing the ballot boxes and restricting/auditing access all sound like "make sure the results won't be contentious".

It's totally in Amazon's interest (but also in the interest of anyone who wants a fair vote) to avoid any doubt/claims about tampering.

View on HN

Well, from a strategic point of view, if you think you're on the losing side, wouldn't it make more sense to create doubts about the procedure? Then you can scream "Rigged election!"...

On the company side? Not necessarily. Having a union "peacefully" is probably better than having a union while screaming about rigged elections, creating strife and chaos within your own company.

Companies' union-busting attempts are often the best advertising a union can wish for.

> if you think you're on the losing side, wouldn't it make more sense to create doubts about the procedure?

If you think you're on the winning side, you'd also want the results to be unimpeachable.

There's no such thing as perfect and unimpeachable and attempts to move the needle eventually have diminishing results and steadily increasing costs on the system. If you let a side push the definition of whats acceptable beyond what is a reasonable standard you make it increasingly likely the procedure will fail in some inconsequential way and give bad faith actors more ammunition to make unreasonable claims about the validity of the results.

If you think you're on the losing side, and have access to the room where the ballots are stored, you would definitely want cameras banned there.

From what very little I know as a non-US person, isn't this being run and stored at a federal agency? IE neither the Union or Amazon "have access" in the conventional sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com