Hacker News Reader

Comment by PragmaticPulp | Hacker News Reader

Amazon requested similar measures, including tamper-proof tape:

> According to the motion, Amazon asked that the NLRB change or reset the security locks to the storage room’s door where the ballots will be held, provide Amazon and the RWDSU with an electronic or physical log of when the storage room door is opened during the counting process and use tamper proof tape on the ballot boxes or storage room door to “ensure no unauthorized access to the envelopes, ballot boxes, or storage room occurs.”

These measures seem rather basic and in the interest of both sides, to be honest. It's strange that there's so much resistance.

View on HN

This is a federal agency with legal authority:

  1 - why should they have to answer to Amazon on how they conduct elections that they have been handling for longer than Amazon has existed?

  2 - since it is Federal, any change to the way they handle things would likely delay the election - but perhaps that's what Amazon is really after - or they're taking a page from the Republicans and will use it to sow fake doubt about the outcome

The ability to challenge and potentially change government procedures exists in various forms at all levels of the political and legal systems. One could argue that it's a key component of the systems' strengthening and improving over time.

More cynically, it's also an agency who's purpose is to support labor. So, it seems understandable that one of the biggest companies with some of the hottest labor issues would want any types of insurance it can acquire in the interest of contingency-planning.

> These measures seem rather basic and in the interest of both sides, to be honest. It's strange that there's so much resistance

Giving Amazon the benefit of doubt, some unions are notoriously corrupt. Giving that benefit to the union, it could have just been the latest stalling tactic in a long string of reasonable requests.

This line of thinking of unions is why many Americans not in unions hate them. They benefit nobody but the people in the union.

> They benefit nobody but the people in the union.

Amazon has enacted policies that are entirely employee-hostile... like creating timetables that are impossible to fulfill unless they pee in bottles or take a dump to fertilize a customer's lawn. And those policies were created that benefits nobody but Amazon itself.

Why would this scenario be more acceptable than a union whose goal is to empower workers and to allow an official process to create lasting change?

If anything, any union policies that get enacted by the company generally benefits all employees of Amazon, union or not. It's not like amazon will give benefits to only union members, because that would then cause non-union employees to join the union, boosting the union's power.

In any case, if we're generalizing all unions like in your statement, then we can generalize corporations as well. Since all corporations just look out for themselves, and can throw you and your life under the bus at any time, having union is still better than a corporate overlord. Americans will therefore hate corporations more than unions.

> It's strange that there's so much resistance.

I can think of two plausible, good reasons for resisting these measures:

1. It's in Amazon's best interest to delay the vote as much as they can. More security edicts from Amazon means more delays, which means that Amazon can spend more time blasting both the public and their own employees with anti-union messaging.

2. Security demands from Amazon are a chilling force on the independence of the union. The union already has voting rules and mechanisms; kowtowing to Amazon makes them appear weak and establishes a precedent for future union body decisions.

I think the first reason is stronger than the second, but that both are perfectly sufficient and acceptable objections to Amazon's demands, particularly in light of their established delay tactics. Absent of any evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to believe that the union and NLRB are incapable of holding a fair election on their own terms.

a camera while voting, has chilling effect, but a camera at the location while the ballots are stored overnight is kinda common sense. If it was a sack of cash, or even just supplies that were valuable, it would have been treated the same.

Who says it won't have a camera? The article doesn't really say.

Amazon wants a camera they (and the union) have access to.

Without the data, I assume the federal body in question has their security practices and the people involved know this is a hot topic. Whether that is enough remains to be seen.

Who'd be chilled, the box? They ask for a camera watching the box with ballots, not voters themselves. And I can't believe installing a webcam would take much time. I'm pretty sure one could order it from... say Amazon? - and get it the next day ;)

> Who'd be chilled, the box?

The chilling effect is on the prospective unionists -- there isn't much point in being in a union if the union unconditionally accepts orders from your employer.

As a reminder: there is absolutely no evidence of impropriety at any level here. Amazon's demands amount to handwringing and FUD; acquiescing to them sends the message that Amazon, not the union, ultimately calls the shots in union elections.

> there isn't much point in being in a union if the union unconditionally accepts orders from your employer.

That's BS - nobody talking about accepting every order forever, whatever it is. The matter in question here is completely common and reasonable security measure. To refuse it just to be obstinate and play the power game is childish and pointless. Exactly what one doesn't want in a union - preferring power games to the benefit of the workers - who, I presume, would want an honest election - and an election that can be proven to be honest.

> there is absolutely no evidence of impropriety at any level here

So what? There's no evidence I am a terrorist, but I have to show ID and go through the security when I fly (or enter a court building). There's no evidence I am not paying taxes, but I have to submit my tax return (and sometimes undergo audit - without any evidence I cheated!). There's no evidence I am an illegal immigrant, but I still have to show my ID when passing the border. There's no evidence I am a crappy driver, but I still have to get a driver license, by passing tests. There's no evidence I am a criminal, but I still have to show ID and submit to a background check if I want to buy a firearm. There's no evidence I stole my credit card, but I still have to type in the secret code in the form. There's no evidence I am impersonating somebody else on HN, but I still have to type the password when I am logging in. There's no evidence somebody is breaking into my house, but I still have lock and keys (and cameras).

I could continue for hours. There are thousands of cases where security measures are taken without evidence of somebody's personal misconduct that already happened. That's how you make sure the probability of misconduct is very low - by taking measures before it happened, not after. Somehow in this particular case it's not clear - despite widespread usage of security cameras otherwise, that could have hinted you that using security cameras does not have proof of misconduct as prerequisite - in fact, the presence of the cameras is usually the prerequisite of obtaining the evidence.

> Amazon's demands amount to handwringing and FUD

There was no base for FUD until people started refusing common security measures - and then there is, if they don't plan to cheat why they are so against the common security measures? If there's no misconduct, why they are so keen to ensuring there could be no possibility of having any evidence of it?

> That's BS - nobody talking about accepting every order forever, whatever it is. The matter in question here is completely common and reasonable security measure.

Whether or not it's reasonable (which it is!) is entirely orthogonal to the fact that Amazon is making it. Corporations setting the standards for "legitimate" union voting is a precedent that every union and the NLRB wants to avoid.

You've laid out a big list of things that society (or corporations) ask you to do when you exercise various rights and privileges. That's great. Now consider the following: it's not your (or my) union election. You don't get to make the rules; the union and the NLRB do. They don't see it fit to allow Amazon to engage in special pleading, for precisely the reason I stated above.

> There was no base for FUD until people started refusing common security measures

Common security measures would be the measures conventional to a union election, which (surprise!), are codified by the NLRB[1]. Those regulations include directives for security and certification. Nothing about a corporate dictate would be acceptable or common in the context of a labor election.

[1]: https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/rules-...

> You don't get to make the rules; the union and the NLRB do.

In other words, might makes right, go away with your stupid logic and common sense. I see.

I think it's a little on-the-nose to frame a baby step towards unionization against one of the largest and most powerful companies on Earth as "might makes right," don't you?

The bottom line is this: the NLRB already has rules that protect the integrity of union voting activities. Amazon doesn't have a say in them, because they have no reason to have a say -- the prospective unionizers and their regulatory agency are the only relevant stakeholders. We (presumably) wouldn't allow McDonalds to impose arbitrary security considerations on our civil elections; what gives Amazon any more standing with the NLRB?

I didn't characterize steps towards unionization, this is complete misrepresentation of my argument. I did not argue against (or for) unionization - I argued against NLRB decision (which is the one wielding power of US Federal Government) to grant the union organizers completely unreasonable request to remove security measures. It is obvious that presence of security measures would not prevent union from being formed - unless you postulate that the vote could only possibly be won by fraud, in which case it shouldn't be formed. In any other case, the ballot security measures do not oppose union organizing in any way.

You argument was - since NLRB has the power, and unions need to demonstrate their power, it's ok to deny reasonable security measures because NLRB makes the rules, so they do what they want. That's what I referred to as "might makes right". And it's completely unacceptable behavior, yet very common.

> We (presumably) wouldn't allow McDonalds to impose arbitrary security considerations on our civil elections;

McDonalds does not run elections. But we do allow election poll workers to impose security measures, check your name in the lists of voters, establish chain of custody for ballots, etc. - even without proving in advance there's election fraud. That's how security works - it comes before, not after the hack. And yes, if McDonalds asked to have ballots secured, and somebody would oppose it for some reason - I'd suspect these people are about to perpetrate electoral fraud, and would question why these measures aren't already in place beforehand and require McDonalds to ask for them, instead of officials charged with performing elections doing them? Maybe those officials are in on the fraud and need to be investigated? We had some prosecutions recently for electoral fraud, so it's completely possible.

> what gives Amazon any more standing with the NLRB?

It's the election which affects interests of Amazon and Amazon workers, it's natural that they have special interest in preventing fraud in this particular case. You'd be more concerned about electoral fraud in your county than somewhere in a little town in another country.

Amazon's proposal may be entirely reasonable. But I could easily imagine that it's part of a very sophisticated strategy on Amazon's part to ultimately undermine a legitimate vote.

I have trouble guessing which approach approach is more desirable in this situation.

Just the rumour of "Cameras are recording who votes" could significantly alter the willingness of people to vote.

IIUC, this particular article deals only with keeping a camera on the ballot box after it's been sealed, and on the subsequent vote-counting.

So I don't think this poses a risk to anonymous voting per se.

But as we see from even comments in this article, the lack of clarity around this is probably enough to chill some potential voters from participating, correctly or otherwise.

> It's strange that there's so much resistance.

Not knowing the specifics, I'd imagine trust has just completely eroded for the workers where they always assume Amazon is nefariously working against them. Pure speculation on my part, but it's easy to understand psychologically.

I'll never understand how opposition to improving the integrity of things like this is taken seriously, much less defended.

Honestly makes me feel the authority managing the vote believes that something corrupt is likely to take place.

While every improvement is a change, not every change is an improvement.

The problem isn't that the steps they're requesting are onerous, it's that the process by which the ballots are stored and counted is already set forth in NLRB regulations and backed by law. Arbitrarily changing the conditions, even if each step seems practical, requires ratifying the changes, delays the counting, and potentially invalidating the vote.

When you've had a long vitriolic campaign it can be hard to agree to anything your opposition proposes even when it is clearly a fact or win-win.

Unions generally oppose most of these 'safeguards', including secret ballots. The stated reason for this is that the 'safeguards' are unnecessary and costly; employers often suggest that the unions engage in pressure tactics and fraud.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com