On 2; so what? If it turns out Amazon broke the rules, “well they would have won anyways” isn’t an excuse. We have rules and votes so we can determine the outcome as fairly as possible, not to validate what we think would probably happen anyways.

If it’s shown they broke the rules (your point on 1 is fair), then they have to redo the election. If Amazon wins again, then fair’s fair.

Oh yeah, if it's shown (with real evidence) that they actually tampered with the votes it should be rerun and people should go to jail. Point 2 is just a reason why I think they didn't.

Ah, totally fair.

the standard for the NLRB requires that the scale of the wrongdoing could potentially have changed the result:

"The labor board has the authority to invalidate election results in response to conduct that could have changed the outcome"

If a single amazon manager who wasn't eligible to vote submitted a single vote, it isn't reasonable to redo the whole election over that. You would be in a never-ending cycle of voting with each side finding tiny errors and demanding revotes.

I think proven cheating by the losing party shouldn’t require a re-vote, because logically the cheating didn’t change the outcome. Perhaps a fine would be sufficient, or criminal prosecution of the individuals would be enough. It’s only when the winning side cheated that the prospect of the outcome having changed appears and must be dealt with.

I’d be curious how they decide whether or not any given bad acting potentially changed the outcome. I can certainly say that firing Union activists and monitoring voting activity would have a chilling effect, but proving the magnitude of that would be hard to do.

Sounds Trump-y.

Trump claims the election was stolen on little to no evidence, after losing 60+ court cases across the country trying to find evidence. The sentiment expressed is not analogous at all.

There’s also a difference between how you run and adjudicate a ~100 person NRLB election and a ~150 million person country wide national election. It’s both easier to cheat in small elections, and easier to just call a redo. In the latter case calling a redo is literally impossible (and illegal), in the former it’s a pretty reasonable response.

And yes, Trump didn’t prove anything. He’s just a sore loser.

The problem is that the election was clearly unfair and there was a widespread sense that the people voting in it thought it was unfair. A 70-30 vote in an election where you know the authorities are watching means absolutely nothing.

As for this:

> The evidence seems to be based on the word of a single employee. If that's enough evidence to overturn an election, it will be hard to have one that isn't overturned.

You are reading this very myopically, ignoring crucial context with a sliver of the article (and not being helped by some weak writing). The snippet should be read as this:

> Myers’ recommendation centers on the mailbox [which was unquestionably on Amazon’s headquarters and which Amazon management unquestionably pressured employees to use for voting], according to one of the people familiar with it. During the NLRB hearing, an employee said Amazon security guards used keys to open the mailbox, testimony that former NLRB chair Wilma Liebman said could be reason enough to overturn the result.

So there was plenty of direct evidence suggesting improper behavior, which not even Amazon contested. That was not enough to overturn the result. But just the one piece of deeply serious eyewitness testimony on top of the documentary evidence would be enough. And of course there was far more evidence than just that one employee: Liebman’s comments are obviously a rhetorical device used to illustrate the severity of Amazon’s transgressions and not a literal description of the merits of the case.

It says that Amazon had cameras pointed at the mailbox, so all Amazon has to do is hand over every single second of footage they took. I'm sure they have nothing to hide.