Like in many other activities, a "do over" is benefits one side or the other. When used as a punishment for cheating, the do over is usually waived if the team who is being punished lost. See a lot of the objections in legal cases, which are not appealed by the winners but would be if they lost.

Unfortunately leaving it at just a "do over" does actual harm to employees; namely that their unjust compensation and work conditions aren't rectified through union action. As long as that's cheaper to Amazon then there's no incentive to change. And so I still believe that this a do over is good direction but not enough.

A good example of this is in American Football where a team can waive a flag (heh) that penalizes the other team and replays the down if they prefer the outcome of the play above the potential penalty. A common example, team A passes but the pass is intercepted by team B player, then a player on A does a "holding" foul on the player that did the interception. The punishment for holding usually means you redo the play, but that would give the ball back to team A, clearly team B prefers to keep possession due to interception over slightly punishing and redoing the play with the ball back in A's possession.

Point of order, that would likely be offensive pass interference.

A more common scenario is the defensive team commits an offsides penalty. This is essentially a free play for the offense since they can take the penalty if anything goes wrong, but if they're able to advance the ball a significant amount, they can decline the penalty.

Thank you that is a better example.

I understand what you are trying to get at, but the holding you described occurred after the interception (the turnover). So Team B can accept the penalty and would still have the ball.

A slight change of ordering makes your point. Team A drops back to pass and holds a Team B player going towards Team A QB. The QB then throws an interception. In that scenario, Team B would decline the holding penalty, upholding the interception.

You can't commit holding on the ball carrier. It would have to occur before the catch, and in that case, it's offensive pass interference.

Regardless, your second example, of the offense committing holding and the defense declining due to an interception is legit. That happens occasionally.

The actual infraction isn't that important (I just interpreted they meant some infraction), but what is important is that they stated the foul happened after the interception, so it could not be OPI, as that must occur after the QB throws and before the player intercepts.

Edit: I think we just took what was more important for the OPs point differently. I took the point as a penalty occurred, not a specific one. And you see it as "how could holding have happened". Which, if we are being pedantic, also wouldn't happen in the scenario you described. If it was called holding, it would have had to occur before the pass, making it not OPI. =).

> I honestly believe that interference like this is clearly unlawful and should be criminally punished as such.

It is clearly unlawful, but is it criminally unlawful?

As soon as somebody from the upper crust person seems likely to be guilty of breaking a law, they law stops being one that is criminal to break. Historically, most laws were to protect the aristocracy from unhappy and desperate commoners. Even the bail system is based on keeping the poor locked up but letting the affluent go home, since the poor are considered the dangerous ones

Steal a chocolate bar? Jail. Poaching in the kings forest? Death. Caught with drugs without a lawyer? Jail and possible death depending on the jail conditions

Manipulate an election via gerrymandering or lose a million peoples life savings in crooked finance deals? Dumping dangerous chemicals in the local river/lake? Editorial in that weeks paper about how that person should feel bad, plus a bonus

> It is clearly unlawful, but is it criminally unlawful?

Well I am not a lawyer. But some searching suggests interference violates Section 7 or Section 8 of the NLRB. The NLRB website [0] appears to be down for me at the moment so I can't look up exact info though.

[0]: https://www.nlrb.gov/

Edit: the site is still sorta spotty but sometimes works.

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

interfere with creating a union? believe it or not, jail

You jest but I think if it's demonstrated that non-owning employees (eg, managers) are interfering then a fine totalling some significant percent of every manager's wage should be a minimum penalty to interference with creation of unions. If it's demonstrated that someone with ownership or stake in the company is interfering then indeed jail time should be on the table.

Companies should play fair or face the punishment. If employees truly don't want a union then don't interfere with their vote.