> To me a more reasonable explanation than any in the article is that after losing the vote, Amazon looked into the warehouse and decided part of the problem was that the managers were making the situation worse.
You’d think that Amazon would be smart enough to look into the apparent problems before the vote, and make a show of addressing them to forestall it, if their concern was the actual labor conditions driving the desire to unionize and not the failure of worksite union-busting efforts leading up to the vote.
> Not if it was literally covered up systemically at each warehouse where the issues lie?
So, you think that they managed to systemically cover up their misdeeds from higher management before the election, but conveniently failed to continue that coverup after the union election.
I mean, sure, you concoct a strained narrative which makes this a noble move by Amazon’s higher management, but...why strain to do that?
--
I once wrote a status report where I reported that I thought something would be a problem blocking my progress if it weren't resolved.
My manager's status report said that there might be a issue.
His managers report said everything was on track.
--
If you don't think that the upper management got into hot water and then started paying a lot more attention to their on-site managers after the Union vote, you and I live in different worlds.
It’s the Amazon senior manager cabal which manages to coordinate better and have better information across the whole company compared to the Amazon executives. You have not heard of it?
You’d think that Amazon would be smart enough to look into the apparent problems before the vote, and make a show of addressing them to forestall it, if their concern was the actual labor conditions driving the desire to unionize and not the failure of worksite union-busting efforts leading up to the vote.