Jeff Bezos is a corporate wizard. For you he wants ONLY mail in ballots. In his fight against a monopoly union, he demands face to face voting. He understands mail in ballots can easily be manipulated. So, he does not care about honest elections of politicians—just for his company.
“It appears that The Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos, whose paper incessantly defended and promoted universal mail-in ballots during the 2020 presidential election, has suddenly and predictably transformed into a staunch opponent of them.
On Thursday his other company, Amazon, filed an appeal against a recent National Labor Relations Board ruling mandating that 6,000 of its employees who work at the company’s Bessemer, Alabama warehouse be allowed to participate in an upcoming unionization vote through mail-in ballots.
Bezos is just a rich hypocrite. But, he can buy elections for congress and the Senate, for governor—he does not want unions to buy elections in his company.
Vivek Saxena, BPR, 1/24/21
It appears that The Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos, whose paper incessantly defended and promoted universal mail-in ballots during the 2020 presidential election, has suddenly and predictably transformed into a staunch opponent of them.
On Thursday his other company, Amazon, filed an appeal against a recent National Labor Relations Board ruling mandating that 6,000 of its employees who work at the company’s Bessemer, Alabama warehouse be allowed to participate in an upcoming unionization vote through mail-in ballots.
The ruling by the NLRB was based on the same debunked argument repeatedly cited by the Post last year that in-person voting is dangerous because of the coronavirus pandemic.
“A mail ballot election will enfranchise employees who cannot enter the voting location for health reasons or due to positive COVID tests,” the decision reportedly stated.
“In addition, a mail ballot election will protect the health and safety of voters, Agency personnel, the parties’ representatives, and the public during the current health crisis.”
But now that this line of thinking is slated to affect his interests, Bezos disagrees.
“The e-commerce giant filed a motion Thursday to delay the union election, which is set to begin February 8, so that the NLRB may revisit its decision to hold the election by mail over the course of nearly two months instead of through an in-person event,” CNN reported Friday.
In its appeal, Amazon pushed back on the NLRB’s ruling by claiming that it’d failed to specify what exactly constitutes an “outbreak.”
“Amazon said the NLRB’s Acting Regional Director, Lisa Henderson, ‘reached the remarkable conclusion that any level of infection or potential infection among employees counts as an ‘outbreak,’” according to CNN.
“Amazon said that at its Bessemer facility, 2.88% of Amazon’s 7,575 employees and third-party workers at the facility — or 218 people — tested positive during the 14-day period ending on January 7. Amazon rejected the idea that this would be considered an outbreak.”
This means an infection rate of roughly 3 percent.
“If true, facilities will be in a constant state of ‘outbreak’ unless and until the virus all but disappears, with no manual elections occurring until that unknown time,” Amazon’s filing reportedly read.
But why exactly would that be a problem? Because, according to Amazon spokesperson Heather Knox, only in-person voting would allow for a “valid, fair and successful election.”
“[T]he best approach to a valid, fair and successful election is one that is conducted manually, in-person, making it easy for associates to verify and cast their vote in close proximity to their workplace,” she said to CNN.
“Amazon provided the NLRB with a safe, confidential and convenient proposal for associates to vote onsite which is in the best interest of all parties — associate convenience, vote fidelity, and timeliness of vote count. We will continue to insist on measures for a fair election, and we want everyone to vote, so our focus is ensuring that’s possible.”
Yet whenever former President Donald Trump and his allies spoke last year about the risks of fraud vis-a-vis mail-in voting, the Post pounced:
