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.