I'm now picturing a slightly different government to ours, where the oversight bodies have the additional function of making sure officials don't talk to one another outside of recorded meetings under the public's eye.

It seems like a huge burden. It is the kind of thing, though, that in a parallel universe would make total sense: our representatives should be beholden to us.

OTOH, ensuring our representatives are 100% beholden to us also means screaming in the next primary about every bipartisan deal made.

Which has the net effect of decreasing the ability to reach nobody-is-happy compromises.

Which is something else people say they want.

I'm unconvinced that private, smoke-filled backrooms don't have an essential place as the grease that keeps things running well.

> I'm unconvinced that private, smoke-filled backrooms don't have an essential place as the grease that keeps things running well.

I hear that, and there's a case for it. Diplomacy, maneuvering and negotiation require secrets and enclaves.

So to allow for that you need a few things;

  -  Strict official records of affairs

  -  Strong penalties for fraud, malinfluence, intimidation

  -  Whistleblower protection

The last of these essential checks-and-balances has gone to shit our culture. Even if we pardoned Edward Snowden and made him a "hero of democracy" tomorrow, it's still a mountain of work to restore the essential sense of civic responsibility, patriotism and duty that allows those people who discover or witness corruption to step-up and challenge it safe in the knowledge that the law and common morality are on their side.

Billions (the tv show), of all places, made a somewhat similar argument in favor of post-hoc investigations, in the last episode.

Record and share everything immediately = no room for deals

Record nothing = too much room for corruption

So we land at... record everything + only review with just cause + strict whistleblower protections.

Which seems a nice splitting of the matter, but requires a strong, independent third party (e.g. judicial branch) to arbitrate access requests. With tremendous pressure and incentives to breach that limit.

Many governments do have laws like this, called "sunshine laws". Enforcing them can be difficult though, and often enough they fail to achieve the transparency that is their goal while also substantially hindering process.

I didn't read it as a complaint, more of a humorous observation. Either way, there's no need to get aggressive onto someone that hasn't figured it out yet.

I'd say tough luck on this one because it's already adversarial - the power imbalance is too large at Amazon not to implement a union. That way the workers will have a more equal footing.

Have you ever worked a Union job?

Yes, I worked in one union job - at a different point of time in my life also a guild. They improved my quality of work dealing with exactly the kind of predatory companies we're talking about here.

From what I gather from your comments, yours must have been a horrible experience (why?). It doesn't cancel the fact that these Amazon workers are being squeezed for a competitive edge in a company that's already a monopoly - in several sectors. They need to battle for fair working conditions which is exactly what a union will provide.