Before you start with the usual Union propaganda just answer the question.

I am So Lucky That I found your blog and great articles. I will come to your blog often for finding new great articles from your blog.I am adding your rss feed in my reader Thank you…

Congratulations on your moral superiority. You might have exceeded even your laudable contemporaries like Mr. Bill O'Reilly in the coveted "journalistic" values of [what is now being called] "objectivity", "fairness", and "independence". As any good investigative journalist knows, large non-unionized corporations who stand to lose millions of dollars in profit from large-scale unionization can and should be trusted as independent, unbiased sources of information for reports of this nature. For this reason, I think it was an excellent idea that you chose to feature the CEO of just such a corporation as your primary source (you know, the guy that "runs EMS"?). He made an excellent "working Joe" contrast to the demonized villain of your segment, the "powerful president" Andy Stern. Please note that I'm not accusing you of bias by presenting everything the powerful CEO of a huge corporation says as plain fact, even in the face of evidence that he has fired pro-union employees (whom you interview for all of 3 seconds) and despite documentation of just such occurrences at numerous other corporations by the SEIU and other organizations, whose powerful CEOs (for reference, the CEO of Walmart is an excellent example here) make statements exactly like the ones good ol' Dave made (e.g., "My workers don't want a union! I asked them!").

But hey, it's not your job as a journalist to independently report facts. It's your job to protect "democracy". And I don't mean that wishy-washy kind of democracy, where (real) grassroots organizations mobilize public support in the way of initiatives, referenda, and recall elections to solve problems via an informed majority vote. I mean the kind where unelected, unaccountable corporate shills sit in huge office towers making millions of dollars, sitting in front of television cameras in specially tailored suits, professionally made up with perfectly styled hair, teach us "common folk" how things really are over a steaming cup of coffee one of their numerous assistants poured them. Thanks for contributing so handily to the improvement of America. Hopefully more people will wake up and your vision will be realized.

Thank you for taking the time on your show to discuss the proposed Employee Free Choice Act. It is good to know the facts about any far-reaching piece of legislation. As I understand it, taking into account some of the 30 years of experience I had in dealing with workplace representation issues, employers are now arguing that workers will lose the right to a "free" secret-ballot election in cases where those workers seek to form a legal union. Yet, according to the US Department of Labor, the vast majority of employers, particularly private businesses, have historically done everything in their power to stop those elections from ever taking place, always when faced with the signatures of over a third of the workforce demanding such elections.
The rules that allow employers to stop employees from exercizing "free" choice should, indeed, be changed, but done so that employees themselves determine whether there should be an election, not the employer. That is what I understand the EFCA will do.
So, who should decide whether there should be an election? The ones who want organized self-representation, or the ones who want to keep them from having it? Perhaps you and your guests would consider that point.

Sincerely,
Brian Mitchell