Perhaps not, but thank you for being open to the possibility, and not simply rejecting my (and Olent’s) evidence and arguments out of hand.
Rome wasn’t built in a day. Perhaps something posted later here, or something you encounter elsewhere, will change your ideas about unions and about union organizing. But I appreciate that you were open to hearing the case instead of simply casting aside what didn’t jibe with your position.
Just so I get the timeline straight:[ul][li]Apr 07: Card check finished.[/li][li]Apr 07: Card check results certified.[/li][*]Dec 07: Email from management saying “You’re not in the union.” Was that directed just at your group or the workforce as a whole?[/ul]Sorry for all the questions but I’m trying to see how things shook out and compare it to my hypothesis based on the evidence brought so far.
I’m implying bias and on that basis I dispute her findings, which have not been peer reviewed.
[quote=“Olentzero, post:442, topic:474272”]
Just so I get the timeline straight:[ul][li]Apr 07: Card check finished.[/li][li]Apr 07: Card check results certified.[/li][li]Dec 07: Email from management saying “You’re not in the union.” Was that directed just at your group or the workforce as a whole?[/ul]Sorry for all the questions but I’m trying to see how things shook out and compare it to my hypothesis based on the evidence brought so far.[/li][/QUOTE]
When they started the check I don’t recall exactly (and neither does she) but it was around april and the letter from the union was probably late april. The email was around december, but she doesn’t recall exactly who from or who it went to. I didn’t get a copy of that email because I was in a new position by then that wasn’t subject to the union. Sorry I don’t have a lot more detail about it. I only remember that it was april because it was about 2 months before I got my new position which was in june.
Hey, I’m in full agreement with Deeg’s statement as well. 
Your welcome.
So… you have peer-reviewed work that contradicts her findings?
No.
Then how is your rejection supposed to convince us to reject it? Can you also prove it wasn’t peer reviewed?
I’ve long given up on trying to change your mind on any of your assertions. You’ve successfully intimidated me on that score. I’m a fairly timid person anyway.
I’m merely letting you know that you still have work to do if you want to convince me and most of the others around here that we need to get rid of the secret ballot after a 50% +1 card check.
I hope you don’t consider my efforts here as intimidation. You don’t have to give up.
Do you have a cite that her findings have not been peer reviewed?
I have a study here that indicates that the moon is actually made of cheese. There’s no peer reviewed study specifically contradicting it, so it must be valid. Unless you can prove it has not been peer reviewed of course.
Your standard or proof is neither fair nor appropriate.
Do you have any cite at all that contradicts her findings? Even a non-peer reviewed one?
You win, you win. Where do I sign ?
So far you’ve denied the validity of every study that either I or Olent has cited, but you’ve got no studies, no researched papers, no cites to back up your own position.
I’m just asking if you have any. I’m trying to answer my own question: has his opinion been formed from a study of relevant, documented evidence or is it just his “gut feeling”?
Also, what could you be shown that would make you change your mind? Since you have dismissed everything as invalid, biased, or irrelevant, what would you accept as valid evidence that the problems Olent and I have talked about exist, and exist in sufficient numbers to be considered indication of systemic failure and a need to change current union organizing laws?
What’s neither fair or appropriate is Dutchman’s rejection of everything we cite, supported by nothing. Consistently getting called on it and asked to support his assertions, he now claims intimidation, although nowhere have either Bo or I threatened him or his safety, coerced him into staying in this discussion, or anything similar. This fits in with the pattern I detected earlier of those supporting privacy really using it as a front to mask their general distaste for publicly airing and defending their opinions and risking being shown to be wrong. The only mitigating factor that’s allowed this debate to continue for 9 pages is the relative anonymity of the Internet; neither Bo nor I know who Dutchman really is or where he lives or works so he can continue to blather safe in the knowledge that we’re not going to call him on this to his face. At which point, I presume, he’d clam up and just go along to get us busybody assholes off his back.
Missed the window. Couple more thoughts.
[ul][]Dutchman is the one who brought up the standard of peer review; in asking for the same from him we’re holding him to the same standard he holds us.[]Quick tip: “You can’t prove it’s not” is not a sufficiently rigorous response to “Can you prove it?”[/ul]
Your PM’s are turned off Olentzero. But I did search and didn’t find anything.
I’ll turn on my PM - thought they were. I’d like to search myself, if that’s OK?
PM sent
I think he’s doing exactly what you did early in this thread:
Dismissing obviously biased surveys from interested parties is the exact same thing Flying Dutchman is doing. All of the cites, or at least most, you and Olentzero have presented come from obviously biased sources. It seems as though you are only concerned about bias when it isn’t a pro-union bias.