It’s a myth that anything can have a complete lack of bias; the real test of any study, paper, whatnot is how it considers all the evidence, both supportive and contradictory, and explains it. You are right in that simply dismissing something because it’s biased is wrong, but I do believe that - in the very post you quoted, as a matter of fact - Bo actually looked at the surveys Dutchman provided and directly addressed a major weakness in the way the questions were asked so that the bias actively interfered with the findings rather than guiding the approach. Big difference between what Bo did and what Dutchman did.
Let me help you with your comprehension skills, and also stop you from mischaracterizing what I said.
Later I went on to explain further:
So I did not dismiss them out of hand for bias. The surveys contained leading questions, designed specifically to elicit a particular response.
What he said.
I think a skeptical eye is a reasonable response to a source that is obviously entrenched on one side of an issue. Kate Bronfenbrenner’s conclusions may be unbiased but it’s difficult to determine this without hearing a critique or diving deep into her books (which I have neither the time or the desire to do.)
lol nm 
Whew! Where to begin.
How do you know I’ve rejected everything you cite? We are here to argue what we differ on , not what we agree on. What I’ve brought into evidence you’ve dismissed, and I know damn well that any further cites I bring up will be anti-secret ballot so by definition biased. Honestly, I can’t get around that.
There is a problem with what intimidation means. You would believe that a company that warns its workers that if they unionize that things will go badly for the company, for them, is intimidating them, or coercing them and then cite the practice of company goons from distant history. Then in response to my somewhat frivolous charge of intimidation,(you are wearing me down) you suggest I may have been suggesting that I was concerned for my safety. How the hell can I take any of your union biased sources unreservedly on the present day prevalence of company “intimidation” and “coercion” during the lead up time to election when I’ve pretty well gathered that even telling workers that they might lose their jobs if unionized is “intimidation”.
Is this a put down? For a timid poster like myself ?
Yeah, if you knew who I was or where I lived you’d have shut me up 5 pages ago.
Long live the private ballot !
Haven’t you heard? Bo personally experienced government agents shooting innocent people! That’s how he’s able to compare it with egging houses.
I showed just a few posts up that your cites were not dismissed out of hand for bias; they were rejected for poor methodology, improperly phrased (leading) questions, and inaccurate descriptions of the EFCA.
My cites, OTOH, you (and others) simply reject for bias.
Part of a debate is consideration of viewpoints and deliberation on facts, evidence, and data. I haven’t seen that; just straight out rejection of whatever is presented to you.
Please address the questions I asked in posts 450, 452 and 454.
No,no,no and nothing.
I’ll let your own words speak for themselves, here.
Although Dutchman has made it clear that he isn’t going to pay any attention, I thought that I would post this here for anyone who is.
When he questioned the validity of Dr. Bronfenbrenner’s Uneasy Terrain, I decided to go right to the source and ask her whether or not it had been peer reviewed.
I sent another email seeking permission to post Table 7 somewhere so that others involved can take a look at it. I know that I could probably do that anyway without running afoul of copyright laws, but I thought it best to be prudent and err on the side of caution. I’ll post it and a link when I get the okay.