This is far from the free and fair democratic election that Irvin describes. In a study by political scientist Gordon Lafer, the current union election process was found lacking on several critical democratic election standards. For example, democratic standards presume freedom of speech, yet Dr. Lafer notes that in U.S. union elections, "employees are restricted from openly expressing their opinions. Employers are allowed to enforce a total ban on employees discussing the proposed union outside of the break room. Yet employers enjoy unfettered communication, subjecting employees to mandatory staff meetings and one-on-one meetings with supervisors, often with the intent of intimidating those suspected of supporting union formation. Labor law provides no equal opportunities for pro-union workers to respond or present alternative viewpoints." This shortcoming is no doubt familiar to Mr. Irvin, as his own firm specializes in "train[ing] managers and supervisors... [in] communicating to employees the harm that union organizing brings" in cases where pro-union employees have no comparable access.

Democratic elections also require timely implementation of the voters' will through a binding system of regular elections and fixed terms of office. Yet Dr. Lafer finds that in elections for union representation: "workers can face infinite delays in the implementation of election results. Often times these lengthy delays are a result of employers taking full advantage of permissive election guidelines. These guidelines not only allow the appeals process to drag on for years, but mandate that the workplace be governed as if employees voted against organizing for the duration of the appeals process."

To get a sense of what the process really looks like for people going to work everyday, read the wrenching testimony of Smithfield Foods employee Keith Ludlum. Ludlum started organizing for a union at Smithfield's Tar Heel, North Carolina plant in 1993 and was illegally fired for his union organizing activity in 1994. The National Labor Relations Board found that union elections at his plant in 1994 and again in 1997 were tainted by massive employer violations of labor law, including Ludlum's illegal firing. After numerous appeals, the company settled in 2006, hiring Ludlum back and vowing to hold another election. In the meantime, however, the company took advantage of immigration enforcement efforts to continue spreading fear and try to drive a wedge between workers. It didn't work. In December 2008, Smithfield employees got their union after 15 years. Now all they need is a contract. Does that sound like a process we should preserve?