> the unions did not gain enough support

> The employees wanted to unionize

Sounds like they didn’t?

Trying to unionise people who don’t want to be unionised, and throwing their money around to do it, sounds not democratic.

So the firm is selling itself as a waste of money and Google wants to throw shareholder money away?

Both sides are trying to present their point of view. Sounds like this firm helps you present your side against this avalanche of union money and people liked what they heard.

What’s wrong with people presenting how they see things and employees getting to decide?

> What’s wrong with people presenting how they see things and employees getting to decide?

Sure, but I kind of doubt the direction avalanches of money are supposed to be going.

Maybe a system where costs are managed to be equal and parts of funding are handled by the state would allow more employees to get union and non union options presented to them fairly.

The US is headed to a very uneven system and that tends toward a lot of political problems so fixing distribution to workers should be a priority if the US wants to maintain democratic institutions.

So the company is doing this to protect employees who don't want to unionize?

No think they don’t want the union so tried to persuade the employees of their point of view and the employees agreed. Everyone can be acting rationally and reasonably in that situation.

Some unions are terrible. It’s in nobody’s interest but the union bosses for a bad union to bully their way in.

You don't think that has anything to do with the consultancy that was brought in to prevent unionisation?

I think that has something to do with it. I don't think they held guns to the workers head and told them "vote union and die", though it was certainly a tactic.the Pinkertons used in the past.

Lobbying can only do so much to change ones mind.