Saturday, November 24, 2007; A16

As the lead attorney for the employees who petitioned for a secret-ballot election in the Dana Corp. and Metaldyne cases before the National Labor Relations Board, I must object to Harold Meyerson's criticism of the board's decision [op-ed, Nov. 21].

These cases were brought by workers to protect their right to freely choose or reject unionization. In both cases, employees were pressured to sign cards that were counted as "votes" for unionization. In both cases, the unions and the employers signed private deals apparently intended to result in unionization regardless of employee sentiment.

The employees I represented simply wanted a secret-ballot election to determine whether a majority supported the union, and the NLRB ruled that employees have that right. What is so horrible about that?

GLENN TAUBMAN

Staff Attorney

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Springfield