From the Heritage Foundation's James Sherk's colum in yesterday's Washington Post, "Preserve Real Choice for Workers""

Some employees have had five or more harassing visits [at home] from these union organizers," said Ivey. "The only way, it seems, to stop the badgering and pressure is to sign the card."

Some proponents of the Employee Free Choice Act apparently aren't concerned unless there is violence by union supporters, which, one writer doesn't believe is a problem anymore, stating:

Now, I'm not going to commit myself to the position that there has never been violent intimidation of workers by union organizers, but I will say that I haven't seen reporting on it in the couple of decades I've been following labor news.

[While we have refrained  on this blog from attepmting to characterize unions as violent by nature -- indeed we do not contend that they are -- it is a bit disingenuous to suggest that no notoable union violence has occurred in "decades."  See the Wikipedia article on Violence in Industrial Disputes.]

But, as union supporters are quick to point out when talking about management tactics, intimidation can be very subtle, and that is the point of the gentleman quoted above.   Of course,  as we noted earlier, one commenter noted flatly that there's no harm in a little union intimidation:

Let’s even assume that some workers are pressured to sign cards and a place becomes unionized. What’s the harm? The employee is forced to join the union (or not depending upon the laws of the state), but will also get the benefits. If the union does a poor job of getting improved benefits then it won’t last. So the objections (from anti-union lawyers, not so much from workers) are that some will lose some of their libertarian rights and ability to be free-loaders. This is not really too much of an injustice.

We've addressed  the hostility of unions to opposing views in other posts:

Consider the rhetoric that labor has always used to advance its purposes. Cross a picket line – you’re a “scab.” Decline to pay union dues – you’re a “free rider.” Think unions no longer serve a purpose? – you need a "frontal lobotomy." And, God forbid, you decide to work for management – you are, in the words of one pro-labor blogger, a “Turncoat Organizer [who] Drowns in Corporate Cash .”  This type of rhetoric certainly gives one pause to consider whether an employee who declines to sign a card will be treated with respect by a union.

Now we learn that unions are threatening economic harm to the State of Colorado just because the Governor happened to disagree with a union-sponsored bill.  Isn't it reasonable to assume that a rank-and-file employee might be just a little bit worried about what might happen to him if he chooses to not to sign a card?