Welcome to the world of corporate-controlled speech. You don't hear from the managers because they aren't permitted to comment. You don't hear from existing w

Welcome to the world of corporate-controlled speech. You don't hear from the managers because they aren't permitted to comment. You don't hear from existing workers for the same reason. Only the disgruntled ex-workers and the union rep don't have contractually-obligated silence. So the only opinions you get are the corporate flack, the union rep, and the disgruntled ex-worker. Reporters often bend over backwards to present the other side of a story that has a left-wing bent. Typically they will find someone in that minority (24% in this case) of workers who would have voted against the union and present their opinions with equal weight to the disgruntled ex-worker, and the tone of the article shifts to "existing workers like the job, disgruntled ex-workers disgruntled because they're fired." It's possible a better reporter could extend the same kind of protections and anonymity to the existing workers as their Washington counterparts routinely extend to political operatives, but would you then be complaining that none of the workers or managers had the guts to put their name behind their words? We have no real idea what's going on, and I think it's more in Ikea's interest, than the union's, to keep it that way.