Well if you thwart union formation and legislation by using communication to persuade people that you're right and to vote for your side, that's called democracy.
> Well if you thwart union formation and legislation by using communication to persuade people that you're right and to vote for your side, that's called democracy.
That's neither here nor there. The point I was disputing was the idea that changes in mass communication technology gives an advantage to unions.
However, to your point: your phrasing "using communication to persuade people...to vote for your side, that's called democracy," obscures some important distinctions. If your success at persuasion stems mainly from the greater power you have to project your message (e.g. via wealth), then that's arguably not actually very democratic. That's pretty easy to see when greater political power is used (e.g. the CCP suppressing dissenting voices and successfully persuading the people with a thick blanket of weakly-opposed propaganda), but there's a similar dynamic when one side can greatly outspend its opponent, since wealth is a kind of power [1].
For a union vote, the employer typically has both greater wealth and greater political power: it can blanket the workplace with anti-union messages and require employees to repeatedly attend anti-union "education" sessions during work hours (which is typical before a union vote), while the union organizers have much more limited access, and must try to reach employees outside of work.
[1] this is an area of tension in liberal democracy, where trade-offs need to be made.
