I was shocked and angered while reading the article "Union Busting at NIEHS", suggesting that management might have interfered with the success of forming a professional union at the NIEHS. As a member of the targeted scientific staff at NIEHS I have a very different point of view of the effort to form a union than the one presented by Bill Jirles. The list of inconsistencies is quite long, but I will try to point out key problems with the way the union tried to establish itself at NIEHS.\nThe article states: "Jirles said that he tried to inform NIEHS scientists about the union and the vote prior to May 14th." I remember those emails as meetings intended to judge the level of interests in a union. Not having any interest in unions I declined to attend. I only found out much later, that those scientists that attended the meetings AND asked for more information were placed on a mail list, and kept informed of union organizing progress, while those eligible voters that did not express support of the union were not included and any subsequent emailings.\nThe article states that Gerald Cole, regional director for the FLRA's San Francisco office can't "...explain why 100 people who were eligible to vote decided not to vote...". I have a very good explanation for Mr. Cole. I found out about the impending May 14th vote late on Friday May 8th, in a side note in an email from a third party organization, the AoLS, at NIEHS. This was not even a week before the scheduled vote. Everyone I talked with, and I mean EVERYONE, either had not heard about ANY union vote or had found out about the vote from the same source. As you can imagine there was a flurry of emails from eligible voters to Bill Jirles asking for information or the the possibility of additional voting times. Evidently, the vote could not be changed, there were only a few hours on that day that ballots would be accepted, and if you were not present there was no option for absentee ballots.\nBill Jirles informed the scientific staff at NIEHS that there would be information about the union posted by morning on Monday May 11 at the entrances and exits of the building. After no information was posted by mid-morning that Monday, I wrote to Mr. Jirles informing him that there was no posting at the entrance to the building. Shortly after, I received a reply from him letting me know that the information was posted "now". I checked again, but found nothing posted. I sent another email, but the only reply I received was from Mr. Jirles stating "Folks, The emails are getting a little out of control. This will be my final email on the subject." I am sure that Mr. Jiles was overwhelmed with emails asking for information or commenting on the lack of warning regarding the vote, but to tell everyone that you are not going to respond to any additional questions?\nThat is my view point, from the level of technician scientific staff, on the union organizing efforts at the NIEHS. Never did I feel any type of influence, for or against the union, from any one in management. For the union organizers to suggest that possibility is absolutely wrong. I did get a strong feeling that the union organizers were trying to keep the union supporters informed about the vote, while keeping those that did not have the same opinion in the dark, there by shifting the number of "FOR" votes to the majority. Luckily, enough people had a contrary opinion to postpone the formation of the union at NIEHS. I, for one, would not want to be represented by an organization that presented itself like the AFGE has. I have chosen to remain anonymous because I don't know if I can trust the organizers of the union, and what influence they may obtain in the future.