Obama will probably sign EFCA into law. After all, he voted for it in the Senate last year. The AFL-CIO has made this piece of legislation a top priority. All of the largest labor groups in the country are backing this, and most of them back Obama. What this bill does is allow workers to join a union if a simple majority sign authorization cards instead of holding a formal election after a majority signed up to form and join a union. Usually there's a gap of a few months between the time that the authorization cards are signed and when the formal election was held. The AFL-CIO and other labor organizations argue that during that period, management sometimes dissuades workers from forming a union by using implicit threats to their employment status if they ever went on strike as a union. Under current law, such tactics are legal.

In essence, it attempts to strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions without the interference of management. But there are some aspects of this bill that make it a bad law. Authorization cards are not confidential, unlike a private vote; this means that there is the potential that other workers might coerce people into forming a union who might not want to do so otherwise. In that respect, the title of the bill is rather deceptive "The Employee Free Choice Act". But that's standard operating procedure in Washington. Besides some troubling issues regarding the privacy of the individual worker, it will force the use of a concept known as "binding arbitration" when negotiations between workers and management break down during a strike. Basically a panel will issue a decision on a labor issue that is binding on both the union and management, leaving each of them to deal with the consequences of such a decision that might consider arbitrary benchmarks that resolve no ones problems. Arbitrators are usually helpful in impasses during strike negotiations, but their advice is not binding either.

I do think that we need to rebuild the middle class in this country, but this is not a good start. It's not good for labor and it's not good for business. I do disagree however that management should be allowed to either explicitly or implicitly intimidate workers who are considering forming a union.

This is where Obama loses most business owners, many of whom are staunch liberal democrats.  This will swell the ranks of unions in america, a huge funding source for the democrat party, whether or not the majority of dues-payers are democrats.  This is really bad legislation but with Nancy Pelosi's impending majority in the House, and Harry Reid's filibuster-proof super-majority in the Senate, we will all just watch in disgust as this becomes the law of the land in early 2009. 

Could their approval rating drop lower than 9%?  You bet it could.  It doesn't matter to them today, and it won't when they pass this socialistic law, as the press cheers them on.