The Washington Times is reporting on more details of the possible retail store "Card Check" compromise that Brian Faughnan wrote of yesterday, and the details of this one are definitely more palatable than the proposal presented in the Wall Street Journal. The plan being offered by the retailers preserves more than the secret ballot:
Their compromise would reject the card check method of voting and keep secret-ballot voting as it is now practiced in most instances. The compromise would also eliminate the union-backed provision that would force the settlement of certification disputes through mandatory arbitration.
To assuage the unions, the plan would for the first time permit union organizers to press their cases at work sites and would also prevent long delays before a union certification vote must be held.
...which, as Ed Morrissey notes, is much more likely to pass the Senate than the current version. In fact, the current version is not likely to pass the Senate at all.
This doesn't mean that this is a good result, of course. There are a variety of ways that a shortened delay time and more on-site activism can be - and will be - abused by Big Labor. But it is the result that occurs when both Houses of Congress and the Presidency are held by a political party that is heavily pro-labor union management (note the precise designation there)... if you're lucky. Not to belabor (hah!) the point, but elections have consequences - and as has been noted before, the cavalry is not coming over the hill. In other words, the proper response to Congress not giving you satisfaction on this issue is to go make sure that there's a better Congress after the next election.
You start here.
Crossposted to Moe Lane.