Jennifer Rubin asks at Commentary Magazine’s blog whether the groups that opposed EFCA are as well prepared to confront a "lite" version of the bill offered as compromise.  Her excellent post suggests these strategic possibilities:

… There are a couple avenues which they haven’t yet explored, in large part because they were able to beat back EFCA by focusing on the prospect of losing the secret ballot and the huge problems (legal and economic ) with mandatory arbitration.

The first is to back bipartisan reform. Enshrine in statute and enforce the Bush era measures combating union corruption and requiring financial disclosure, make proposed fines for unfair labor practices apply to both unions and employers, and ensure that whatever time limits on elections and access to employer premises (or email) which are required for employers also apply to union decertification elections and union premises (or email), respectively. That might either scare off Big Labor or, if not, maintain the traditional balance between labor and management that has been a hallmark of federal labor law for decades.

The second is to go after the premise that any of this is needed at all. EFCA has been a solution in search of a problem, resting on the questionable notion that unions are losing “market share” not because of worldwide trends against unionization or  because  of younger worker’s lack of affinity for unions but because of nefarious actions by employers. This requires some sober discussion and fact-finding hearings, which may not be in the offing in a Democratic-controlled Congress where the hearings are likely to be stacked heavily in favor of pro-union witnesses. Nevertheless, business groups would be wise to start educating lawmakers and the public if they want to burst the myth that the solution to Big Labor’s woes is more federal legislation