At the National Review Online, former Board Member Peter Kirsanow joins the chorus of voices taking issue with today’s Washington Post editorial.  In "EFCA Compromise Nonsense," Kirsanow asserts:

First, the idea that the EFCA amendments presently being floated constitute a "compromise" is a peculiar usage of the term. As the editorial itself notes, EFCA opponents remain monolithically opposed to any form of the bill. The "compromise" is merely a recognition among Democrats that they can’t muster the needed support for EFCA from within even their own ranks.
 
 
Second, the allegedly "unfair barriers" to unionization that the WaPo laments were in place 50 years ago when unions represented 35% of the private-sector workforce. They were in place 30 years ago when 24% of the workforce was unionized. And they’re essentially the same today when only 7.5% of the workforce is unionized. Did the WaPo run an editorial decrying the unfairness of the system when unions were in ascendance?
 
   *    *    *
 
The "quickie election"/equal access "compromise" is not a response to an unfairly tilted playing field. It’s an attempt to salvage some aspects of a seriously flawed bill that may resuscitate the fortunes of labor unions but does little, if anything, to protect employees’ rights or the ability of American employers to compete.