"U.S. Chamber's "Card Check Compromise" Poll Compromises the Facts" is the title of an SEIU blog post from late yesterday. It is good to see that they found the factual results accurate because they didn't bother to dispute any, merely trying to drown out the public’s voice with a blast of hysterical noise…oh wait a minute, there is this one thing which is sort of a factual dispute, I guess (their bold)

The authors of the poll say if employers and workers can't reach an contract agreement in a reasonable amount of time, government bureaucrats will swoop in to mandate a binding agreement. This simply isn't accurate. In arbitration, either side can bring in an independent, trained arbitrator to settle the dispute who both sides agree on. The bottom line is that arbitration encourages compromise, and no one has anything to fear from a process that is fair, neutral and promotes compromise instead of confrontation.

 Hmmm...really? Let’s just dispense with their bold with a bold of our own from EFCA, via THOMAS:

The arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute and such decision shall be binding.

SEIU is, characteristically, glossing over the real impact of the binding interest arbitration provision. This provision is fundamentally unfair for the following reasons:

1) The amount of time specified in EFCA before arbitration would be imposed is a ridiculously short 120 days. No first contract negotiations are concluded that fast. First contracts negotiations are extremely detailed and lengthy—they involve a wide array of issues beyond just wages and benefits. While no adjustment to this amount of time would make the arbitration provision palatable, describing the amount of time as “reasonable” is laughable.

2) The arbitration process in EFCA is largely undefined. Much of how this would work is entirely unspecified, and would have to be described in regulations to be written by the NLRB (see Becker, Craig). We can expect those details to be resolved entirely in the favor of unions and not in favor of any balance or fairness for employers. The notion that the union negotiators will accept an arbitrator proposed by the employer defies credulity.

3) Even if these regulations were to be done with some balance, the process will favor union negotiators. Employers, and especially small businesses with no experience in negotiating labor contracts, will be at the mercy of skilled and seasoned labor negotiators. Secondly, the unions will come in asking for certain things, and employers will respond that they can do some but not all of these things, or only to a certain level. When the matter gets submitted to the arbitrators, they will seek to find the middle ground. That middle ground will be, by definition, higher than the employer is prepared to offer. And the only side that has any skin in the game is the employer—it’s all about their resources and their ability to maintain an ongoing business. The unions have nothing at risk in these negotiations; whatever they don’t get in this round, they’ll come back and ask for in the next round.

4) Current law makes clear that each side cannot be forced to accept terms it finds objectionable. This is the essence of the bargaining process. Indeed, employees normally have the chance to accept or reject these contracts. Under this provision, these protections go away. The arbitrator will impose their version of a contract on both parties for two years, with no opportunity for employers to contest, or employees to approve.

These reasons are why SEIU and its allies are so intent on pushing for this arbitration provision in EFCA. They know that they have an entirely favorable process waiting for them after 120 days that will result in a guaranteed first contract which will give them what they want.