He’s a thoughtful guy. He’s supposed to consider all sides of a case before he makes a decision. that’s all he actually said he’d do.

BTW, Unions have good reason to push this now. After the first 100 days presidents have historically had very little success at their domestic policy initiatives.

The real problem, it seems to me, is not that it makes it easier for people to join unions. It is that it makes it easier to pressure people to join unions. If all they asked for was a card check which would require a vote on whether or not to join the union, that would be real hard to oppose. But that isn’t what this proposal does now, is it?

The problem with your argument is that Card check has been implemented in other places. And there has never, ever, ever, been a single documented case of a union forcing a plant to unionize against it’s will.

There’re very good reasons for that. Workers who don’t want to be the union are likely to a) elect anti-union officers, b) take advantage of “Right to Work” and not pay dues, etc. Besides the decertification process is exactly the same as the certification process. In practice it’s a lot easier — employers support decertification. Which means corporate security guards can protect anti-union workers from union intimidation.

There is a need right now because the employers are cutting wages to line their own pockets. There is mistreatment of workers from Bush’s gutting of OSHA that is happening right now. That is why it is on the front burner they are doing what their constituents want. Which I may be mistake, but I thought that was the job of elected officials, to you know, do what the people that voted for them wanted.

And that is the valid argument against this proposal. Whether the people fighting against it actually think to make it or not.

Gotta LUV such flexibility. Is this an instance of soi-desant “post-partisanship?”

I call it shoving a feces-encrusted thumb in the eye of your most loyal and expectant (and I don’t mean me) constituency.

What make anyone think that if Obama/Dims cannot get this through with the political capital tey now possess, they will be able to do so later with inevitably LESS political capital to expend? This is a cave-in, pure and simple.

That I am not surprised does not mean that I cannot still be outraged.

You know, now if the business community’s argument against the Employee Free Choice Act is simply that it will make it easier for people to join unions and we think that is damaging to the economy then they probably won’t get too far with me.

Is there anyone who doesn’t know that this is the real reason for every argument they make?