http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/21/AR2009032101449.html?hpid=topnews I haven't seen much discussion of this act, and I just now saw this plan.... any thoughts? Does it have merit? It seems striking to me that an alternate plan was drafted entirely by executive teams at large companies that have little union representation (a small group of Costco employees are Teamsters, though) and not in any kind of collaboration with Labor. There are a few things I admit I don't understand too much about: 1) I've heard numerous complaints that the card-check organizing is anti-democratic because it does not use secret ballots. The claims always seem to come from rightist lawmakers or corporate executives who seem to feel that the system would be used by unions to bully workers into signing on. The only other voice I hear is that of the unions, who claim it would prevent employers from doing the bullying. Is there actually any data that says what would happen if we did not require secret ballots for organizing? Are there other major countries that allow unions to form this way? 2) I'm not that impressed by the CEOs' rejection of binding arbitration. I'd like to know more about evidence that this actually gets abused. Overall, this plan doesn't really sound like an inventive "third way" to me -- it sounds like a very rough point-by-point compromise, and I don't see it offering a lot of strategic value. Although I was never particularly wedded to the EFCA / card-check plan, I'm not really understanding how this plan is better. All jokes about the fact that Starbucks can't even brew coffee properly, aside.