I haven't seen this on Kos - maybe it was missed in the Friday news dump, or who knows?
Anyways, it seems as if Dianne Feinstein and Arlen Specter have invented a compromise on the Employee Free Choice Act, and it may bring the rest of the Conservadems on board. In other words, this compromise may be the thing that gets EFCA over the 60-vote hurdle.
Huffington Post: Feinstein, Specter Compromises Pave the Way for Passage of Employee Free Choice Act
I'll admit that I'm not quite sure on some of the provisions, but let's take a look...
It looks like with all the union activity in his state, Specter is definitely eager to find a way to "get past his differences" and find a way to pass EFCA, simply for self-preservation.
Anyways, there are two big modifications they propose.
Once, they replace card-check, AND the old abusable secret-ballot elections with a mail-in-ballot election. Workers make their votes from home at their own time and mail them directly to the NLRB. I'm not sure this addresses the problems with employers using the time required for an election to conduct an intimidation campaign, but I'd say voting from home is better than voting at the workplace - less room for shenanigans that way. I'm not entirely pleased with this, though I'll admit it's probably better than the current system. It does have the virtue of completely neutering the right-wing screeching about secret-ballot elections - this is a secret-ballot election, though designed to be less gamable by union-busting employers. I personally don't think this is enough to stop the Walmarts from screwing workers, but it's slightly helpful.
Also part of the compromise was a change to the arbitration provisions. I believe Specter wanted to use Baseball arbitration rules, and my impression is that I can live with this provision - as long as the arbitration rules involve a final end to the process that results in a contract, the rules can't be gamed too much, and employers can't filibuster to break unions, I can live with it. The AFL-CIO says in the article that they're open to this provision as well.
One thing I hope does not change are the other, lesser-known provisions of the EFCA, such as the provision that increases damages to triple a worker's annual salary for terminating or harassing a worker illegally for being pro-union. The current penalties for terminating pro-union activists are a joke, and the existing penalties are not well-enforced. Thus firings are a routine part of union-busting campaigns. If the penalties for this sort of unethical behavior were increased and enforced, that alone would go a long way to making the unionization process more fair and more feasible.