In today's Washington Post, political columnist Harold Meyerson explains the importance of first contract arbitration in the Employee Free Choice Act, which is the second main plank of the legislation.

"But the kind of democratic choice that business favors is choice without consequence -- a position made clear by its opposition to the other key component of EFCA: binding arbitration between company and union if they've been unable to agree on a contract within 120 days of a union winning the election. A study of first-contract negotiations by John-Paul Ferguson and Thomas A. Kochan of MIT's Sloan School of Management makes clear why such arbitration is needed. After surveying 22,000 unionization campaigns between 1999 and 2004, the authors found that even after a majority of workers voted for a union, they actually reached a contractual agreement with management (which is currently under no legal obligation to come to an agreement) only 56 percent of the time.

"Heads, management wins. Tails, the employees lose."

It's ironic that businesses rely on arbitration all the time as a means of resolving differences; in this regard, arbitration is a tool for business success. Yet when it comes to giving workers recourse to an arbitrator as a means of getting a first contract between their newly-formed union and the employer, big business is suddenly opposed to arbitration. They praise arbitration when it favors them, but oppose it in settling first contracts.