Today, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial piece, titled "Blinding Arbitration," in which you can witness the screaming of "injustice" in regards to the arbitration process proposed in the Employee Free Choice Act.

Fundamentally, it's backwards. Reading it, I began to wonder what reality these people live in.

The editorial paints the current contract negotiation process as something that "works." Ask anyone who's been through the process, and they'll tell you that it works - but only for corporations. The employees, instead, tend to get the shaft. Nearly two-thirds (62%) of workers who form a union still don't have a contract after one year, and companies refuse to negotiate in good faith in over 28 percent of cases.

To big business, it's a process that works because they have all of the control. As Former Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott once said, "we like driving the car, and we're not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us."

Now, to keep the steering wheel in their hands, they're desperately beginning to make stuff up again. Remember how they told you that Employee Free Choice would "take away the secret ballot?," but it wasn't true, at all? (Even the Wall St. Journal admitted the Employee Free Choice Act doesn't take away secret ballots.)

Here's one of the arguments we're starting to see as it appears in the today's Wall Street Journal:

"Unions in particular will be inclined to ask for the moon (during first contract negotiation), knowing they will do well even if an arbitrator merely splits the difference...This would put (an arbitrator), with no real stake in a company's future, in charge of divining the perfect wage and work rules for that company."

It's completely unreasonable to think that an arbitrator has no stake in a company's future, or in being seen as fair. A successful long-term outcome from the arbitration process is critical to their livelihood and their reputation. Since an arbitrator is picked by both sides in a process similar to how a jury is selected, you better believe that the past success of their decisions will be evaluated and judged. Unsuccessful outcomes would eventually leave an arbitrator without a reputation and, essentially, without a job.

The "shoot for the moon" language is also laughable for anyone who's been through the arbitration process. "Shooting for the moon" only makes an arbitrator think you're less reasonable, and thus, the arbitrator is far less inclined to side with your demands. Historically, it's the side that's seen as most fair, most willing to compromise, and most reasonable that generally is more convincing to the arbitrator. Once again, this goes along with the notion that arbitrators must be seen as fair and neutral in order to maintain their viability as an arbitrator.

It's also important to see what we're talking about here. Reading the editorial, you almost get the picture that an arbitrator comes in, reinvents the wheel, dictates everything a company can do, and has no accountability to anyone.

But, in reality, arbitration would only used in situations where it's desperately needed. First contract arbitration is a safety net only if the parties' negotiations are unsuccessful, and only on the sticking points that would otherwise prevent workers from getting a contract. Most of all, this is only a process that would be used in the first contract only - and thus, only valid for the duration of that one particular contract.

Yet, this information is carefully omitted from this editorial, and quite frankly, from any argument we've seen.

Sure, there's "blindness" here. But it's our firm belief that the blindness here is caused by greed and the coercive power of the need for the "steering wheel." For once, if the "safety net" protection of first contract arbitration is in place, neither a company nor a union would be able to control the process unfairly. That, to the opponents of first contract arbitration, is the scariest thing they've had to contend with in decades.