Yesterday, I pointed out that the math being used to figure out whether the Employee Free Choice Act would pass is a bit flawed, particularly as it relates to the Senate. Today, the New York Times has an article about yesterday’s introduction of the bill, which says this:

Republican and business strategists said some former co-sponsors felt they had a free pass to back the bill when President Bush appeared likely to veto it. But now that the bill appears to have a real chance of passage, they said, some moderate senators, heavily lobbied by business, are backing off the bill, worried that it might hurt or anger their business constituents.

The lobbying is focusing on eight or so Senate Democrats and Senator Specter, whose votes are seen as up for grabs. The Democrats include Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, both of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Warner of Virginia.

“I don’t notice shrinking support,” Mr. Harkin said when asked about the declining number of co-sponsors. “I think the votes are there. I think the support is there.” He said minor modifications might be needed to ensure enough support.

   I added the emphasis. I pointed out that very fact yesterday. I understand why Harkin would take that position but the article never goes on to push the point about the biggest threat facing EFCA: a version of EFCA will pass but it is entirely unclear whether the Democratic leadership or, for that matter, the president are committed to getting a version of EFCA passed with "minor modifications". Of course, "minor" is all in the eye of the beholder.

   But, again, as my post yesterday suggested, there are significant areas where the bill could take a hit–on "card check", on contract arbitration and on higher penalties for corporate law-breaking during organizing campaigns. I don’t think it helps to pretend like EFCA will not sustain serious hits and limp to the president’s desk in a form that would end up certainly being some improvement over the current broken system but nowhere near the predictions the labor movement has made about changes that would unleash a wave of millions of workers streaming into unions.