What has passed for bipartisanship in Washington so far this year is really just the flexing of political muscle.

Throughout his campaign and his nascent administration, President Barack Obama touted his ability to forge consensus from warring political parties. So far, there’s no evidence of it. There doesn’t have to be, with Democrats holding significant majorities on Capitol Hill.

His stimulus bill passed with just three Republican votes—one of which is now on the Democratic side of the aisle. Congress approved his $3.5 trillion budget blueprint along partisan lines. And the first bill he signed—one dealing with pay discrimination—garnered only a small slice of Republican support.

Democrats often allow consideration of Republican amendments to legislation in committees and in floor debate—on the Senate side, at least. That’s because they know that have more than enough votes to squash GOP ideas.

But there was evidence during the previous Congress that normally adversarial sides could achieve consensus on major legislation. One example was a bill that put mental health and medical benefits on equal footing. The other was a measure that expanded the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In each case, the business lobby and advocacy groups came together and wrestled the legislation to the ground through tough, good-faith negotiations. The Democratic majorities in Congress left business with no other option.

Chai Feldblum led the disability side in the ADA talks. She hopes to use the model to move legislation that would foster novel work arrangements at U.S. companies.

As co-director of Workplace Flexibility 2010, an initiative based at the Georgetown University Law Center, Feldblum could be a catalyst for cooperation between business and advocacy groups.

Reaching agreement on the ADA bill required 10 months of negotiation over the definition of disability. Working through the meaning of flexible work arrangements, time off and career maintenance and re-entry—the three “buckets” of flexibility, as defined by the Georgetown group—could be a bigger challenge because there are so many dimensions to the effort.

“We think of this as more like climate change,” Feldblum says.

But she’s optimistic that consensus can be reached. “I’m more hopeful for this enterprise than [she was] for ADA,” she says.

The Society for Human Resource Management is eager to get to the negotiating table. On May 7, SHRM released a set of principles for flexible work designed to start a dialogue about alternatives to legislation like a paid sick leave bill that will soon be introduced.

The organization proposes that companies that voluntarily offer a certain amount of paid time off be protected from federal leave mandates.

Workplace Flexibility 2010 isn’t taking a position on SHRM’s idea, but it is happy that SHRM is raising its voice. “We welcome the fact of people saying: Let’s have a conversation,” Feldblum says.

The Senate is off to a bipartisan approach in addressing workplace flexibility. The Senate Workplace Flexibility Study Group was established in August by three Democrats—Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Herb Kohl  of Wisconsin, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut—and three Republicans: Michael Crapo of Idaho, Susan Collins of Maine and George Voinovich of Ohio.

The panel is looking at research and data on flexibility practices and their effect on companies and employees. And they’re listening to everyone.

“It’s as even-handed an approach as you will see in this town,” says a Lincoln aide.

The foundation of cooperation is strong. “There is no gamesmanship,” Feldblum says.

Many companies argue that flexibility is one of the keys to competitiveness. We’ll see if political competition—partisanship—can be kept out of flexibility policy.