Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota didn’t waste time endorsing a bill that would make it easier for workers to form a union.

In one of his first official acts after being sworn in Tuesday, July 7, the former Saturday Night Live writer and performer co-sponsored the Employee Free Choice Act. Franken joined the Senate after the Minnesota Supreme Court declared him the winner of the state’s disputed Senate race on June 30.

Franken is a sensation in Washington not for his comedic talent but because he is the 60th Democrat in the Senate. That means that on paper the Democrats have enough members to overcome Republican efforts to block legislation through a filibuster.

Such a move was the demise of EFRA in 2007. But Franken is by no means the savior of the current version of the legislation, which is a long way from achieving 60 votes.

Most of the reaction to Franken coming to the capital has centered on his role as the 60th Democrat. But what people overlook is that the 40 Senate Republicans only need to bring one Democrat to their side to sustain a filibuster.

It’s possible that it may be easier for the GOP to maintain its cohesion than for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, to keep Democrats in line. The clearest example is EFCA.

Sure, the GOP is monolithic in its opposition. But there are several Democrats that oppose a provision that would authorize a union based on a majority of employees signing cards and another that would establish mandatory arbitration for first contract negotiations.

Arlen Specter, a newly minted Democrat from Pennsylvania who switched from the Republican Party in April, is one Democrat who opposes EFCA. Another is Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Arkansas.

Specter and Pryor are both involved in negotiations on a compromise to EFCA. Observers say that an alternative bill may not emerge until late July or in September.

Proponents of the bill contend that it has stalled because of a multimillion-dollar campaign conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups. The chamber rails against EFCA as a threat to secret-ballot union elections and maintains that the measure would raise labor costs at the worst time—during a recession.

But EFCA has more problems than a determined opposition. Look at what William Gould, a Stanford law professor and chairman of the National Labor Relations Board from 1994-98, has to say.

In a May 26 speech at the London School of Economics, Gould indicated that he backs some aspects of EFCA but opposes the two primary parts.

“But I am of the view that the other provisions (i.e., recognition on the basis of union authorization cards and the arbitration process) are either fundamentally flawed or so problematical that they need substantial change,” Gould said.

“[T]here will inevitably be more disputes about cards than there ever will be about ballots,” Gould said. “[T]he statute contains no criteria for the arbitrator to follow, creating bad policy as well as constitutional problems.”

Remember that this criticism is coming from the NLRB chair during the Clinton administration, not a fire-breathing conservative.

The fundamental problem with union elections is the way that they can be delayed by companies, according to Gould. Companies have a great advantage over unions when it comes to the campaign because no employee union organizers are barred from company property.

Charles Craver, a professor of law at George Washington University, also says that employers hold the trump cards.

“Workers really listen” when their supervisors oppose an organizing effort, Craver says. “The company has a fundamental advantage over a union because it controls the worker’s destiny.”

It’s difficult to predict how an EFCA compromise will look. But it’s a good bet that criticisms of the bill by Democrats—and their recommendations for how to improve the organizing process by limiting company influence on campaigns—will provide clues for what will emerge from negotiations.