The 2007 NLRB decision in Dana Corp. probably irritated labor as much as any decision of the Bush Board. Essentially it gave employees an opportunity to contest the validity of a showing of a union's majority status by card check. Before a card check campaign could result in certification of a union, employees must be notified and provided a 45 day window to rally against card check and present evidence sufficient for the NLRB to conduct a secret ballot election. In reality this approach created a rationale safety valve to prevent coercive card check tactics. We have argued before unions should have embraced this model and should have adopted it as their reform proposal. It would have liberated the labor reform movement from the valid accusation it was attempting to eliminate secret ballot elections. Under Dana, the unions have seen few card check majorities successfully challenged. Thus, unions could have likely attained a new election process model which would have allowed majority status to be established by card check, subject only to employees havinv=g a brief window in which to challenge the validity of the card check majority. This article does a pretty good job of reviewing the issues. Unfortunately it looks like the new NLRB will revert to the old law under which a union can obtain voluntary recognition from an employer based upon card check alone. Frankly, this incentivizes collusion between an employer and a labor organization to accept a card majority which may not reflect the informed choice of a majority of the employees at any given time. There were a lot of questionable decisions by the Bush Board overturning years of Board precedent, but Dana Corp was not one of them. It properly protected the employees interest in having their collective will more likely determined in a fair manner.