WASHINGTON - The nation's nurses have an idea for how to improve health care: Allow more of them to unionize.

But as they press Congress to approve a bill that would make it easier to organize, nurses and other unions have identified a big obstacle in California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

While President Barack Obama and a majority of Democratic senators are behind the Employee Free Choice Act, Feinstein is not. And after she scored a perfect 100 rating from the AFL-CIO last year, many union activists are scratching their heads, wondering why Feinstein has parted ways with them on their signature issue.

Although the state's senior senator has backed similar legislation in the past, she is sticking to her guns. She said she didn't co-sponsor the bill this year because it wouldn't make sense to pass it during a recession.

"This is an extraordinarily difficult economy, and feelings are very strong on both sides of the issue," Feinstein said. "I would hope there is some way to find common ground that would be agreeable to both business and labor."

Without Feinstein's support, bill supporters fear they may not be able to get the 60 votes necessary to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate.

Unions accuse Feinstein of waffling. And they're not buying the now-is-not-the-time argument.

"How is (it) that it's not time for workers, but it was plenty of enough time to give billions of dollars in bailout money?" asked Deborah Burger, co-president of the California Nurses Association. "Wall Street gets billions, and what do we get, the ones who actually helped elect her? It seems like if we were bankers, we would have gotten the nod."

Proponents of the bill cite the economy as a reason to pass the legislation, which is also known as the card check bill.

"During this tough economy, it is important that we continue fostering growth in our region," said Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui of Sacramento, one of 227 House members – including 32 from California – who are co-sponsoring the bill.

Democrat Barbara Boxer of California, one of the bill's 40 co-sponsors in the Senate, has told a number of groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce, that the bill would be good for businesses because workers would have growing incomes to buy goods and services produced by U.S. companies.

As originally proposed, the bill would allow workers to bypass the usual election process and allow them to become a bargaining unit if more than 50 percent signed cards showing their support for a union.

The legislation would also stiffen penalties against employers that illegally fire or discriminate against workers for union activity during an organizing drive. And it would allow employers and newly formed unions to refer bargaining issues to mediation and, if necessary, to binding arbitration if the parties could not agree on a first contract.

Proponents of the bill say it's needed because the election system favors employers. Under the current rules, employers can veto a decision by workers to organize through a majority sign-up and force them into an election. Proponents say the majority sign-up process would result in less pressure and coercion of workers.

Supporters also say the bill would improve wages and benefits for workers, which in turn would help the overall economy. They're particularly pleased to have an ally in the White House this year.

Opponents, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say the bill would hurt business. And they say there's nothing more sacred than a secret ballot and it should not be taken away from workers.

"I'm opposed to the elimination of the secret ballot and I'm also opposed to the notion that a government arbiter should be empowered to set wages and working conditions," said California Republican Rep. Tom McClintock, a member of the House Education and Labor Committee.

By removing the secret ballot, McClintock said, the legislation "eliminates one of the most fundamental principles of a democracy." He and many others expect Democrats to try to win more support for the bill by removing the election provisions but keeping the language involving binding arbitration.

But business lobbyists are balking at the suggestion. Randy Johnson, the U.S. Chamber's senior vice president for labor, immigration and employee benefits, told a forum last month that there is no compromise in the works.

Feinstein's search for a middle ground has resulted in much lobbying from unions, including the California Labor Federation, the Service Employees International Union, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and the Communication Workers of America.

To draw attention to the issue, union activists have been participating in vigils and picketing Feinstein's offices in California. And last month, the nurses left hundreds of red roses, accompanied with personal notes, on the doorstep of her tony San Francisco home.

Feinstein said she has received 40,542 calls, letters and e-mails on the subject, with 74 percent expressing support for the Employee Free Choice Act. She said she has been meeting privately with labor and business leaders, along with other senators, "about ways to move this issue forward."

Asked to respond to labor's disappointment with her, Feinstein said: "I speak often with my friends in the labor community. I know their view, and they know mine."

Call Rob Hotakainen, McClatchy Washington Bureau, (202) 383-0009.