The National Mediation Board (NMB) is considering changing its interpretation of a 75-year-old U.S. labor law governing airline and rail union elections, a politically charged proposal that could open the door for more unionization in the industry.

For a sector that is already stumbling financially and facing collective bargaining pressure from unions over past concessions, any changes to the law that could make it easier for unions to take root are being strongly opposed.

And it does not end with the airlines; the impact could be felt by all aviation-related companies. As one Boeing representative put it, it may not directly affect the manufacturer now, but any change to established labor law is reason for all to get involved in this debate.

What has spurred the issue is a Nov. 3 notice in the Federal Register by the NMB, proposing to change the current system that requires 50% plus one of eligible voters to vote in an election; “no” votes are ascribed to those who do not vote. This system is in place in the U.S. only for airlines and railroad companies under the Railway Labor Act. The NMB’s proposed rulemaking would count a majority of valid ballots cast to determine the outcome of the election. In other words, a minority of workers could eventually vote a union onto the property.

Opponents say there is no legal basis for the change, and unions are simply taking advantage of the political climate with a Democrat in the White House.

However tedious rulemaking procedures may seem, this one has brought to the forefront the decades-old question of whether the airline industry is so key to the economic stability of the nation that it should be regulated differently than any other industry by making it more difficult for workers to strike.

But there is another, more parochial, argument as to why this proposed change is sailing through the NMB. The Delta/Northwest merger has left Delta as the largest and least-unionized airline—with a vast international employee base—and therefore the prize fish in the union net.

The politics surrounding all of these issues extend to the NMB itself, and are an integral factor in how this proposal will play out. It was issued by two of a three-member board—Linda Puchala and Harry Hoglander. Puchala, an Obama appointee, is a former international president of the Assn. of Flight Attendants (AFA), while Hoglander, who was appointed to the board in 2002, is a former TWA captain and Air Line Pilots Assn. (ALPA) executive.

The third board member, Chairwoman Elizabeth Dougherty, appointed by former President George W. Bush has a background in labor policy, serving as assistant to the president in the White House, and for a law firm with a major airline practice. She has dissented from the decision, saying serious questions exist about the board’s statutory authority in this matter. The rule has been applied consistently for 75 years, she says, and altering it “would be an unprecedented event in the history of the NMB, which has . . . a policy of making major rule changes with consensus and only when required by statutory amendments or [sic] essential to reduce administrative burdens on the agency.”

Dougherty also sent a letter Nov. 2 to nine Senators stating her position, noting that she was basically excluded from taking part in this process.