DADT was the result of a Clinton compromise and the writer appears to be assuming a similar modification (or betrayal depending on your view) will be made for "card-check" in an Obama administration.
This takes on even more importance because of the relatively moderate nature of the economics-related appointments a fact mentioned in the article. Workers' welfare are not often a primary concern for those concerned with the welfare of the general economy, which is perhaps why we have the current problems.
This quote from the article gives a good sense of the coming battle:
QUOTE
Meanwhile, business is gearing up for a bruising battle, with more than a dozen groups in Washington alone focused on the issue. With their teams of Washington lobbyists and HR departments, "this is [sic] been on the radar of big business for a while," says Katie Packer, executive director of the Workforce Fairness Institute, a group formed earlier this earlier this year to fight the bill. Now, though, "this is an issue that small business is getting rabid about. They're terrified."
Will Obama remember the unions or be swayed by the lobbyists he ferociously railed against campaigning (if anything he says could be called "rail")?