Ever since Labour was elected, it has been the focus of the ideological struggle within the party - and within the government.

It has been a battle fought right on the line between New Labour and its older variant.

Stephen Evans: "There'll be a big shift in power towards employees"

Indeed, if there is a faultline presaging damaging tremors in the government, issues like where the balance of power in workplaces should lie will surely be at the centre of it.

That, no doubt, is all for the future. For the moment, we now know what the White Paper will say.

It means a big shift in the balance of power towards the employed, whether union members or not. For better or worse, though, the shift is not as big as it would have been without the appointment of Peter Mandelson as former Trade and Industry Secretary.

Business lobby

The main change is to the provision to give unions automatic recognition where they have more than half the members. In other words, if more than 50% of employees in a workplace are members of a union, the employer would have had to deal with the union under the original scheme without the employees being balloted.

The CBI lobbied hard and Mr Mandelson softened the provision. Employers will be able to appeal to a revamped Central Arbitration Committee if they feel that union recognition would not "be conducive to sustainable and good industrial relations".

The argument apparently is that even if more than half the employees are in a union, they may not want the union to represent them (they may have joined for other benefits like cheap insurance).

Employers might argue then that imposing a union would merely disrupt a basically happy situation.

In reality, it is hard to imagine many such situations but the opportunity for appeal does make union recognition more complicated, demanding more time and effort on both parties.

Obscure body to the fore

It also puts a great burden on the Central Arbitration Committee. This is an obscure body destined to become less obscure.

It will mean that the composition of the committee will be crucial. Back in the 1960s, ACAS decided such issues. The union appointees voted as one. So did the employer appointees.

The individual academics tended to side one way or the other (their sympathies came out consistently in the vote). One academic appointee, though, did tend to switch his vote so in effect every decision was made by him.

It will be much the same with the CAC so who is on it will determine whether unions or employers get the results they want.

Business champion

It is assumed that the composition will be decided by the new Trade and Industry Secretary Stephen Byers.

Clearly, Mr Mandelson would have made very different choices to his predecessor, Margaret Beckett. And that is probably the point of the changes. Labour was committed to the new law in the manifesto.

Mr Mandelson saw himself as the guarantor of business interests in the government.

Labour can not go back to its old perceived hostility to profitable business and Mr M was the bulwark against that.

The law will be more complicated with a lot more fuzzy definitions, all making work for the lawyers.

Unions emerge bruised from the experience - but recognise that the law is still much better than they could have dreamt of before Labour was elected. The word "betrayal" is not on their lips.