Ronald Klain, who “oversaw the team implementing the American Recovery and Renewal Act,” is warning Democrats not to get behind Donald Trump’s infrastructure plan. This is particularly true if the plan resembles the one Trump floated during the campaign.

Obviously, if Klain is correct that the bill will weaken unions and wages, and eliminate environmental protections then it should be rejected for those reasons alone. However, these are points of negotiation. One possible reason for working constructively on the bill would be to prevent these kinds of provisions. If that effort is unsuccessful, then the Senate Democrats should filibuster the bill and force the Republicans to use some extraordinary means like the budget reconciliation process to pass it.

Klain is also concerned about two other factors, both of which need to be taken very seriously. The first is that the bill is essentially a giant tax break which won’t be paid for, and that the Republicans will use resulting budget deficits as a rationale for slashing government programs that the Democrats see as vital.

The second is that the bill, as proposed, would not be effective as a jobs creator and would ultimately prove unpopular.

I understand why Democrats are searching for areas where they can make progress under a Trump presidency and why some Democrats say they won’t follow the Republican example of 2009 — when the GOP minority unanimously opposed the Recovery Act, even after intense negotiations with them diverted one-third of the plan to tax cuts. It is possible that Trump may modify the plan he released in October, and some Trump advisers are talking about sweetening the deal for Democrats by adding an “infrastructure bank.” But even with such an addition, the Trump plan would not be a reasonable compromise — acceptance of its huge tax breaks for construction investors and profits for contractors would be a wholesale concession. Democrats supporting such a deal in the moment will find that their votes will wear poorly in the future.

After the disappointing election results, Democrats are looking for ways to connect with working-class voters — and Trump’s plan appears to offer that. But when the plan is passed and those voters see that it fattens investors’ and contractors’ pockets (but not workers’), creates few jobs, depresses wages and damages our environment, they will sour on it and turn against its backers.

House Democrats have no say in this, but the Senate Democrats should at least show an openness to engage.

There are three reasons for this.

One, they need to resist Trump forcefully in so many areas that it’s important to have at least something that they’re open to. Second, just as the Republicans left their stamp on the Recovery Act even though they didn’t ultimately support it, the Democrats can do the same. Third, they can do better by stringing the process out than if they signal immediately that the Republicans will have to resort to the budget reconciliation process. This is especially true because the Trump transition team defied the advice of congressional Republicans and asked them to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government rather than negotiate this year’s spending with the outgoing Obama administration. This means that they’ll be bogged down dealing with last year’s business in the spring and less able to use budget reconciliation as a fallback later in the year.

So, for reasons of optics, politics, procedure, and strategy, it makes sense for the Senate Democrats to enter into legislative negotiations on an infrastructure bill and to engage in a markup in the relevant committees. If they can transform the bill into something substantially different and more worthwhile, they may be able to vote for it. More likely, they’ll find the final product so objectionable that they’ll want to filibuster it. If that filibuster holds up, the GOP may find it too late to salvage the effort this year, dealing Trump a major bloody nose. In the meantime, just as the Republicans used the time bought by their bad faith effort to negotiate over Obamacare to mobilize opposition, the Democrats can use the time to educate the public about what’s wrong with the bill and why it should be rejected.

If the Democrats adopt a “no-way” approach at the outset, they’ll get cut out of the process entirely, the bill will pass in its worst form, and they’ll look like they’re the unreasonable party.

So, even though their base will call them naive and accuse them of selling out, they should ignore them and engage.