How Unions Might Revive Under Clinton

Infighting among White House advisers is nothing new, and, with their widely divergent backgrounds, there will be sharp differences between members of President-elect Bill Clinton’s Cabinet and his close advisers.

That may not be bad for workers or unions, though.

Consider this: Conservative corporate executives seemed pleased with Clinton’s choice of some Wall Streeters as top aides, and they especially like the pro-business Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex.) as Treasury secretary.

But Clinton also named some unflinching progressives, two of whom are board members of one of the nation’s most liberal, pro-labor think tanks, the Economic Policy Institute.

Labor Secretary-designate Robert Reich, Laura D’Andrea Tyson, who will chair the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and Ira Magaziner, a top Clinton adviser, are all active EPI board members.

EPI produces a prodigious quantity of well-researched progressive studies. It eloquently warned of the danger of the maldistribution of wealth during the Reagan-Bush administrations, and it argued in support of strong unions. It also published a paper predicting that dire consequences will come from the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement among the United States, Mexico and Canada.

The divisions in the next White House may seem easily definable: Moderate conservatives on one side and liberals on the other, with Clinton somewhere in the middle as final arbiter.

But that neat definition isn’t accurate because each side has its own divisions.

Labor unions might rightly expect a sympathetic ear in the White House since, under Clinton’s close friend Reich, the Labor Department will become a major player in policy-making for the first time in decades.

Yet unions may be disappointed to find that the EPI board member who will be the next labor secretary is not going to automatically fight for their causes. He knows few labor leaders and has rarely dealt with specific problems of unions.

And Reich is not on labor’s side in its vehement opposition to NAFTA.

However, labor will benefit by his support of labor-management cooperation and of giving workers a key role in company decision-making. Neither of those goals is possible if most corporations continue trying so fiercely to kill unions.

Ron Brown, secretary-designate of the Commerce Department--traditionally regarded as an advocate of business--says a goal of the new Administration will be to promote true cooperation between labor, management and the government.

Others more or less on the same side will be liberal businessman Robert Rubin, who will be chairman of the new National Economic Council, and investment banker Roger Altman, deputy Treasury secretary-designate. Many anti-labor executives believe that the two will be their advocates in the White House.

But Jack Sheinkman, president of the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, says he and other labor leaders have worked well with Rubin, Altman and Tyson on New York Gov. Mario Cuomo’s Commission on Competitiveness.

The commission also advocates close cooperation between labor unions, management and government.

In other words, unions and liberals generally have friends in high places, and unions can expect Reich to usually support them even if he may have to learn some of labor’s specific legislative goals.

Corporate executives might rightly expect a tilt toward them by some of Clinton’s pro-business appointees. But most of these people are, like Bentsen, strong Democratic Party loyalists and cannot be relied on by business to automatically fight labor and liberals on key issues and appointments to agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board.

This will be especially true if Clinton turns out to be a fair-minded populist who really does want to modify, if not end, the almost unlimited power corporations now hold over workers and unions.

Labor cannot be a full partner with management and government in their weakened condition. Unions represent only 16% of the U.S. work force compared to the 50% to 90% representation workers have in Europe, where management generally accepts and usually works cooperatively with unions.

Major legislative and administrative changes are needed to give U.S. unions enough strength to be a partner with management and government, and some of those changes were outlined at a hearing conducted Dec. 9 by Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.)

At the hearing, Morton Bahr, head of the Communications Workers of America, said “most employers hold a widespread attitude of complete disrespect even for (current) labor laws” and at a minimum our national policy of promoting collective bargaining must be given real meaning by tougher enforcement of those laws.

He and Sheinkman said sweeping labor law reforms are necessary and called for a host of changes ranging from stiff penalties for habitual labor law violators to mandatory arbitration of all unresolved first contracts. Most top AFL-CIO leaders are concentrating initially on goals they believe are most easily obtainable, such as a ban on permanently replacing strikers, tougher enforcement of labor and health and safety laws and comprehensive health care reform.

Others, such as mine workers President Rich Trumka, Bahr and Sheinkman, say labor should start now to press for a more ambitious agenda.

Maybe there will be enough creative tensions in the new Administration to help workers and their unions regain sufficient strength for Clinton to get what he says he wants: a true partnership between management, labor and government to revitalize the economy and end the downward slide of America’s middle class.