A Much More Pro-Labor Administration (than Clinton)

[Omaha Steve]

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/28/a_much_more_pro-labor_administ/

By Nathan Newman - December 28, 2008, 1:13AM

In many ways, it is remarkable how much more pro-labor the Obama administration is compared to the Clinton administration, at least in its rhetoric. Obama himself has often talked about the importance of the right to organize for unions, something Clinton almost never did.

Compare the incoming cabinet members. Back in 1993, the Clinton cabinet's support for unions was at best lukewarm:

"The jury is still out on whether the traditional union is necessary for the new workplace," Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich said in an interview.

"Unions are O.K. where they are," said Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown. "And where they are not, it is not clear yet what sort of organization should represent workers."

And then you have Obama's nominees.

Now Hilda Solis, the new Secretary of Labor, is one of the strongest proponents of labor in Congress, while Bill Richardson now at Commerce argued during the campaign:

"I believe having union membership is good for the American worker, good for higher wages and good for heath care. Unions are so important, that as president I would name a union member as secretary of labor, and I would replace the entire National Labor Relations Board."

We'll have to see how rhetoric translates into policy, but it is actually an achievement politically that this administration is committed to the idea that increasing unionization is a core part of what is needed to restore the middle class, while the Clinton administration considered it of questionable importance.