Apparently, President Clinton is desperate to regain some of the Democratic Party's core constituency. So desperate he is willing to tamper with labor laws that have worked well for more than half a century.
By signing an executive order this week barring the federal government from doing business with companies that hire replacement workers, Clinton has taken the first step along a path that will lead to more strikes, more powerful unions and more of the types of tactics that can cripple the economy.He also is trying to do by executive fiat what last year's Congress did not do. A bill that would have outlawed replacement workers nationwide failed in the Senate last summer.
So much for the will of the people through their elected representatives.
No doubt, Clinton wants to curry favor from organized labor, a typically powerful force in any election. To do that, he has to erase the hard feelings he caused by supporting the North American Free Trade Agreement.
But the American public, meanwhile, is left wondering how much longer to wait for the "business-friendly" administration that was promised during the last presidential campaign.
Clinton's order affects only the companies whose federal contracts exceed $100,000. By some estimates, that covers 90 percent of the firms doing business with the feds. Suddenly, union members in those businesses have the power to strike over any minor issue, knowing they can cripple their employers and force a settlement.
But the order does more than that. It sets a tone that will resonate through all of organized labor, and it destroys a time-honored balance.
Under a law passed in the 1930s, employers may not permanently replace strikers if the walkout is over unfair labor practices. However, temporary help may be hired in any strike, and permanent replacements may be brought in if the strike is an economic one.
It's a balance that has worked reasonably well.
Clinton's order doesn't prohibit companies from hiring temporary workers who will be let go once the strike ends, but the lack of power to hire a permanent staff removes a major bargaining tactic from the management side of any labor dispute.
The order notes that labor-management struggles tend to become more contentious when strikers are permanently replaced. True, but a blanket prohibition on replacement workers means government automatically presupposes that management always is in the wrong, and that simply is not fair.
No doubt the order is an effort to shore sagging unions that in recent years have lost membership and clout. But it is doubtful many Americans want to tilt the scales against employers that way.
After all, is it really fair to give greater rights to an employee who refuses to work because of pay than to someone else who is willing to work? In such an arrangement, nearly all the risk belongs to management. Strikers know their jobs will be waiting for them afterward.
For all practical purposes, Clinton's order was symbolic. The Republican-controlled Congress isn't about to apply it to the rest of the labor force, and lawmakers are quite likely to overturn it through legislation.
But at least Americans now have a better idea how far Clinton will go to ensure the support and money he feels is necessary for a second term.