Secretary of Labor Is a Misnomer in the Case of Ann McLaughlin

Ann Dore McLaughlin, the conservative Reagan loyalist whose work experience has primarily been in public relations, should be called President Reagan’s choice to be America’s first secretary of anti-organized labor.

Instead, Congress almost surely will confirm her nomination by Reagan last week as secretary of labor and bestow on her that more traditional title.

But Mark de Bernardo, manager of labor law for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has accurately summarized the role McLaughlin is expected to play in her new post:

“Her most important job will be to deliver to Capitol Hill the threat of Reagan vetoes, the vetoes and the need to support vetoes of the legislative agenda of organized labor.”

Since Democrats are a majority in the House and Senate, there is a real possibility that Congress will adopt some of labor’s very modest legislative objectives before Reagan leaves office.

Thus, it will largely be up to Reagan to help the conservatives kill labor’s proposals. Labor’s top priorities include much-needed measures that would:

- Mandate employer-provided health insurance for millions of uninsured workers.

- Require employers to give advance notice to workers when plants are going to be closed.

- Increase the disgracefully inadequate $3.35-an-hour minimum wage.

- Guarantee that jobs will be held for parents taking time off when a child is born or adopted.

- Prohibit unionized construction firms from operating non-union subsidiaries as devices to undercut union contracts.

But McLaughlin may be a disappointment to those who expect her to lead the Administration fight against labor’s legislative agenda.

McLaughlin is said to be likable and bright, but the former Interior undersecretary is a relative unknown, a political lightweight with few contacts in Congress whose labor relations experience is zilch.

And she certainly does not have the political punch of the man she was picked to replace, William E. Brock III.

While Brock generally supported the Administration and most business leaders in their fight against labor’s legislative agenda, his heart didn’t seem to be in it. He wasn’t the union-basher that conservatives wanted as labor secretary.

But in many ways he was a formidable foe of labor’s goals because his integrity and knowledge are generally respected. His words were not dismissed by Democrats or Republicans on Capitol Hill as those of an ideologue or simply an echo of the prevalent anti-union forces in the White House.

Unlike McLaughlin, Brock has cordial, often warm relations with many labor leaders, including AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland, despite some sharp differences with them on several key issues.

Also, he is known to have privately supported some labor proposals, such as the plant closure measure. He reportedly spoke against it only at the insistence of White House conservatives.

Brock appointed liberal, pro-union aides such as Deputy Undersecretary Stephen Schlossberg, who established a valuable, active labor department bureau to encourage labor-management cooperation.

The very presence of Brock aides like Schlossberg in the Reagan Administration seemed to some to undermine the drive by the Chamber of Commerce and others to block the labor-backed legislation.

Brock also has an excellent personal relationship with the liberal Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who is spearheading many of labor’s proposals in the Senate. That, too, was viewed by some as additional evidence of Brock’s lack of commitment to the anti-organized labor cause.

Anti-Union Forces

However, these very factors added to Brock’s credibility and impact when he opposed labor’s agenda.

McLaughlin’s effectiveness in blocking that agenda will depend primarily on her public relations skills in driving home the threat of Reagan’s vetoes. One would hope that won’t be enough to defeat the much-needed laws.

Still, whether or not she is as effective as Brock in opposing labor’s agenda, her appointment has cheered anti-union forces, such as leaders of the National Right To Work Committee.

McLaughlin will be a “substantial improvement over Brock, whom we view as the worst Republican secretary of labor since John Dunlop,” said a spokesman for the committee. (John T. Dunlop served in 1975-76 under President Gerald R. Ford. Despite his brief tenure, Dunlop ranks as one of the outstanding labor secretaries in American history. He is a world-famous labor expert and professor at Harvard University.)

While admitting his organization knows little about her views on such issues as “right to work” laws that prohibit union shop contracts, the committee spokesman added:

“We hope Mrs. McLaughlin will run the department of labor as just that, and not as the ‘department of organized labor,’ which Brock seemed to think he was doing.” Few expect her to actually take charge of the department, with its 18,506 employees and an annual budget of about $24 billion.

She isn’t going to have time before Reagan is out of office to figure out how that complex agency operates, much less make changes in it, for better or worse.

Although Schlossberg recently resigned to head the Washington office of the International Labor Organization, his competent assistant, John R. Stepp, is expected to continue the labor-management cooperative programs that Schlossberg began.

McLaughlin probably will retain other Brock aides, such as Deputy Labor Secretary David Demerest, who can keep the department operating, with or without a knowledgeable secretary in charge.

In other words, the department will not be immobilized as it was during the many months former Labor Secretary Raymond Donovan was being investigated after being accused of defrauding the New York Transit Authority. He was acquitted of the charges last May.

It is a bit comforting to believe that McLaughlin isn’t likely to do much damage to the department.

But it would be nice to get a secretary who would run it as ordered by Congress when it created the Department of Labor in 1913.

The purpose of the department, Congress declared, was “to foster, promote and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the United States, to improve their working conditions and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment.”

What a neat idea.

U.S. Should Consider Neighbor’s Good Idea

The Canadian province of Ontario has an intriguing new law that this country might consider as a model for dealing with the controversial issue of comparable worth.

The long-standing question in most countries is simple enough: What’s the best way to ensure that women and minorities are paid the same as men for jobs of equal, or comparable, worth?

In the United States, women average about 70% of the pay men receive, and the differential is due in part to discrimination. Legal action in the courts, some state and local legislation and particularly union contracts have helped to narrow the pay gap in recent years.

The Canadian government has had a pay equity law since 1978, but it just applies to government employees and operates only when formal complaints of discrimination are filed.

Get Rid of Inequities

Last June, however, Ontario enacted a far more comprehensive pay equity law that applies to both government and private sector employers.

Employers are required to compare the skills, responsibilities, working conditions and educational requirements of female- and male-dominated jobs.

Then employers must review the wages paid to workers in dissimilar jobs to see if the jobs are of comparable value. If they are comparable but pay different wages, the employer must develop a plan to get rid of such inequities.

In unionized firms, the company plan must be negotiated with the union.

If employees of a company don’t object to the company-developed plan, it becomes a self-managed one that doesn’t have to be filed with the government.

But if workers object, the government moves in to assist. Ontario is establishing a Pay Equity Commission to help companies and workers to achieve pay equity through educational programs and, when there are disputes, through mediation.

If mediation fails, special pay equity hearing tribunals will decide the merits of workers’ complaints. Complaints can be filed based on the lack of a pay equity plan in addition to allegations of actual discrimination.

Perhaps Ontario, where the wage gap between female and male workers is 37%, requires stronger action than the United States does. But we cannot be content with our own unfair pay gap, and Ontario has an idea worth considering.