Bush Will Be Kinder, Gentler to Unions

President-elect George Bush almost surely will be more concerned about the needs of both non-union and union workers than Ronald Reagan has been for the past eight years--but that isn’t saying much.

Bush says he is willing to give serious consideration to such urgently needed, labor-backed proposals as a long overdue hike in the minimum wage, a child-care program, parental leave and some help for the 35 million workers who have no medical insurance.

That’s an inadequate list, considering the problems facing workers. It doesn’t come close in scope to the one drawn up by key congressional Democrats and the AFL-CIO. And the liberal-labor proposals he is considering will have to be weakened badly before they get his final OK.

Still, that is better than Reagan, who opposed every significant measure advocated by the liberal-labor coalition. And the coalition had to fight constant rear-guard battles to try to block Reagan’s legislative attacks and appointments of extreme conservatives.

Conversations with union leaders, Republican and Democratic members of Congress and some transition team members indicate clearly that not only will Bush make some compromises that will allow passage of several mild pro-worker measures, but his relations with organized labor will be less antagonistic than Reagan’s.

A key member of the transition team said last week that Bush isn’t going to make pro-labor appointments to labor-related positions. However, Bush will not name anti-union, ultraconservative ideologues to those jobs, something Reagan did frequently.

That posture is reflected in the anticipated choice of secretary of labor, and so far those in consideration include Patricia Diaz Dennis. Others mentioned for the job also are moderates.

Dennis would be no gift to labor. She was a labor attorney in Los Angeles for ABC before going to Washington, first as a member of the National Labor Relations Board and then to the Federal Communications Commission, where she is now. Her husband, Michael Dennis, is a corporate antitrust attorney.

Despite her corporate orientation, she should be acceptable to labor unions because she is bright, logical and has a knowledge of labor.

The vice president did not consult with AFL-CIO leaders on candidates to replace Reagan’s secretary of labor, Ann McLaughlin. On the other hand, Bush met Monday with AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland and Secretary-Treasurer Thomas Donahue, an encouraging gesture even though it was one of his last “reaching out” meetings with those who fought his election.

Some knowledgeable Republicans firmly believe that Bush will communicate with labor leaders but give them short shrift when it comes to making appointments or policy decisions.

Mark Rodgers, the Republican Party’s official liaison to organized labor, said last week he is convinced that Bush will follow the political advice of Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor, in dealing with unions: “Punish your enemies and reward your friends.”

Rodgers says Bush will consult with union leaders who supported his election, thereby reminding all unionists of the real advantages offered to those who work with Republicans. In other words, Bush will reward his friends in labor.

The political problem with that part of Gompers’ advice is that Bush’s only influential friend in labor is William McCarthy, president of the Teamsters Union. McCarthy is a defendant in a Justice Department suit seeking to oust him and other top Teamsters based on allegations that the union has ties to organized crime.

If Bush seems cordial to men like McCarthy, that might suggest he is sending a message to the Justice Department to move carefully against the Teamsters.

Rodgers says Bush is also expected to follow the other half of Gompers’ advice, which would mean he will punish such political enemies in labor as Kirkland, Donahue and leaders of every major union in the United States except the Teamsters.

Rodgers alleges that Kirkland and the other Bush foes have “lost touch with the American workers” and so aren’t essential to the Bush Administration anyway.

The problem with “punishing” them is that unions have considerable clout in the Democratic Congress, clout the new President could use in dealing with both the House and Senate.

Also, it is far from clear that the union leaders have lost touch with workers. Although union membership has declined sharply as a percent of the total work force, the actual number of about 20 million has held steady. And a large majority of them voted for Michael S. Dukakis, as their leaders so vigorously urged them to do.

Kirkland and other union leaders of integrity know they won’t be close to the Bush White House, and they will not press hard for unachievable goals such as meaningful improvements in labor laws that are now used frequently against the workers the laws were written to protect.

The Bush Administration clearly will not help revive organized labor or bring succor to the average worker.

But if there is no serious recession, union and non-union workers alike should fare better than they did during the Reagan years when their real income dropped, unions were weakened, pro-worker legislation was a rarity and the Administration sided with management on almost every labor issue ranging from safety to workers’ rights on the job.