Lynn Martin : The Secretary of Labor Tries to Look on the Bright Side

Lynn Martin is cheerful, but then again she has to be. She is secretary of labor while American workers endure the worst recession in a decade. Her job is to advance the interests of working people while reporting to a President whose highest economic priority remains reducing taxes paid by capitalists.

In person, Martin has the down-to-earth style of a high-school homeroom teacher--which she once was. Sitting in her huge corner office, with a view of the Capitol, Martin also exudes the caution of a career politician--which she also is. She defuses philosophical and ideological questions with implacable niceness. She dwells with genuine enthusiasm on the most innocuous issues facing the Labor Department. In temperament and syntax, Martin resembles no one as much as her boss, George Bush.

Martin, a lifelong Republican loyalist, was born Dec. 26, 1939, and graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Illinois in 1960. She taught in Rockford, Ill., then entered county and state politics. Martin has two grown daughters and is married to U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber.

In 1980, she was elected to the U.S. Congress, representing a district in northern Illinois. She served five terms, and was well respected by her colleagues, ultimately being elected vice chair of the House Republican Caucus. Then, in 1990, Martin was persuaded by the GOP leadership to run for the Senate against Paul Simon, the heavily favored Democratic incumbent. After she lost, President Bush appointed her the 21st secretary of labor.

Martin brushes aside mounting criticism from union leaders, noting that unions represent only 15% of the work force. She defends the Bush Administration’s opposition to mandated family leave and civil-rights legislation, despite the fact that she voted for such legislation while serving in Congress. Words like “collective bargaining” seem to disturb Martin’s upbeat assessment of the future of American workers. To Martin, such terms are relics of an almost by-gone era. She insists the real agenda for American workers lies in job training, in pension portability and her well-publicized campaign against the “glass ceiling” that limits opportunities for women.

The notion that labor and capital might have different interests seems to strike Martin as old-fashioned. In fact, Martin hopes to advance the lot of U.S. workers without disturbing the corporate managers, lawyers and lobbyists who dominate the Bush Administration. It is testimony to Martin’s success in redefining the role of the labor secretary that she has not emerged as a more controversial figure while unemployment soars.

Question: Does the secretary of labor have any special responsibility at a time when a lot of people are out of work?

Answer: Sure, on three different levels. The first is most obvious. The Department of Labor has, as part of its mission, unemployment and making sure that unemployment--the benefits that accrue from unemployment get to people. We now will have 52 or 59 weeks of extended unemployment benefits. (It was) basically done quickly and without the usual demagoguery.

For instance, in the tax bill, one of the parts that I happen to like the most is that first-time-home-buying program. It goes right to an industry that has led this nation out of recession in different times. Secondly, it goes right to jobs that you can provide training for. It additionally provides opportunity for first-time home buyers.

On the third part, is that if jobs are difficult, then it’s even more important to talk about those jobs that are available, what’s required for them and to be able to provide ways for men and women to prepare themselves for those jobs, to have a system that gives the individual worker the kind of flexibility he or she needs to have a better chance to get that second, third, fourth, fifth job.

Q: In the fall, the unemployment extension was controversial. Congress was pushing for the extension. The Administration was resisting it or asking for different forms of funding. Why was it so much easier the second time around to get that extension of jobless benefits?

A: The President understood fully what it meant, and directed me to make sure that’s how it happened. . . . Although there were some that, I think, might have been looking for political advantage, I’m pleased to say, across-the-board for Democrats as well as Republicans, that people were put first.

Q: You’ve also had your differences with the union leaders who you just came back from visiting. Lane Kirkland from the AFL-CIO was quoted as criticizing your “blithe optimism” that the trade agreement with Mexico wouldn’t cost U.S. jobs.

A: The (labor unions), too, have an agenda. You’re never going to hear me faulting that. Sometimes, their agenda isn’t America’s agenda, though . . . .

The AFL-CIO has opposed, opposed, opposed NAFTA (the North American Free-Trade Agreement). Actually, the Department of Labor did an independent study through the University of Maryland. That study indicates that, because the United States economy is so large, actually there will be very little effect in the beginning.

Believe me, some in the Administration didn’t like that study. The unions wanted to say it was going to be all terrible. The Administration sometimes would like it to be all terrific. What it said is there’s going to be little effect. There may be some new jobs, some lost. But they even out.

But after those first five years, the study said, it was going to be plus-plus. Mexican buying power will increase. For every dollar that they spend on export, 70 cents of it is spent on American goods and services. So, as Mexico does better, so do we.

We also have an enormous problem with illegal immigration. That is going to continue. The costs to American jobs are real, too. If Mexico does better, though, that social cost will drop.

There is a river that separates us. There’s no wall. You can’t build one tall enough. If we’re going to be competing with the Pacific Rim, we’re going to be competing with Europe ‘92, in effect, eventually this continent . . . will be stronger because of it . . . .

Q: Another political issue that’s come up was the President’s trip to Japan. He took a lot of leading corporate executives with him. Some people wondered about the symbolism of that. Should he have taken some workers, some union leaders?

A: I think the important thing was the President was out there for jobs. It’s not a case of who, what, when or where. Labor leaders go to Japan all the time and back, and, I’m sure, so do other business executives. The important thing is to make sure that we have access to a market so that our goods and services can compete. And, in fact, although I’ve seen very little about that, the telecommunications industry is just as pleased as punch with what happened.

I also saw something in the paper about people saying there should have been a lot better publicity about that particular trip, because they’ve already seen changes--I think it was for people into the airport construction.

Our trade balance with Japan is still not as good as it should be, period. So we’re doing a lot more exporting, and that is more jobs; we’re going to have to do even more with Japan.

Q: Union movements are clearly in a decline in recent years. Has that hurt other workers?

A: The union movements’ decline . . . has been, to some extent, because they don’t fit into changing jobs. Unions . . . today are trying really far more outreach for the first time. If you look at apprenticeship programs, they overwhelmingly were all white male. So they didn’t serve a lot of people. Now they’re trying to make changes, too, so that an apprenticeship program can actually reflect more of the population. . . . If you look at the AFL-CIO board of directors--I think there are two women and two African-Americans. Other groups are having to move. . . . It’s the job of the Labor Department to represent people . . . whether or not they belong to a union, and to make sure that what happens to working men and women is as positive as possible. That means new jobs, it means retraining, it means pensions. . . .

That’s why we’re moving in far more directly . . . If 84% of the people aren’t unionized--you have to find other routes to get to them.

Q: The glass ceiling initiative: You’ve put a lot of emphasis on that. Why is that important right now?

A: It’s not right now or then . . . . It is important of itself. It isn’t trendy as it was important last year and it won’t be two years from now. But the real reason it’s important is because it gets to the change occurring in this department.

As we’re trying to give to workers greater security than they have. They don’t have security in their companies, because they may work for another company. They don’t have security in their unions, because the union can’t stop something from closing. So the security that person has is going to be, more and more, in his or her talents and abilities.

In other words, if you do everything, and have all the training and go to have the job, and then find out that because your surname ends in a Z, or that you are a working mother, or that you’re African-American, there is a barrier on top of your skills and ability--then we still haven’t given you security. That’s why the glass ceiling is important. It’s the mirror reverse of a quota.

A quota says there’s 20% of the people that are blondish. We’re going to have 20% of the people blondish moving into upper management, regardless of their talents and abilities. Glass ceiling says exactly the opposite. It says you’ve got to just open those doors.

The other reason for becoming so involved is that we can’t do it all by enforcement. That’s one of those that you have to have billions of people out there enforcing--which is hardly what you want in job creation.

So since most job creation is coming from small and medium businesses, we’re doing a lot more outreach in this and other programs. The old Department of Labor just sort of enforced, and that was it. We’re reaching out to small businesses, to big businesses, to independent groups, and that’s very difficult for the labor unions--who are much more used to being sort of a sole constituency. The fact is, they’re enormously important. I happen to think they’ve got a real future, as they change too. But there’s multiple constituencies here.

Q: Is the recession ending?

A: I taught economics, but I’m not a practicing economist. Some of the numbers give us some hope. The new house building, home starts, for instance; the fact that inflation is down; the fact that, on monetary policy, it sounds like interest rates may drop a little further. All those firsts are signs, and the other, dropping interest rates, of course, would be helpful, I believe, in doing so.

I know this. We’re going to have to do more. The time limits put on the Congress are absolutely valid. The President has previewed, or given his program. You don’t have to agree. But it shouldn’t be: “Here’s 60 cents a day.” I think that’s the last number that’s come from the Democrats. No wonder most Americans view Congress as out of touch. Sixty cents? That’s not a new job.

I don’t think most Americans are asking for 60 cents. They’re asking for the kind of policy that can produce a chance for them to use their skills, to learn some skills, to go to work.

We’ve just got to make sure it stays out there on the agenda.

It isn’t the usual political rah-rah stuff. I believe that’s part of what we heard in New Hampshire. People want a little more substance.