Pro-Union Label Won’t Fit Clinton : He has helped workers some, but NAFTA support makes him less of a bargain.

Unions may have to settle for a quarter of a loaf from President Clinton as they seek his help to press their program for workers and try to renew their own diminished strength. But, somewhat as the old saying goes, a quarter of a loaf is better than none.

Unions fared poorly during the Ronald Reagan and George Bush administrations, so they worked hard to help elect Clinton, who relied heavily on them in his presidential campaign.

He already has helped them some, but interviews with union leaders and Administration officials indicate that he is not the kind of openly pro-union President they want.

The most notable example involving what might be called labor’s big-ticket priorities is its failure to get Clinton’s backing in its fight against the North American Free Trade Agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration. It is furiously opposed by labor, which is demonstrating across the country and lobbying in Congress.

The unions contend that the proposed trade agreement would mean a loss of hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs and would depress wages in this country. They also have joined environmentalists fighting NAFTA on grounds that it will result in increased pollution of air and water.

AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland summed up labor’s fears when he said, “NAFTA is a way to bring peonage to Americans.” Labor is predicting a loss of 500,000 jobs.

Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich, speaking for the President, countered that unions “are just plain wrong.” He predicts that NAFTA will add well-paying jobs to this country and that possible labor and environmental problems can be solved. The United States, Mexico and Canada recently approved side agreements that prescribe penalties for violations of wage and environmental laws.

Clinton seems to be losing the NAFTA fight. Some insist that he is not really pushing it because he does not want a knock-down battle with labor.

On another front, the Administration is backing a bill to forbid the permanent replacement of strikers--another big-ticket issue for unions. But union leaders fear that, even though the measure has passed the House, Clinton will not fight for it in the Senate, where Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) has warned that Republicans will filibuster vigorously against it. Clinton did lift the federal ban on hiring air traffic controllers who were fired for striking during the Reagan Administration.

Labor also is pushing for an increase in the minimum wage, and to tie it to inflation. Clinton has put a bill to do that on hold for at least a year as he fights other battles, although he says he still wants it passed.

Also delayed for at least a year is any move for comprehensive reform of labor law while the question is studied by members of a special 10-member commission.

Because of their quarrels with Clinton, unions are not as delighted about his presidency as they were at its outset, when Kirkland said, “Trade unions are excited and look forward to the days ahead as (the President) applies his talents to the task of putting Americans back to work.”

Despite union setbacks, there have been some gains. Administration officials frequently consult with labor leaders on major issues like health care reform and on their quest to win congressional approval of Administration-backed measures such as the budget.

Clinton also has named at least 10 union representatives to key positions in his Administration. And he appointed Stanford law professor William Gould IV as chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. Gould is a strong supporter of collective bargaining.

On another matter of interest to unions, Clinton removed a requirement, imposed by Bush, that employers post a notice saying that workers are not required by law to join unions.

Underlying these specific issues, union leaders say they are particularly concerned about the Administration’s attitude toward the labor movement.

Several labor officials said they still do not know what Reich really meant when he told an interviewer that “the jury is still out on whether the traditional union is necessary for the new workplace.” Did he mean that there is no place for traditional unions in the future?

A Reich spokeswoman said he meant that labor-management cooperation “works well in some companies without unions,” and that unions that want to cling to adversarial relations may not be necessary.

She said Reich has not decided whether he thinks the “new workplace” of cooperation works better when a union is present, as unions insist.

Reich may be considering the fact that 88% of the private sector workplace is non-union, and he wants to encourage labor and management, with or without unions, to adopt cooperative relationships that give workers a voice in company decisions.