The GOP's Labor Problem
The city labor movement celebrated Labor Day with a parade this past Saturday that came in the wake of the two political parties' conventions, which showed a striking contrast in their attitudes toward those who toil on behalf of ordinary people.

It might have been thought that over the past several decades, as Republicans succeeded in luring away the support of workers who were once reliably Democratic voters, that there would be a blurring of the party's identity as the champion of Big Business, while Democrats were viewed as the party of unions.

Yet the GOP's convention offered yet another example of how it professes to fight for workers against the "elitist" candidates for President that the Democrats nominate, while treating the unions that have raised employees' standard of living over the past century as just another special interest.

In his speech accepting the Republican nomination for President, Sen. John McCain, in talking about his willingness to take on those not acting in the nation's best interest, cited "union bosses" in the same breath as "lobbyists who stole from Indian tribes" and "crooked deals in the Pentagon." Contrasting his position on education with his Democratic opponent's, he said, "Senator Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucrats. I want our schools to answer to parents."

A similar mentality was at work in the attacks on Senator Obama by convention speakers including former Governor George Pataki, ex-Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Mr. McCain's running-mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, for his work early in his career as a community organizer. Each of them strongly implied that this was either not a legitimate job or one that should not be taken seriously.

Community organizers are close cousins of labor organizers, and in more than one instance their paths have intersected. Both seek to serve as voices for the powerless in addressing problems, in one case by prodding government bureaucracies, in the other by taking on employers who are not treating their workers fairly.

A party that builds a platform plank out of bashing unions and community organizers is banking on the people those groups speak for not realizing the motives behind this kind of divide-and-conquer exercise. It is an echo of the Bush Administration's labor policy, which has featured cutbacks in Occupational Safety and Health Administration personnel who ensure safe workplaces, a vow to veto a bill that would make it easier for unions to organize workers, and an out-of-hand dismissal late last month of a proposal by a leading Democratic Congressman, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, that Federal employees be given new work schedules featuring four 10-hour days.

Mr. Hoyer cited several reasons besides improving employee morale for why his proposal made sense for all parties concerned. Most notably, he said, it would save on gas costs for those employees who commute by car — which constitutes a large segment of the Federal workforce outside New York City — and lower energy costs.

But Michael Hager, the Bush Administration's Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management, called the plan "detrimental to the Federal Government's ability to provide essential services" and said it would be unworkable for employees who had to care for either young children or aging parents and could not have their workdays extended by two hours, as well as those who carpooled to work.

It wasn't clear why those employees wouldn't be able to make revised arrangements if their job schedules were changed. Nor was it clear whether Mr. Hager had attempted to determine whether such a switch would create those kinds of logistical problems, or was just talking off the top of his head. In either case, his unwillingness to take a serious look at Representative Hoyer's proposal was telling.

Senator McCain during his speech last week gave short shrift to the troubling state of the nation's economy, other than to pledge to create jobs by cutting taxes. That prescription is essentially the same one that President Bush has offered over the past eight years; Mr. McCain didn't bother to try explaining how it would be more successful in his administration than it has during the current one, and probably for good reason.

More than a few respected economists have expressed astonishment at the Bush Administration's decision to continue its tax cuts after it went to war in Iraq, draining revenue from the economy at a time when it was committing huge sums to fighting that war. There are those who believe that this is part of a cynical plan by those members of the administration who believe in "starving the beast": taking away the Federal Government's financial ability to maintain social programs.

Whether that is true or not, there is no denying that the roughly $12 billion a month we are spending in Iraq is money that can't be used for education or housing, or job training and other anti-poverty measures. The trickle-down impact of the war's cost means less Federal money for local governments, which in turn leaves less money available for pay raises for unionized employees.

Mr. McCain's supporters insist that Mr. Obama's branding of his candidacy as an effort to bring about a third term of Mr. Bush's policies is a distortion of what he stands for. But the Republican nominee's speech, and the disparaging remarks some of his surrogates offered up at the convention last week, offer a pretty good idea of what he stands against: those people and organizations speaking on behalf of the less-powerful in society.