Something occurred a couple weeks ago at hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that will rarely happen on the campaign trail between now and the political conventions in the summer of 2008—Sens. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, sat side by side during a policy discussion. But they never looked at nor acknowledged each other.

The Senate HELP Committee, which deals with workforce issues, will provide a forum for Obama and Clinton on the Hill. Both senators serve on the panel, which is chaired by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts.

On March 27, Obama and Clinton both arrived well after the hearing began, which is typical for Capitol Hill. Senators and House members are so heavily scheduled each day that it is rare for them to have an opportunity to sit through a whole hearing. But when they did settle in, Obama and Clinton approached the session in ways that might provide a bit of insight into their campaign styles.

The committee was holding a hearing on the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would amend U.S. labor law to allow a union to be recognized after a majority of workers sign cards indicating they want to establish a bargaining unit. Under current law, a company can insist on a secret-ballot election.

The controversial measure passed the House on a mostly party-line vote. In the Senate, the Republican leadership has vowed to block the bill.

The parties split during the hearing, too—with Republicans castigating the so-called card-check bill and Democrats lining up behind it. The differences between Obama and Clinton didn’t revolve around where they stood. They both support the bill.

But Obama took a Socratic approach during his time to speak. He asked witnesses questions about points that other senators brought up, exploring whether better enforcement of existing unionization law would achieve the same goal as changing the law. He also wanted more clarity on how many times unions have been charged with breaking union campaign rules versus how many times employers have been sanctioned.

Much like the University of Chicago law instructor that he used to be, Obama also tried to drill down on a dispute about how many workers really want to join unions. Each side of the debate produces polls purporting to show that its argument holds sway with the American people.

Obama left no doubt that he would vote in favor of the card-check bill and that he believes that unions have increased wages and benefits for American workers who are organized. But—as is his habit on the campaign trail—he didn’t make overarching policy statements.

Clinton, on the other hand, sounded like a policy wonk when she spoke at the hearing. She didn’t use the platform so much to question witnesses as to expound on economic policy. On the campaign trail, she is developing a reputation for being ahead of Obama on substance. And in committee rooms on Capitol Hill she also concentrates on building a policy foundation.

With her microphone malfunctioning, Clinton projected her voice as she asserted that the strongest union era—the 1930s to 1960s—coincided with the greatest increase in living standards in American history. Today, with approximately 12.4 percent of U.S. workers in unions, wage growth is not keeping up with productivity growth, Clinton argued.

But she pointed out that unionized Costco is a formidable competitor to anti-union Wal-Mart. So, she says, unionization is not catastrophic to business prosperity. After the setup, she was ready to make her pronouncement.

“What’s the best way to get back to a level playing field?” Clinton asked rhetorically. Later, she provided her own answer—as if she were laying down a policy marker on the campaign trail: “It’s important to look at the benefits to our economy of increasing the number of unionized workers in the private sector.”

Welcome to Workforce Management’s newest blog, Workforce Washington. I am Mark Schoeff Jr., WM’s Washington correspondent, and I am entering the blogosphere with trepidation.

One reason for my hesitancy is that I’m not certain I’ll consistently have great insight on the political milieu in Washington and how it relates to laws and regulations affecting people management. It’s a big enough challenge just keeping up with what’s happening here—let alone trying to make sense of it. And when I do have something to say, it may be off base because the playing field shifted and I didn’t know it.

After 15 years in this city, I’m amazed at how often I’m amazed by what goes on in Congress and the administration. What I predict will happen does not come true; conventional wisdom frequently is stood on its head; and fundamental policy changes can occur in the middle of the night when no one’s watching.

I’ll make the standard disclaimer here that I make when I speak at political conferences in Indiana: I don’t know what’s going on in Washington; I just hope that people who do return my calls.

With that caveat out of the way, I look forward to opining on occasion from my perch in the nation’s capital. If you would like to respond to something I said—or tell me why I got something wrong—please contact me at mschoeff@workforce.com.