Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards wasn’t the only person surprised to see Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on a recent cover of Fortune. The headline was: “Business Loves Hillary! (Who knew?)”

At an early-August debate, Edwards asserted that he would never be depicted in a national business magazine as “the candidate that big business is betting on.” I was as startled as Edwards to see Clinton grace the Fortune cover

First, let me put my argument in context. If the Democrats take over the White House, it is likely that Clinton is the one with whom Republicans would most easily be able to work. She may wind up governing like her husband, whose centrist fiscal and trade policy could be embraced by many in the GOP and in the business community.

Although Sen. Clinton seems to have more protectionist leanings than the former president, it might be possible to persuade her to back various trade pacts.

My surprise about the Fortune story comes from Sen. Clinton’s positions on workplace law. From her perch on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Clinton has espoused policies that might give corporate executives and HR managers pause.

For instance, she strongly supports a bill that would allow unions to be recognized when a majority of workers sign cards authorizing a bargaining union. The measure would take away a company’s power to insist on a secret-ballot election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board.

That bill was stymied by a GOP filibuster in the Senate. Besides, President Bush promised to veto it if it ever reached his desk.

Here’s what Clinton said at a rally earlier this summer: “Unions are essential to this country’s success and absolutely critical to the middle class. If [President Bush] vetoes it, when I’m president, I’ll sign it and we’ll finally get it done.”

In addition, Clinton is co-sponsoring a pay discrimination bill that business groups contend will effectively eliminate the statute of limitations for such cases and substantially increase litigation costs.

Corporate executives and HR practitioners will cast their votes based on more than Clinton’s workplace policies. In fact, some might believe that her stances on the issues outlined above are sound from a worker and civil rights perspective.

BTW, I should make clear that all the Democratic nominees tend to be in about the same place on HR issues as Clinton. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut, for instance, has introduced a bill that would provide eight weeks of paid FMLA leave.

What I’ve found interesting in covering Capitol Hill is that the Republican viewpoint on workplace law is almost always embraced by HR groups like the Society for Human Resource Management. They take a conservative approach to office politics, so to speak.

But I would bet that most HR practitioners are Democrats. How’s that for a broad statement not backed up by data? Hey, it’s my blog; I’ll set the rules for rigor.

So, I’m curious: To what extent are you going to take into account a candidate’s workplace policy positions when deciding how to vote in the presidential primaries next year? The comments are open, I’d love to hear from you. Thank you for your time.