War and medical metaphors tend to dominate Washington parlance. For instance, partisans are constantly “attacking” someone else’s position or “defending” their own.

Sometimes, one side “inoculates” against an attack by doing something that is meant to neutralize the opposition’s argument.

On the eve of a hearing on employer verification that will kick off a renewed Capitol Hill focus on immigration policy, the Department of Homeland Security announced improvements to its electronic employer verification system on Monday, May 5.

The DHS program, known as E-Verify, has come under withering criticism from employers and HR organizations. The voluntary system, which has been in place since 1997 and now boasts 64,000 participating companies, checks information from I-9 forms against databases at the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration.

The Society for Human Resource Management and several other HR groups charge that E-Verify is inefficient, prone to error and incapable of being ramped up to handle traffic from all 6 million employers in the country. They cite statistics from a study showing that the Social Security database, upon which E-Verify relies, has a 4.1 percent error rate, which could amount to 6 million people being denied employment by mistake.

So, in typical Washington fashion, the DHS decides to inoculate against such criticism by unveiling two enhancements to the system the day before a Tuesday, May 6, House Ways & Means subcommittee hearing on employer verification.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a division of the DHS, will add naturalization data to E-Verify in order to augment the Social Security databases. It also will allow nonconfirmed workers to resolve mismatches directly with the USCIS rather than going through the Social Security Administration.

“Naturalized citizens who have not yet updated their records with the Social Security Administration are the largest category of work-authorized persons who initially face an SSA mismatch in E-Verify,” the USCIS said in a statement.

The agency also said real-time arrival data from the border inspection system will be added to E-Verify in an effort to reduce mismatches for newly arrived workers.

The improvements are unlikely to assuage SHRM and the other members of the HR Initiative for a Legal Workforce. They are advocating a bill written by Sen. Sam Johnson, R-Texas and ranking member of the House Ways & Means Social Security subcommittee.

Johnson’s measure would mandate that employers submit information electronically only for new hires to the Social Security Administration through a child-support enforcement system already in place in each state.

Advocates for the bill say that about 90 percent of U.S. employers already use the so-called “dead-beat dad” system. The identity of prospective employees would be checked against Social Security and Department of Homeland Security databases. The procedure would eliminate the paper-based I-9 process.

Under the bill, employers would be given the option of signing up for a secure electronic verification system that uses a network of government-approved private contractors to conduct background checks of workers and collect biometric identifiers, such as fingerprints.

At the May 6 hearing, supporters of the Johnson bill will face off against champions of E-Verify. The meeting will launch House consideration of immigration proposals, many of which focus on enforcement.

The hearing series is an attempt by House Democratic leadership to satisfy conservative Democrats—and Republicans—who are pushing for a vote on bills that would crack down on illegal hiring.

Top House Democrats don’t want to allow enforcement measures to move forward without including bills to increase legal immigration and to allow a path toward naturalization for the 12 million illegal workers in the United States.

But the immigration logjam may have to be broken when it comes to E-Verify. The law that established the program expires in November. Congress has to either extend E-Verify or scrap it this year.

Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama created a political firestorm when he waxed philosophical at a San Francisco fundraiser about the plight of the working class—a group of Americans under constant threat of job loss.

“It’s not surprising that they get a little bitter; they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment,” he was quoted as saying.

Leaving aside the potential offense the remarks could give to people whose faith or firearms are genuinely important to them, Obama may be on to something when he says that many American workers are bitter.

But it’s unlikely their economic fears are assuaged by what they hear from presidential candidates, including Obama, or from elected officials. Helping those who have been left behind by global economic competition and technological advancement requires a complex policy approach based on management, labor and government cooperation.

It will take the combined efforts of those three entities—along with presidential leadership—to modernize U.S. workforce training programs, streamline health care and wage assistance for displaced workers, and develop a portable benefits system so workers don’t lose their safety net when they lose their jobs.

These issues deserve a prominent place in political discourse. They’re not getting it. True, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi halted the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, a top priority for President Bush, in order to “put the leverage back into the hands of America’s working families” and force Bush to consider Democratic economic proposals.

Chief among them is an expansion of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers who are adversely affected by trade. Another is a second economic stimulus package that focuses on an extension of unemployment benefits.

But when Pelosi and Bush tangle, they usually fight over Bush’s insistence on making his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. Democrats say they are a sop for the wealthy.

Bush only brings up Trade Adjustment Assistance when he is looking for support for trade agreements. The administration has shown little interest in it otherwise. But Democrats tend to talk more about cushioning the hurt of unemployment than they do about how to help all workers—including those who already have jobs—improve their skills and their standard of living.

On the campaign trail, Obama has devoted at least one speech to workforce training. But the rest of the time, he stokes worker anger about tough economic times rather than outline ways to help them move their career arc higher. He’s consistently pitting workers against management.

“What we can’t do is sign trade deals that put the interests of multinational corporations ahead of the interests of our workers or our environment,” Obama said in an April 15 speech before building trade unions.

In reality, international companies depend on a strong workforce. The firms’ success is inextricably linked to their employees’ success—and for that matter, unions’ success. Despite his rhetoric about uniting management and labor, Obama rarely explores how to leverage that relationship for the good of the economy and individuals.

Sen. John McCain is not necessarily providing much hope for struggling workers either. In a major speech on economic policy April 15, he concentrated on tax breaks—an issue that won’t bring immediate comfort to those whose factory is moving to Mexico or China.

He did outline worker retraining and unemployment insurance reforms. But those policies came up in paragraphs 33 through 35 of a 43-paragraph speech. People who are worried about how to improve their skills to get a better job had to wait a while for McCain to get around to them.

Bush, Pelosi, Obama and McCain could do a better job of addressing workers’ fears.

The world has a way of intruding on Democratic presidential campaigns. Although Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have cast skeptical eyes on trade liberalization, opposing a pact with Colombia and calling for a rewrite of the North American Free Trade Agreement, their aides have been sending different signals.

In Obama’s case, one of his economic advisors told Canadian diplomats that his attacks on NAFTA are essentially campaign rhetoric and cooler heads will prevail on trade after the election. Clinton’s strategist was dismissed this week after it was revealed that he met with Colombia officials to talk about building support for that agreement, in his non-campaign role as head of a major public relations firm in Washington.

Despite fierce denunciations of trade on the campaign trail, we can’t be sure what kind of globalization policies Obama or Clinton would pursue in the White House.

The approach they would take on labor law is transparent. Neither they nor their aides waiver on backing the union agenda. The latest example comes from Obama.

He owes his lead in the polls and in fund-raising in large part to his soaring oratory. He says that words matter.

His language couldn’t have been clearer in an April 2 speech to the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO. He promised to change a system in Washington in which “corporate lobbyists use their clout to shape laws to their liking.”

He vowed to stand up for American workers and “play offense” for “a decent wage … retirement security … (and) universal health care.”

He also pledged to move the ball down the field for organized labor and back its top priority—legislation that would facilitate unionization.

“If a majority of workers want a union, they should get a union,” he said. “It’s that simple. Let’s stand up to the business lobby that’s been getting their friends in Washington to block card check. I will make it the law of the land when I’m president of the United States of America.”

The only thing likely to stand in the way of making that campaign promise a reality is a dwindling cadre of Republican senators. The Senate GOP may barely number enough to sustain a filibuster by the time the party loses several seats in November.

The business lobby argues that the so-called card-check bill would rob workers of the right to a secret-ballot election monitored by the National Labor Relations Board. But a Democratic member of that panel says that the Republican-majority board has been too sympathetic to management during the Bush administration.

In Senate testimony last week, NLRB commissioner Wilma Liebman previewed what may be in store next year for labor law, when Democratic majorities will be stronger on Capitol Hill and a Democrat might occupy the White House.

She cited rising income inequality as a reason for Congress to consider changing the National Labor Relations Act.

“I would welcome comprehensive re-examination of a law that has not been substantially revised for more than 60 years,” she said.

Liebman may get her wish, if Obama becomes president. Some of his opponents have accused him of not outlining specific policy amid his moving oratory. When it comes to labor law, however, Obama is precise. What you hear is what you will get.

Something rare happened this week in Washington. AARP, the mammoth retiree organization, struck out on an issue it had been advocating for years.

The Mighty Casey of special interest groups whiffed in its effort to force companies to provide the same level of benefits for retirees regardless of their age. 

On Monday, March 24, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case that centered on whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can allow companies to offer less medical coverage to retirees who qualify for Medicare than they do to retirees  younger than 65.

The EEOC wrote the rule in 2003 in response to a 2000 decision by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia stating companies that coordinate retiree coverage with Medicare violate federal age discrimination laws.

AARP filed suit against the EEOC rule. That led to several years of litigation. During that time, the Supreme Court ruled on a separate case dealing with the authority of agencies to interpret statutes.

In June, the court effectively reversed itself and upheld the EEOC rule. Now the Supreme Court has stiff-armed AARP’s appeal, ending the legal process.

Business groups hailed the Supreme Court’s lack of action. “Retirees and employer benefit plan sponsors can breathe a little easier,” said James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, in a statement.

The court found persuasive the argument that businesses and the EEOC make in favor of wrapping retiree benefits around Medicare: Employers might reduce or abandon health care coverage for all retirees if they can’t offer less coverage to their post-65 population and depend on Medicare to make up the difference.

AARP called that approach a double standard.

“By allowing employers to reduce or even eliminate health benefits for retirees when they reach age 65, this rule essentially shifts the costs of all retiree health care onto the backs of older retirees,” said David Certner, AARP legislative policy director.

Don’t look for Congress to jump in and try to clarify the legislative intent of age discrimination legislation to prohibit companies from using a Medicare carve-out.

Although Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill have been eager to push back against court rulings (e.g., a bill to overturn the Supreme Court decision in the Lilly Ledbetter age discrimination case), their ardor is likely to be diminished this time because unions joined business advocates in siding with the EEOC.

Although they opposed AARP in this battle, unions and business have joined AARP in a strange-bedfellow alliance called Divided We Fail, a national advocacy campaign designed to force congressional—and presidential—candidates to deal with health care and entitlement issues.

AARP acknowledges the legal setback it suffered in the Supreme Court this week. But it remains hopeful about setting the election agenda.

The EEOC rule “is an unfortunate byproduct of the bigger problem, which is skyrocketing health care costs,” said Jim Dau, an AARP spokesman. “We’re keeping our eyes on the big picture. Affordable health care and financial security are closely linked.”

This week, the political world (perhaps the whole country) has been riveted by Sen. Barack Obama’s speech on race relations. The leading Democratic contender for president explicitly tackled an issue that his campaign so far has addressed only implicitly.

Even if he fails to secure his party’s nomination, or later this fall to win the White House, Obama has already made history. The country seems enamored of the idea of an African American president. Surely this will make it easier to break down racial and ethnic barriers in the office and on the shop floor, too. 

If Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton defeats Obama to become the Democratic presidential standard bearer this fall, she will become the first female nominated by either party. If America embraces a woman as president, it provides a powerful incentive to shatter glass ceilings in the workplace.

It may not have occurred yet to most voters, but the Republican nominee also will be historic if elected—and produce implications for the workplace. By November, Sen. John McCain will be 72 years old. He would be the most senior president ever to take his first oath of office.

If McCain is standing at the Capitol with his hand on the Bible in mid-January, he will embody an important workforce trend—the need for people to work longer. If it is true that traditional retirement is a thing of the past, what better place to make that movement a reality than in the White House?

The senator has demonstrated his energy by prevailing in a tough GOP primary. This week, he has toured the Middle East and Europe. When he comes back to the United States, he’ll launch what is likely to be a vigorous round of fund-raising, which will only be successful if the candidate jumps into it with gusto.

Convincing voters that his age will not keep him from performing his duties in office is only McCain’s first challenge. He also has to assuage fears that his skin cancer will come back and debilitate him. McCain showed several years ago that he can maintain his Senate schedule while going through a round of chemotherapy.

So, if McCain becomes president, he’ll force us to consider how productive and effective older workers can be. He’ll also be an example of why it’s not fair to discriminate against those who have battled life-threatening disease. When they recover, they’re ready to join the labor market again. Their supervisors, in this case the American people, can put aside their lingering doubts aside.

No matter your choice for president—Obama, Clinton or McCain—the winner will stand as a strong argument for why U.S. workplaces should be more inclusive.