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.

Most of the time, corporations and unions have an antagonistic relationship. Organizing efforts are often cast as a zero-sum game. The more power the unions gain, the more business costs will rise and profits will decline. The unions say that if their membership grows, more people will enter the middle class.

In the midst of this fear and loathing, the presidential campaign offers a chance for candidates to turn their amorphous calls for change into actual, bold proposals. As I write this entry, I’m not sure how Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, has fared on Super Tuesday. But he likely will remain viable for a while, regardless of how many states he won or lost.

Here’s something Obama, as the primary purveyor of change, could propose in the area of people management. He’s garnered the backing of many unions and tens of thousands of union members. Perhaps he should propose a way for them to change the atmosphere in labor relations by reaching out to management in an area that directly affects their future–training.

This is a topic on which labor has built a solid reputation. Unions take pride in ensuring that their members are up to industry standards in many different trades. Companies are desperate to find qualified employees, or failing that, to bolster the skills of the people who do fill their open positions.

An example of how a company and union have worked together can be found at Boeing. The manufacturer churns out one 737 aircraft every day. In putting together the mammoth products, technicians work on 92,288 pieces of equipment at Boeing operations in Oregon and Washington alone. Many of these are precision machine tools that cost from $300,000 to more than $1 million.

Boeing realized a couple years ago that its workers didn’t have the appropriate skill levels to handle these complex machines that produce planes that must be perfectly constructed to ensure safety. So, in 2004, Boeing established Craft College.

Over the past three years, about 4700 students have attended 803 classes, according to Jim Fleming, project manager and an instructor at Craft. Fleming, who spoke at the Training 2008 Conference & Expo in Atlanta on February 4.

Management and employees worked together to identify required skills and develop a curriculum. “That’s what made this a success,” says Larry Tibbels, a project manager in Boeing’s quality through training program. “We have union buy-in and acceptance of the courses.”

The training benefits the company, of course, because it brings up to speed workers who had minimal skills when they were hired. “If you’re going to survive in this world, you’re going to have to develop your own training,” says Mike DePew, a senior manager of equipment services at Boeing.

If a lack of human capability causes a machine breakdown, it’s costly for Boeing. “We can’t have line stoppers,” Fleming says.

The skill upgrades boost the careers of Boeing employees, too. Training increases job satisfaction because they are acquiring the background that not only will help them at Boeing but also make them competitive in the job market.

“From the day you start working to the day you retire, you’re building your resume for your next opportunity,” DePew says.

If labor and management work together at more companies, those opportunities will grow.

A year or so ago, President Clinton admonished Democrats who lamented the policies that President Bush has pursued. He certainly didn’t support Bush’s programs, but he told his fellow Democrats that they shouldn’t act surprised by Bush’s agenda. 

“He’s just doing what he said he would do in the campaign,” the former president said.

A similar telegraphing is under way by organized labor. It is laying out a crystal clear game plan it will pursue if a Democrat wins the White House and the party maintains control of the House and increases its Senate majority next November.

Corporate and senior HR executives should forgo gnashing their teeth around March 2009, when Democratic priorities for workplace legislation might be zooming through the House and perhaps the Senate too. They should be able to see it coming now.

The atmosphere in Washington could be balmy for labor in 2009. Senate Republicans likely will have a significantly reduced minority and a more limited ability to stop bills through a filibuster. More important, there could be a Democratic president sitting in the White House waiting to sign legislation like the Employee Free Choice Act.

That measure is the holy grail for the labor movement. It would force companies to recognize a union if 50 percent of workers sign cards authorizing one. No longer would a firm be able to insist on a secret-ballot election monitored by the National Labor Relations Board. In addition, it would take away the ability of a company to block a first contract and would impose penalties of $20,000 for each violation of a worker’s right to promote a union.

Labor argues that such a measure is required to bolster wages and benefits because it would level the playing field against corporations that routinely intimidate employees who try to form unions. They also assert that tens of millions of employees would join unions if the so-called card-check bill fosters a more democratic workplace.

Business groups, of course, stridently oppose the bill. They say the measure would give unions a free hand to coerce workers into joining their ranks. Republicans accuse Democrats of backing the measure because it would revive a sagging labor movement and would be repayment for labor’s help at election time.

The bill passed the House earlier this year but was filibustered by Senate Republicans.

This measure is such a priority for unions that they are trying to get the whole world behind it. The AFL-CIO brought to Washington this week more than 200 union leaders from 63 countries. Ostensibly, the event focused on ways that labor could reach across borders in the same way that international corporations do.

Participants no doubt spent a lot of time mulling strategy and tactics for obtaining a higher quality of life for their members. But the public portions of the event focused almost exclusively on domestic U.S. politics, specifically the card-check bill.

As you can read in the story I filed Wednesday, December 12, international unions were as passionate about the bill as their U.S. counterparts, saying that its approval would bolster organizing around the world:

“Global Unions Unite to Fight ‘Lawless’ U.S. Corporations”

In a moment that caused cognitive dissonance, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made the following comment at the forum: “This is not a political event. This is an event about American workers and workers around the world.”

With all due respect to the speaker, it absolutely was a political event. And it wasn’t just American politicians who were calling for U.S. voters to elect more House and Senate members who would approve the card-check bill.

Sharan Burrow, president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, said that a conservative government had been thrown out in her country this year and replaced by one more sympathetic to workers and unions.

She urged U.S. voters to do the same next year.

“No politician deserves to get elected if they’re not [going] to support rights of working people and their families,” she said. If a new Congress and president make the card-check bill a law, “you will grow the American economy with dignity.”

Pelosi implied that the political situation in Washington is not quite at that point, but it is close.

“The leverage in Congress is now with working people,” she said. “With one more election, we’ll have enough power to make a substantial difference.”

The business community—and the whole world—can see it coming.

Recently, presidential front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, stumbled on the topic of immigration. In a debate, she tripped over a question about whether she supported a plan by the New York governor to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.

She basically said “yes” and “no,” drawing fierce criticism from her opponents for flip-flopping. That issue is now somewhat academic because Gov. Elliott Spitzer has withdrawn the idea. But policy toward immigration is still roiling Democrats. Just look at developments in the last couple weeks on Capitol Hill.

Earlier this month, Rep. Heath Shuler, D-North Carolina, introduced a bill that would increase the number of Border Patrol agents, enhance work-site enforcement and strengthen the investigative power of immigration and customs officers. It also would force every U.S. employer to adopt the controversial electronic government verification system called E-Verify, formerly known as Basic Pilot.

The bipartisan bill has 112 co-sponsors—45 Democrats and 67 Republicans. It likely won’t go anywhere before the end of this session of Congress in December 2008 because failure of an immigration bill earlier this year in the Senate has halted the issue.

But the Shuler bill does provide a sense of where Congress is on the issue. Many of the Democrats on Shuler’s bill are from districts similar to the ex-professional quarterback’s home region. They are rural and conservative. The members occupying those seats are the vanguard of the new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill. They’re not bashful about distancing themselves from their party’s front-runner on immigration.

The fact that they are embracing an enforcement-only bill is indicative of how difficult—if not impossible—it will be to move forward on immigration before next year’s election. If you’re in favor of cracking down on illegal employment, you’re not going to countenance any kind of guest worker system and path to citizenship for undocumented workers.

An example is Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Indiana, who defeated one of the most conservative Republicans in Congress last year, former Rep. John Hostettler. Ellsworth used to be sheriff in Vanderburgh County, which encompasses Evansville. He was given one of the first speaking roles at the Shuler bill press conference so that he could emphasize the law-and-order dimension of the measure.

But even if the Shuler legislation is approved first, Ellsworth indicated that he would be leery of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants that many of his more liberal colleagues—and most of the business community—support.

In an interview after the press conference, he said that he wants to improve the legal immigration system to make it more efficient. But his message to those who are already here was clear. “You can go home and start over,” he said. “Go home, apply and do it the right way.”

This week, Ellsworth and seven Democratic House colleagues traveled to the Mexican border to tour customs facilities. One of the people in the delegation was Rep. Niki Tsongas, D-Massachusetts.

She just barely won a recent special election. Her GOP opponent effectively used the immigration issue against her and came within 4 percent in a district that has 14 percent Republican registration. It’s no wonder that one of Tsongas’ first trips highlighted a get-tough attitude on immigration.

Ellsworth calls immigration one of the biggest concerns on constituents’ minds. He said, “I was getting a flu shot and a lady came up and said, ‘When are you going to do something [about illegal immigration]?”

As Ellsworth demonstrates, many Democrats in competitive districts are starting to sound like most Republicans on immigration. That means that it will be harder to achieve immigration policies that most executives and HR professionals want to see—a verification system that overhauls or scraps E-Verify, and a path to citizenship that will keep illegal immigrants in the U.S. labor market.