Whether Sen. John McCain and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin prevail over the Democratic ticket—Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden—Palin’s legacy to this presidential campaign may be the fundamental workforce issue she raises this fall: Can a working mother occupy the second-highest office in the country?

It’s one of many HR issues she’s bringing to the fore. One of the most popular adjectives that Palin supporters use to describe her is “authentic.” She embodies a biography to which many working women can relate.

She rose from the PTA in Wasilla, Alaska, to the top of state government. She managed a family of five while holding down tough jobs along the way.

Palin is hardly a hero to all women. Fervent backers of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are rejecting this conservative usurper who threatens to break the glass ceiling that they believe is Clinton’s divine right to shatter.

What’s interesting, though, is that questions about Palin’s ability to balance work and family have arisen across the political spectrum. Ironically, the strongest support for her on this issue has come from the family-values folks in the right wing. Conventional wisdom says that they might favor women staying at home.

The whirlwind of topsy-turvy gender politics gusted when former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani—the macho former federal prosecutor who sent mob bosses to jail—gave the most stirring defense of Palin.

“How dare they question whether Sarah Palin has enough time to spend with her children and be vice president,” he said in his convention speech Wednesday, September 3. “When do they ever ask a man that question?”

That’s true. And the societal norm of separating home and work life isn’t about to change, according to Paul Rupert, president of Rupert & Co., a flexibility-consulting firm in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

Workplace demands are pretty much the same today as they were when Palin was born in the mid-1960s.

“You go to work and you leave your family behind,” he says. “Those attitudes flow from the top of the organizations.”

Women have migrated into the workforce out of economic necessity. “This is the greatest transfer of family time in our history from the home to the office,” Rupert says. “Direct parental care has become a casualty of that change.”

Flexible work arrangements such as telecommuting, compressed workweeks and part-time work “always register in the top three or four of any survey of employee desires,” Rupert says.

But those kinds of adjustments remain out of the question at the top of the corporate food chain. If you’re in the C-suite, you’re supposed to give everything you have to the company.

A female senior HR executive at a pharmaceutical company told Rupert that she broke the glass ceiling only because she had a stay-at-home husband and a chauffeur.

Now Palin is proposing to take her family—infant son, pregnant teenage daughter and everyone in between—with her into the ultimate C-suite, the West Wing of the White House.

The working-mom debate will rage throughout the fall.

“Can you create a position that truly allows people to integrate parenting and their work?” Rupert asks. “This issue is a vital one to engage—to debate, discuss and ultimately resolve. She’s in a unique position to lay down a marker.”

Twice within the past week, Washington political professionals have told me that the election is all about “change.” The electorate is fed up with the partisan warfare that defines politics as we know it today.

The victor in the presidential race will be the candidate who convinces voters that he’ll “fix” Washington. But one area where change is unlikely to occur—no matter who wins—is in labor-management politics.

The fault lines in that area have been basically immutable since the Depression-era New Deal. Generally, Democrats favor strengthening unions and taking a muscular approach to making business respond to the demands of workers so that they can get their fair share of the profits.

By and large, Republicans want to keep labor rules to a minimum, almost always taking the side of management and arguing that less regulation leads to stronger growth and higher-paying jobs.

If the presumptive presidential nominees, Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, really want to demonstrate that they are change agents, they will propose ways to bring business and workers together on “economic security” issues, another buzz phrase in this year’s election.

Based on two events this week, however, it looks as if we’re a long way from comity on labor-management policy.

First, there was a hearing of the House Education and Labor Committee regarding a GAO study about the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division. The GAO found that enforcement of fair pay has declined during the Bush administration.

It was clear during the hearing that Democrats care about passionately about this issue. They want the Department of Labor to be tougher in going after alleged scofflaw businesses that engage in “wage theft,” as they call it.

“I don’t find this acceptable, that people work and aren’t paid,” Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-New Hampshire, said to Alexander Passantino, acting administrator of the agency. “I’d like to see that outrage on your part.”

Rep. George Miller, chairman of the House Labor Committee, presided over the two-hour, 15-minute hearing. The way a hearing works is that witnesses give five-minute opening statements. Then each member of Congress in attendance gets five minutes of questions.

The wage and hour hearing consisted of two panels of witnesses. Miller conducted three rounds of questions, going solo on the final queries. He was highly engaged.

So were his Democratic colleagues. During the hearing, the highest number of Republicans in attendance was three. A total of 12 Democrats showed up. Not only was Republican attendance low, but the GOP didn’t invite a witness. Usually the minority party gets to have one witness at a hearing, typically someone who bats down Democratic accusations.

Perhaps it was a sign that Republicans find disputes over labor policy to be futile. They defended the Wage and Hour Division, highlighting the fact that it has recovered $1.25 billion in back wages for nearly 2 million workers during the Bush administration.

Miller, however, was exercised over GAO findings that the division does a shoddy job of investigating potential violations. He got into a sharp exchange with Passantino about the standards it sets for responding to complaints, at one point lamenting, “How the hell can that be equal treatment?”

And he wasn’t impressed by the $1.25 billion recovery figure. If the Wage and Hour Division would improve its performance, “maybe it would have been $2 billion,” he said.

He vowed to continue the review of the agency and next year to propose ways to increase the use of civil monetary penalties.

Later in the week, Democrats came out swinging again. This time it was in support of a pay discrimination bill that has been stalled in the Senate. Some of the top women leaders on Capitol Hill stoked a rally designed to inspire supporters to demand that the Senate vote again this year.

It was a political rally, so you wouldn’t expect any temporizing. Even at that, the bill’s backers were in no mood to compromise with Republicans who have offered an alternative measure.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Maryland, lived up to her reputation as a fighter.

“You’ve got to be riled up. You’ve got to be revved up,” she exhorted a crowd of mostly young women. Then she suggested what they say when they call and write to Senate offices: “Do the real deal. Don’t support the decoy bills.”

Middle ground on labor-management policy will be hard to find.

Workforce Management editor John Hollon and I will have to agree to disagree about the level of political engagement of the American people.

In criticizing the enormous number of hours and column inches devoted to Tim Russert’s untimely death, he slammed “Washington’s fixation and over-fascination with all things political.” He concluded: “The rest of America just isn’t as interested as you are.”

As Workforce Management’s Washington correspondent, I am one of those capital denizens who is fixated and fascinated by politics.

But I have a lot of company outside the Beltway. Thanks to the fierce battle for the Democratic presidential nomination this year, ratings for political coverage are sky high. Print stories are likely also on the rise. Just look at The Wall Street Journal for evidence.

The Society for Human Resource Management has taken advantage of this trend to raise its profile. Last fall, the organization became a sponsor of CNN election coverage as well as on Fox News and Fox Business Network.

Ads for SHRM also appear in BusinessWeek, the Harvard Business Review and on National Public Radio’s Marketplace Morning Report and Conversations from the Corner Office.

The effort to increase SHRM’s exposure has been more successful than anticipated. SHRM numbers indicate the total impressions (i.e., one person’s single viewing) from January 5 to May 31 was 1.692 billion across all media—television, radio, print, online. CNN had guaranteed 124,237,000 impressions from people 35 and older, according to SHRM. It delivered 215,716,000.

SHRM won’t disclose the amount of money it has spent on this advertising campaign. It is taking the funds from its reserves, which are expected to total $160 million this year. SHRM officials say the reserves are used for investments that advance the HR profession.

My guess is the rotation for SHRM ads costs millions of dollars, based on my modest knowledge of political advertising buys. SHRM says it’s worth it because they’re educating non-HR people about the field.

“The value of engagement is far greater than the price we paid,” says China Miner Gorman, SHRM’s chief operating officer and soon-to-be acting CEO.

The departing CEO, Susan Meisinger, has received positive feedback from members. “They love the message that is with the ads,” Meisinger said at a media availability to open the SHRM Annual Conference and Exposition on June 22 in Chicago.

There is anecdotal evidence that the ads helped bolster the meeting, which drew 13,435 paid attendees in the teeth of an economic downturn and climbing gas prices.

Mike Losey, former SHRM CEO, says that one person he talked to got sponsorship for a trip to Chicago only after her boss saw a SHRM ad on CNN.

“I’m not an advocate for spending all that money,” Losey says. “But maybe it is a strategy.”

Whether advertising investment directly benefits the profession is debatable. But one thing is certain: SHRM’s timing is good. This year, more than ever, most Americans are obsessed with politics.

Over the last few days, it has seemed that nearly everyone in Washington has a Tim Russert story. The ubiquitous Meet the Press moderator was a presence in thousands of lives in the political and policy worlds. His untimely death is a profound loss in the capital.

I, too, have a Russert vignette. Our paths crossed a couple times, but I did not know him personally. One spring Sunday morning in 1996, however, I thought he was going to change my job status.

Like Russert, I began my career in politics and later crossed over to journalism. When I worked on Capitol Hill, I was press secretary for Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana. At one time, Lugar held the record as the most frequent guest on Meet the Press. He may still be in the pole position for the show, which is his favorite.

But Meet competitors are also good “gets.” In 1996, Fox News Sunday had just launched. On that spring Sunday, the show made a guest offer to Lugar. I accepted. Later in the week, Meet made an offer. I played it straight and declined because Lugar had already been booked.

On Friday, the Fox appearance fell through. I scrambled to get an offer from MSNBC, another fledgling cable channel at the time. So, everything seemed to work out—until Sunday.

The MSNBC show and Meet both used the same greenroom at the NBC studios. As Lugar was preparing for his MSNBC spot, Russert walked in. I slipped out, in reflexive self-preservation. I knew what was coming.

“Hi, senator,” Russert said in a booming voice that audibly conveyed his infectious smile. “I tried to get you on my show today, but your press office said you weren’t available.” My heart sank. Updating my résumé became a priority for the afternoon.

Lugar knew that his weekend TV booking had undergone some changes throughout the week. I just hadn’t filled him in on the gory details. Russert did that for me.

Thankfully, the senator was his usual reassuring, magnanimous self as we walked out of the studio after his MSNBC spot. I didn’t suffer a job setback over my error in the biggest-stakes game in Washington media—Sunday morning TV.

Tim Russert is the reason that Sunday public affairs programs have become central to American political life. His rigorous research and probing but respectful grilling of guests set a standard that may never be met again. Russert made news almost every Sunday—and most politicians longed to be seated across from him in what was the holy grail of TV appearances.

Those political leaders also were quick to issue encomiums when Russert died Friday, June 13. Two of the most prominent of them framed the debate that is engulfing Capitol Hill—and the presidential campaign—when it comes to workforce issues.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, both highlighted Russert’s Buffalo, New York, background.

“His rise from working-class roots to become a well-respected leader in political journalism is an inspiration to many,” Reid said.

McConnell said: “Yet for all his achievements, Tim Russert always remained tethered to his middle-class upbringing and the good and decent people who made him who he was.”

Reid calls Russert’s background “working class,” McConnell defines it as “middle class.” The divergent definitions speak to divisions between Democrats and Republicans on workforce issues.

You see the divide in the debate over extending unemployment benefits. The Bush administration and many Republicans want to make such a move only in states that have the highest unemployment rates. Democrats argue that economic difficulties afflict workers across the nation and the benefits should be expanded everywhere.

Republicans say that even with the recent jump in the unemployment rate to 5.5 percent, it’s still at a historically low level. Democrats assert that “the rising costs of living and rising unemployment make middle-class life less affordable,” in Reid’s words.

An April poll of 1,125 employees by the nonpartisan Employment Law Alliance shows that 87 percent of Americans “want their next president to focus on increasing the proportion of the workforce earning at least a living wage.”

That would imply that many people either don’t believe they’re making a living wage or they know someone who they believe is not making a living wage. They see themselves as working class, not middle class. But many economists say that Americans are making more money and living better than they ever have.

How people define themselves is influenced by the signals they receive at work. Are corporate executives explaining to employees the dimensions of business performance and profitability that affect pay? Do employees feel that they and company leadership are pulling in the same direction and making reasonable salaries?

Maybe things really are as bad as the Democrats say. Or maybe problems are being suffered in pockets of the country, as the Republicans say. Setting these definitions and proposing policies around them may well determine who the next president is.

If only Tim Russert were here to help us sort it all out.

One of the most popular ways to describe action—or, more accurately, inaction—on a difficult issue on Capitol Hill is to say that Congress is “kicking the can down the road.”

That could be the outcome for employer verification—an element of immigration policy that must be addressed this year despite political gridlock. The law that enacted the government electronic verification system called E-Verify will expire in November.

But the partisan and interest-group fissures on immigration extend to the question of increasing work-site enforcement. The fault lines that could prevent substantial action were revealed again this week.

Frustrated that Congress did not pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill last year, the Bush administration is trying to prove its enforcement bona fides through the regulatory process. On Monday, June 9, the Department of Homeland Security announced that all federal contractors—more than 200,000 companies—will be required to use E-Verify, an electronic system that checks work eligibility against the Social Security database.

This move upsets many in the business community, especially HR groups like the Society for Human Resource Management. They say that E-Verify is prone to error because there are millions of mistakes in Social Security records. They also assert that it cannot stop identity theft and can’t be ramped up for use by all 7 million U.S. employers. Currently, about 69,000 participate voluntarily.

SHRM and other members of the HR Initiative for a Legal Workforce are promoting a bill authored by Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, that would replace E-Verify—and the I-9 process—with an electronic system based upon an existing child-support enforcement network in which about 90 percent of U.S. employers participate.

Bills that would extend and expand E-Verify get strong support from other Republicans and conservative Democrats.

But Democratic leadership is skeptical of E-Verify. That was apparent at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on employer verification on Tuesday, June 10. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-California and chairwoman of the panel, highlighted several studies that call into question E-Verify’s efficacy.

“Before we move forward on any mandatory [electronic system] to include all employers, we must be careful to ensure all the problems in the existing [electronic system] are addressed before we end up with the same problems, but on a much larger scale,” Lofgren said at the hearing.

It’s a matter of constituent service for someone like Lofgren. If an American citizen or a permanent resident is denied employment, he or she no doubt will place a hostile call to his or her member of Congress.

Another situation that prompts angry communication with members of Congress is any problem with Social Security. A number of Democrats are concerned that foisting employment verification on the Social Security Administration will exacerbate problems the agency is having in dealing with disability claims.

And many Democrats, like Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Michigan, are incensed about what they believe is the Bush administration’s tendency to use E-Verify to arrest suspected illegal workers while letting business owners off the hook.

On the other side, you have conservative Republicans and Democrats who see work-site enforcement as the illegal immigration remedy that their constituents demand. And they advocate E-Verify with gusto.

“We have a system that is almost perfect now,” said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa and ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee. “We can grow this system. The answer is to use it.”

The author of the original bill to establish E-Verify made a similar point. “E-Verify has never been notified of an incorrect non-confirmation,” said Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California.

At the hearing, one of the witnesses, likely invited by the Republicans on the subcommittee, touted E-Verify.

“I think it’s a great system to work with,” said Glenda Wooten-Ingram, HR director at the Embassy Suites in downtown Washington. 

There are 11 bills introduced in Congress that address employer verification. They range from the Johnson bill to replace it to several bills that would make it permanent and mandatory.

But with all the political discord on the issue, the likely outcome this year is something incremental—like a temporary extension of a voluntary E-Verify. Congress will kick the can down the road.