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.

As Congress returns to Washington from a two-week spring recess, worries about the housing market—and the economy—are more abundant than cherry blossoms. Congressional attention is focused on JPMorgan Chase’s takeover of Bear Stearns.

Most of the concern centers on the $29 billion guarantee that the Federal Reserve made to JPMorgan to cover what could be enormous amounts of bad debt remaining in Bear’s burning embers.

Another dimension of the deal that is drawing attention is the level of pay that Bear executives received even as their firm collapsed.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has indicated that he will explore whether shareholders can reclaim hundreds of millions in executive compensation when a company fails. Frank is the author of legislation that passed the House last year that would allow shareholders to vote on executive compensation packages.

Republicans, too, are raising questions about Bear pay.

“I’ve instructed my staff to delve into the details of the deal,” said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. “[A] longtime interest of mine is how insiders such as senior executives are treated in these kinds of deals. Corporate bigwigs shouldn’t be able to profit from a deal while employees, shareholders and creditors have to carry the burden of a company’s demise.”

But it may be difficult to make the case that Bear Stearns is an example of executive pay run amok. Last week, Bear Stearns chief executive Jimmy Cayne sold his company stock for $61 million at about $10 per share. True, you can make $61 million go a long way, even in New York, but Cayne has lost hundreds of millions of dollars on Bear shares, which sold for about $170 each in January 2007. About one-third of Bear stock is owned by employees, including executives. When the company tanked, so did their personal fortunes.

“It’s hard to say how [Cayne] made out [well] in all this,” says Alan Johnson, managing director of Johnson Associates, a New York compensation consulting firm. “If you looked at it objectively … you would say this is an executive compensation plan that worked.”

That may not be how members of Congress see it. During the spring recess, they likely met with constituents who are threatened with losing their homes, their jobs or both. During the economic downturn, the Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill are focusing on the difficulties faced by individuals.

From that point of view, the JPMorgan takeover of Bear may generate examples of folks, albeit Wall Street folks, getting tossed into unemployment as the two operations merge.

JPMorgan will try to keep revenue-producing Bear brokers. But many investment bankers, analysts, IT and other redundant staff will be shown the door in an effort to streamline the operation and make a quick profit for investors.

Barry Miller, manager of alumni programs and services at Pace University in New York and a private placement consultant, says JPMorgan has a reputation for being ruthless.

“They want to take [Bear] over and raid it,” Miller says. “They do what’s best for their bottom line.”

What’s best for business may make Congress queasy.

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.

Usually one of the first casualties of an election year is substantive accomplishments on Capitol Hill. Although legislation suffers, politics thrives. This atmosphere can be a catalyst for bills that have a better chance of making a political point than becoming law. This is the case with immigration. A broad Senate bill that would have strengthened border and workplace enforcement while providing a path toward legalization for undocumented workers that many industries desperately need died almost a year ago.Since then, the immigration issue has become volatile and brittle. Passions tend to cause internal divisions in parties and split interest groups into strange-bedfellow arrangements.Although a comprehensive bill won’t rise out of this political cauldron, many rifle-shot bills could bubble to the surface in the coming weeks. For instance, a measure written by Rep. Heath Shuler, D-North Carolina, has garnered 146 co-sponsors, most of whom are Republicans.

Shuler’s bill focuses solely on enforcement. It cracks down on illegal workplace hiring by mandating that all companies use E-Verify, a government-run electronic verification system that 52,000 employers now use voluntarily.

Employers enter information from I-9 forms into the system, which then checks it against government databases at the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration.

E-Verify is reviled by many in the HR community. They cite its 4 percent error rate, criticizing it for being inefficient, ineffective and prone to errors that could ultimately cause an economic disruption if all employers use the system.

As an alternative to E-Verify, the Society for Human Resource Management and other HR organizations have worked with Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, to write a bill called the New Employee Verification Act. It has 13 Republican co-sponsors.

The measure would establish a mandatory electronic verification system based on existing new-hire databases in each state. Those databases were originally constructed to track fathers who skirted child support payments. The system would replace I-9 forms, allowing employers to enter information directly or over the phone.

Like the Shuler bill, the Johnson legislation would impose civil penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants. But the Johnson bill would not hold companies responsible for hiring done by subcontractors and would only require verification of new hires rather than the entire workforce.

The Johnson bill has not yet attracted a Democratic co-sponsor because Democratic leadership is discouraging caucus members from signing on to rifle-shot measures.

Shuler has been able to line up many Democrats from conservative districts because his bill gives them an outlet to prove they are tough on immigration.

But Democratic leaders also are wary of Shuler’s proposal because it’s essentially a Republican vehicle. The bill’s supporters are circulating a “discharge petition,” a document that would send a bill directly to the floor for a vote if it collects 218 signatures. The Shuler petition has 181 so far.

While immigration intrigue unfolds in the House, Senate Republicans have introduced 15 immigration enforcement bills. One of them, written by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, would establish an electronic verification system based on E-Verify. Under quirky Senate rules, Sessions likely will have an opportunity to force votes on his package.

If Shuler and Sessions get the floor action they seek, it will be difficult for any member of Congress—Republican or Democratic—to come out against workplace verification. The question is whether they will be voting for E-Verify or the SHRM-backed system, if Johnson can develop enough support for his bill or get it inserted into Shuler’s bill.

On top of all these political machinations is another important factor. The law that created E-Verify expires in November. One way or another, Congress has to do something on employment verification soon, even though it’s an election year.