TO Professor Frank for Labor Relations

Turnitin Originality Report

the_influence_of_bill_clinton term paper (steve ezelle).docx by Stephen Ezelle

From Week 6: Course Project* (Labor Relations)

• Processed on 09-Jun-2014 20:42 AST
• ID: 433826435
• Word Count: 4924

  Similarity Index 58% Similarity by Source

Internet Sources:

57%

Publications:

4%

Student Papers:

4%

sources:

You are currently viewing matches for the following source only:

57% match (Internet from 18-Mar-2014)

http://law.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/journals/laborandemploymentlawjournal/labor_vol24no1_moberly.pdf paper text: Running Head: THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR The Influence of Bill Clinton's Presidency on Organization Labor By Stephen L. Ezelle Keller Graduate School of Management/DeVry University Human Resources HRM 856 Professor: Dewain Thomas, Ph.D May 3, 2010 The Influence of Bill Clinton's Presidency on Organization Labor Table of Contents Statement of interest…………………………………………………………………..3 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………4 Creation of Jobs and Enhancement………………………………………………….5 Job Enhancement……………………………………………………………………...8 Earned Income Tax Credit……………………………………………………………9 Minimum Wage………………………………………………………………………..9 OSHA and Ergonomics Standards…………………………………………………...10 Family Medical Leave Act of 1993…………………………………………………...10 Employer-Union Relations…………………………………………………………... 12 Labor-management cooperation and employee participation……………………... 12 Replacement of Strikers………………………………………………………………13 Dunlop Commission…………………………………………………………………..14 National labor relations………………………………………………………………15 Organization and representation…………………………………………………….16 Union Security………………………………………………………………………...17 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….18 References…………………………………………………………………………….19 STATEMENT OF INTEREST I chose this topic particularly because of my personal relationship with the former President Bill Clinton. Our relationship began in 1977 when President Clinton was then the State’s Attorney General, appeared as a guest to Boy’s State which I was a selected. This is considered and honor to attend for not many high school students are chosen. Mr. Clinton and I met on stage at the Boy’s State convention and we struck up a conversation soon afterwards. He offered me to come by his office where our friendship begins. When he became Governor his door was always open for me to stop by, even to go out and grab a bite at the nearby barbeque pit. Our friendship never wavered to politics as we both knew where we stood on a variety of issues so it was more on the line of family, friends and other interests. As a side note, as we all know his party label is Democrat and I am a Republican. When Mr. Clinton became President of the United States, our friendship didn’t end. I was invited to his Inauguration twice but was only able to attend to the first. It was then I was able to visit him at the White House and we corresponded by mail on occasions. President Clinton and I had strong interests in other areas such as education, anything that was local concerns of the day. So as I write this paper, much was required in research and planning. It is my insight of how President Clinton developed his policy and influence toward Unions and Organized Labor. Introduction Bill Clinton attained power during a period where voters had no trust or enthusiasm in their leaders. However, during his era, Clinton proved the voters wrong by providing good leadership, especially on labor sector (Shoch, 2000). The paper will talk about the achievements and disappointments of Clinton administration with respect to organization labor. Some of the notable characteristics of Clinton presidency with respect to labor were the Family and Medical Leave Act, job creation and payment improvement and employer-union relations. In 1994 elections, the republicans won control of the congress making it very hard for Clinton administration to pass labor-friendly initiatives. The Clinton Presidency will be well remembered for its contribution to the organization-labor (Fletcher & Gapasin, 2008). Voters who showed no enthusiasm re-elected Bill Clinton in 1996. This was the case in 1992 when about 19 percent of voters opted to vote a third-party candidate, Ross Perot. The electorate seemed unhappy with its choices. Close to, half of the voters stayed away from the polls, and only 49 percent chose Bill Clinton over his close opponent, Robert Dole. This showed that Clinton did not have much influence and power on the electorates. However, on his inauguration, Clinton spoke about a nation that was on the edge of a new millennium, a new century. He said that the United States needed a new government for the new century. During the reign of Bill Clinton, he influences labor in different ways. Clinton’s ideologies was on labor were accepted by organized labor (Shoch, 2000). The organized Labor union endorsed Bill Clinton for the democratic nomination in 1992 in an effort to push away any idea of a brokered convention and enable the party to start focusing on the general election contest against President Bush (Beck, Dalton, Greene, & Huckfeldt, 2002). The executive AFL-CIO leaders, including several union presidents who had been supporting the California Governor Edmund candidacy voted unanimously in the recommendation of the 14 million-member labor federation to endorse Bill Clinton. The AFL-CIO president, Lane Kirkland said that the committee’s vote was a reflection of the feeling across the labor that it was time to act. This showed that the labor union had decided to trust Clinton as the right man to take the labor laws and management to the next stage. The action to support Clinton came after a telephone conversation between him and Kirkland. In the conversation, The Arkansas Democrat (newpaper) endorsed the trade position taken by Richard Gephardt, the house majority leaders, to provide protection for American jobs and worker rights in all North American Free Trade agreement (Beck et. al., 2002). Creation of jobs and enhancement The start of Clinton administration was marred with high rate of unemployment. The high rate of unemployment was due to the decline of manufacturing in the U.S and the lagging development in of new products and production systems compared to international competition. Clinton had experience in job creation and preservation from his time as Governor of Arkansas. Further, he emphasized job issues when organizing the Commission on the Future of the South. He also successfully persuaded companies with Arkansas plants to stay in the state, and persuaded other companies to come to Arkansas. A well-known example is when the Sanyo Company planned to close its television-assembly plant in the Arkansas Delta, an area with an unemployment rate above ten percent. Clinton flew to Japan and asked the president of Sanyo if he would keep the plant open if Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, based in Bentonville, Arkansas, would sell Sanyo’s televisions (Beck et. al., 2002). After the Sanyo president agreed, Clinton obtained Wal-Mart’s help in the venture. As a result, that plant has produced more than twenty million television sets for Wal-Mart, and remains the only plant in the United States still producing television sets. Clinton was also actively involved in successful efforts to retain other plants in Arkansas, such as an International Paper mill in Camden and a shoe plant in Clarksville. Then-Governor Clinton also worked to bring new jobs to Arkansas by using state funds to underwrite the cost of high-tech ventures, encouraged universities to help start new businesses, sponsored trade and investment missions abroad, and supported expansion of existing Arkansas plants. As a result, companies such as NUCOR Steel Company, Dana Company, Daiwa Steel Tube Industries and others provided additional jobs for Arkansans (Peterson, 1993). During the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton proposed a $200 billion dollar public investment program in infrastructure improvement. After the election, he appointed a well- published labor economist, Robert Reich, as Secretary of Labor. However, over Reich’s objections, the investment program died after internal cabinet debates and concerns arose over the deficit. Professor Ullman criticized this result, arguing that instead of financing an investment program that might have met urgent needs and mitigated the recession, the Clinton budget surplus disappeared into the Great Bush Tax Cut (Goroshko, 2008). Clinton also favored ratification of the North American Free Trade Association Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. He argued that NAFTA’s promotion of free trade would increase U.S. jobs and boost the economy, and in 1992, he campaigned on providing protections for labor in any agreement. Congress ratified the pact during the Clinton administration, despite strong objections from the AFL-CIO (Francia, 2006). The final NAFTA treaty contained a side agreement with labor standards, and Mexico responded with a minimum wage increase. The Clinton administration then negotiated the United States -Jordan Fair Trade Agreement, the first trade agreement to include labor criteria in the main text rather than a side agreement (Peterson, 1993). The labor standards in this and similar trade agreements theoretically are subject to the same dispute settlement and enforcement processes as the commercial aspects of the agreement. The inclusion of labor rights in fair trade agreements is an improvement over previous trade agreements, and in this respect, such clauses reflect favorably on Clinton’s labor agenda achievements. However, the enforcement of such clauses has been criticized. Professor Marley, former Chair of the United States National Advisory Committee to the United States National Administrative Office for NAFTA, concludes that enforcement of labor rights is so ineffective that their inclusion is a form of false advertising (Baldwin & Magee, 2000). The AmeriCorps program was another Clinton’s job initiative that placed young people in public agencies and nonprofit organizations to meet needs in public safety, education, health and the environment. By the end of his presidency, about 150,000 young people had served in AmeriCorps. Today more than four hundred people have worked with AmeriCorps, in more than 2,000 organizations. The Clinton administration also viewed welfare reform as an effort to provide additional jobs. When Clinton signed into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the goal was to reform the welfare system by moving people from welfare to work (Fletcher & Gapasin, 2008). The Clinton administration took credit for achieving the lowest percentage of people on welfare in 35 years, reducing the number of people on welfare by half, and increasing the percentage of employed welfare recipients by nearly fivefold. However, William Fletcher, the President and CEO of Trans Africa Forum, argued that this Act amounted to welfare repeal, not reform, and that it created quasi-indentured servants. Scott Miller, a commentator, noted that welfare recipients became more likely to be forced into minimum-wage jobs, thus further justifying the need for a minimum wage increase (Beck et. al., 2002). In 1998, Clinton signed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), which provides the framework for a national employment and training system and funds services to employers and job seekers throughout the country. It replaced the Reagan Administration’s Job Training Partnership Act of 1982. The WIA created a one-stop approach to employment, education and training, with a single point of contact (One-Stop Career Centers) for employers and employees with several federal agencies. The fifty states of the United States participated, and by 2000, there were about 1,200 One-Stop centers (Peterson, 1993). Eventually, towards the end of his term, Clinton announced an“Equal Pay Initiative.” The initiative provided additional funds to help the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) reduce its backlog of employment discrimination cases and otherwise combat wage discrimination. It also provided additional funds to the Labor Department to train women in high-wage jobs where women were underrepresented. As an example of the need for such funds, Clinton noted that in most hi-tech occupations, men outnumbered women by more than two to one. Clinton expressed satisfaction with the results of his efforts to increase jobs. He pointed out that by the end of his presidency, more than twenty million new jobs had been created, and the country had its lowest unemployment rate of less than 5 percent and smallest welfare rolls in thirty years (Francia, 2006). Job Enhancement Clinton presidency did not only endeavor to create jobs, but also to enhance the quality of the jobs. The Clinton presidency had three significant administration initiatives, which intended to increase the quality of jobs. These initiatives included the increase of minimum wage, increase of earned income tax credit, establishment of occupational safety and health administration safety-standards (Baldwin & Magee, 2000). Earned Income Tax Credit The Clinton presidency obtained a financial enhancement for low-income earners by doubling the earned income tax credit. This serves as a tax cut for low -income working families. Professor Shaviro described the credit and its effect as a transfer program for low-income workers that were administered through the income tax through refundable credits. Under the EITC, low-income status depends on total annual earnings and other household income, rather than on hourly wages as under the minimum wage; benefits are mainly restricted to households with children. The EITC’s income testing and reliance on general revenues make it a far better tool than the minimum wage both for making market work a more viable long-term option and for progressive redistribution (Goroshko, 2008). Minimum wage Clinton’s administration major enhancement was the increase of the minimum wage that employers had to pay for their covered employees. During his rule, the minimum wage rose from 4.25 U.S. dollars to 4.75 U.S. dollars effective in 1996, and to 5.15 dollars beginning of 1997 (Berman, 1998). However, an exception was made to employees below twenty years (Peterson, 1993). The employers were allowed to employ these employees for $4.25 for 90 days; however, they were not allowed to discharge an employee to employ someone at this youth opportunity wage. Bill Clinton later proposed an increase of the minimum wage to 6.15 U.S. dollars. However, he did not succeed in this proposal (Berman, 1998). The main purpose of the minimum wage standard was to lessen the need for government aid to families, maintain a minimum standard of living, and avoid disputes between organized labor and employers (Francia, 2006). OSHA and Ergonomics Standards Employees in particular types of jobs often suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome and other musculoskeletal injuries caused by repetitive movements or motions on the job. Ergonomic designs and methods alleviate or eliminate such injuries (Peterson, 1993). The Clinton presidency’s OSHA tried to adopt ergonomics standards, however, encountered numerous obstacles: Under the Clinton administration, OSHA originally committed to issuing a proposed standard by September 30, 1994, but failed to meet that deadline. Thereafter, the Republican- controlled Congress sought to prevent OSHA from issuing an ergonomics standard, and on several occasions attempted to withhold OSHA’s budget if the agency issued a standard. It was not until February 1999, nine years after the process began, that OSHA released its draft proposed ergonomics standard and public hearings were concluded the following year (Fletcher & Gapasin, 2008). Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 President Clinton signed his first bill into law in 2003 (Shoch, 2000). This law was the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Clinton fulfilled his campaign commitment by doing so. The purpose of FMLA was to balance demands of the workplace with the needs of families, promote national interests in preservation of family integrity, and promote stability and economic securities of families (Shoch, 2000). FMLA was also meant to protect the right to be free from gender discrimination in the workplace and also to eliminate stereotypes about the roles of female and male employees, and in particular, stereotypes about domestic roles of women. The act required employers with more than 50 employees to grant an eligible employee up to a total of 12 work-weeks of unpaid leave during an twelve –month period for one or more of the following: ? For the birth and care of a newborn child of the employee; ? Placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care; ? To care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition; ? To take medical leave when a serious health condition prevents the employee from working (Francia, 2006). This Act also required covered employers to maintain group health insurance benefits for employees on FMLA leave, and to restore employees to the same or equivalent positions upon return from FMLA leave. Since the FMLA applied only to organizations with fifty or more employees, it covered only 5 percent of United States businesses. However, that 5 percent of businesses employs more than 50 percent of the private sector workforce. In addition, the Act covered public employers as well (Beck et. al., 2002). With FMLA, The U.S. joined more than 150 counties in guaranteeing employees with some time off when a family member was sick or a baby was born. Family leave, according to Clinton, was good for the economy, as parents would participate in the workforce and be able to perform good both at home and at job. However, the statistics showed that the majority (about 52 percent) of the leave-takers were attending to their own health other than attending to newborn or adopted children. However, it is very crucial to note that the substantial 48 percent of the 2000 leave takers were attending to the needs of their family members (Baldwin & Magee, 2000). The FMLA act, however, benefits workers who are financially stable to take time off without pay because it provides for unpaid leave. Since the FMLA act imposes some costs, it probably reduces job opportunities. Hence, the poor share the cost of the act but do not benefit because they cannot afford to take unpaid leave. The financially well groups take most unpaid leave compared to the poor working groups (Fletcher & Gapasin, 2008). The FMLA act has made substantial difference in lives of many families in the United States. More than ten years after its passage saw about 35 million employees having taken the FMLA leave. The tangible benefit outweighs the possibility that the Act leads to reduced wages. Furthermore, concerns that leaves taken in accordance to the Act are being used for workers’ own illnesses other than by new parents; by economically privileged citizens rather than the working poor; by women more than men, single parents and minorities, does not justify a conclusion that the FMLA Act is not important (Robert, 2004). Employer-Union Relations A few important matters arose regarding the employer-union relations during the Clinton presidency. These matters included employee participation programs and the team act, attempts to prohibit organizations from replacing striking employees, the appointment of commission on future of employee -management relations, and other issues regarding the national labor relations act (Baldwin & Magee, 2000). Labor-management cooperation and employee participation Considerable implementation and scholarship related to employee participation such as labor-management and joint committees was evident in 1970s through to 1990s. Nevertheless, a challenge soon developed in regard to whether employer efforts to promote worker productivity, satisfaction, quality and efficiency collided with the bans against company unions and other employer-assisted labor organizations contained in the National Labor Relations Act. This tension came to a head in 1992 when the National Labor Relations Board held in Electromation that some action committees established by the organization constituted labor organizations under section 2(5), and that the employer, Electromation, interfered with the committees in violation of section 8(a)(2) (Peterson, 1993). The Board was keen not to condemn all worker participation committees. The board concluded that the action committees functioned solely to address worker -dissatisfaction through creation of a bilateral process to reach bilateral solutions based on employee proposals (Goroshko, 2008). The Dunlop Commission reports did not stop Congressional efforts to pass the TEAM Act-an act that employer groups favored it but was opposed by unions as an attempt to return to the company unions dominant in the 1930s. After Republicans gained control of Congress in the 1994 elections, both Houses passed the TEAM Act in votes split largely along party lines. President Clinton’s rejection of the TEAM Act demonstrates the ability of a president to impact policy by use of his veto power (Fletcher & Gapasin, 2008). The veto, as well as the failure of Congress to overturn the veto, represents a success in terms of Clinton’s labor-management policies and goals. The veto prevented the possible revival of employer domination of employee organizations. Furthermore, the veto did not result in a lessening of worker participation programs, which remain a vital part of American industry and continue unabated as long as they address product quality, productivity, or matters such as customer relations, rather than working conditions. Further, the fact that the TEAM Act has not reemerged despite Republican control of both the Congress and the Presidency since 2000 to 2008 may indicate that such a measure is not necessary to maintain a strong and productive American economy (Robert, 2004). Replacement of Strikers The supreme court stated in dictum that an organization could permanently replace economic strikers. This doctrine undermined the right to strike, which undermined right provided by the Act. Weakening the right to strike also weakened or undermined the institution of collective bargaining. The striker replacement issue became more common after President Reagan’s public termination of eleven thousand air traffic controllers who engaged in an unlawful strike against the government in 1981 (Fletcher & Gapasin, 2008). Since then, private sector employers have become less reluctant to replace striking workers. For example, in 1993, the House of Representatives passed the Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act. This act would have designated the acts of hiring or threatening to hire permanent replacements as an unfair labor practice (Fletcher & Gapasin, 2008). However, the Senate dropped its companion bill in July 1994 in response to a threatened filibuster. When Republicans took control of the House and Senate following the November 1994 elections, the bill did not resurface. The Clinton administration, however, did not drop the issue of striker replacements. In March of 1995, the President issued an Executive Order authorizing the Secretary of Labor to terminate federal contracts, and bar future contracts, with companies that permanently replaced economic strikers. However, business organizations challenged the Executive Order and the Court of Appeals overturned it on preemption grounds, since the NLRA allows employers to permanently replace economic strikers as a countermeasure to the employees’ right to strike (Robert, 2004). Another Clinton policy regarding labor management relations of preventing permanent replacement of strikers was frustrated first by the Congressional inaction following the loss of Democratic majorities, and second by judicial decision. Hence, efforts to prevent the permanent replacement of economic strikers represented another failure in the assessment of the failures and successes of the labor-management policies and goals of the Clinton presidency (Baldwin & Magee, 2000). Dunlop Commission - commission on the future of worker management relations This commission was formed in 1993, but its report was completed in 1994. This happened a month after the elections in which the republicans took control of the congress. Since the political dynamic of the congress had changed, the recommendations of the commission were dead on arrival for purposes. The commission’s recommendation to modify section 8(a) (2) went unanswered (Francia, 2006). Regardless of one’s opinion of the recommendations, the Commission, comprised of representatives of unions, employers, and academics, worked conscientiously for twenty months to formulate its proposals (Fletcher & Gapasin, 2008). The Commission issued its final recommendations in 1994, just one month after the 1994 elections. Those elections resulted in a changed political environment, which made the passage of any changes in labor legislation difficult. The failure to implement the recommendations of the commission can primarily be attributed to unfortunate timing, rather than any fault of the Commission itself. However, in assessing the labor-management successes and failures of the Clinton presidency, the inability to implement the Dunlop Commission’s recommendations should be counted as a failure (Fletcher & Gapasin, 2008). National labor relations The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 states that collective bargaining is the public policy of the U.S (Berman, 1998). The National Labor Relations Board administers this Act. The Act sets forth some unfair labor practices by companies and unions, and provides for elections to determine whether employees wish to be represented by a union. The NLRB is divided into two: a General Counsel and the Board. The General Counsel is an independent presidential appointee. It prosecutes cases, and the Board adjudicates cases brought by the General Counsel. The Board comprises a Chair and four members (Fletcher & Gapasin, 2008). All these members are presidential nominees who serve five-year terms. By tradition, the Board is divided between members of the President’s party and that of the opposition. In June 1993, President Clinton nominated his first appointee to the Board, Professor William Gould IV, as Chairman. Gould was the Charles Beardsley Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, as well as a respected labor arbitrator and academic who were well known in the labor-management community. His term on the Board was not without difficulty, beginning with the confirmation process, which he describes as tortuous and protracted (Fletcher & Gapasin, 2008). President Clinton appointed enough members of the Board to change its composition from a three -two Republican majorities to a three-two Democratic majority by April 1994. By then, Clinton also had appointed the Board’s General Counsel. Through these appointments, the board was created, just as previous shifts due to presidential appointments resulted in what practitioners often refer to as the Reagan-Bush Board, the “Carter Board”, etc. (Berman, 1998). Early on, the Clinton Board implemented a number of initiatives, including Gould’s creation of labor-management advisory panels to advance and react to ideas; the use of bench decisions by administrative law judges; the development of settlement judges; postal ballots; and greater use of injunctions. The Board also significantly reduced the backlog of cases during its first two years, although the backlog increased thereafter. Additionally, Professor Gould advocated for more oral arguments and rulemaking, but Congressional opposition stymied these goals via appropriations riders (Robert, 2004). Organization and representation The board adopted a new standard for using mail ballots to maximize opportunities for workers to vote in representation elections. The Clinton board also held that interns, residents, fellows and graduate assistants were covered workers. The Clinton board developed a criteria to determine the question whether workers were employees covered by the act or independent contractors not covered by the act. The Clinton board also held that work-release employees could vote in representation elections if they had enough community of interest with unit employees (Fletcher & Gapasin, 2008). The Board banned different forms of last minute campaign tactics because they do not have a legitimate business reason unrelated to election and disturb the laboratory conditions for an election. The board also was of the opinion that supervisors could distribute anti-union literature in areas where employees are not allowed to distribute literature. The Clinton board also agreed that non-union workers had a right to have coworkers accompanying them to investigatory interviews that would result in discipline. The Clinton administration held that unions could organize contingent employees and include them in employee units without the employer consent. This result was, however, overruled in 2004 by the board holding that leased workers could not be included in the same bargaining unit with employees without the consent of both employers (Goroshko, 2008). As a remedy, the Clinton Board ruled that undocumented workers were eligible for back pay in unfair labor cases. The Supreme Court, however, later held that an employee was not liable for back pay if he/she lacked employee authorization and employer gained knowledge of the status only after the illegal discharge. In outrageous unfair labor practices, the remedy included union access to non-work regions during non-work time and the right to give speech to workers on working time. This was imposed to dissipate the coercive force of pervasive, numerous and outrageous unfair labor practices (Fletcher & Gapasin, 2008). Union Security The Clinton Board articulated in many cases the duties of the unions towards members and non-members of their rights under union security. However, despite the court and board activities, the percentage of unionized workforce continued to reduce, and by end of Clinton’s presidency of 8 years, it had reduced by two percent. Professor Gould held that the unions needed law and provisions of the National Labor Relations Act despite its weaknesses and other considerations made it impossible for Clinton board to arrest the decline in collective bargaining and the dwindling number of employees who felt confident enough to express support for the unions (Robert, 2004). Conclusion Despite ascending to power during a time when the electorate had no trust in him, Clinton made a number of successful, as well unsuccessful goals in organized labor. The Clinton presidency achieved several goals but also suffered several setbacks. One of the major successes was the FMLA, which continues to benefit millions of working families in United States even today (Shoch, 2000). Other notable successful Clinton goals include the negotiation of trade agreements; welfare reform that resulted in more jobs; establishment of AmeriCorps; the Workforce Investment Act of 1998; and funding to combat discrimination and train women for higher-paying jobs. In addition to this, the Clinton administration witnessed the creation of more than twenty million jobs, and significant reductions in the unemployment rate and welfare rolls. The Clinton Administration successfully spearheaded efforts to increase the minimum wage. The Clinton Administration experienced less success in adopting OSHA job safety standards. Initiatives by Clinton in employer-union relations faced difficulties, majorly due to the hostility of the Republican Congress. With his veto, President Clinton blocked the TEAM act, which was strongly opposed by unions (Goroshko, 2008). References Robert, P. (July 01, 2004). REVIEW: The Roaring Nineties: A New History of the World's Most Prosperous Decade. Challenge, 47, 4, 113-123. Goroshko, O. I. (January 01, 2008). Virtual Political Office Where Gender and Culture Meet. Beck, P. A., Dalton, R. J., Greene, S., & Huckfeldt, R. (2002). The social calculus of voting: Interpersonal, media, and organizational influences on presidential choices. American Political Science Review, 96(01), 57-73. Baldwin, R. E., & Magee, C. S. (2000). Is trade policy for sale? Congressional voting on recent trade bills. Public Choice, 105(1-2), 79-101. Fletcher Jr, B., & Gapasin, F. (2008). Solidarity divided: The crisis in organized labor and a new path toward social justice. Univ of California Press. Peterson, M. A. (1993). Political influence in the 1990s: From iron triangles to policy networks. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 18(2), 395-438. Francia, P. L. (2006). The future of organized labor in American politics. Columbia University Press. Berman, W. C. (1998). America's right turn: from Nixon to Clinton. JHU Press. Shoch, J. (2000). Contesting Globalization: Organized Labor, NAFTA, and the 1997 and 1998 fast-track fights. Politics & Society, 28(1), 119-150. 1 THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR 2 THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR 3 THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR 4 THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR 5 THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR 6 THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR 7 THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR 8 THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR 9 THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR 10 THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR 11 THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR 12 THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR 13 THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR 14 THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR 15 THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR 16 THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR 17 THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR 18 THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR 19 THE INFLUENCE OF BILL CLINTON ON ORGANIZED LABOR 20