Which considering the massive job increases in the last decade is actually relatively impressive. Unions were actually organizing - unlike in much of the previous decade - but jobs were growing faster than unions could organize them.
I remember at the beginning of the decade, pretty serious pro-labor analysts were predicting a complete collapse of the unions in the 1990s. One guy I knew, who headed the California state labor commission under Jerry Brown, back when it was pretty hard-core pro-union, with sad confidence wrote articles predicting a union density of 5% by the year 2000.
Those outside the labor movement too easily make judgements about whether particular labor policies made a difference for organizing, but for those on the ground, the differences are pretty stark. The law sucks regardless, so changing the President can only make so much difference without legislative changes, but on the basic support for union organizing, the Clinton administration generally did as good policy as it could. Unfortuntely, Reagan and Bush era judges repeatedly overturned executive orders - such as the one banning federal contracts for companies using replacement workers - and overturned pro-union NLRB decisions all too often.
But the policies were there and they made a quite dramatic difference in a number of cases.
-- Nathan Newman