[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 46 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E520-E521]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              UNION SALTS

                                 ______


                         HON. HARRIS W. FAWELL

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, March 29, 1996

  Mr. Fawell. Mr. Speaker, in two separate hearings last year, the 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities heard from 
witnesses who shared their experiences with the union organizing tactic 
known as ``salting.'' Their testimony included stories about union 
organizers and agents who sought or gained employment with a non-union 
employer when, in fact, they had little if any intention of truly 
working for that company. In many cases, the organizers and agents were 
there simply to disrupt the employer's workplace or to increase the 
cost of doing business by forcing the employer to defend itself against 
frivolous charges filed with the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB]. 
For most of these companies--many of which were smaller businesses--the 
economic harm inflicted by the union's ``salting'' campaigns was 
devastating.
  Equally troubling, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that union ``salts'' are 
often brazen in their efforts to inflict economic harm on non-union 
employers. Indeed, most union ``salts'' make clear when they apply for 
a job that their loyalties lie elsewhere and that they have little 
interest in working to promote the interests of the company.
  Obviously, one might ask why any employer would hire an individual 
that he knows is there to hurt his company. The complicated answer to 
this question, Mr. Speaker, lies in broad interpretations of who is 
covered by provisions of the National Labor Relations Act [NLRA] that 
prohibit employers from discriminating against employees because of 
their union interests or activities. These interpretations have had the 
practical effect of presenting employers with a Hobson's choice: either 
hire the union ``salt'' who is sure to disrupt your workplace or file 
frivolous charges resulting in costly litigation; or, deny the ``salt'' 
employment and risk being sued for discrimination under the NLRA. 
Either way the employer is faced with a hiring decision that may 
threaten the very survival of his or her business.
  To remedy this situation, I am pleased today to introduce the Truth 
in Employment Act of 1996. This legislation would amend section 8 of 
the National Labor Relations Act to make clear than an employer is not 
required to hire any person who seeks a job in order to promote 
interests unrelated to those of the employer. If enacted, the bill will 
help restore of the balance of rights that ``salting'' upsets and that 
is fundamental to our system of collective bargaining.
  I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is in no way 
intended to infringe upon any rights or protections otherwise accorded

[[Page E521]]

employees under the NLRA. Employees will continue to enjoy their right 
to organize or engage in other concerted activities protected under the 
Act. And, employers will still be prohibited from discriminating 
against employees on the basis of union membership or union activism. 
The bill merely seeks to alleviate the legal pressures imposed upon 
employers to hire individuals whose overriding purpose for seeking the 
job is to disrupt the employer's workplace or otherwise inflict 
economic harm designed to put the employer out of business.
  Mr. Speaker, the aggressive ``salting'' campaigns being waged in 
today's workplace are relatively new and were not contemplated when the 
National Labor Relations Act was first enacted. Surely, Congress could 
not have intended the NLRA to be used as the legal shield that union 
``salts'' now commonly invoke in defense of their abusive behavior. 
Moreover, common sense tells us that employers should be entitled to 
some measure of confidence when making hiring decisions that the job 
applicants they consider are motivated by their desire for work for 
that employer.
  The Truth in Employment Act will help instill that confidence, Mr. 
Speaker, while at the same time protecting the rights of employees and 
their union representatives. I urge my colleagues to support its 
passage.

                          ____________________