[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 19 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E252-E253]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE TRUTH IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. HARRIS FAWELL

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 13, 1997

  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that many of our colleagues 
have now heard of the union organizing tactic known as salting. I am 
equally sure that most of them have been greatly disturbed by what they 
have heard; and, for good reason. In recent years, salting has evolved 
into an abusive practice which, sadly, has little to do with legitimate 
union organizing. Instead, salting has become a tool--or perhaps better 
stated; a weapon--for putting nonunion companies out of business.
  This unfortunate fact was made clear during the 104th Congress, when 
the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities held three 
hearings which highlighted the problems associated with union salting. 
The testimony from those hearings included stories about union 
organizers and agents who had sought or gained employment with a 
nonunion 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 
small businesses--the economic harm inflicted by the union's salting 
campaigns was devastating.

[[Page E253]]

  Equally troubling, Mr. Speaker, is the brazen manner in which union 
salts go about their business of inflicting economic harm on nonunion 
employers. Indeed, most union salts make clear when they apply for a 
job that their loyalties lie elsewhere and that they have no interest 
in working to promote the interests of the company.
  One might ask why an 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], which prohibits 
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 and 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.
  In an effort to remedy this situation, Mr. Speaker, last year I 
introduced the Truth in Employment Act of 1996. And, while I was 
disappointed that we concluded the 2d session of the 104th Congress 
without addressing the problems of union salting, I was pleased that a 
significant number of our colleagues were also sufficiently concerned 
to join me as cosponsors of that legislation.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the problems of abusive salting persist 
today; and, they continue to take a heavy toll on employers in the form 
of costly litigation, lost productivity, and destroyed property. For 
those reasons, I am today reintroducing for consideration by the 105th 
Congress the Truth in Employment Act of 1997. This legislation is 
virtually identical to the bill I introduced during the last Congress. 
In short, the bill would amend section 8 of the National Labor 
Relations Act to make clear that an employer is not required to hire 
any person who seeks a job in order to promote the interests of another 
employer or organization for whom that person is acting as an agent. 
When 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 again make clear, Mr. Speaker, as I did during the last 
Congress, that this bill is in no way intended to infringe upon any 
rights or protections otherwise accorded 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 real 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, at its core, the National Labor Relations Act--indeed, 
our entire collective bargaining system--is about balancing the rights 
and protections of both employers and the men and women who work for 
them. At its worst, salting upsets that balance in a way not 
contemplated when the NLRA was 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 and promote the 
interests of that employer--not another organization bent on disrupting 
or putting that company out of business.
  The Truth in Employment Act will help restore that confidence, Mr. 
Speaker, while at the same time protecting the rights of employees and 
their union representatives. Once again, I urge my colleagues to 
support its passage.

                          ____________________