[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 40 (Wednesday, April 1, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E544]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


         FAIRNESS FOR SMALL BUSINESS AND EMPLOYEES ACT OF 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. VINCE SNOWBARGER

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thurdsay, March 26, 1998

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3246) to 
     assist small businesses and labor organizations in defending 
     themselves against government bureaucracy; to ensure that 
     employees entitled to reinstatement get their jobs back 
     quickly; to protect the right of employers to have a hearing 
     to present their case in certain representation cases; and to 
     prevent the use of the National Labor Relations Act for the 
     purpose of disrupting or inflicting economics harm on 
     employers.

  Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak for the many 
small owners in Kansas who have been working for years to reform the 
National Labor Relations Board and our current employment laws.
  Millions of dollars and countless jobs have been lost in the Third 
District of Kansas because of the tactics of some labor unions. While I 
respect and appreciate the right of working Americans to be represented 
by a Union, I also respect the rights of the great majority of working 
men and women who choose not to be represented by a Union.
  If this wasn't such an important issue, Mr. Chairman, I might remind 
my colleagues that my district has one of the healthiest economies in 
the nation, which is due, in no small part to Kansas' Right-to-Work 
legislation.
  As we consider today's important reform initiative, I wanted to share 
with my colleagues some stories from my home in Kansas.
  Millions of dollars and countless jobs have been lost in the 3rd 
District because of a tactic referred to by the AFL-CIO as ``salting''. 
This common procedure is used in Kansas by the International 
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Their regular plan is to have around 
20 union members storm into a non-union electrical contractor's office 
with video cameras mounted on their shoulders. The union members then 
demand to be hired and if they are not, they file discrimination 
charges with the National Labor Relations Board.
  The two largest independent electrical contractors in my district, 
SKC Electric (200 employees) and Teague Electric (100 employees), have 
spent nearly $500,000 (between the two of them) fighting frivolous 
charges of discrimination. Not once has the union asked for a NLRB 
sanctioned election to decide if the employees want to be represented 
by the IBEW. Instead, they harass the companies by driving up legal 
expenditures and limiting their ability to grow. Fortunately these two 
companies are financially strong and have been able to survive under 
this intense pressure for the past four years. But it is wrong to allow 
bad actor unions to literally . . . litigate small businesses to death.
  Not everyone in my district has been so lucky.
  M&R Electric was a two-year old electrical company with approximately 
30 employees. It was owned and operated by a former union electrician 
who had saved to start his own small business. The company was growing 
rapidly and providing good careers for many hard working young people. 
That is until the IBEW showed up with their video cameras and NLRB 
charges. By the time small company knew what hit them, they had spent 
more than $250,000 fending off legal challenges and were out of 
business. I am sure most of my colleagues know that new businesses are 
very vulnerable. This is why these kinds of actions are so threatening. 
The result in this case? Thirty good jobs lost in my district.
  The bottom line is, that no employer should be required by law to 
hire an individual who is bent on destroying their company.
  Mr. Chairman, this practice is not defensible and the families who 
lost their jobs and the men and women who invested their life savings 
to start a business deserve the protections that this bill provides.

                          ____________________