[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 46 (Thursday, April 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3543-S3544]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
  S. 1981. A bill to preserve the balance of rights between employers, 
employees, and labor organizations which is fundamental to our system 
of collective bargaining while preserving the rights of workers to 
organize, or otherwise engage in concerted activities protected under 
the National Labor Relations Act; read the first time.


                      the truth in employment act

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, small businesses are under attack in 
this country, and the United States government, through the National 
Labor Relations Board and other regulatory agencies, is aiding in this 
unprecedented assault. This battle is being waged against small 
employers by paid and unpaid union operatives who get access to non-
union workplaces by seeking employment in these companies. Because 
employers are not allowed to refuse to hire union labor, they are 
usually hired. Once on job, these union agents put economic pressure on 
their employers by causing workplace disruptions that increase their 
employer's cost of doing business. This union guerilla warfare against 
employers is known as ``salting.''
  The weapon of choice for these union operatives is to file unfair 
labor charges against their merit shop employers at the National Labor 
Relations Board or to file complaints against their employers at the 
EEOC, OSHA, or other regulatory agencies. Defending against these 
charges and complaints costs the employers in both legal fees and in 
lost time. As an added benefit, these cases often net union employees 
large damage awards or settlements because their employers can ill-
afford the expense of defending themselves against the barrage of 
frivolous charges being filed against them.
  Consider the following examples: Gaylor Electric of Carmel, Indiana 
has had 96 charges filed against it. While each and every one of these 
cases has been dismissed without merit, Gaylor Electric has had to bear 
the cost of these cases to the tune of $250,000 per year. Likewise, hth 
Companies in Union, Missouri has had 48 unfair labor charges filed 
against it. Again, while all but one of these cases was dismissed, hth 
Companies has wasted $150,000 defending itself against these frivolous 
charges. Bay Electric in Cape Elizabeth wasted over $100,000 defending 
itself against 14 unfair labor charges--each of which was dismissed 
without merit. Wright Electric in Delano, Minnesota has lost almost 
$500,000 defending itself against 15 unfair labor charges, 14 of which 
have been dismissed, and one of which is still pending.

[[Page S3544]]

  In my home state, Little Rock Electrical, of Little Rock, Arkansas 
has been flooded with 72 unfair labor cases in just one year, 20 of 
which have already been dismissed, and 45 which have been set for 
trial. Finally, R.D. Goss in Clearfield, Pennsylvania has suffered the 
worst, having been hit with 20 unfair labor cases, all but one of which 
was dismissed--but which forced them out of business after 38 years.
  Mr. President, I support the right of workers to organize, and I am 
always reluctant to propose federal legislation that interferes in 
private matters--particularly private contractual relationships between 
employers and employees. However, in this case, as the above examples 
show, the federal government, particularly through the National Labor 
Relations Board, is wreaking havoc on merit shop contractors through 
this unfair, but legal, practice.
  Evidence as to the true nature and intent of union salting was best 
explained in the Organizing Manual of the International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers (IBEW), which stated that the true goal of 
``salting'' is to:

       . . . threaten or actually apply the economic pressure 
     necessary to cause the employer to . . . raise his prices to 
     recoup additional costs, scale back his business activities, 
     leave the union's jurisdiction, go out of business, and so 
     on.

  Or, more bluntly, in the words of an IBEW organizing flyer, the goal 
is:

       . . . infiltration, confrontation, litigation, disruption, 
     and hopefully annihilation of all non-union contractors.

  On February 13, 1997, I introduced legislation that addresses the 
issue of salting. This legislation, The Truth in Employment Act of 
1997, would have allowed employers to reject an applicant that has no 
intention of actually working for the company, but who was instead 
solely interested in organizing and harassing their employer and fellow 
employees. Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed 
their own version of the Truth in Employment Act, under the able 
leadership of Chairman Bill Goodling of Pennsylvania and Chairman 
Harris Fawell of Illinois, both of whom I had the privilege of serving 
with when I was a Member of the House.
  Today, I am introducing new legislation to address this issue of 
salting. My new bill, the Truth in Employment Act of 1998 is identical 
to the House passed version.
  Mr. President, the strength of this country rests on the freedom of 
individuals to pursue their dreams and ideas, and to risk their own 
capital to open and operate small businesses. Likewise, this country is 
built on the principle that workers are free to sell their labor, and 
if they deem necessary, to join fellow workers to negotiate higher pay 
or better working conditions. This measure will not undermine either of 
these legitimate rights. This bill only seeks to stop the destructive 
practice of ``salting'' to protect employers who operate non-union 
shops, and to protect employees who freely choose to work for these 
non-union employers.
  I would urge my fellow Senators to join our colleagues in the House 
and pass the Truth in Employment Act. The survival of America's small 
businesses demand that we act.

                          ____________________