[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 3, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1148-S1149]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Mack, 
        Mr. Craig, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Warner, Mr. Hatch, Ms. Collins, 
        Mr. Cochran, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Helms. Mr. 
        Grassley, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr. 
        Frist, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Allard, Mr. Grams, Mr. Kyl, 
        Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Shelby):
  S. 337. 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; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                    TRUTH IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am honored to have the opportunity 
to introduce today an important piece of legislation which will provide 
thousands of businesses in my home state of Arkansas and across the 
nation with a defense against an unscrupulous practice which is 
literally crippling them. The Truth in Employment will protect these 
businesses and curtail the destructive abuse of the union tactic known 
as salting.
  ``Salting abuse'' is the calculated practice of placing trained union 
professional organizers and agents in the non-union workplace whose 
sole purpose is to harass or disrupt company operation, apply economic 
pressure, increase operating and legal costs, and ultimately put a 
company out of business. The objectives of these union agents are 
accomplished through filing frivolous and unfair labor practice 
complaints or discrimination charges against the employer with the 
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration (OSHA), and the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (EEOC). Salting campaigns have been used successfully to 
cause economic harm to construction companies and are quickly expanding 
into other industries across the country. It can cost employers 
anywhere from $5,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend him 
or herself against this practice.
  Salting is not merely a union organizing tool. It has become an 
instrument of economic destruction aimed at non-union companies. Union 
send their agents into non-union workplaces under the guise of seeking 
employment. Hiding behind the shield of the National Labor Relations 
Act, these ``salts'' use its provisions offensively to bring hardship 
on their employers. They deliberately increase the operating costs of 
their employers through actions such as sabotage and frivolous 
discrimination complaints.
  In the 1995 Town & Country decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that 
paid union organizers are ``employees'' within the meaning of the 
National Labor Relations Act. Because of their broad interpretation of 
this Act, employers who refuse to hire paid union employees or their 
agents violate the Act if they are shown to have discriminated against 
the union salts.
  This leaves employers in a precarious position. If employers refuse 
to hire union salts, they will file frivolous charges and accuse the 
employer of discrimination. Yet, if salts are employed, they will 
create internal disruption through a pattern of dissension and 
harassment. They are not there to work--only to disrupt. In a classic 
example of salting abuse, John Gaylor of Gaylor Electric had to fire 
one employee after this refusal to wear his hard hat on his head. This 
employee would strap the hard hat to his knee and then dare Gaylor to 
fire him because he said the employee manual stated only that he had to 
wear the hard hat, it didn't state where he had to wear it.
  As a result of the salting abuse, whenever many small businesses make 
hiring decisions, the future of the company, and its very existence, 
may be at stake. A wrong decision can mean frivolous charges, legal 
fees, and lost time, which may threaten the very existence of their 
business.

  I have received many accounts from across the nation of how salting 
abuse is affecting small businesses. The following examples were 
received as testimony in Congressional hearings. In my home state of 
Arkansas, Little Rock Electrical Contractors, Inc. incurred in excess 
of $80,000 in legal fees over the course of one year to fight 72 unfair 
labor practice charges, of which 20 were dismissed, 45 were set for 
trial, and 7 were appealed. In Cape Elizabeth, Maine, over a period of 
four years, Bay Electric incurred $100,000 in legal fees plus lost time 
to defend itself against 14 unfair labor practices, all of which were 
dismissed. In Delano, Minnesota, Wright Electric incurred $150,000 in 
legal fees and lost between $200,000 and $300,000 in lost time to win 
the dismissal of 14 of 15 unfair labor practices charges. And, in 
Clearfield, Pennsylvania, R.D. Goss incurred $75,000 battling 
approximately 20 unfair labor practices; while all but one of the 
charges were dismissed, the company was forced to close its doors after 
doing business for thirty-eight years. Finally, in Union, Missouri, it 
cost the Companies $150,000 to win the dismissal of 47 unfair labor 
practices charges and to achieve one settlement for $200.
  Another common salting abuse is for salts to actually create 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) violations and 
then report those violations to OSHA. When the employer terminates 
these individuals, they file frivolous unfair labor practices against 
the employer. This results in wasted time and money, as well as bad 
publicity for the company.
  These are just a few of the many examples of how devastating salting 
abuse can be to small businesses. What makes this practice even more 
appalling is how organized labor openly advocates its use. According to 
the group, the ``Coalition For Fairness For Small Businesses And 
Employees,'' the labor unions are even advocating this practice in 
their manuals.
  The Union Organizing Manual of the International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers explains why salts are used. Their purpose is to 
gather information that will ``. . . shape the strategy the organizer 
will use later in the campaign 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, leave the 
union's jurisdiction, go out of business, and so on. . .''
  Thomas J. Cook, a former ``salt,'' explained the ultimate goal of 
salting abuse. Mr. Cook said, ``Salting has become a method to stifle 
competition in the marketplace, steal away employees, and to inflict 
financial harm on the competition.'' Mr. Cook concluded by stating that 
``[i]n a country where free enterprise and independence is so highly 
valued, I find these activities nothing more than legalized 
extortion.''
  The balance of rights must be restored between employers, employees 
and labor organizations. The Truth in Employment Act seeks to do this 
by inserting a provision in the National Labor Relations Act 
establishing that an employer is not required to employ any person who 
is not a bona fide employee applicant, in that such person is seeking 
employment for the primary purpose of furthering interests unrelated to 
those of that employer. Furthermore, this legislation will continue to 
allow employees to organize and engage in activities designed to be 
protected by the National Labor Relations Act.
  This measure is not intended to undermine those legitimate rights or 
protections. Employers will gain no ability to discriminate against 
union membership or activities. This bill only seeks to stop the 
destructive results of

[[Page S1149]]

salting abuse. Salting abuse must be curtailed if we are to protect the 
small business owners and employees of this nation. This legislation 
will insure these protections are possible.
  It is for these reasons that I am introducing the Truth in Employment 
Act. I ask that my colleagues support this bill and restore fairness to 
the American workplace.
                                 ______