[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 52 (Thursday, April 15, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E675-E676]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          INTRODUCTION OF THE TRUTH IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN A. BOEHNER

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 15, 1999

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Truth in 
Employment Act of 1999. This important legislation addresses the 
abusive union tactic commonly called ``salting.'' ``Salting'' is an 
economic weapon unions use to damage and even run employers out of 
business.
  ``Salting'' abuse is the placing of trained professional organizers 
and agents in a non-union facility to harass or disrupt company 
operations, apply economic pressure, increase operating and legal 
costs, and ultimately put the company out of business. The object of 
the union agents are accomplished through filing, among other charges, 
unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board. 
As brought out during the five hearings the Workforce Committee held on 
this issue in the 104th and 105th Congresses, ``salting'' is not merely 
an organizing tool, but has became an instrument of economic 
destruction aimed at non-union companies that has nothing to do with 
legitimate union organizing.
  As a former ``salt'' from Vermont testified last year before the 
Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee:


[[Page E676]]


       ``[Salting] has become a method to stifle competition in 
     the marketplace, steal away employees, and to inflict 
     financial harm on the competition. Salting has been practiced 
     in Vermont for over six years, yet not a single group of open 
     shop electrical workers have petitioned the local union for 
     the right to collectively bargain with their employers. In 
     fact, as salting techniques become more openly hostile . . . 
     most workers view these activities as a threat to their 
     ability to work. In a country where free enterprise and 
     independence is so highly valued. I find these activities 
     nothing more than legalized extortion.''

  There can be no disputing what these ``salts'' are trying to do. As a 
former NLRB field attorney testified before the subcommittee, from his 
experience, ``salts have no intention of organizing a company by 
convincing the co-workers that unions are a good thing for them. 
Instead, once a salt enters the workplace, that individual engages in a 
pattern of conduct to disrupt the workplace; to gather information 
about the employer to feed to the union; to disrupt projects; and 
ultimately to file charges with the National Labor Relations Board.''
  Another witness quoted directly from the International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers' organizing manual, which states that the goal of 
the union salt is to ``threaten or actually apply the economic pressure 
necessary to cause the employer to raise his prices, scale back his 
business activities, leave the union's jurisdiction, go out of business 
and so on.''
  Hiding behind the shield of the National Labor Relations Act, unions 
``salt'' employers by sending agents into non-union workplaces under 
the guise of seeking employment. These ``salts'' often try to harm 
their employers or deliberately increase costs through various actions, 
including sabotage and frivolous discrimination complaints with the 
NLBR. If an employer refuses to hire the ``salt,' the union files 
unfair labor practice charges. Alternatively, if the ``salts'' are 
hired by the employer, they often attempt to persuade bona fide 
employees of the company to sign cards supporting the union. The union 
agents also often look for other reasons to file unfair labor practice 
charges, solely to impose undue legal costs on the employer.
  The stark reality is that ``salting'' puts companies out of business 
and destroys jobs. Clearly, the drafters of the 1935 National Labor 
Relations Act did not intend this result. The Act was not intended as a 
device to circumvent the will of employees, to strangle businesses into 
submission to further a union's objectives, or to put non-union 
employers out of business.'' One construction company testified before 
the subcommittee that it had to spend more than $600,000 in legal fees 
from one salting campaign, with the average cost per charge of more 
than $8,500. Beyond legal fees, one employer testified, ``it would be 
impossible to put a dollar amount on the pain and suffering caused by 
the stress of the situation to a small company like ours who does not 
have the funds to fight these charges.''
  Thus, under current law, an employer must choose between two 
unpleasant options: either hire a union ``salt'' who is there to 
disrupt the workplace and file frivolous charges resulting in costly 
litigation, or deny the ``salt'' employment and risk being sued for 
discrimination under the NLRA.
  The Truth in Employment Act of 1999 would protect the employer by 
making it clear that an employer is not required to hire any person who 
is not a ``bona fide'' employee applicant. The bill states that someone 
is not a ``bona fide'' applicant is such person ``seeks or sought 
employment with the employer with the primary purpose of furthering 
other employment or agency status.'' Simply put, if someone wants a 
job, but at least 50 percent of their intent is not to work for the 
employer, then they should not get the job and the employer has not 
committed an unfair labor practice if they refuse to hire the person.
  As drafted, this legislation is a very narrow bill simply removing 
from the protection of Section 8(a) of the NLRA a person who seeks a 
job without at least 50 percent motivation to work for the employer. At 
the same time, the legislation recognizes the legitimate role for 
organized labor, and it would not interfere with legitimate union 
activities. The Act contains a proviso, which, by the way, passed 
the House 398 to 0 last March during consideration of H.R. 3246, the 
Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act, making clear that the 
bill does not affect the rights and responsibilities available under 
the NLRA to anyone, provided they are a bona fide employee applicant. 
Employees and bona fide applicants will continue to enjoy their right 
to organize or engage in other concerted activities under the NLRA, 
and, employers will still be prohibited from discriminating against 
employees on the basis of union membership or union activism.

  It was alleged last Congress by some throughout the course of the 
many hearings on ``salting'' and during floor debate last March that 
this legislation overturns the Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Town 
& Country Electric, Inc.  However, in fact, the Act reinforces the 
narrow holding of Town & Country. The Court held only that paid union 
organizers can fall within the literal statutory definition of 
``employee'' contained in Section 2(3) of the NLRA. The Court did not 
address any other legal issues, but the effect of the decision is to 
uphold policies of the NLRB which subject employers to unwarranted 
union harassment and frivolous complaints.
  The Act does not change the definition of ``employee'' or ``employee 
applicant'' under the NLRA, it simply would change the Board's 
enforcement of Section 8 ``salting'' cases by declaring that employers 
may refuse to hire individuals who are not at least half motivated to 
work for the employer. So long as even a paid union organizer is at 
least 50 percent motivated to work for the employer, he or she cannot 
be refused a job pursuant to the Act.
  This bill establishes a test which does not seek to overrule Town & 
Country and does not infringe upon the legitimate rights of bona fide 
employees and employee applicants to organize on behalf of unions in 
the workplace. Indeed, the Supreme Court's holding that an individual 
can be the servant of two masters at the same time is similarly left 
untouched. In fact, it is the acknowledgment that an applicant may in 
fact be split in motivation between an employer and a union that gives 
rise to the need for examining an applicant's motivation--a ``primary 
purpose'' test that the NLRB general counsel and courts will apply.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, forcing employers to hire union business 
agents or employees, who are primarily intent on disrupting or even 
destroying employers' businesses, does not serve the interests of bona 
fide employees under the NLRA and hurts the competitiveness of small 
businesses. This bill does not prohibit organizers from getting jobs, 
and it is completely consistent with the policies of the NLRA. All the 
legislation does is give the employer some comfort that it is hiring 
someone who really wants to work for the employer. The Truth in 
Employment Act of 1999 returns a sense of balance to the NLRA that is 
being undermined by the Board's current policies. I urge my colleagues 
to support its passage.

                          ____________________