Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Then I have a letter written by Betty Tyson at T&B Metal Works, Inc. I believe it does sheet metal duct work in Jacksonville, FL. This was addressed to the Honorable Tillie Fowler, a Congresswoman from Jacksonville, FL, regarding the Truth in Employment Act in 1996 in the House of Representatives, H.R. 3211. Once again, I will not read all of this correspondence. But part of what Betty Tyson writes is the following: T&B Metal Works, Inc. has been in business for 10 years and is a sheet metal company which fabricates and installs duct work in commercial buildings. Presently, it is unlawful for a business to refuse to hire a job applicant because he is a union organizer or union member. Therefore, we have hired several ``organizers'' from Sheet Metal Local 435 over the past 10 months (since the organizing campaign began). The problem is, these people are not trying to organize our employees--they simply do everything they can think of to disrupt our business by filing false charges, and are hiding behind the labor laws which were created to protect employees. Then there are a number of specific details that are provided regarding the situation that T&B Metal Works face in Jacksonville, FL. I have a binder with similar letters and examples from all of the States of the Union. This is something that is becoming very broad- based and is becoming a widespread problem for small businesses struggling to survive and provide jobs for working people of this country. I ask unanimous consent that this letter from T&B Metal Works in Jacksonville, FL, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Then I have before me an editorial that appeared in the Anchorage Times on December 17, 1996. You will notice that most of the correspondence and editorials that have been written have occurred within the last 2, 3 years, because it is during this time period that this problem has become so exacerbated, become so widely used by union organizers who are having little success in organizing otherwise, and they are going to these very destructive tactics. This was written December 17, 1996, in the Anchorage Times, and I think the title of the editorial is significant: ``Do Bad Real Good.'' In this case, it was actually a city that was facing a union salting campaign, and the threats that were made by the IBEW representatives were so egregious that it received widespread attention. I will read part of that editorial: In a meeting with Mayor Margie Johnson in November, according to City Manager Scott Janke, the IBEW representatives threatened the community with great financial harm. The IBEW representative said: By the time we get finished with this town, it will make the open meeting lawsuit your town was in look like chicken feed. That cost the town over a million dollars in legal fees. So the union organizer representative said it was going to be ``chicken feed'' compared to what they were going to do. He said: Your town can't afford it, but we can. We will take out advertisements in the paper. We will ruin you. * * * What we will do is rip this town apart. Then he said: We do bad real good. It is that abuse, which is so often explicitly and blatantly stated, which this legislation would address. I ask unanimous consent that this Anchorage Times editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. How much time does my side have?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, after listening to Senator Kennedy, I feel I should start by checking to see if I have horns that ought to be removed. I wasn't sure, frankly, whether we were debating minimum wage, family and medical leave, Davis-Bacon, comp time, OSHA, campaign finance team or summer jobs program. I know that while there is concern about the amount of time we are spending on what Senator Kennedy feels is an inappropriate bill, the total amount of time designated and agreed upon is 2\1/2\ hours equally divided on this cloture motion. I think to the thousands of small businesses across this country, their owners and their families, this is certainly worth 2\1/2\ hours on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I know that many businesses in the State of Massachusetts are certainly worth the time we are devoting to the subject today. While Senator Kennedy may be concerned that people have not read the bill, it is 3\1/2\ pages long. I suspect that any Senator, between now and this evening, will have time not only to study it and to study its impact, but also perhaps to read some of the hundreds and hundreds of letters that every Senator in this body has received on this subject. For the sake of those who may not have time to read what I think is very important in this bill, I want to read it for the sake of my colleagues and the sake of the manager of the other side, because while part of the bill was quoted, a big part of the bill was not cited. It is this: Provided, That this sentence shall not affect the rights and responsibilities under this Act of any employee who is or was a bona fide employee applicant, including the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protections. That is language directly from the National Labor Relations Act. We say there is nothing in this bill that can possibly infringe upon the right of a worker to do what they have always done. Salting has not been an accepted practice. Disrupting the workplace, causing economic damage, seeking to destroy one's employer, has never been an accepted organizing strategy in this country, nor should it be. That is all this legislation would restrict. I suggest that when we talk about families, that we realize that small business men and women in this country have families, too. That they are workers, too. To invest a lifetime building a small business, building jobs and an economic future for their employees, to have that destroyed by this insidious practice is indefensible. I am amazed that anybody would stand and defend the practice of salting. Now, we heard a couple of examples, I think, that mischaracterize what salting is. They say it is organizing. There is nothing in this bill that would prevent organizing. In fact, it specifically says that. So, please, let's not have red herrings thrown in. A small contractor in the Boston, MA, area has experienced numerous cases of union salts coming into the company under the presumption that at the open-shop company they would have low wages and no benefits. That is what they were told. Every union salt came to realize that not only had the working conditions at the open shop been mischaracterized, but they were subjecting the company to an immoral and unscrupulous practice designed to harm the company. These employees and their families were later threatened by union members. Some compelling letters were received from employees to their union representatives saying they will quit the union and expressing disgust with the unscrupulous tactics they were put up to. Let me read from one, and I will not use the names because I think that would be unfair. This letter is very moving. She mentioned the name of the company: . . . doesn't deserve the disgrace and shame local 12 wants me to bring upon them. Every one at [the company] has worked too hard to have this done by me. I can't do it. I have been raised different. How can I raise my kids by setting an example like this. I have decided to sever my time with local 12 [in Boston, MA.] After 2 years, I'm finally there. If this is how I have to get it, I don't want it. And then she mentioned her employer's name. Please do not contact me by phone, mail or in person. I would like to remain an employee of [this company] but I understand and deserve termination. . . . Do as you see fit. I would strongly recommend to anyone involved in local 12's program, [that is referring to the salting program] to get out. I don't know how I could face you and do what they want me to do. I'm sorry I've betrayed you. I would like to apologize. There are many salts we heard from, former salts who said, ``I got out. It was too dirty. It was too much of an unscrupulous business to be part of it. I got out.'' That is what we want to ban--not legitimate organizing, but this destructive tactic to go only to destroy the company. In their own words, from the State of Massachusetts, the organizing report of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Roslindale, MA, this is what they wrote: This is the opportunity to strip these nonunion contractors of their most skilled workers and put the nonunion contractor in a situation where they won't be able to fulfill their contract obligations. That is not me. It is their own words. Not their best workers, but to strip them of skilled workers. They say: We are stripping quality workers from these shops, weakening their ability to man their jobs. Our intent with this company and companies like them is to put them out of business or have them sign on the bottom line and become a union shop. Our efforts at this major nonunion shop have resulted in a victory from the council. We stripped away the best of their workers so far. They stopped advertising for help, and in fact, they put a freeze on all hiring. This has impeded [the Company's] day-to-day running daily. They need workers at this busy time of year, but they cannot hire. The word from our sources in the company is they will use a temp agency to hire workers. This will result in their having difficulty getting quality, long-term workers and will drag down their standard of worker. We know [the Company] has already been kicked off from one job for not getting it done on time. The less work this painting contractor does, the more there is for our signatory contractors to take on, and the stronger we get. That is in their own words. You can either accept salting is legitimate, salting is just an organizing tactic, or you could listen to their own manual and to their own reports that their goal is to destroy small businesses. And that's wrong. It isn't impinging upon the rights of workers to organize, to collectively bargain. It is saying there is a right way to do it and there is a wrong way. This was never envisioned when the National Labor Relations Act was passed and it should be prohibited. In 1996, there were over 17,000 complaints to the NLRB. This isn't a rare, isolated thing. There are thousands of frivolous complaints. The cost when they are investigating, $17,500 of taxpayers' money just to investigate these frivolous charges. That is what we are dealing with. May I inquire as to how much time remains?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, sometimes when I hear debate on the floor of the Senate, I wonder what bill we are debating or whether the bill being spoken of is actually reflected in the specific provisions. I remind my colleagues once again that this bill does not overturn the Supreme Court decision, the unanimous Supreme Court decision. It does not infringe whatsoever on the rights of employees to organize. It specifically states in a provision added on page 4, the last part of the last statement in the bill, that nothing in this shall infringe upon or affect the rights and responsibilities of the employee. It comes straight from the Labor Relations Act that says nothing in this can infringe upon that. It says that an employer doesn't have to hire someone whose--it doesn't infringe if they want to organize, for whatever reason, whatever the cost, or whatever thought. It says that if your primary goal in taking that job is not to fulfill the responsibilities of the job but is to further the goals of another organization or another agency, that employer is not bound to hire you. And, yes, they can file a discrimination suit. But now the burden would be upon the NLRB lawyers to demonstrate that, in fact, this person was a bona fide employee applicant. So the employees' rights are absolutely and totally protected under this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Gorton of Washington and Senator Kyl be added as cosponsors to this bill.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Once again, we get this impression that has been presented this morning that somehow these are legitimate organizing efforts. Yet, I have read quotation after quotation from the IBEW and other unions' own organizing manuals that make it very clear that the goal is, in fact, to economically destroy the company and the employer. So I will throw one more in. This is the IBEW Organizing News Letter, volume No. 1, March 1995, on page 4: These companies know that when they are targeted with stripping, salting, and market recovery funds, it is only a matter of time before their foundations begin to crumble. The NLRB charges the attorney fees, and the loss of employees can lead to an unprofitable business. That is what they want. If they can't organize, they destroy them economically. But it not only destroys them economically, it costs the taxpayers, because we are paying the NLRB attorneys, and it ruins the reputation of good, hard-working Americans who have invested their lives in building businesses. I can't think of anything more tragic than to spend your life building a business-- spending 30 years out there starting as a mom-and-pop operation and gradually adding employees, providing a good place of employment for workers--and then, through this pernicious tactic, see your business destroyed and have to close your doors, to see those jobs lost, and to say that somehow this is antiworker. I will tell you what is antiworker. It is those who would use that kind of an unconscionable tactic to destroy the economic viability of a business. Yes, it ought to be legal to organize; that is something that ought to be protected by law; it is a precious right of workers in this country. But it is not a right to go in and destroy the economic viability of a company or business of a small business owner. That is wrong. I find it amazing that anybody could come down and defend that kind of tactic. All in the world this legislation would do is stop those kinds of tactics. Mr. President, when a union salt goes home to his family, his wife, his son, his daughter, and his wife says to him at the end of that day, ``Honey, how was your day?'' or that child says, ``Daddy, how was your day?'' can he look his wife or child in the eye and say, ``Oh, I had a great day. I participated in the destruction of a hard-working American's life dream and his livelihood''? I hope my colleagues will support this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. My time is up. My time has expired.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I thank my friend from Iowa for yielding for the question. If you will look at the language in the bill, clearly the primary purpose is to go in to further the goals of an organization or agency. If we go to apply for a job--I ask for the Senator's opinion of this-- it is my understanding that if you apply for the job, the primary purpose would be to fulfill the job, and it is not the primary purpose to fulfill the goals of the organization. That is why the employer would not be required to hire the employee under that. He would not fit the definition of a bona fide employee.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. If I could ask one more question, would the Senator consider hiring someone in his office whose primary purpose was not to work for him, but whose primary purpose was to undermine everything he is trying to achieve in the U.S. Senate?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, while the clock is burning, I think it is an appropriate time for me to take a few moments here and relate and include in the Record some of the correspondence I have been privy to concerning what small businesses are facing under the salting campaigns aimed against them and targeting them. These are only samples, but I think they are good samples of businesses across the country. I hope the Senators from these various States we are looking at will think seriously about what their constituents are facing in these targeting campaigns. This particular letter is from Kenny Electric Service and was addressed to the Honorable Dan Schaefer in the State of Colorado. Colorado, of course, like all States across the country, is facing these kinds of campaigns. And because of the building movement in Colorado, I think they have been a particular target. They have many electrical contractors, building contractors, and small business people of various sorts who are facing this and are involved in the building trades industry. I will read the last paragraph in which the letter states: Kenny Electric Service, Inc. has experienced financial losses of over $1 million as a result of union tactics and harassment. Attached are examples of harassment which caused these losses. Your help with the legislation will sincerely be appreciated. Then they stipulate some of the expenses that they have incurred. He said: We had a van with 7 union members arrive at our office to respond to an ad that we ran for an electrician. They were followed by the director of organizing, who was video taping the whole process. The above resulted in an NLRB charge, even though some of them were indeed hired. The NLRB charge was ultimately removed [and dropped] by the union [itself]. The union members filed frivolous and sometimes false OSHA claims. For instance, one day the contractor's office trailer was locked up at 7 a.m. The trailer had the drinking water in it for the job. The contractor arrived at 7:15 a.m. and opened the trailer. The union member had already called OSHA and filed the complaint because water was not available for 15 minutes. It took me 3 hours to file the appropriate OSHA report to avoid a fine and a claim. Then he goes on with another full page of similar examples of the frivolous claims that were filed against their company and the over $1 million in costs that were incurred. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield for a question, not a speech.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished assistant majority leader, Senator Nickles from Oklahoma.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. President. I think we have before us a bill that is very important and well worth the time that we have taken debating it on the floor of the Senate today. This bill deals with the unconscionable practice of some labor unions today to send paid salts or unpaid salts into a business under the guise of working for that employer but when the real intent is to wreak economic damage and ultimately bring a business and employer to his or her knees. Salting is the calculated practice of placing trained union agents in a nonunion workplace whose primary purpose is to harass, disrupt company operations, apply economic pressure, increase operating and legal costs, and ultimately put the company out of business. Mr. President, the Truth in Employment Act simply inserts a provision in the NLRA freeing an employer from the requirement of employing ``. . . any person who is not a bona fide employee applicant, in that such person seeks or has sought employment with the employer with the primary purpose of furthering another employment or agency status.'' In other words, an employer is not required to hire an employee whose primary--primary purpose--I emphasize, whose primary purpose in applying for a job is not to work and benefit the company. Participation in union activities or an in-house employee organizing committee would not constitute employment or agency status. It simply allows employers to not hire overt salts and to give employers recourse against covert salts--those who would come in surreptitiously. The bill also specifically protects the rights of bona fide employees to self-organization, labor organization membership, and collective bargaining. Let me just take a moment to emphasize what this bill will not do, because it has been so grossly mischaracterized by those who want to see this practice continue in the American workplace. No. 1, it does not undermine legitimate rights or protections. Employers will gain no ability to discriminate against union membership and activities or activities, or activities in other organizations. It only seeks to stop the destructive practice of salting; that is all. No. 2, it does not prevent union organizing or other types of organizing, such as women advocacy groups or a day-care program in the workplace. It does not prevent women and minorities from advocating their rights. It does not change the definition of ``an employee'' and what an employee is. It does not overturn the decisions of the Supreme Court. It does not overturn the decision of Town & Country Electric, Inc., which stated that paid union organizers can fall within the literal, statutory definition of ``employees.'' It does not create a system of blacklists. And it does not promote mind reading or mind control, as some of my colleagues would suggest. Salting is not a product of my imagination, it is a very great reality in the workplace today. Jack Allen, previously of Thomasville, GA, provided an account of his experiences to Representative Allen Boyd of Florida, where he currently is employed. Allen Electric was founded by his father in 1947. He eventually took over the company. Mr. Allen's family-owned business, passed down from his father, eventually sank under the heavy financial weight of legal expenses-- expenses incurred because he tried to defend himself against fraudulent discrimination charges by union salts. Mr. President, this legislation will prevent others from suffering the injuries that Mr. Allen suffered--the loss of his family company, the loss of all his hard work, the loss of his reputation. I think it is wrong for us, under current law, to compel employers to hire someone who comes into the workplace with the goal of disrupting, destroying, and eventually bankrupting their employer. That is wrong. This is a modest piece of legislation that takes a small step in restoring balance and fairness in employee-employer relations. I ask my colleagues to support this motion to invoke cloture. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, it is a little frustrating for me because there could be nothing more unambiguous than the language in this bill. As often as somebody wants to get up and yell and scream and have a tirade about this being disruptive of workers' and union members' rights and the rights to organize, if you simply read the bill, it says unambiguously and very forthrightly that there is nothing in this bill that will interfere with ``. . . a bona fide employee applicant, including the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representation of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.''

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, might I inquire as to the amount of time on each side?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, we likewise have scores of letters that have been submitted for the Record--small companies that are being destroyed by the terrible practice of salts. We have literally tens of thousands of names that have come in on petitions saying please pass something to protect small employers. The Senator from Massachusetts has questioned the logic. Why would somebody go in to destroy a company? Why not organize the company? That is the whole point. These are companies that have not been willing to organize, or they could not get the support among the employees of that company to organize. So in desperation they go in not to organize, not to legitimately persuade employees to join a union and to collectively bargain, but to economically ruin and devastate the viability of a small company. Why are we compelling employers to hire people who do not want to work but want to destroy their company? Imagine that salt who comes home at the end of the day, hired by the labor union to go in and economically destroy by filing frivolous complaints, to file OSHA complaints, or cause OSHA complaints, at the end of the day facing their wife who says, ``Honey, how did your day go?'' ``My day went great. I went out and helped to destroy the livelihood of my employer''--the American dream of what he has worked for for a lifetime. Imagine the employer going home at the end of the day, a small businessman, and his spouse says, ``How did your day go?'' ``Oh, great. I spent my day in court trying to defend myself against frivolous complaints that have been filed.'' It is not good for the employee or the employer. Many salts have come out of it and have said, ``I will not be involved in that kind of practice any more.'' I ask my colleagues this simple question, because I think it is simply an issue of common sense. Would you hire someone in your office, would you hire someone for your staff, who came in with the conscious, primary purpose of undermining everything you are working for--every legislative goal, every legislative agenda, every project in your State--and they are coming in for the purpose of undermining your role as a U.S. Senator? Would you hire that person? I think the obvious, commonsense answer--and the answer that we employ every day when we interview applicants--is no, we wouldn't do that. And yet, we are compelling small businessmen and women across this country to hire those who, they know in their heart when they come in, are going to disrupt the workplace and undermine the economic viability of the business and ultimately destroy them. This legislation is modest. It is appropriate. I ask my colleagues to invoke cloture so that we can pass this bill for the benefit of small business men and women across this country.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. This legislation does not overturn that Supreme Court decision, as I know. That court decision involved the issue of whether you could be a paid union employee and be a bona fide employee for another company, and you can't. This doesn't deal with that. This deals with the destructive practice of going in with the primary purpose of not organizing but destroying the employer.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, this morning, the Senate will immediately proceed to a vote on adoption of the conference report to accompany the military construction appropriations bill. Following that vote, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 2334, the foreign operations appropriations bill. Members are encouraged to offer and debate amendments to the foreign operations bill during today's session so that substantial progress can be made on this important legislation. As a reminder to all Members, a consent agreement has been reached with respect to the Texas low-level waste compact conference report. That legislation, along with any other legislative or executive items cleared for action, may also be considered during today's session. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reserving the right to object, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the Senators on the other side of the aisle who, I think, have made very positive and productive suggestions to improve the amendment that I have offered regarding human rights abuses in China. The simple explanation for the changes that are made, we have made the bill generic in nature rather than country-specific. I have some reservations about that because I don't want to in any way dilute, I think, the proper attention that should be placed upon what our State Department says is the greatest abusers of human rights in the world today. But at the same time, I think this makes this a very, very powerful human rights amendment applicable to all nations of the world. The ``finding'' section of the amendment remains in which we are able to outline some of the abuses evident in China today. We would add, I think, a positive suggestion, that the genital mutilation issue be added. So in addition to religious persecution and forced abortions, genital mutilation and those who would condone it would be added as criteria for those countries that would be denied their visas for those condoning that practice, the terrible practice that human rights advocates the world over and all people, I think, condemn. I want to thank Senator Biden for, I think, some very good suggestions regarding the ``definitions'' area on the Secretary's obligations in determining who would be denied these visas. The addition to the phrase ``credible information,'' adding ``and specific information,'' and adding to the phrase ``has been involved in the establishment or enforcement,'' the word ``directly''; so, ``has been directly involved in the establishment or enforcement of population control policies.'' I think that is a very helpful change that will make this much more enforceable and make it much more clear. I am grateful for that suggestion, as well. We have struck section 9012, which simply lists a number of associations and organizations which are agents of the government in carrying out some of these abuses. It is really unnecessary, an unnecessary provision that has caused confusion, because anyone, any individual, any official, who is involved in perpetrating persecution of religious minorities, coerced abortions or the genital mutilation would be covered by the amendment, without what is really extraneous language and unnecessary language. So I think these are all very positive changes and that is the content of the second-degree amendment. I think this is relevant. I think it is a very positive improvement to the appropriations bill. I appreciate the support of those on both sides of the aisle in the defeat of the motion to table.