U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–197 PDF 2004

UNION SALTING OF SMALL BUSINESS WORKSITES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE, EMPOWERMENT 

& GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 26, 2004

Serial No. 108–55

Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois, Chairman 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland, Vice 

Chairman 

SUE KELLY, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

EDWARD SCHROCK, Virginia 

TODD AKIN, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

BOB BEAUPREZ, Colorado 

CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

THADDEUS MCCOTTER, Michigan 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

FRANK BALLANCE, North Carolina 

ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa 

DONNA CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

GRACE NAPOLITANO, California 

ANI ́BAL ACEVEDO-VILA ́ , Puerto Rico 

ED CASE, Hawaii 

MADELEINE BORDALLO, Guam 

DENISE MAJETTE, Georgia 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

[VACANCY]

J. MATTHEW SZYMANSKI, Chief of Staff and Chief Counsel 

PHIL ESKELAND, Policy Director 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE, EMPOWERMENT AND GOVERNMENT 

PROGRAMS 

TODD AKIN, Missouri, Chairman 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

THADDEUS MCCOTTER, Michigan 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

GRACE NAPOLITANO, California 

ED CASE, Hawaii 

MADELEINE BORDALLO, Guam 

[VACANCY]

TOM BEZAS, Professional Staff

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

WITNESSES

Page 

DeMint, Hon. Jim, U.S. House of Representatives (SC-4) ................................... 3

Jacob, Mr. Clyde H., III, Jones Walker ................................................................. 7

Krause, Mr. Jason, Brubacher Excavating ............................................................ 9

Newman, Mr. Jonathan D., Building and Construction Trades Department, 

AFL-CIO ............................................................................................................... 10

Cloninger, Mrs. Carol, Construction Electric, Inc. ................................................ 13

Cloninger, Mr. Leonard, Construction Electric, Inc. ............................................. 14

Mix, Mr. Mark, National Right to Work ................................................................ 15

APPENDIX

Opening statements: 

Akin, Hon. W. Todd .......................................................................................... 31

Prepared statements: 

DeMint, Hon. Jim, U.S. House of Representatives (SC-4) ............................ 37

Jacob, Mr. Clyde H., III, Jones Walker .......................................................... 40

Krause, Mr. Jason, Brubacher Excavating ..................................................... 48

Newman, Mr. Jonathan D., Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO ............................................................................................. 54

Cloninger, Mr Leonard and Mrs. Carol, Construction Electric, Inc. ............ 78

Mix, Mr. Mark, National Right to Work ......................................................... 81

(III) 

(1)

UNION SALTING OF SMALL BUSINESS 

WORKSITES 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMITTEE ON WORKFORCE, EMPOWERMENT, AND

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:40 a.m. in Room 

2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Akin presiding. Present: Representatives Akin, DeMint, Udall. 

Chairman AKIN. I now call this hearing of the Subcomittee on Workforce Empowerment and Government Programs to order. I am going to read a statement to begin with, and then I believe we will probably go directly to the witness. Good morning, and thank you for coming to our Subcomittee’s first hearing of the 108th Congress, second sessions. For the first 

hearing of the year I wanted to choose something very significant, 

something very close to small business owners. When the issue of salting was chosen for this hearing, I had no idea just how significant it was. Salting, for those of you who don’t 

know, is the act of deliberately inserting a union member, or salt, 

into a not-yet-unionized company. This salt applies for a position 

on the worksite, sometimes coming forth as a union member during 

his or her application process, and sometimes leaving that fact off. This plant, or salt, seeks a position on the worksite in order to 

establish a wellspring of support for the union effort, eventually 

unionizing or organizing that non-union company. This salt is often 

a member of a local union being paid by that union for his or her 

services. 

Employees often do not know that their new co-worker is also a 

paid union organizer, and like all salesmen, this new co-worker of 

theirs will collect a fee on selling these unsuspecting workers on 

the idea of unionizing. 

A salt is often sent in after an honest, forthright attempt to 

unionize has already failed. 

When an employer is confronted by one of these salts, he is put 

in a lose/lose position. If he does not hire the applicant, the applicant and his union can run to the National Labor Relations Board 

and file charges of unfair hiring practices. These charges often lead 

to long and dragged-out costly litigation, which the national unions 

have plenty of money to support, but small businesses are not 

equipped for. 

2

With us today are Mr. and Mrs. Cloninger. They will be able to 

tell us their story, which illustrates exactly what I have explained. 

Mr. and Mrs. Cloninger should be commended, as well as the other 

members who have come forth today. Many have not. 

My staff and the staff of related organizations contacted many 

people to participate in today’s hearing. Most people were frightened to give testimony. American citizens were frightened to take 

advantage of their God-given right to speak the truth of what had 

happened to them. 

Why? Why were people so frightened that they declined to appear before the United States Congress? 

Actually, they had good reason. It appears that there is something to this salting, for when these people have spoken up before, 

they have experienced just how vital salting is to the unions. People we have been in contact with told us stories of receiving numerous death threats, having loved ones threatened, and even being 

run off the road. 

Now, I have spent my time dealing with unions before. For years 

I served in the Missouri State Legislature, and in my time there, 

I had my share of dealing with unions and their tactics. I know 

what kinds of threats people are capable of, and understand the 

concerns and fears of these business owners. Even members of public office are not above the threats of people who would intimidate 

us. 

It is for this reason and many others that I applaud my friend, 

Congressman Jim DeMint, for proposing this piece of legislation, 

entitled ‘‘Truth in Employment Act of 2003.’’ That is House Resolution 1793. 

I would like to thank you, Congressman, for coming to this hearing today and speaking to us about this legislation. 

Because of the fact that we have Congressman Toomey here, 

also, I would recognize Congressman Toomey, if you would like to 

make a comment. 

[Chairman Akin’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Mr. TOOMEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would just add 

very briefly that I am very eager to hear and read the testimony 

of our witnesses today. 

This strikes me as a disturbing practice, the salting practice. It 

strikes me that way for a variety of reasons, but one of which is 

that it seems to me—and we will learn better today, I hope—but 

it seems to me that it is often founded upon a fundamental deceit, 

a deceit in which an individual approaches a company with the 

pretense that he or she is there to work, to get paid for his work, 

and to go home when his work is finished. But in fact, the individual is there with a very different agenda, which is not consistent 

with that, and which is information withheld from the employer, 

and from his fellow workers. And I think it ought to be troubling 

whenever any systematic effort is undertaken that is founded upon 

deceit. 

So I am looking forward to learning whether or not that is true. 

And I would certainly like to learn whether, and to what extent, 

individuals are actually frightened or intimidated about simply telling the truth and testifying in public. There is absolutely no place 

for intimidation in public discourse. So I hope to learn that that is 

3

not the case. But in any case, I am going to be sitting here with 

open ears to find out. 

So thank you very much for having this hearing. And I welcome 

my colleague, and commend him for his legislation. 

Chairman AKIN. Thank you very much, Congressman Toomey. I 

appreciate having you, and also Congressman DeMint. It has been 

just such a pleasure serving with both of you gentlemen. And I 

don’t want to take any more time; I would like to give you as much 

time as you need, Congressman, to explain your legislation, and 

make your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM DeMINT, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, (SC-4) 

Mr. DEMINT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman 

Toomey. I appreciate the opportunity to review the details of this 

bill, and I particularly appreciate the Subcomittee’s interest in the 

issue. 

And I am here today to speak about House Resolution 1793, 

which we call the Truth in Employment Act. It is a bill I introduced last summer to stem the harm being done now to companies 

by salting, which you have explained. It is a union tactic that is 

causing material economic damage to small businesses every day 

in this country. 

At the outset, if I could add to some of the definition, Mr. Chairman, that you mentioned about the definition of salting. While 

union supporters and the National Labor Review Board have defined the term as placing of union members on non-union job sites 

for the purpose of organizing, it has been widely documented that 

the true motivation of many salts is simply to increase the cost of 

doing business for non-union contractors, regardless of the wishes 

of the employer’s bonafide employees. 

Salting is much more than someone seeking employment for the 

purpose of union organizing. It is repeated attempts to interfere 

with business operations, harass employees, and cause economic 

harm through illegal actions and frivolous legal complaints against 

employers. 

Union organizers who fail to convince employees to organize will 

use salting to shut down non-union companies, often going to extreme lengths, including preventing deliveries to job sites and destroying building materials. 

In my own state of South Carolina, salting has resulted in the 

loss of hundreds of jobs. In Sumter, South Carolina, Yuasa Exide 

battery plant was targeted by the IUE CWA union. Union salts infiltrated the plant, and when employees there did not unionize, the 

union retaliated by sabotaging product, causing work slow-downs, 

making verbal threats and threatening phone calls, and putting 

nails in people’s tires. 

Union leaders threatened to shut down the plant, and that is exactly what they did. Six hundred and fifty people were laid off because the plant could not afford the increased costs of doing business resulting from the salting. 

This plant, which was the first tenant in Sumter’s industrial 

park, had been there since 1965, and provided high-tech, good-payVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\93197.TXT MIKEA
4

ing jobs in a rural area, was forced to close its doors just because 

of salting. 

The impacts of salting are felt by many. Companies see increased 

costs from having to defend themselves against labor relations complaints, as well as lost hours of productivity having to fight these 

charges. 

Consumers are impacted by salting when they experience increased costs, reduced competition, and fewer new jobs being created. 

Federal Agencies spend untold sums to investigate claims that 

are later found to be without merit, forcing taxpayers to effectively 

subsidize union activity. 

To put it bluntly, salting is a job-killer. At a time when we are 

working in Congress to enact policies which will spur job growth 

and ensure future economic prosperity, salting abuses are standing 

directly in the way of these goals. We can no longer allow American 

jobs to suffer at the hands of Washington labor bosses. 

To prevent salting abuses from causing more harm to employers, 

I have introduced the Truth in Employment Act, along with Representatives Cass Ballenger and John Carter. This legislation 

amends Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, to make 

clear that an employer is not required to hire any person who seeks 

a job in order to promote interests unrelated to those of the employer. 

This bill in no way infringes upon any rights or protections otherwise accorded employees under the NLRA. Employees will continue to enjoy their right to organize. The bill merely seeks to alleviate the legal pressures imposed upon employers to hire individuals whose overriding purpose for seeking the job is to disrupt the 

employer’s workplace, or otherwise inflict economic harm designed 

to put the employer out of business. 

Following my testimony you will hear from businesspeople who 

are on the front lines of the salting debate, and live with the effects 

of it every day. And I applaud them for coming here today, in spite 

of potential pressure not to do so. 

Mr. Chairman, again I thank you for allowing me to testify. I 

would like to submit one testimony from past hearings. It is serial 

number 10572. That was the Committee on Education in Workforce, a testimony by Mr. Cook, a former union salt, of how he was 

trained, what his purposes were, so that we make it particularly 

clear that this is not a benign problem. It is a serious problem in 

American workplaces that we need to shut off here at the federal 

level. 

So without objection, I would appreciate——

Chairman AKIN. Without objection. 

Mr. DEMINT[CONTINUING]Thank you, sir. And thank you for the 

opportunity to testify. And I would be glad to answer any questions 

that you have. 

[Representative DeMint’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman AKIN. Well, let me start to try to understand a little 

bit the nature of how your bill works. You said that the essence 

of the bill is that an employer doesn’t have to hire somebody who 

has some interest totally separate from the interest of the emVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\93197.TXT MIKEA
5

ployer. In other words, the employee is working for the union, as 

opposed to for the company that he is being paid to work for. 

How would that be enforced? And isn’t that kind of a matter of 

judgment as to what somebody’s priorities are? I mean, practically, 

is there a way to enforce it, I guess is what I am asking. 

Mr. DEMINT. It should be our goal to enforce it. And I think not 

only should employers have the right to decline hiring someone 

who we know to be a union salt, but it would also allow them, if 

found that they came to work under false pretenses, would allow 

them to terminate that employee without having to deal with lawsuits from the National Labor Review Board. 

Chairman AKIN. So this would give them two outs, then. First of 

all, if the guy comes in and says ‘‘I am a salt,’’ then they could 

choose not to hire the person, according to your legislation. 

Mr. DEMINT. Exactly, or with a background check it is determined that the——

Chairman AKIN. Okay. Later somebody comes in under the radar 

and says ‘‘I just need a job,’’ and then it turns out that they are 

a salt, then that would be a basis to terminate? Would that allow 

them to do that, then? 

Mr. DEMINT[CONTINUING]That is my intent. And we might have 

some counsel here to indicate if there is any disagreement in that, 

but that is certainly the intent. If someone is found to be working 

under false pretenses, that they have not told the truth, as Congressman Toomey talked about, the whole purpose of employment 

is deceit, then the employer should have the right not to have that 

person working for them. 

And that is really what we are talking about, is freedom of employers to hire people who are there to further the goals of that employer. 

Chairman AKIN. That sounds straightforward. I guess it would 

be interesting to hear whether legally this is enforceable, whether 

the language is right, but I trust that it is. 

I would ask my colleague, Congressman Toomey, do you have 

any questions about the legislation? 

Mr. TOOMEY. Well, I do. And maybe Representative DeMint could 

answer this question. 

Are salts typically, when they are working for a contractor, for 

instance, are they typically also being paid by a labor union? 

Mr. DEMINT. That is my understanding. And I think we may 

find out more from some of the other witnesses. But that is generally, I think, as the Chairman said when he introduced it, that 

is often the case. 

Mr. TOOMEY. So they are showing up for work. They are punching a clock, they are getting paid by that employer. But they are 

also getting paid by someone else. 

Mr. DEMINT. Right. 

Mr. TOOMEY. It only stands to reason that the someone else who 

is paying them wants something in return for having paid them. 

I mean, they are there for some other purpose. 

Mr. DEMINT. Exactly. And for the employer to have to pay someone to disrupt their business, it should not be allowed. 

Mr. TOOMEY. Right. Now, the way I read the summary of your 

bill, it says that an employer would not be required to hire a perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\93197.TXT MIKEA
6

son who seeks a job in order to promote interests unrelated to 

those of the employer. 

Is it your intention that it be presumed that if you are on the 

payroll of someone other than the employer, that fact alone would 

be determinative evidence that you are there to support some other 

interest? 

Mr. DEMINT. That would be my intent. And certainly that is 

clear. 

Mr. TOOMEY. Under current law, is an employer allowed to ask 

on an application, for instance, when an applicant comes to look for 

a job, is it legal to ask whether or not you are currently, or if you 

got hired you would be paid by another entity, including a labor 

union? 

Mr. DEMINT. I am not sure if it is or not. Someone else here 

maybe could answer that question. But certainly it is something we 

need to find out. 

Mr. TOOMEY. It is something that, my understanding is that it 

can result in litigation, in any case. 

Mr. DEMINT. Right. And that is the problem with a small employer. You will hear from them today. There is no way a 10-person 

company has the resources to deal with the National Labor Review 

Board, with the attorneys coming in from large labor unions. There 

is no way you can sustain that type of attack. 

Mr. TOOMEY. Right. 

Mr. DEMINT. In many cases, they have a lose/lose situation. If 

they try to fire someone who is working against them, they end up 

in litigation. If they keep those people there, they are likely to shut 

them down. 

And so we have got the American employer, who we count on to 

create jobs and prosperity in this country, at a severe disadvantage 

to those who want to destroy them. 

Mr. TOOMEY. Thank you very much. 

Chairman AKIN. Thank you very much. I do not see any other 

people to ask questions, although there are some additional things 

that we may be able to develop from our second panel of witnesses. 

I don’t know what your schedule permits, Congressman, but if 

you would care to join us up here for a while, for the second panel, 

we would be honored to have you, if you would care to do that. 

Mr. DEMINT. I may have to leave, but I will certainly make sure 

I get all the testimony today. So I will stay for a little while. But 

thank you so much. 

Chairman AKIN. Thank you very much. Can we have now the 

second panel come forward? 

I just want to, once again, formally thank all of you for taking 

the time, some of you to fly some considerable distance to join us 

today. And I understand that there is, I am sorry to say, some risk 

even associated with your coming. 

Of course, that is the whole point of the hearing. But I do want 

to thank you. So I just want to first of all thank you all for coming. 

I think what we will do in terms of the order of procedure is, I 

am going to allow each of you to make opening statements. I am 

just going to let everybody have their say. And then depending on 

the different Congressmen and their schedules, the ones that come 

and go, will be able to ask questions. I will ask questions, as well. 

7

I think that is probably a straightforward way to proceed. I think 

we can move the meeting along fairly quickly that way. So without further ado, I would like to introduce Clyde Jacob, 

III, from Jones Walker from New Orleans. I believe that, Clyde, 

you are a labor lawyer, and you have fought unions on behalf of 

victimized businesses. Is that overstating things, or is that pretty 

accurate? 

Mr. JACOB. That is pretty accurate. Thank you. 

Chairman AKIN. We are going to give you each five minutes for 

opening statement. 

Also, if you would like to just submit something written for the 

record, you can do that. And then if you just want to talk off your 

notes and communicate whatever, however you want to handle the 

five minutes is up to you. 

Clyde, would you proceed, please? Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF CLYDE H. JACOB, III, JONES WALKER 

Mr. JACOB. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the 

Subcomittee on Workforce Empowerment and Government Programs. I am pleased to be here, and thank you for your kind invitation. 

I am here today to testify on behalf of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C. I serve on the Chamber’s 

Labor Relations Committee, as well as its Subcomittee, focused on 

issues specific to the National Labor Relations Act. 

I have written testimony that is much more extensive. 

Chairman AKIN. Excuse me. Could you possibly bring the mike 

just a little bit closer? I think they would pick up better. Even a 

little more than that maybe. That wire is long enough you will be 

able to do it, I think. 

Mr. JACOB. How is that? 

Chairman AKIN. That is great. Thank you. 

Mr. JACOB. You are welcome. I have written testimony that is 

much more extensive. I would like an opportunity just to summarize my written testimony, if I could. 

I agree very much with the definition of salting that has been expressed so far in the hearing today. Unions often claim that salting 

is about the right of employees to organize. However, nothing could 

be further from the truth. 

Salting is not about organizing for the employees. It is about organizing in spite of the employees. It is depriving employees of secret-ballot elections and information about the union. It is also 

about harassing, intimidating, and eliminating non-union employers. 

Salting is particularly harsh on small business owners. I would 

like to tell you just one brief story of a case involving a Mr. Bill 

Tillinghast, the owner of Custom Fabrication, Inc., a small precision fabrication company in Kenner, Louisiana, a New Orleans suburb. 

Bill is a welder by trade, and began his career in 1964 building 

Chrysler automobiles for the United Auto Workers Union. In 1974, 

with $600 in the bank, and wife, two children, a mortgage, and a 

lot of determination, Bill left his welding job to go after a piece of 

the American dream: to start a precision fabrication company. 

8

He operated out of a garage for four years, until he had saved 

enough money to move into a small warehouse. By last year he had 

grown to 16 employees; he was planning to hire three more employees. So he did what every normal small business owner does looking to hire workers; he placed an ad in the paper. Bill never expected what would happen next. 

On January 10, 2003, Sheet Metal Workers Local Union President, Local Number 11, applied for a welding position. Mr. Lopez’s 

application clearly demonstrated his union affiliation. Even though 

he had no precision welding experience, he was still offered the opportunity to take a welding test, a requirement of all applicants. 

Mr. Lopez took the test and passed one test, but refused to take 

the second test. His reply was, ‘‘I don’t care. I will sweep floors. All 

I want to do is organize this place.’’

The foreman replied, ‘‘If you do not want to take the test, you 

should leave,’’ which he did. 

Two days later another Sheet Metal Workers member came, and 

did the exact same thing: applied, was interviewed, and refused to 

take the test. Both men then filed charges with the National Labor 

Relations Board alleging discriminatory failure to hire because of 

union affiliation. They also said that the company—and this was 

never the case—said the company did not want to have anything 

to do with unions. 

After three months of investigation, and approximately $10,000 

in attorneys’ fees to Custom Fabrication, not a small sum to a 

small business—I mean, we may scoff at $10,000, but for a small 

business that is a lot of money—the NLRB offered to settle if Bill 

would post a notice stating he would treat all union and non-union 

applicants equally. Bill was reluctant to do so, but with mounting 

costs, he did agree to do that. 

The moral of the story is this. Bill Tillinghast worked his entire 

life to create a business he could be proud of, a business that would 

support his family and the families of his employees; the type of 

business that helped make this country great. And two individuals 

who had no intention of working were able to come into Bill’s business, refuse to take the tests required for employment, and then 

file a charge with the NLRB alleging discrimination. 

The union agents did not spend a cent for the NLRB’s prosecution of their charge. Instead, the American people, including Bill 

Tillinghast and Custom Fabrication, Inc., were forced to foot the 

bill. 

The intent of union salts is not to genuinely seek employment. 

In my estimation, we have to question whether it is appropriate for 

finding a violation of the NLRA for an employer for failing to hire 

an individual who is not genuinely seeking employment. 

In this and in past Congresses, several measures have been introduced that would address this issue. And Representative 

DeMint is one that the Chamber fully supports. 

Thank you for your opportunity to testify today. I would be 

happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

[Mr. Jacob’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman AKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Jacob. And our next 

witness is Jason Krause, with Brubacher Excavating, 

Bowmansville, Pennsylvania. The company has had consistent saltVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\93197.TXT MIKEA
9

ing from two different unions from 2001 through today. The majority of the suits have been dismissed by NLRB as frivolous. Their 

local unions will not quit, however, and they have been salted as 

recently as this past Wednesday. 

Is that right, Mr. Krause? 

Mr. KRAUSE. That is correct. 

Chairman AKIN. Please proceed with your five-minute testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JASON KRAUSE, BRUBACHER EXCAVATING 

Mr. KRAUSE. First of all, I would like to say thank you for having 

me here. And I would like to summarize my statement, and ask 

that it be included in its entirety for the record, what I have passed 

on to you. 

Chairman AKIN. Without objection. 

Mr. KRAUSE. Once again, my name is Jason Krause, and I am 

the Human Resource Manager for Brubacher Excavating. It is a 

privately-owned company that has 300 men and women in Southeastern PA working there. 

B.E.I. is a proud member of the Associated Builders and Contractors, a national trade association made up of construction and construction-related firms across the country, all of whom are bound 

by their common belief in the merit shop philosophy. 

I am here today to share some of my experiences on salting 

abuse, to express to you the desperate need for legislation prohibiting this type of tactic. 

Salting has become an instrument of economic destruction aimed 

at non-union companies. It has little to do with organizing. 

A publication of the IBEW, one of salting’s principal proponents, 

has described that salting’s tactics are filled with infiltration, confrontation, litigation, disruption, and hopefully annihilation of a 

non-union construction company. 

Brubacher Excavating and I have become all too familiar with 

this type of disruptive, intimidating, and damaging pressure tactic. 

A little history. Between March and May of 2001, nine members 

of the Operating Engineers Local 542 tried salting BEI. Upon 

learning that we would not grant them employment, the union filed 

an unfair labor charge with the National Labor Relations Board. 

We retained counsel. We made our defense known to the National Labor Relations Board, at which point the Operating Engineers withdrew their charge. 

Earlier this year, and in the past 2003, a business agent from the 

laborer’s union informed Brubacher Excavating we were infringing 

on their ‘‘union territory,’’ and were taking money out of the pockets of union members by doing business in this area. He went on 

to make clear that if Brubacher Excavating does not choose to have 

a potential business relationship with them, they would have no 

other choice but to launch a union campaign against our company. 

Soon after that conversation, a year-long campaign of union harassment and intimidation was initiated by the Laborers Union and 

the Operating Engineers. We have endured everything from mass 

picketing, job shutdowns, picketing of our own open house for our 

families, friends, and employees. Meetings were set up with our 

customers to try to destroy relationships, long-term relationships 

with our customers. 

10

It all became clear to us that we were victims of an unprovoked 

union campaign to smear our company’s image. 

From March through June of 2003, no less than 17 applications 

for employment were filed by union salts. Some applications were 

immediately dismissed by BEI because they were filed incorrectly, 

and contained false information. Other applicants were disqualified 

for inconsistencies regarding wage and other employment history, 

past employment history, which were later identified. 

Over the course of the year the Operating Engineers and the Laborers Union made frequent trips to our office with the sole intent 

to harass our company. In total, 11 organizers were involved in filing unfair labor charges. The charges were so clearly based off of 

a frivolous nature, all but two of those charges were dismissed. 

B.E.I., along with ABC, firmly believes in laws designed to protect employees. However, these laws are being manipulated by the 

labor unions in order to regain their diminishing market share. 

Salting abuse has used corrosive government power to accomplish union goals, rather than competing fairly and ethically based 

upon merit. 

In defending ourselves against false and frivolous charges, we 

have incurred thousands of dollars in legal fees, delays, and lost 

hours. While unions have the right to attempt to organize workers, 

open-shop companies and their employees have the right to refrain 

from supporting union activities, and be free from this type of harassment. 

I would like to thank you for allowing me to speak. 

[Mr. Krause’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman AKIN. Thank you very much, Jason, for joining us 

today, and for your testimony. We will have some questions in a 

few minutes when we finish our other witnesses. 

The next witness is Jonathan Newman. I understand, Mr. Newman, that you are a representative of AFL-CIO. Is that correct? 

Mr. NEWMAN. No. I am here on behalf of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, which is a separate 

entity. 

Chairman AKIN. Okay. The Building and Construction——

Mr. NEWMAN. Trades Department. 

Chairman AKIN[CONTINUING]Okay. Now, does that mean that you 

work for the union, or for the government? 

Mr. NEWMAN. I am a lawyer in private practice. Our firm represents labor unions. 

Chairman AKIN. Oh, it does, okay. Then I didn’t have as much 

information as I wanted. You have five minutes for your testimony, 

Mr. Newman. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN D. NEWMAN, BUILDING AND 

CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO 

Mr. NEWMAN. Thank you, Chairman Akin, ranking member 

Udall, for allowing me to present the views of the Building and 

Construction Trades Department on the issue before the Committee today. 

My name is Jonathan Newman, and I am a partner in the law 

firm of Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Lafer, and Yellig here in Washington, D.C. We serve proudly as the general counsel to the BuildVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\93197.TXT MIKEA
11

ing and Construction Trades Department, and have done so for 

many years. 

The Building and Construction Trades Department is comprised 

of 15 national and international unions representing approximately 

one million hard-working men and women in the construction industry, and several million more outside of construction. 

I ask that the more extensive written statement on behalf of the 

Building and Construction Trades Department’s President, Edward 

C. Sullivan, be made a part of the record. And I ask, Mr. Chairman, that, like the statements of the other witnesses here, it be 

made available to the public on that table. 

Chairman AKIN. Without objection. 

Mr. NEWMAN. The Building and Construction Trades Department 

has witnessed several attempts over the years to do what this bill 

seeks to do. And that is, allow employers to discriminate against 

union organizers and supporters with impunity. Those bills which 

were introduced and considered in the 104th, 105th, 106th, and 

107th Congresses were each defeated, and this bill should meet a 

similar fate in this final year of the 108th Congress. 

The bottom line of our position is this. Salting is about organizing: organizing construction employers, organizing construction 

workers, period. 

Construction unions use skilled workers as organizers, tell them 

to do the best work possible, and to organize only within the confines of the law. These organizers are often referred to as salts. 

Very often they are volunteer organizers. They agree to hire on 

with non-union contractors to perform a good day’s work for a day’s 

pay, and help unorganized workers gain better wages and benefits 

for their families. 

These organizers engage in the type of activity that Congress, 

the United States Supreme Court, and the National Labor Relations Board have recognized as being both protected and within the 

central core purpose of the National Labor Relations Act. 

Contractors do not, Mr. Chairman, and should not, as they often 

claim, lose control of their jobs or their businesses as a result of 

a salting campaign. A salt, like any other employee, is subject to 

the employer’s direction; must do his or her work in a satisfactory 

manner; and must obey all lawful work rules. 

What is really at stake here is whether employers should be allowed to discriminate against employees on the basis of their union 

membership and activity. 

Let me address for a moment, if I may, a fallacy I have heard 

in connection with this bill. And that is the idea that it would not 

curtail legitimate rights that employees currently have under the 

National Labor Relations Act. That is flat-out wrong. 

The United States Supreme Court has held unanimously, in a 

nine-to-zero decision, that union organizer salts are entitled to the 

protections of the National Labor Relations Act, and cannot be discriminated against. This bill would eviscerate those rights and 

allow employers to create blacklists of union organizers, effectively 

hanging a sign in every non-union shop saying ‘‘union supporters 

need not apply.’’

Also, most unions are small organizations. And most union officers are part-time union officials. This bill would allow employers 

12

to discriminate against those officers, and against everyone who 

could be said to be furthering their responsibilities when they 

apply for employment. 

For example, a union shop steward could be legally discriminated 

against when he or she seeks a promotion. With seeking that promotion, that shop steward may be deemed to be seeking employment ‘‘in furtherance of his union responsibilities.’’

Thus, under current law, the situation of a salt is no different 

from that of an employee who is already on the job, and who decides to support his or her union. Both are entitled to the protection of the NLRA. 

Mr. Chairman, I understand that those who resist organizing the 

construction industry claim that unions seek to drive up employers’ 

costs, or even run them out of business. There are two answers to 

that claim. 

First, the goal of organizing in all industries is to eliminate unfair competition based on substandard wages and working conditions. If a non-union employer is paying substandard wages and is 

organized, it certainly may, after a collective bargaining agreement 

is negotiated, have to pay the higher wages and benefits in the 

union contract. 

Second, salting may result in increased costs to employers in another way. Many non-union contractors gain an unfair competitive 

advantage by violating various laws. When these contractors save 

money by violating the wage and hour laws, or by failing to comply 

with the prevailing wage requirements, or by failing to comply with 

OSHA requirements designed to protect the health and safety of 

their employees, it is fair to expose them, and we make absolutely 

no apologies for doing so. 

Those who violate worker protective laws victimize not only their 

employees, but the legitimate contractors, both the union and nonunion, who abide by the law. 

Finally, if I may, there is a claim that——

Chairman AKIN. You five minutes are up, but finish up. It is fine, 

go ahead. 

Mr. NEWMAN[CONTINUING] May I have one more minute? 

Chairman AKIN. Yes. 

Mr. NEWMAN. Finally, there is a claim that unions file frivolous 

charges with the NLRB to cause employers to incur legal costs. 

That is simply not true, and is not borne out by any of the statistics kept by the NLRB. 

In fact, as set forth in our written statement, the number of unfair labor practice charges filed against employers has actually decreased since the Supreme Court’s Town and Country decision in 

1995, and the percentage of charges that have been deemed meritorious by the NLRB has held constant for decades. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Mr. Newman’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman AKIN. Thank you for your testimony. Next witness is 

going to be—maybe I will just take a moment to introduce Congressman Udall, who is the minority Chair of this Committee. And 

he is going to be making a statement following your five-minute 

testimonies. 

And it is a pleasure to have you here, Tom, this morning. 

13

Let’s see. The next witness is going to be Mr. Leonard and Mrs. 

Carol Cloninger. They are Construction Electric, Inc., from Helena, 

Montana. I think you may have the award for traveling the farthest to get here, but I know you come from God’s country up there 

anyway. 

And you are, as I understand it, a literal mom-and-pop put out 

of business by costly salting induced by litigation. I think that was 

the case that you are going to make, or the story that you have to 

tell us, is that correct? 

Mrs. CLONINGER. That is correct. 

Chairman AKIN. If you would proceed, you have five minutes. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF CAROL CLONINGER, CONSTRUCTION 

ELECTRIC, INC. 

Mrs. CLONINGER. Thank you. And I have a prepared testimony 

that I would like part of the record. 

Chairman AKIN. Without objection. 

Mrs. CLONINGER. My name is Carol Cloninger; this is my husband, Leonard. We are former officers of Construction Electric in 

Helena, Montana. We started this company in 1989 out of a pickup 

truck, to provide a living for our family. 

When we evolved into a larger operation, employing nine electricians, we had a bookkeeper, office manager, and a shop complex 

in Helena. 

In October of 1998, up until 2000, the International Brotherhood 

of Electrical Workers began targeting our company by filing frivolous complaints to the Montana Electrical Board, all of which were 

dismissed without merit. 

In August of 2001, we dismissed two electricians from our company for unsatisfactory job performance. Both had been recently 

hired, and they were on probation. They were essentially on the 

payroll, and not working in a productive manner. 

In late September of 2001, we ran an ad in the newspaper for 

an electrician, and began receiving job applications through the 

mail, through registered mail, from the local IBEW organizer, who 

had harassed us previously in the previous years. 

At that time, we contacted a labor attorney in Missoula, Montana, and acted on his advice. We also received application from an 

organizer in Billings, from the IBEW. And Billings is 250 miles 

from the capitol city, he was interested in coming to work for us 

from that far away. 

We received a total of five applications, two of those which were 

what they called overt salts, and three which were covert salts. 

And that is all lined out in the testimony that we submitted. 

In November of 2001, we received notice from the NLRB that we 

had been brought up on alleged charges for certain unfair labor 

practices by three of those five applicants. We attended a preliminary deposition in Missoula, to determine if there were grounds for 

discrimination, and that was followed by a hearing in July of 2002. 

And in September of 2002, judgment was handed down in favor of 

the IBEW. 

We received notification in March of 2003 of back wages owed to 

three of these individuals, for an amount of $42,000. And we were 

14

ordered to offer them jobs to make them whole. I might add that 

there were long periods of time, when we had asked numerous 

times for this process to be sped up, and we were told by members 

of the National Board that there was a tremendous back load, and 

that they would get to our case hopefully in time. But it ended up 

costing us a large amount of money because of the delays. 

In April of 2003, my husband and I discussed our options, and 

we decided to close the company’s doors. We could not continue to 

do business in that manner and be profitable. 

Let me back up. The NLRB confiscated our bank account and our 

accounts receivable in June of 2003, for a total amount of $32,000. 

Late in July of this last year, we agreed to settle with the NLRB 

for that amount of $32,000, and this was to avoid bankruptcy of 

our company, and also due to the threat that my husband could go 

to jail if he didn’t comply. 

We provided benefits, such as retirement and health insurance 

and dental insurance, to our employees. We had one electrician 

who had been a diabetic since he was 19 years old; had never been 

able to afford quality health insurance. He was able to get an insulin pump and all the supplies that he needed to be a productive 

worker and live a healthy life. 

We had another electrician who had never had health insurance 

his whole life. He needed extensive dental work, and he also had 

a drug problem, which he was able to go into rehab with our insurance that we provided, as well as get his teeth fixed. He is now living in the Seattle area working as an electrician, and is doing well. 

We produced two master electricians, and we had four apprentices that were able to get out into the community and are doing 

well. 

This was a terrible loss for us. We were taught when we were 

growing up that we needed to be accountable, and that it was always best to tell the truth. We ask you to, as we share our story 

with you, we ask everybody here to consider their values, and to 

consider this bill in an effort, and in the beliefs of our country, that 

we do things for the right reasons, and that we be honest. 

Thank you very much. And we are always open for questions, if 

you have any. 

[Mrs. Cloninger’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman AKIN. We will do the questions in a little while. Thank 

you, Carol, and then Leonard. 

STATEMENT OF LEONARD CLONINGER, CONSTRUCTION 

ELECTRIC, INC. 

Mr. CLONINGER. The only thing I would like to say is, everyone 

testifying here today is right on, except for the legal representation 

for the AFL. I feel like he hasn’t been in the trenches, and he really 

doesn’t know what it is like to be a small businessman. 

That is all I would like to say. 

Chairman AKIN. Thank you for your testimony. Our last witness 

is Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work, from Washington, D.C. You have five minutes, Mr. Mix. 

15

STATEMENT OF MARK MIX, NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK 

Mr. MIX. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I find it difficult to speak 

after this story that we have heard from our two witnesses just 

now. 

I am Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Committee. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here. 

On behalf of the 2.2 million members of the National Right to 

Work Committee, we commend you and Congressman DeMint for 

shedding light on this issue. This is an important issue. 

I want to approach the issue from a little different angle. I would 

ask that my statement be included in the record. I am going to deviate a little——

Chairman AKIN. Without objection. 

Mr. MIX[CONTINUING]Bit and respond to what has been said here 

today. 

We, the Right to Work Committee, are dedicated to the principle 

that every individual worker should have the right, but should not 

be compelled, to join or financially support a labor union. 

We are talking about small businesses, and the devastation that 

this particular practice of salting wreaks on those people that own 

small businesses. 

But there is an element, as well, that needs to be discussed and 

considered. And that is the element of the employees of these companies. These individual workers, in most cases, have decided, for 

whatever reason, not to join or organize a union in their workplace. 

And the only way that union officials can get a toehold in these 

places of business is to send someone in, who in many cases is paid 

to do so by the union. 

The labor laws in this country protect an individual to exercise 

their rights, vis-a-vis unionization. Section 7, the preamble of the 

National Labor Relations Act, states very clearly that individual 

employees have these rights. And to discriminate against someone 

based on union membership or non-membership in a union is 

against the law. And people are prosecuted for that, and they 

should be. 

The section 7 preamble of the National Labor Relations Act unfortunately also contains a provision that allows for compulsory unionism. And that is, individuals can be forced to pay dues to join 

a union, or lose their job. 

In the cases that we have heard about with these small businesses, while the small businessmen and women are obviously devastated by this, what about the employees that work for these companies? They have and can exercise their rights to join unions or 

not to join unions, but they haven’t. And now we allow, through the 

Supreme Court—the AFL-CIO is correct, unfortunately the Supreme Court has ruled on this witness. It is unbelievable to us that 

salting is currently sanctioned under the National Labor Relations 

Act. 

As it stands today, salting is interpreted and enforced based on 

a flawed interpretation of section 8(a), we believe. Small business 

owners and employees are continually brought up on unfair labor 

charges for insisting that employees focus primarily on doing the 

job they are actually being paid to do. 

16

To give you some real-life examples, and we have heard a couple 

of good ones here, I want to take the case of Randy Truckenbodt, 

who is the owner of a non-union equipment company out in Illinois, 

who had several dozen employees. His business was attacked. A 

union salt applied for the job and was given the job. Within 

months, using company information provided by the salt, union officials and agents began following Mr. Truckenbodt’s employees as 

they delivered their products to clients’ businesses. 

They warned customers that they would face picketing and 

strikes unless they stopped buying and renting from Mr. 

Truckenbodt and his employees. Union members also picketed in 

front of Mr. Truckenbodt’s offices 24 hours a day, seven days a 

week, for months. 

This salting campaign cost this company over $600,000 in lost 

customers and legal fees. 

In addition to the intimidation tactics, Mr. Truckenbodt’s company was vandalized dozens of times during the so-called organizing drive. Vehicle tires were slashed, electrical cables were cut, 

truck windows were broken, all during this effort to force union 

control over his employees. 

In 23 years prior to this organizing drive, there had never been 

a recorded incident of vandalism. 

When the destruction was taking place, the union salts filed multiple false unfair labor practice charges against Mr. Truckenbodt’s 

company, all of which were eventually dismissed. 

The business survived the salting campaign, and he and his company employees are still able to provide for their families. 

But I want to talk about another employer, Charlie Walz, who 

runs a masonry company in Nebraska. Charlie started out as a 

union man, but he figured he could provide better service at lower 

prices for customers by going out on his own, union-free. 

Charlie wanted a piece of the American dream. And like many 

hard-working Americans, he started his own company to make that 

dream a reality. 

Before long his company was flourishing, his clients were happy, 

and so were his small but growing army of employees. But his success came with a price. The bigger Charlie’s company got, the more 

employees he had, the more union officials wanted a piece of the 

action. 

So when Charlie’s employees resisted an unwanted advance of 

the union organizers, the salting started. This means that his employees rejected union organizing, and the union had to hire someone to come in and organize the company. 

Charlie’s company was fined by the NLRB. He spent tens of 

thousands of dollars on legal proceedings. Yet videotaped evidence 

supplied by Charlie’s lawyers showed that union salts had refused 

job applications that were offered to them by Charlie’s daughter. 

Charlie is still in business. He was able to survive. But many are 

not so lucky. When small businesses resist salting, unless they are 

subjected to potentially ruinous legal costs and fines, they acquiesce to union monopoly control. 

The Truth in Employment Act is an important piece of legislation. It protects not only the rights of small businessmen and 

women to run their businesses, and to hire employees who have a 

17

bonafide interest in working for that company, but it also protects 

those individual employees across the country who have decided, 

for whatever reason, not to join or associate with a union. This is 

important legislation, and we believe it needs to be supported, debated, and passed. 

Thank you. 

[Mr. Mix’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman AKIN. I think you got the award for the best timing. 

You finished right when the little red light went on. 

Thank you for your testimony, everybody, and I appreciate you 

all taking time to join us here today. 

Next in order of business is going to be recognizing the minority 

leader of this Committee. And Mr. Udall has been working with us 

a number of years, has a great deal of respect in the Congress, and 

we are very eager to hear his opening comments, as well. 

Tom. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I apologize to the Chairman for missing Representative 

DeMint and two of the witnesses. But I am here now, and ready 

to participate. And I will try to just give a brief opening statement. 

As the economy continues to struggle, we see the toll it is taking 

on many workers, as jobs are shipped overseas, wages are slashed, 

and benefits, such as health care and retirement, vanish. 

The reality is that a need does exist for unions to protect and advocate for our nation’s workers. It is just as important now as it 

was decades ago. 

Unfortunately, while the need is great, we are seeing an overall 

decline in union membership. Not because of a lack of interest, but 

due to a lack of access. 

While some employers today allow their workers to unionize, 

there are others that construct barriers and engage in covert campaigns to intimidate and dissuade workers from learning about the 

benefits of union membership. Therefore, one of the only ways for 

these non-union workers to find out about the rights and conditions 

they are entitled to is through the practice of salting. 

Salting is about the empowerment and education of working people. It is a practice that trains union members to work for nonunion firms in an attempt to gain a foothold and organize the work 

force from within. This concept is useful in industries such as construction, where workers are constantly moving from one job to the 

other, and one contractor to the other. It is the most effective way 

for union organizers to communicate with these workers, by hiring 

them on these projects, and then finding time to educate them on 

their rights. 

Unfortunately, there is a great deal of misconception surrounding 

salting. Salting does not disrupt the workplace. These individuals 

are held to the highest standards of conduct, meaning they work 

as hard as they possibly can to contribute to the company’s overall 

success. There is simply no evidence that salting hurts small businesses. 

Many employers falsely believe that salting results in frivolous 

charges being filed by unions. However, this is not the case. Both 

large and small companies actually benefit from salting. Many 

18

times it uncovers massive violations of workers’ rights by employers attempting to gain unfair advantages. 

While most employers truly want to do what is best for their employees, the reality is there are bad players trying to prohibit their 

workers from earning fair wages and unequal benefits. That is why 

unions are important, and salting is a vital tool. 

Because a stigma persists in many areas, having a union card 

may mean getting a pink slip. And this cannot be tolerated. 

I know Representative DeMint testified earlier on his bill, and he 

has got some serious challenges in his state. And I would like to 

work with him on those challenges facing textile workers. And I 

hope that we would be able to get strong protections for the workers in those jobs, and make sure that there aren’t further job losses 

and turmoil in that particular industry. 

However, HR 1793 affects the basic right of workers to form and 

join unions. Simply stated, this legislation allows an employer to 

refuse to hire, or fire workers if their primary purpose for seeking 

employment is to organize on behalf of a union. This undermines 

the intentions of the original National Labor Relations Act, which 

was enacted for the purpose of protecting the right of workers to 

form and join unions. 

As recently as 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously 

to uphold the practice of salting, as one of our witnesses, several 

witnesses have noted. HR 1793 tries to overturn the U.S. Supreme 

Court decision, and in my opinion would nullify the essential purpose of the National Labor Relations Act. We should not attempt 

to weaken processes like salting, which are an essential way for 

working families to access fair wages, health benefits, and workplace protections. 

The National Labor Relations Act has been one of the most productive, most effective anti-poverty programs in our country’s history, because it allows working people to engage in collective bargaining in order to elevate their standard of living. 

This proposal is a step back from that commitment. We should 

be standing in support of working families, not pursuing initiatives 

that weaken their quality of life. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I look forward to participating 

in the questioning process. 

Chairman AKIN. Thank you. I had quite a few questions here. It 

will take a minute to try to see where to start. 

The first thing is, Mr. Jacob, in that you are an attorney and I 

am not an attorney, it is my understanding that in general—I don’t 

know if this is state law or federal law—that as a rule, it is an illegal thing to try to intentionally put anybody out of business. Is that 

true? 

Mr. JACOB. That could be a matter of state law, it could be a 

matter of federal law. As far as putting a company out of business, 

you can be hit with various business torts. I would say for the most 

part it is a matter of tortious interference with business, which you 

would find mostly at the state level. 

Chairman AKIN. That is mostly a state law? Because I think I 

remember there was some deal that I was involved in, some abortion-type situation. And somebody said, I remember an attorney 

said, you know, you are perfectly legal if you want to have this orVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\93197.TXT MIKEA
19

ganization not do abortions. That is legal to have that as your objective. But it would be illegal to have your objection to say that 

you want to put someone out of business. 

Mr. JACOB. Many states have a tort called tortious interference 

with business. And——

Chairman AKIN. That is what they were probably referring to, 

then. Okay. So if the objective of a union were to actually put 

somebody out of business, then that would be in violation of at 

least some state laws. 

Mr. JACOB[CONTINUING]It could, but you would run into a preemption problem likely, under the National Labor Relations Act. 

Chairman AKIN. In other words, it is okay to do it in that situation. 

Mr. JACOB. It is a very fact-intensive type of question, as to 

whether a particular state law is preempted by the National Labor 

Relations Act. 

Chairman AKIN. Thank you. Second question to whoever. Is it 

true that there is a large backlog of cases with the NLRB? Is that 

true? I think it was part of your experience, the Cloningers, that 

you said there was a big backlog? 

Mrs. CLONINGER. That is what we were told from our attorney, 

when he tried multiple times to contact the compliance officer that 

was involved in our case. Every time he talked to the compliance 

officer, he would say, well, I have got 30 cases ahead, and I will 

get to this when I can. 

Chairman AKIN. Which effectively ran the clock, and ran up your 

fees for back wages and everything else. 

Mrs. CLONINGER. Yes, that is correct. 

Chairman AKIN. So you were really put right out of business by 

that entire situation. 

Mrs. CLONINGER. The delays. Had it been done in a timely manner, we could have probably paid the fine and maybe even had 

enough work lined up that we could have used these employees. 

And we would have, had we had the work. But you know, our company was in so much crisis, we just lost our productivity and had 

difficulty. The economy certainly was a factor in that. You know, 

it just became prohibitive for us to stay in business at that point. 

Chairman AKIN. Mr. Mix, you made a comment, something about 

employees have the freedom not to be unionized. 

I think that what you were saying seemed to be pretty much in 

contradiction with what Mr. Newman was saying. Mr. Newman’s 

comment is, you know, we want to use this as a means to allow 

laborers to know that they could be unionized, or about certain 

rights that they may have legally, that the laborers have no other 

way of getting to know. 

That seems to be kind of in conflict with what you were saying, 

which was they have got the freedom, if they don’t want to be 

unionized, to be left alone. 

Am I correct is seeing there is a complete difference of opinion 

on that point? 

Mr. MIX. Well, I think there probably is a complete difference of 

opinion on that point. 

I would say this. In 28 states that do not have right-to-work 

laws, workers can be compelled to accept the representation and 

20

pay financial fees to a labor union as a condition of keeping their 

job. 

What I meant to address, was the example, in the company that 

we are talking about here in Montana. It wasn’t the employees that 

they had hired that were interested in organizing the union. As a 

matter of fact, I would guess, I don’t know, but I would say these 

employees were happy with their situation, and they weren’t intending to organize a union. And if any one of these employees who 

was currently on the payroll would have come to these employers 

and said, look, we are going to organize a union, if they would have 

fired that employee, that employee certainly had rights under the 

law, protected rights under the law. And it would have been illegal 

to fire that employee for trying to organize a union. 

The fact is, the Cloninger employees didn’t want the union. And 

the union had to bring somebody in under false pretenses to get 

that organizing drive started. And that is outrageous. 

Chairman AKIN. Thank you. I guess I have got one other question. And that is, the whole salting thing is somewhat new to me. 

But it also seems strange to me. And this is maybe more of an answer than a question, but I would appreciate it if a couple of you 

want to respond. 

And that is, in a way, as a Congressman, I am in a way sort of 

a small businessman, in that I have 14 or 16 employees that work 

for me, some in a district office, some working here in D.C. And 

when I hire people, I wouldn’t expect them to have a job that conflicts with the job that I am hiring them to do for me. 

If one of them wants to get a job after hours and works at a different time or something like that, like they want to get a job bussing tables or singing in some bar or something, that is okay with 

me, as long as it doesn’t interfere with, you know. 

So it seems like an odd idea to have the Supreme Court or some 

law saying that you have got somebody who is being paid—because 

when you are paid, you are working for two different, separate 

bosses. I mean, with all due respect to my good friend Tom over 

here, if a legislative assistant says, ‘‘Todd, I want to work for you 

as your LA, but I am also Tom’s LA,’’ I would say wait a minute, 

you know, which one are you going to work for? 

This seems like a strange situation, where somebody is being 

paid by two different employers. And it seems like it creates naturally a divergence of loyalties. 

I guess one thing that you said, Mr. Newman, was that very 

often the salts are volunteers. I heard other people say very often 

they are paid. Is it ever the case that salts are paid? 

Mr. NEWMAN. Sure. But very often they are not paid. 

Chairman AKIN. Well, let’s talk about the cases where they are 

paid. Do you think that is appropriate, for somebody to be paid by 

two different people? 

Mr. NEWMAN. Of course I do. Certainly. 

Chairman AKIN. And you don’t think that creates any sort of a 

tension in terms of loyalty? 

Mr. NEWMAN. The idea that there is a tension in terms of loyalty 

is at odds with 65 years of labor relations in this country. 

There are thousands, tens of thousands, of union shop stewards 

that work in unionized plants, that are paid by their unions. There 

21

are thousands and thousands of part-time union officers that go 

into the hall on the weekend and do what they need to do for the 

union, but spend the time working for their employer and are loyal, 

good, hard-working employees. There is absolutely no conflict, I 

don’t think, at all. 

Salts are told and are instructed to follow their employer’s directions, perform a very hard day’s work, and show both the employers and the employees, the non-union employees, what union 

trades workers can do. They are the most highly skilled, highly 

trained, highly motivated workers in the world, and that is what 

they are there to demonstrate. 

Chairman AKIN. That seems to be at odds with the other testimony we have heard. 

I now would turn to the minority member, Mr. Udall. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Newman, some businesses have raised the issue that it is 

unethical to go to someone’s business as a salt, to seek employment 

for the express purpose of trying to organize employees. Can you 

respond to those comments? 

Mr. NEWMAN. Obviously, I don’t think that that is unethical. I 

don’t think it is unethical to exercise rights that are protected by 

the National Labor Relations Act, to exercise rights that we judge 

other countries’ human rights records on. 

What I do think is unethical is to discriminate against someone 

who applies just because they are a union member. What I do 

think is unethical is threatening employees that you will close 

down their business before you will ever recognize a union. What 

I do think is unethical is firing union organizers. What I do think 

is unethical is threatening to use physical violence against anyone 

that so much as dares organize. And what I do think is unethical 

is inferring, both here and elsewhere, that there are ulterior motives involved, and that people have been threatened. 

I was accused of not being in the trenches. I have been in the 

trenches on these matters. I have represented employees that have 

been discharged for doing nothing else than putting on a union button or wearing a union tee-shirt. 

So do I think it is unethical to organize? Absolutely not. In my 

view, I have seen many unethical practices on the other side. 

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Newman, if a non-union contractor hires a union 

salt, what kinds of things does the salt do to promote union organization? 

Mr. NEWMAN. First, he will see he does the best job that he can. 

Because, number one, he wouldn’t want to give anyone a lawful excuse, which is if you are not doing the job that you are supposed 

to be doing, there is nothing in the law that prohibits that contractor from firing that organizer. And obviously we don’t want 

that to happen, and we want to demonstrate to the contractor that 

if it signs a union contract, it is going to have access to highly 

trained, highly motivated, highly skilled employees. So number 

one, they are told to work hard. 

Number two, they are told to engage in organizing activity only 

within the confines of the law. And that means, for the most part, 

during non-work time, and often in non-work areas, like the break 

room or a break trailer. 

22

Mrs. CLONINGER. May I——. 

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Newman, is the purpose of salting to force nonunion contractors to spend money defending frivolous, unfair labor 

practice claims? 

Mr. NEWMAN. Absolutely not. And I think if you look at, and if 

anyone did the research and opened the books, and looked at the 

statistics that the National Labor Relations Board is required to 

keep as a matter of law, you would find that there has been no increase in unfair labor practice charges. Nor has there been any decrease in the number of charges that the Board has deemed meritorious. 

Mr. UDALL. And let me be more precise there. Do you know 

whether the number of unfair labor practice charges filed against 

employers has increased in recent years or not? 

Mr. NEWMAN. Yes, I do know that. I actually spent a morning 

this week at the National Labor Relation Board’s library, which is 

open to the public, and I encourage anybody to do the same. 

They issue a report every year, an annual report, where they 

break down the number of unfair labor practices that have been 

charged. And just to put everything in context, unfair labor practice charges average anywhere between about 28,000 to 35,000 

charges a year. A little less than a third of those are charges 

against unions. So about two-thirds are charges against employers. 

The year before the Town and Country decision was issued, 

which everyone thinks was the impetus to this explosion in salting, 

you had about 34,000 unfair labor practice charges filed. Last year, 

I believe the number was about 27,000. It was an 18- to 20-percent 

decrease since the Town and Country decision. 

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Newman, in your opinion as a lawyer, would HR 

1793 overturn the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Town and Country Electric, and effectively nullify the essential purpose of the National Labor Relations Act? 

Mr. NEWMAN. Yes. 

Mr. UDALL. What would you say to those who argue that legislation such as HR 1793 is necessary, since it is too expensive and 

burdensome for employers to defend themselves from mere allegations that they may have violated the National Labor Relations 

Act? 

Mr. NEWMAN. Again, you know, to put everything in context, I 

have been on both sides as an attorney, both sides of an unfair 

labor practice charge. I have represented charging parties, and I 

have responded to charges filed against labor unions. 

The first thing that happens, when you are a charging party, you 

are the person that is filing the charge against the employer, and 

you file it with the National Labor Relations Board. The first thing 

that happens is, the Board does not go out and get in their National Labor Relations Board police car, and go to the employer’s 

offices. 

The first thing that happens is they contact the union, and they 

say, ‘‘You better give us evidence that you have, which essentially 

makes out a case of an unfair labor practice,’’ before they will even 

approach an employer. And I say that because I have been on the 

other side of an unfair labor practice charge. I have represented 

23

unions on frivolous charges and charges that have had more culpable merit. 

And when the charge is completely frivolous, the work that is undertaken on that, that is, the person that has been charged, oftentimes is nothing more than a phone call to the National Labor Relations Board explaining the fact that the charge is frivolous, and 

that is the end of the matter. 

So what I am getting at is, in order to even get through the door 

of the National Labor Relations Board with your charge, you better 

present, and you have to present, enough evidence to establish that 

you have more than a culpable claim. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is exhausted. 

Chairman AKIN. Thank you. Next I call on Congressman Toomey. 

Mr. TOOMEY. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Newman, you have 

made the point in your testimony and your response to a question 

that the idea of a divided loyalty is a phony one. 

But yet on page seven of your testimony, you have a sentence 

here where you say the participants, and you are referring to the 

salts, are willing to work for non-union companies in order to promote the union’s goal of organizing unorganized employees. 

It seems to me you have put it very clearly. These people are taking this job, they are taking someone else’s money—namely, the 

employer, the contractor in this case—while working to promote 

the goal of an organization that has a whole different set of agendas. And you don’t see any conflict there. 

Mr. NEWMAN. I don’t. I mean, Representative Toomey, let’s take 

an example of an employer that someone suspects is engaging in 

race discrimination. 

Mr. TOOMEY. But that is not what we are talking about. We are 

talking about——

Mr. NEWMAN. Oh, but——. 

Mr. TOOMEY[CONTINUING]No, but I am trying—let me, I have got 

a few other questions and limited time. 

If someone came to work on my staff, and they were—I am a Republican—if they were on the payroll of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as well, while they were working for 

me, should I be forced to hire and keep that person on my staff? 

Mr. NEWMAN. Well, there is a huge assumption built into your 

question. 

Mr. TOOMEY. But it is the question. Do you think I should be 

forced to hire that person? Or should I be allowed to fire that person solely on the grounds that they came to work for me while they 

were being paid by the Democratic Campaign Committee? 

Mr. NEWMAN. Well, as far as I know, the National Labor Relations Act doesn’t protect party status, so I think you would be safe 

in not hiring that person. 

Mr. TOOMEY. Let me ask another question. Do you advocate that 

salts deceive the employers by not disclosing that they are, in fact, 

salts? 

Mr. NEWMAN. It depends. And I can tell you why. First of all——

Mr. TOOMEY. So sometimes you do advocate that. 

Mr. NEWMAN[CONTINUING]Well, I can tell you what happens in 

reality, in the trenches. And that is, if you write down on your apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\93197.TXT MIKEA
24

plication, as folks did that applied to the gentleman on my left’s 

company and the folks on my right’s company, they are not hired. 

If you disclose that you are a union organizer, what happens is you 

are not hired. 

And so oftentimes, that fact is not mentioned on an application. 

And there is a decision in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals by 

a very, very conservative Republican-appointed judge, Judge 

Posner, that said that is okay. Because whether you are a union 

organizer or not should be irrelevant to the question of whether 

you are hired. Because it is unlawful to discriminate against somebody that is a union organizer. 

Mr. TOOMEY. So there are times, then, when you do advocate 

that that information be withheld. Which I think is inherently deceptive. 

Mr. NEWMAN. If someone goes and applies to a contractor over 

and over, and has disclosed that they are a union organizer, and 

it happens to be that while they are hiring 20 or 30 people off the 

street, they have refused to hire the 50 folks that are better 

trained, better qualified but the only difference being that on their 

application they say union organizer, then yes. I think at the end 

of the day, in order to avoid being discriminated against, oftentimes you have to leave that off your application. 

Mr. TOOMEY. We have got testimony that we heard today. There 

is a story about a Mr. Truckenbodt’s company. And there is allegations that terrible things were done. In one case, part of this testimony says that a company, using information provided by the salt, 

sent agents that followed Mr. Truckenbodt’s employees as they delivered their products to clients’ businesses. And when they got 

there, they warned the customers that they would face picketing 

and strikes unless they stopped buying and renting from Mr. 

Truckenbodt. Do you advocate that kind of practice? 

Mr. NEWMAN. No. 

Mr. TOOMEY. You do not advocate it. And so I assume that you 

certainly do not advocate, and in fact would condemn, the vandalism that is alleged, the broken windows and the tires getting 

nails, and——

Mr. NEWMAN. Yes, of course. 

Mr. TOOMEY[CONTINUING]Which we have heard significant testimony, though. 

Mr. NEWMAN. Well, I can tell you there is, I can give you significant testimony. Representative DeMint this morning offered testimony from previous hearings. I would encourage everybody to go 

back and look at the previous hearings on this issue. And you will 

read testimony from union organizers who were beaten with pipes, 

who had suffered similar vandalism at the hands of non-union contractors. 

So I don’t advocate it on either side, Mr. Toomey. 

Mr. TOOMEY. Do you acknowledge that it often happens with 

salted employees? Or do you dispute that? Do you have any statistics about the frequency of that? 

Mr. NEWMAN. I would acknowledge that union organizers often 

suffer physical violence. I would absolutely deny adamantly that 

union organizers engage in physical violence. 

25

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Mix, do you have any comment to make about 

that? 

Mr. MIX. I think the facts speak differently about that. 

If you look at the record, the testimony of the former IBEW organizer that Congressman DeMint submitted into the record, you will 

see clearly he states that he was trained not to organize workers, 

but to file unfair labor practice charges against the employer that 

had hired him. 

So I would encourage you to go back and look at that record. 

There is lots there, I would agree. 

Certainly there are troubles and disputes in the workplace. But 

I would suggest that asking these two about their experience is 

probably the most beneficial thing we can do. They are in business, 

on the front lines, and they are seeing this. 

The theoretical arguments that we are hearing that the AFL-CIO 

do not endorse this are totally rejected in the testimony of Mr. 

Cook, as a trained union organizer specifically to salt a company. 

Specifically to salt a company. Not to organize it; he admits it in 

the record. 

I think the Cloningers’ experience and the practical reality of 

this practice doesn’t match to the theoretical that we are hearing 

today. 

Mr. TOOMEY. Thank you. 

Mr. CLONINGER. Could I add something to that, please? Gentlemen——. 

Chairman AKIN. I think Mr. Toomey would allow you to. 

Mr. TOOMEY. Certainly. 

Mr. CLONINGER. Gentlemen, I have been an electrician for 27 

years. The first nine of those 27 I was a union electrician. And I 

chose to leave the union because I didn’t like what I saw, because 

of things that were not fair, and very, very intimidating to myself. 

I was on both sides of the fence. I was union, and then I became 

non-union. 

We are clearly talking about a small business versus very large 

businesses, where unions do play a role in benefitting the employees. The point I would like to make is small business doesn’t need 

another middle-management person interfering between us and our 

employees. 

And that is what I would like to say. 

Mr. TOOMEY. Thank you very much. 

Chairman AKIN. Thank you. You know, this is one of the situations we run into sometimes in the political world, where you have 

just got totally completely opposite and diverging opinions on something. 

You know, the testimony of Mr. Newman was that these salts 

are great workers. Now, is there anybody else, other than Mr. Newman, on the panel that wants to say that—did anybody have great 

workers that were salts? 

Mrs. CLONINGER. I would like to comment on that. The two electricians that worked for us, that we did let go, in their probationary period, one electrician refused to go into a crawlspace when 

he was asked. Well, when you are doing electrical work, you have 

to get into a crawlspace to complete the task at hand. 

26

The other electrician had, we were working on a motel. And this 

guy had a tool pouch at one end of the building. And he was wiring 

some boxes on the other end of the building. He would go to his 

tool pouch on one end of the area, go do the work with the tool, 

walk clear back over to the tool pouch and get a different tool, and 

walk clear back over to the box that he was working on. 

Chairman AKIN. What you are saying is he was not only not a 

good employee, but he was an intentionally bad employee in that 

situation. That was your experience, Mr. Jacob? 

Mr. JACOB. In my testimony, written testimony, I tell the story 

of two union members who applied. They were hired. They knew 

what the pay was. The moment that they started on the project, 

they immediately started protesting the pay, did not do one piece 

of work, then said ‘‘we’re going on strike,’’ then filed unfair labor 

practice——

Chairman AKIN. So the bottom line is they were not good workers. 

Mr. JACOB[CONTINUING]No, they were not. Their purpose was to 

disrupt. 

Chairman AKIN. Mr. Krause, were your salt workers good workers? 

Mr. KRAUSE. Well, we kind of have a different scenario at our 

company that has taken place. We have never had the opportunity 

to hire salt workers. 

And it is clear to me that I have a different view on this. And 

to put everybody’s mind at ease, these people do identify themselves, at least at our company. We are a little bit bigger company; 

we have 300-plus employees. They do identify to us who they are. 

And there is no mistake about who they are the moment they come 

in the door. 

Chairman AKIN. So you are a little bit bigger operation, then. 

Mr. KRAUSE. Yes, we are a little bit bigger. From the moment 

they walk through the door it is very well known who they are. 

They have their hats, their shirts. They come in groups, six, seven 

employees at a time to fill out applications. They all know me by 

name. They know my family. They know my father, who was a 

longstanding union worker. Some of them worked with my father. 

So they come to our company in a little bit different manner. 

It strikes me odd how the gentleman aside of me says that they 

are the most highly trained and skilled people coming in, yet they 

fail to complete the application consistently, and make errors on 

their part all the time, to make it usually pretty easy to rule them 

out through the hiring process with just their applications. 

We are currently getting ready to go to a hearing now to discuss 

two individuals that yet weren’t dismissed; however, all 11 of them 

from this current 2003 year have been dismissed for failing to return phone calls, different wage history, stuff of that nature. 

Chairman AKIN. So your experience was the same, that they 

weren’t necessarily the most professional people. 

Mr. KRAUSE. No. And they——. 

Chairman AKIN. That is all I wanted to do on that particular 

question. What my point is, I am trying to point out just, it is really amazing, there is just really a difference between, you know, the 

theory and what seems to be going on out there in the workplace. 

27

I think the thing that concerned me the most was when I heard 

that people were afraid to even testify here because of the rough 

tactics that have been going on, and that is what a number of you 

documented, that those things were happening, that seems to me 

so un-American. 

Did you want to comment on that? 

Mr. JACOB. Yes, sir. I told the story of two clients that we represented. There were about four others who would not let me tell 

their story, ones that have charges pending, ones that just do not 

want the kind of trouble that they have experienced with salting 

in the past. 

Chairman AKIN. It seems, from the testimony that we are hearing, and from the people that don’t even want to testify, that the 

salting practice is very expensive, overall. It is expensive to companies. It is expensive to our competitiveness as a nation, our ability 

to be competitive. 

Mr. NEWMAN. Mr. Chairman, could I address that point, if I 

might? 

Chairman AKIN. You have got about 30 seconds to, yes. 

Mr. NEWMAN. To tell you how contractors can make the salting 

practice very inexpensive. 

Chairman AKIN. Unionize, right? 

Mr. NEWMAN. Excuse me? 

Chairman AKIN. Just unionize, right? 

Mr. NEWMAN. No, it is not violating the law. And the reason why 

contractors are hit with $40,000, $50,000 fines is because they violated the law. Because Administrative Law Judges, the National 

Labor Relations Board, Courts of Appeals who enforce those orders 

find that they have violated the Act. 

Chairman AKIN. Well, it may be that that is part of the point of 

our hearing, even. I mean, as I see how it has worked out, and I 

hear the logic of what the Supreme Court is saying, it seems to me 

that you have got a complete conflict of interest when you have 

somebody being paid, you know, to do two different, separate 

things. 

My time has run out. And I have to run things by the rules here. 

Mr. Udall. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Newman, you were 

asked by Representative Toomey about the divided loyalties issue, 

and I think you wanted to respond. Do you remember where you 

were in that? 

Mr. NEWMAN. I think I responded. And that is simply that the 

idea that there is necessarily this unbridgeable conflict between a 

union member and an employer is just completely at odds with everything this country has stood for, and everything we judge other 

countries on, for centuries. 

And that is, you can be a good union member and a good employee at the same time. 

Mr. UDALL. Are there other issues that have been raised by witnesses here that you would like to respond to? Charges or allegations or something that you think have gone unanswered, that you 

would like to respond to? 

Mr. NEWMAN. Well, I guess I would just say this, and repeat 

what I have already said. 

28

First, you know, I am a small business owner. I am a partner 

in a very small firm, and I appreciate and support small businesses, as does the Building and Construction Trades Department 

and organized labor. 

It is in no one’s interest, on the labor side or management side, 

to drive anyone out of business. We know and we appreciate the 

fact that contractors are the people that supply our members with 

jobs. And that is not the purpose of salting, that is not what we 

are all about. We support small business, and we support the efforts in this Congress to continue to support small businesses in 

this country. 

Mrs. CLONINGER. May I comment on that? 

Mr. UDALL. Well, not on my time. Maybe the Chairman will give 

you some time here. 

Mr. Newman, what would your response be to the argument that 

the Truth in Employment Act simply gives an employer a level of 

comfort that someone coming to work for them is truly motivated 

to be an employee? 

Mr. NEWMAN. I would say that the Truth in Employment Act 

gives an employer a level of comfort that they can discriminate 

against people that exercise their rights under the National Labor 

Relations Act with impunity. That is what it does. 

Mr. UDALL. Well, I have a little time. Go ahead. 

Mrs. CLONINGER. I guess I would just like to comment on the fact 

that the union organizer who had targeted our company, it was reported back to us by other union electricians in the city of Helena 

that he would go around at his union meetings, and within the 

community, and say that his whole goal was to put Construction 

Electric out of business. 

Mr. UDALL. Can you give us the name of that individual? 

Mrs. CLONINGER. The union organizer? 

Mr. UDALL. Yes, that you just said did that. 

Mrs. CLONINGER. Yes. His name was Keith Allen. 

Mr. UDALL. And, ma’am, all the incidents you are talking about 

ended up resulting in a finding that your company had broken the 

law, under the National Labor Relations Act, and you were fined 

for that, right? 

Mrs. CLONINGER. That is correct. 

Mr. UDALL. Sir, did the same thing happen to you? 

Mr. KRAUSE. A similar situation occurred to us. 

Mr. UDALL. First of all, was an investigation conducted by the 

National Labor Relations Act, and it was found that you were in 

violation of the law? 

Mr. KRAUSE. No. 

Mr. UDALL. No? 

Mr. KRAUSE. We have not been found to be in violation with any 

of the laws relating to the NLRA. 

Mr. UDALL. Was there a finding that there was something frivolous going on by anyone? 

Mr. KRAUSE. Enough that the charge, nine of 11 charges were 

dismissed, yes. 

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Mix, you mentioned this individual, Mr. 

Truckenbodt. Mr. Chairman, the individual isn’t here, and we have 

been hearing stories bantered about him. I would like to submit 

29

some questions, specific questions to you, to find out for the record, 

and you put in the information of what all the circumstances were. 

Mr. MIX. I can do that for you, Congressman. Absolutely. 

Mr. UDALL. And the gentleman that also talked about, I think it 

is only fair if we are going to talk about people that aren’t here, 

that we get as full as possible a record about what actually happened in these circumstances. And I think we——

Mr. MIX. Great idea. Yes, great idea. 

Mr. UDALL[CONTINUING]Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKIN. I think probably we have had a chance to let 

people get some testimony out. 

What I was going to do is just make a brief closing statement, 

which is a little broader than the overall subject even of the salting. 

And that is something that I have had a chance to run Committee hearings all over the country. And one of the things that we 

are very concerned about in America is a loss of jobs, and a loss 

of opportunities for our American citizens to find work. 

And while the economy is coming back and numbers look good 

and everything, yet at the same time there is an erosion, particularly in the manufacturing. I personally came out of the steel background myself, and saw what happened when the steel industry 

just fell out, and all those jobs went overseas. 

The position that I have now as a member now working for the 

government, and really working for the citizens of our country, is 

to take a look at things that increase the overall cost of doing business. Because a reason somebody moves jobs and plants overseas 

is money. It is as simple as that. It is money. It is not because they 

are anti-American, it is the money. 

And so my concern is that anything that adds to our competitive 

disadvantage in this country is something that is a high concern 

to me. And today, in this Committee, I am concerned about the fact 

that we have seen, in spite of the testimony that in theory this is 

supposed to be a good practice, what we are seeing is businesses 

are being shut down. And in fact, from our experience, businesses 

are being intimidated from even appearing before this Committee, 

and that is a grave concern to me. 

So that would be my closing comments. I recognize Mr. Udall. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You and I 

both, I think, agree that we, as a country, are in a crisis situation 

in terms of jobs being lost overseas. And that part of it, as you have 

just said, has to do with the profit motive and being about money. 

I mean, one of the things that we could do that would make a 

real difference is examine our tax code. Because right now taxpayers pay for these companies to move the jobs over. 

We give them incentives. We actually encourage them to do it, 

through the tax code. And I think we ought to do a thorough examination, and say to companies, well, if you are going to do it, we 

are certainly not going to pay for it, and we are going to make it 

more difficult for you. Because we have lost far too many jobs in 

your state, in my state, and Representative DeMint’s state I know, 

and in Representative Toomey’s state of Pennsylvania, in these 

areas where there are good, high quality, high paying jobs. And I 

30

would like to see us focus on that, and other Committees in the 

Congress focus on it. And I look forward to working with you. 

Chairman AKIN. Thank you. And I think that makes good sense. 

I think all of us don’t want to reward people for moving jobs overseas, and we don’t want to create any institutions that do that. 

I thank you all so much for coming in. I appreciate your testimony. And we will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the Subcommittee meeting was adjourned.]

31


93197.063
32


93197.064
33


93197.065
34


93197.066
35


93197.067
36


93197.068
37


93197.006
38


93197.007
39


93197.008
40


93197.009
41


93197.010
42


93197.011
43


93197.012
44


93197.013
45


93197.014
46


93197.015
47


93197.016
48


93197.017
49


93197.018
50


93197.019
51


93197.020
52


93197.021
53


93197.022
54


93197.039
55


93197.040
56


93197.041
57


93197.042
58


93197.043
59


93197.044
60


93197.045
61


93197.046
62


93197.047
63


93197.048
64


93197.049
65


93197.050
66


93197.051
67


93197.052
68


93197.053
69


93197.054
70


93197.055
71


93197.056
72


93197.057
73


93197.058
74


93197.059
75


93197.060
76


93197.061
77


93197.062
78


93197.036
79


93197.037
80


93197.038
81


93197.023
82


93197.024
83


93197.025
84


93197.026
85


93197.027
86


93197.028
87


93197.029
88


93197.030
89


93197.031
90


93197.032
91


93197.033
92


93197.034
93

Æ


93197.035