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

23–176 PDF 2005

UNION SALTING—ORGANIZING AGAINST SMALL

BUSINESS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE, EMPOWERMENT 

& GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 21, 2005

Serial No. 109–21

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 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

TODD AKIN, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

THADDEUS MCCOTTER, Michigan 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

TED POE, Texas 

MICHAEL SODREL, Indiana 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa 

DONNA CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

ED CASE, Hawaii 

MADELEINE BORDALLO, Guam 

RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin

J. MATTHEW SZYMANSKI, Chief of Staff 

PHIL ESKELAND, Deputy Chief of Staff/Policy Director 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE, EMPOWERMENT AND GOVERNMENT 

PROGRAMS 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado Chairman 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

THADDEUS MCCOTTER, Michigan 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin

JOE HARTZ, Professional Staff

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

WITNESSES

Page 

King, Hon. Steve (IA-05), Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives ........... 4

Mix, Mr. Mark, President, National Right to Work Committee .......................... 6

Isaac, Mr. Ray, Isaac Heating & A/C, Inc. ............................................................ 8

Cohen, Mr. Laurence J., Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer & Yellig, Building 

and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO .............................................. 10

Aldi, Mr. Michael, Aldi Electric .............................................................................. 12

Drummond, Ms. Anita, Director of Legal and Regulatory Affairs, Associated 

Builders and Contractors .................................................................................... 14

Avakian, Mr. Michael, General Counsel, Center on National Labor Policy, 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 16

APPENDIX

Opening statements: 

Musgrave, Hon. Marilyn .................................................................................. 37

Prepared statements: 

King, Hon. Steve (IA-05), Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives .... 40

Mix, Mr. Mark, President, National Right to Work Committee ................... 44

Isaac, Mr. Ray, Isaac Heating & A/C, Inc. ..................................................... 48

Cohen, Mr. Laurence J., Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer & Yellig, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO ................................ 51

Aldi, Mr. Michael, Aldi Electric ....................................................................... 68

Drummond, Ms. Anita, Director of Legal and Regulatory Affairs, Associated Builders and Contractors ..................................................................... 71

Avakian, Mr. Michael, General Counsel, Center on National Labor Policy, 

Inc. ................................................................................................................. 76

Attachment: 

Union Organization in the Construction Industry ........................................ 88

(III) 

(1)

UNION SALTING—ORGANIZING AGAINST 

SMALL BUSINESS 

TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE, EMPOWERMENT AND

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m. in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Marilyn N. Musgrave, 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Musgrave, Lipinski, Westmoreland, and 

Sanchez.

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. This meeting will come to order. Good 

morning. Thank you all for being here today. I appreciate the witnesses taking their valuable time in appearing before this Subcommittee, and I offer special thanks to those of you who traveled 

great distances to be with us. I appreciate your effort. 

Today’s hearing is an opportunity for us to learn more about 

what is happening to small businesses and their employees 

throughout the United States when union officials direct abusive 

organizing campaigns toward non-organized employees in small 

businesses. 

This practice is referred to as ‘‘salting’’. The term ‘‘salting’’ originated with the dishonest practice of placing gold in a barren mine 

to convince potential investors that the mine had potential. 

Union salting is a practice directed by labor union bosses aimed 

at deliberately inserting one of their members into a non-union 

company. The union agent may or may not reveal their intentions 

on the employment application, but have a strategy for attack in 

either circumstance. The goal is normally to achieve a closed, exclusive union shop or to destroy the business. 

Quite often small businesses are the favorite targets because 

they have minimal resources to defend themselves against the abusive practices. 

Without disclosing union affiliation, the paid union organizer 

typically aims to establish a wellspring of support for the union effort within the company. Fellow employees often do not know that 

their new co-worker is a paid union organizer. The union-paid salt 

is often intentionally disruptive, antagonistic, and combative with 

both the employer and fellow employees during the organizing 

process. 

2

Whether organization is successful or not, the agent typically employs some of the following tactics: Sabotage of equipment and 

work sites; deliberate work slow downs; intentionally creating unsafe working conditions; and perhaps the most crippling, filing frivolous unfair labor practice complaints or discrimination charges 

against the employer with the National Labor Relations Board, the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

The goal of salts that actually reveal their affiliation on the application, but are not hired, is to immediately notify union lawyers 

who, in turn, file suit against the company on the grounds of discrimination. This happens irrespective of the reason for non-employment. 

Willfully deceiving an employer during the hiring process, as 

part of a systematic agenda to harm a business, is a deplorable tactic. I believe these acts should be exposed for what they are—fraudulent practices. 

The following statement was published in the newsletter of the 

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, dated March 

1995: ‘‘These [companies] know that when they are targeted with 

stripping, salting and market recovery funds, it is only a matter of 

time before their foundations begin to crumble. The NLRB charges, 

the attorney fees, and the loss of employees can lead to an unprofitable business.’’ 

Salting is a practice rooted in dishonesty and deception. Its focus 

is to make small businesses die the death of a thousand cuts. 

The brutal practice is extremely harmful to an employer who, 

acting in good faith, wants to provide a service, make a living, create jobs, and provide wages for families in his community. 

No small business owner should be threatened with expensive, 

protracted legal fights if they do not break under the pressure applied by union agents and ruinous lawsuits. 

This hearing should reveal candid, real life experiences from employers subjected to salting. Many others were also invited to testify, but declined an invitation, out of fear their businesses would 

be targeted for retribution by organized labor. 

In fairness, we also submitted a personal invitation to John 

Sweeney, president of the largest labor organization in the nation, 

the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations. He declined to appear. 

In a few minutes, we will hear from our respected colleague from 

Iowa, Representative Steve King. I consider him a friend and appreciate his leadership on this issue. He is also a member of the 

full Committee, so I extend to him the offer to join us following his 

testimony. 

Congressman King will be explaining the need for his legislation, 

H.R. 1816, the ‘‘Truth in Employment Act of 2005.’’ 

While I will let Mr. King go into further detail, the bill 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. 

I am proud to cosponsor his legislation and will work with him 

in any way possible to ensure its passage in the House. 

3

As I stated, I am very eager to hear today’s testimony, but before 

we get to Mr. King, I would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, our Ranking Member, Mr. Lipinski. 

[Chairman Musgrave’s opening statement may be found in the 

appendix.] 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I want to thank everyone for coming today to discuss this important issue. As job creation continues to lag, we see the toll that it 

is taking on many workers. Jobs are being shipped overseas, wages 

are being slashed, and benefits such as health care and retirements 

are vanishing, but we should not be looking for an undeserving 

scapegoat for the country’s economic problems. 

Despite the lagging economy, the American worker has never 

been more productive. Unfortunately, the lack of job creation is 

causing some to try to weaken important labor protections rather 

than to focus on the real economic problems such as rising energy 

and health insurance prices. 

The reality is that a need does exist for unions to protect and advocate for our nation’s workers. Unions ensure that Americans 

earn a decent wage and unions help deliver a workforce committed 

to economic growth. 

While some employers allow the opportunity to unionize, there 

are others who construct barriers and engage in covert campaigns 

to intimidate and dissuade workers from learning about the benefits of union membership. 

Therefore, the only way for these non-union workers to find out 

about their rights and the working conditions to which they are entitled is through the practice of salting. 

Salting is about the empowerment of working people. It is a practice that educates workers about what a union could do for them. 

This practice is especially useful in industries such as construction 

where workers are constantly moving from one job and one contractor to another. 

Salting is the most effective way for union organizers to communicate with these workers. Unfortunately, there are a number of 

misconceptions surrounding salting. Salting does not disrupt the 

workplace. These individuals work hard to contribute to the company’s overall success, and the law requires that no harm is done 

to the employer. 

While we will hear some anecdotal stories today about salting 

abuses, there is simply no evidence that salting hurts small business. Many employers incorrectly believe that salting will result in 

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

case. 

Companies that follow the law actually benefit from salting. 

Many times this practice 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 that there are bad players trying to prohibit 

their workers from earning fair wages and equal benefits. That is 

why unions are important and salting is a vital tool. 

Today, as we look at H.R. 1816, it is important to pay close attention and recognize how this bill will change the current status 

4

of workers’ rights. I appreciate Representative King’s work, but I 

think that this bill is not the right bill. 

H.R. 1816 affects the basic rights of workers to form and join 

unions. Simply stated, this legislation allows an employer to fire or 

refuse to hire workers if they seek employment in order to organize 

on behalf of a union. This undermines the intent 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. We should not attempt to weaken 

processes that are critical in helping working families to access fair 

wages, health benefits and workplace protection. 

By promoting workers’ interests through collective bargaining, 

the National Labor Relations Act has been one of the most effective 

anti-poverty program in our country’s history; In my district, it has 

allowed thousands of hard-working men and women to provide for 

their families and achieve the American dream. 

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

be standing in support of working families, not pursuing initiatives 

that erode their quality of life. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony here today, but I believe 

that this bill would not be good. It would harm the unions which 

are very important and have been important for many years in 

helping to provide good working conditions and allowing many 

workers to reach up into the middle class of this country. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

Again, we are honored to have Representative Steve King from 

the 5th District of Iowa with us today. Thank you for being here. 

We will adhere to the time constraints just to keep on schedule. I 

thank you for coming. And again, after you are done with your testimony, we would be honored if you would join us up here. 

Thank you, Mr. King. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVE KING (IA-05), 

CONGRESSMAN, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I appreciate you 

holding this hearing today and the opportunity to be here to testify, 

and I will accept your offer to join on the panel afterwards to participate and listen to the rest of the testimony here this morning. 

I also wish to associate with your remarks, your opening remarks, with regard to Truth in Employment Act, H.R. 1816. The 

presentation that you made very much mirrors the presentation 

that I hope to make this morning, but I would like to just deviate 

a little bit from maybe what is normal routine, and since this is 

a very short and brief bill, simply just to read the bill into the 

record because that is what we are considering here today, and it 

does amend section 8[a], and this would be exactly the quote of the 

bill. 

‘‘Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring an 

employer to employ any person who seeks or who has sought employment with the employer in furtherance of other employment or 

agency status.’’ 

5

That is the bill, and so what it says is is that we are not going 

to require an employer to put somebody on their payroll that is 

working for other interests against the interests of the employer. 

I would point out that the strength and the competitiveness of 

American, The Ranking Member, the gentleman from Illinois remarks with regard to competitiveness, I think, are appropriate 

here. But the strength of a nation is the competitiveness of its 

workforce and its people, and we do have productive workers in 

this country. That is why we have the largest—one of the big reasons why we have the largest economy in the world. 

But we have to always be working to be more competitive, and 

when an employer is required to hire someone who is representing 

another agency or another interest, and specifically a union, and 

they are there for the specific purpose of putting pressure on that 

company to organize for a union, and I have been in that environment, and I have watched some of the pressure that has been 

brought to bear. 

I am an employer too, and I have made out payroll every week 

for over 1,400 consecutive weeks, and to start a business, a highly 

capital-intensive business without any capital, and make that all 

work, you are stretched thin most of the time anyway. Small businesses in particular are stretched thin in this country in the load 

of regulation, taxes, all those burdens are harder on small businesses than they are on big business. 

When you inject into that a union salting process that puts that 

employer in a position where they are looking at the actions of one 

or more employees out there in your industrial plant or your construction company or whatever it might be, and you start to see 

things go wrong, and maybe the oil did not get changed, maybe a 

machine did not get greased, maybe the floor does not get mopped 

up, all of these little things that can be explained away sometimes 

are intentional. 

Sometimes you can look back into the history of that employee 

and recognize their pattern, where they have come from. The grape 

vine will feed you a lot of that information, and find out I have got 

an employee here that does not have my best interests in mind. 

When you hire them and you pay them on the payroll by the 

hour with wages and benefits, their job is to help you make money. 

And if they are there making money from another agency for the 

very purposes of organizing a company to become union, then that 

is a subversive tactic. 

If we have barriers in place that prevent an employer from eliminating an employee who one can draw a reasonable conclusion that 

they are there as subversive tactics and not to further the best interests of that company, this government should not be standing in 

the way of a legitimate decision by an employer. 

By the way, employers are interested in making money, and 

many of them run union operations and merit shop operations, and 

many companies are out there double-breasted. They see the merits 

of both sides, and I have always been one who defended the right 

of the worker to organize. I hate to think what it would be like in 

this country if you would back up to the beginning of the previous 

century if employees had not been able to organize. We needed 

6

that, in some degree we need that today. But it is a right in this 

country to market your services. 

If you want to package them up and mark them as a union, fine. 

Be competitive that way. But if you want to undermine and subvert and take businesses out of business for the purposes of organizing a union within a merit shop company, or maybe just eliminating the competition for a union shop company, these things are 

wrong, they are immoral, they are unethical, they should be 

against the law, and certainly there should not be a federal statute 

in the way that puts an employer in a condition where they are 

subject to these kind of suits that are brought forward that bog 

them down, that burden them with their capital, and keep them 

from focusing on this thing that we all agree on is competitiveness. 

We need to be promoting better and better competitiveness in 

this country. This bill, Truth in Employment Act, H.R. 1816, I believe does that, and that is why I brought this forward, and I appreciate the cosponsorship on your part, Madam Chair, and a number of others on this bill. 

Thank you. 

[Congressman King’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. You have a few minutes left, so I am 

disappointed that you did not use your entire time. No, I want to 

thank you for adhering to the time constraint and for your testimony today. Thank you. Come join us. 

At this time I call up the second panel, if you would come to the 

microphones, please. Sometimes we have a hard time hearing in 

the back of the room. So when the second panel speaks, if you will 

pull the microphone toward you. 

The first witness we will hear from today is Mr. Mark Mix, and 

he is the National Right to Work Committee President. Thank you 

for being here with us. 

STATEMENT OF MARK MIX, NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK 

COMMITTEE 

Mr. MIX. Madam Chairman, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify on an issue that is increasingly growing in awareness. The Congressional Record on this issue is growing, and this 

is part of the process of continuing to grow that record. 

Congressman Lipinski reflected in his opening statement that 

the theory of salting is one that makes sense, but it is the practical 

reality of it that is concerning to those of us who have watched this 

practice grow with alarming frequency. And the record that has 

been created so far, and there will be testimony that reflects that 

this issue has come up again and again in various congresses. The 

record indicates that notwithstanding the fact that there are statements on the record that say no one is hurt by this, we are going 

to hear from some people today, and this Congress has heard from 

people in the past whose businesses and livelihoods have been dramatically affected by the practice of salting. 

Madam Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on 

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

Committee, dedicated to fighting compulsory unionism across 

America. 

7

With this in mind, the National Right to Work Committee wholeheartedly supports H.R. 1816, the Truth in Employment Act, and 

commends Representative Steve King and the bill’s 22 cosponsors 

for shedding light once again on this important issue. 

When a small growing company seeks to hire new employees, 

union officials identify that business as a target to expand their 

forced-unionism empire. 

Union officials coordinate a stream of job applicants, both overtly 

and covertly, who identify themselves in one manner, either overtly 

as union organizers, or covertly, who will try to get a job to, frankly, unionize a small company. 

Union officials call this salting, and it is an appropriate metaphor because salting, in context is preparing food, makes it 

unappetizing. Salting is a great metaphor. This process makes 

doing business unappetizing to many of those people, employees 

and small employers who are caught in this catch-22. 

If the employer hires the union salts, who are actually paid 

union organizers, union officials institute quick-snap elections trying for card check recognition. Then if they cannot get that, they 

work to intimidate employers through job actions and intimidate 

employees through threats and slow downs on the job that make 

life miserable for both employees and employers. 

If the employer does not hire the union-appointed applicant, the 

union plants go straight to filing unfair labor practice charges with 

the National Labor Relations Board, and other agencies, to make 

life very difficult for the employer, and in a sense their employees. 

Let me just divert here for a second because as we talk about 

this in the context of the small business, these small business men 

and women employ employees who, if they want, are protected by 

the National Labor Relations Act to organize and to unionize. 

But oftentimes these small companies are doing business, and it 

takes a paid union organizer coming into the plant to start this 

process going forward. The idea that some workers are not aware 

of their rights under the law I think is not really accurate in the 

sense of their ability to exercise their rights. The legal protections 

that exist under the National Labor Relations Act to protect workers who want to legitimately unionize and aid in collective bargaining and mutual association for their betterment. 

This concept of salting by definition is controversial and one of 

intimidation, and I think I will insert into the record some quotes 

from a union organizing magazine and pamphlets that indicate 

that. 

The problem is salting is currently sanctioned by law, unfortunately, thanks to a ruling by the NLRB and the Supreme Court. 

Federal law should not force anyone to hire union salts whose goal 

is to put them out of business, or force the unwanted union representation on their current employees. 

Big labor salting hurts all Americans. This kind of forced unionism can cost employees their jobs, and cause businesses to close 

their doors. 

I would refer to some testimony that was delivered last year in 

this same Subcommittee. An IBEW, Electrical Brotherhood of Electrical Workers pamphlet describes salting this way: ‘‘It is infiltraVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:44 Oct 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\23176.TXT MIKE
8

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

Salting is kind of—as I mentioned—a ‘‘got-you’’ type of unionizing tactic, and if you look at some of the quotes of some of the 

highest officials in organized labor, I think you can see how they 

view this particular practice. 

In fact, one of the—again another IBEW pamphlet, union officials accede to the fact that these are noble pleas for workplace 

fairness openly admit as much that ‘‘These companies,’’ explains 

the IBEW in its organizing manual, ‘‘know that when they are targeted with stripping, salting, and market recovery funds, it is only 

a mater of time before their foundations begin to crumble. The 

NLRB charges, the attorney’s fees, and the loss of employees can 

lead to an unprofitable business.’’ 

Tom McNutt, the International Vice President of the United 

Food and Commercial Workers, has stated, ‘‘If we can’t organize 

them, the best thing to do is to erode their business as much as 

possible.’’ 

Richard Trumka, the AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer, does not 

mince words either. He says, ‘‘If the unions attack the company’s 

weak points and threatens its strength, he maintains the employer 

will not be able to conduct business as usual because it is consumed with defending itself against the union. It is the death of 

a thousand cuts rather than a single blow.’’ 

I think these quotes accurately reflect the views of how salting 

is actually used in reality, and I think that is what we are here 

to talk about, and we will hear some more about that. 

I wholeheartedly endorse Congressman King’s bill, and I hope 

that the Congress will continue this debate and move this bill to 

the floor for passage. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

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

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Mix. 

Now we will hear from Ray Isaac. Thank you, Mr. Isaac, for coming. 

STATEMENT OF RAY ISAAC, ISAAC HEATING & A/C INC. 

Mr. ISAAC. Thank you. Chairman Musgrave and members of the 

Subcommittee. 

On behalf of the Air Conditioning Contractors of America, ACCA, 

I wanted to thank you for the providing me the opportunity to testify today on this very critical issue to small business. 

In addition to being a member of ACCA, I am president of Isaac 

Heating & Air Conditioning based in Rochester, New York. We are 

a 60-year-old, third generation heating and air conditioning business started by my grandfather. We have over 150 employees working for the company. We provide residential, commercial industrial 

heating, ventilation and air conditioning refrigeration service to 

customers throughout Rochester and the surrounding area. 

In addition, I am serving a one-year term as secretary in ACCA’s 

Board of Directors. 

In running my business, I face many complex issues and challenges ranging from the industry labor shortages to complying with 

federal government regulatory requirements. In addition to these 

9

issues, I also have to contend with an abusive practice from labor 

unions, known as salting, that threatens to disrupt my business, as 

well as others in this and other industries. 

Salting is a term to describe a union member who obtains, or attempts to obtain, employment from a non-union contractor. Once 

employed, the union member, or salt, attempts to educate nonunion employees about their rights, including the right to organize. 

While I have felt that union salting was not a very honest way 

for a union to infiltrate a unsuspecting business, I could see how 

salting could be viewed as a legitimate organizing tool by the 

unions. 

You can see the systematic approach that unions take to control 

jurisdictions to make sure that all construction work is done by 

union workers. These procedures have taken many forms to include 

salting, controlling manpower in a geographical area, and applying 

economic pressure to the customers of a non-union contractor. 

I would like to submit for the record, as already has been done, 

a manual from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 

that provides extensive information on how to union organize, including a discussion of salting and other organizing tactics. 

Recently, however, instead of educating non-union employees on 

their rights, union salting has become nothing more than an overt 

and glorified tool of harassment and intimidation designed to antagonize the non-union business. The salt enters into employment 

with the contractors with the purpose of making allegations of unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act. In 

many cases these allegations are proven false but require the nonunion contractor to spend financial resources defending themselves 

from these false accusations. 

Instead of educating workers, the goal of the union is to inflict 

economic loss and non-union employers about using the NLRB as 

a shield against these practices. 

In my experience, another tool that is equally prevalent is the 

practice by a particular union to send in applicants who are underqualified, unprofessional, and in some cases even appear to be intoxicated personally by myself. This game of cat and mouse is 

played by construction unions all across the country, and it is a 

game that can cost honest, hard-working small businesses countless hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars to play this game 

with unions. 

The unions are allowed to behave with disingenuous intentions 

when sending a union salt to obtain employment with a non-union 

contractor. Unfortunately, the small businesses are expected to respond to these applicants with genuine business reasons for not 

hiring them. 

In my experience, many times the union does not even wait for 

a response on the status of an employment application from the 

business before filing an unfair labor practice charge claiming 

union animus. 

In most cases these charges are dismissed as frivolous, yet the 

action of filing frivolous claims against contractors before the 

NLRB uses up precious federal time and resources that could be 

better used to pursue bona fide claims against truly egregious labor 

law violations. 

10

My industry is currently undergoing a tremendous labor shortage, and we have to work hard to find qualified workers to meet 

the demands of my customers. Because of this intense competition 

for qualified workers, we must competitively compensate our technicians, otherwise they will and can seek employment with another 

company. 

I also feel it is important to compensate employees for quality 

work and not have to follow a predetermined time schedule or 

other job classifications that a union requires. 

In today’s economy and the employment realities of my industry, 

this activity is counterproductive to the stimulation of the workforce. 

In some cases, honest small businesses are caught in the quagmire. Instead of hiring genuine valid applicants honestly seeking 

gainful employment, they spend significant time and money addressing union harassment. Defending your small business against 

a ULP charge can be expensive for a small business whereas the 

NLRB covers the cost for the union salt that files a charge. 

Many small businesses subsequently find themselves taking the 

safest route possible to avoid litigation. They hire no one. This disruptive behavior is the last thing our economy needs. In my opinion, salting has become peppering. 

Thank you for your attention and the opportunity to present our 

views before your Subcommittee. 

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

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Isaac. 

Our next witness is Mr. Larry Cohen. Welcome to the Committee. 

Sir, could I ask you to pull the microphone up. It is so hard to 

hear in this room. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, is that better? 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Yes. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF LAURENCE J. COHEN, SHERMAN, DUNN, 

COHEN, LEIFER & YELLIG 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Chairman Musgrave, and Ranking Member Lipinski, for allowing me to present the views of the Building 

Trades Department of the AFL-CIO. 

My name is Laurence Cohen. I am a member of the Washington 

law firm of Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer & Yellig, which is general counsel to the Building Trades Department. 

The department is comprised of 15 national and international 

unions, representing over a million workers in the construction industry. And I ask that the written statement of Buildings Trades 

Department President Edward Sullivan be admitted in the record. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Without objection 

Mr. COHEN. We have witnessed attempts in the last five congresses to do what this bill seeks to do; that is, allow employers 

to discriminate against union organizers and supporters with impunity. Those bills went nowhere, nor should this. 

Our position, Madam Chairman, is simply this: Salting is about 

organizing, organizing construction workers and construction employers, and construction unions use skilled workers, salts, as orgaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:44 Oct 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\23176.TXT MIKE
11

nizers, tell them to do their work properly and to organize only 

within the law. 

They engage in the type of activity that Congress, a unanimous 

Supreme Court, and the National Labor Relations Board have recognized as being a fundamental right under the NLRA. 

Contractors do not, as they often claim, lose control of their jobs 

as a result of a salting campaign because a salt, like any other employee, is subject to the employer’s direction, should do his work in 

a satisfactory manner, and obey all lawful work rules. 

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

union activity. 

Now, let me address a fallacy I have heard about this bill; namely, that it would not take away any legitimate rights that employees now have. 

That is wrong. The United States Supreme Court has held 

unanimously that salts as union organizers are entitled to the protections of the NLRA and cannot be discriminated against. This bill 

would end those rights, and effectively hang a sign in every nonunion shop saying union supporters need not apply. 

Under current law, legally the situation of a salt is no different 

from that of an employee who is already on the job and who decides to support a union to improve his or her working conditions. 

Those who resist organizing in the construction industry claim, 

as you have heard, that unions seek to drive up employers’ costs. 

Well, there are two answers to that. 

First, the goal of all organizing is to eliminate unfair competition 

based on substandard wages and working conditions. If a nonunion employer is paying substandard wages, and is organized, and 

a resulting collective bargaining agreement reached, he may have 

to pay the higher wages in that agreement. 

Second, many non-union contractors gain an unfair competitive 

advantage by violating various laws. And when they save money by 

violating wage and hour laws or by failing to comply with prevailing wage requirements, as I might add Mr. Isaac was found by 

the New York Commission of Labor last year, or with OSHA requirements designed to protect the health and safety of employees, 

it is fair to expose them. 

Those who violate worker protective laws victimize not only their 

employees, but legitimate contractors, union and non-union, who 

abide by the law. 

The same employers claim that union organizers will produce an 

inferior work product or engage in sabotage on the job, and that 

they are helpless when that occurs. 

If any of those acts take place, contrary to the instruction salts 

receive, employers are not without a remedy. The Supreme Court 

said this in its Town and Country decision, ‘‘A company faced with 

unlawful or possibly unlawful activity can discipline or dismiss the 

worker, file a complaint with the board, or notify law enforcement 

authorities.’’ 

Finally, there is the claim about the frivolous unfair labor practice charges. We have demonstrated in our written statement that 

the NLRB statistics do not support that, and the most common reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:44 Oct 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\23176.TXT MIKE
12

sponse to salting by unions is the commission by contractors of unfair labor practices. When that occurs we will certainly file charges. 

It is interesting that the ABC itself told its members how to 

avoid legal problems resulting from salting. In a 1995 tape, the 

message was comply with the law, do not discriminate, do not interrogate or threaten, and if you union activists are the most qualified applicants, hire them. In most cases, however, that very sound 

advice is disregarded. 

Let me repeat, Madam Chairman, our object is to organize and 

salts serve that purpose by seeking to convince their fellow workers 

of the benefits of joining a union. 

I would like very briefly to mention that you are going to hear 

a very sad story from Mr. Aldi, but it should be noted that just 10 

days ago an administrative law judge of the NLRB found him 

guilty of multiple violations of the National Labor Relations Act, 

including five unlawful discharges; that he was found in an earlier 

case through unlawfully repudiated a collective bargaining agreement; and that he is being sued by the Secretary of Labor for, I 

quote, ‘‘willful and— 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Your time has expired. 

Mr. COHEN. ‘‘—repeated violations of the Fair Labor Standards 

Act.’’ 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[Mr. Cohen’s statement may be found in the appendix on behalf 

of Mr. Edward Sullivan.] 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Our next witness, Mr. Michael Aldi. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL ALDI, ALDI ELECTRIC 

Mr. ALDI. Madam Chairwoman, members of the Subcommittee. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Could I ask you also to pull the microphone a little closer? 

Mr. ALDI. Turn it on. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you. 

Mr. ALDI. Madam Chairwoman, members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to share with you today my story 

about the devastating effects of union salting has on me. 

My name is Michael Aldi, Jr. and I am a victim of a union salting campaign. I was the owner and president of a medium-sized 

electrical contracting company, Aldi Electric, Inc., in upstate New 

York. Aldi Electric was established in 1989, and was incorporated 

in July of 1997. 

I am the product of divorced parents and I was raised on welfare 

by my single mother, and with five other brothers and sisters. I 

was a welfare-to-work success story, building my American dream, 

or so I thought. 

With only $2,000 in my pockets and many long hours of work, 

I built a company that had yearly sales of over $1 million in 2001. 

In retrospect, my success in the electrical contracting business 

would be my downfall. Soon, my business would gain the attention 

of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, or the 

IBEW for short. 

In 1997, Aldi Electric had its first taste of union salting and sabotage. You see, through a competitive bidding process, I was 

13

awarded the contract to wire a new Revco Pharmacy in Niskayuna, 

New York. During this project, it was discovered that concrete was 

poured into a conduit 30 feet in the air. The cost to correct this deliberate sabotage was over $5,000. 

The suspected saboteur was eventually laid off due to lack of 

work, leaving the IBEW to file unfair labor practice charges with 

the National Labor Relations Board. This case is still open and has 

cost well over $10,000 in legal fees to defend. 

In 2000, I hired an employee to work as a foreman to manage 

various jobs. This foreman/employee quit within only three months 

of being hired, without notice, in the middle of a large job. After 

he left it was discovered that he had taken company tools and 

equipment. Additionally, I found many hidden mistakes this employee made while I was acting as foreman that would cost the 

company $6,000 to repair. 

This same employee then filed false allegations with the New 

York State Department of Labor, which the company decided to 

settle for $800 rather than face an expensive legal battle. After the 

settlement was reached, I discovered that this former employee had 

been on the union payroll the entire time he had been working for 

me. 

The most extensive and egregious acts of union salting against 

my company were perpetrated by the IBEW Local 236 from the 

years 2002 to 2004. These acts would eventually ruin my business 

and force me into bankruptcy. 

Toward the end of 2001, a childhood acquaintance of mine approach me asking for a job. He expressed to me that he had a falling out with the IBEW Local 236 due to the way that he had been 

treated. Needing his skill sets, and knowing that he was a union 

electrician, I hired him to work as a foreman to run job. Unknown 

to me at the time though IBEW Local 236 did not have any work 

in the area. 

Since this childhood acquaintance did not want to travel out of 

the area, a representative from the IBEW Local 236 gave him an 

ultimatum. Either salt Aldi Electric or go on unemployment. I 

found this out after I had fired him. During his tenure at my company, he was constantly making mistakes that would cost thousands of dollars and numerous man hours to repair, so I thought 

they were honest mistakes. 

In July of 2003, I caught this childhood acquaintance stealing 

electric materials and equipment and personal equipment from my 

home. After firing him, several employees approached me to tell me 

what this former employee had been doing all along. 

Employees stated that they had seen him stealing materials and 

equipment from job site, sabotaging work, padding his and other 

time sheets, and forcing other employees to pad their time sheets. 

He also threatened other employees with violence and black balling 

within the electrical trade if they disclosed his activities. He communicated false statements to customers driving a wedge between 

the company and its customers, and he bragged to other employees 

that he was helping IBEW bring Aldi down. 

In addition, on the advice of this childhood acquaintance, I hired 

his mother as an office manager to help his family. During her 

four-month tenure at Aldi Electric, she helped her son salting camVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:44 Oct 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\23176.TXT MIKE
14

paign by sabotaging company payroll records, altering employee 

payroll records, and destroying company equipment sign-out 

sheets. This helped cover thefts of her son and other union salts, 

mismanaged company office practices and equipment, and succeeded in alienating additional customers by being rude on the 

phone with them When the internal sabotage was brought to my 

attention by a newly hired bookkeeper, the office manager was subsequent fired. 

Also during 2003, I hired two additional employees to work as 

foremen. Eventually, both of these foremen were caught sabotaging 

jobs, stealing equipment, and padding time sheets and were suspected of arson that burned down an Aldi Electric equipment trailer out of town. They also threatened a builder not to pay Aldi Electric or they would face union problems of their own. This led the 

builder to withholding over $30,000 in payments due. 

Several weeks after terminating these union salts, additional employees left the company out of fear of union retaliation and ended 

up joining the IBEW. This left Aldi Electric extremely short 

staffed. 

So we sought to hire new employees. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Your time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. ALDI. Thank you. 

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

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Our next witness is Ms. Anita Drummond. Thank you for coming to the Committee today. 

STATEMENT OF ANITA DRUMMOND, DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AND 

REGULATORY AFFAIRS, ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS 

Ms. DRUMMOND. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I am Anita Drummond with the Associated Builders and Contractors. 

I want to just point out a few things in regards to some of the 

comments that have been made earlier. 

One of the most significant things in the construction industry 

is that union membership has continually plummeted in recent 

years. It is now down to less than 15 percent of all construction 

workers are in a union. 

Now, you would indicate that maybe because of economic times 

and the struggles that that is why union membership is down. 

They are, in fact, struggling to recapture their market share. 

However, construction, opposed to other goods-producing industries, is booming. We have put in place construction of over $1 trillion worth of construction in 2004. That is double what it was ten 

years ago. Construction is booming. We expect to create 1 million 

new jobs in the next 10 years in addition to the 7 million employees we currently have, and the 2 million people that choose to be 

self-employed in the construction industry. 

Therefore, unions naturally are struggling to capture market 

share, and part of that is union organizing tactics. 

The traditional use of salting is in fact organizing, and as Mr. 

Cohen pointed out, in a lawful activity it is an employee that is in 

compliance with the laws, is working under the work practices of 

15

that employer, and working to campaign the non-union employees 

about the benefits of a union. 

But that is not how it always goes down. Importantly, in the 

struggle to recapture market share, union workers often are sent 

in, union organizers, to shut down companies. There was a reference to the legal fees of being 10,000. I can easily think of small 

companies, and that would be under the Small Business Administration’s definition, those with less than $7 million on annual receipts, going through a compliance hearing can easily be $100,000. 

Well, obviously, the rational would be, well, if they had to go 

through a compliance hearing, the must have obviously been in violation. But I believe that Mr. Aldi’s description is exactly the kind 

of stories we hear. 

As a result of the Town and Country case in 1995, a prima facie 

case was established that if an employer knows that you are union, 

you can go in wearing your union label, you can indicate it on your 

application, there is a prima facie case that if you do not hire that 

person you must be discriminating against them. 

There has been a tremendous patchwork of case law in the past 

10 years that leaves very little guidance for a good employer to follow that assures that they are not discriminating, yet are picking 

the best qualified candidates. 

Some of the things as openings. Is there actual opening? In the 

Modern Electric case, in 1998, there was no proof there was an 

opening. Yet failure to hire a union organizer that, you know, identified themselves, was a prima facie case of discrimination. 

If there is no necessary match, meaning we do not have an opening for an electrician or a qualified electrician at this time, then 

that should not—that should not establish a prima facie case of discrimination, but it does. 

The timing, we have put our applications in. We have flooded you 

with applications six months ago. Now you have openings. You 

should call us. Do you necessarily fill all of the paperwork properly 

as required by our employment practices? And it has to be both 

policy and practices of the employer. They cannot discriminate in 

their practice. That is not necessarily the way the chips fall in 

these cases. 

Probably the most egregious things is hiding the fact that you 

are a union organizers or putting bad references or incomplete 

work history, and the Wright Electric case is one of the most egregious examples of that. 

Just yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court failed to grant a petition 

for certiorari on that matter where we have a case where an employee lied on the application, and when it was discovered after the 

employee was hired, they were not in fact qualified to work, that 

company is now being subjected to actually a civil lawsuit in the 

state. But it is that type of practice that continues to go on. 

The legal activity of organizing, going into a workplace, being 

qualified, there is a job opening, being hired, and doing the job of 

convincing employees, whether it is in their best interest to organize, is it a legitimate right under the law for someone who is salting. 

However, the law has continued to shield individuals that go into 

a workplace in order to shut down a workplace. If you are looking 

16

at $100,000 in legal fees and you have less than $7 million in annual receipts, that is essentially consumed your entire profit margin, and more, and actually reduces your ability to gainfully employ 

folks. 

Thank you very much, and I appreciate your time. 

[Ms. Drummond’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you for your testimony and adhering to our time constraints. 

Our final witness is Mr. Michael Avakian. Thank you very much 

for coming before us today. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL AVAKIAN, GENERAL COUNSEL, 

CENTER ON NATIONAL LABOR POLICY, INC. 

Mr. AVAKIAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I am going to provide some summary comments based upon the 

testimony that I have already submitted, that statement, that is, 

As general counsel for the Center on National Labor Policy, 

which is a nonprofit legal foundation, I take a different type of view 

on legislation because we had a request to testify, and based upon 

about 30 years of experience in the labor relations field, including 

representing small businesses and employees in the entire area of 

law, we have found that many of the problems dealing with salting 

that the bill that is pending before the House right now is intending to answer goes directly to the heart of a problem that began 

with the Town and Country decision, which we all can admit that 

the labor act now is said to provide protections to union organizers 

who enter the workforce through surreptitious means, maybe 

through regular means as well, but get into the workforce and start 

to do organizing. 

I would observe, first, that the issues dealing with this problem 

are focused primarily in the construction industry because within 

the construction industry there is an exception for organizing without an employee vote. Section 8[f] of the labor act permits employees, or employers and labor organizations in the construction industry to enter into collective bargaining agreements notwithstanding the wishes of the employees. 

Now, having said that, the way we have heard the unions and 

labor organizations are attempting to organize is by getting into 

the workplace and organizing workers. 

Well, that sounds like a correct approach to begin with, but the 

case law does not bear it out. What happens with these persons 

that enter the workplace either through normal means, a hiring 

procedure, or through a surreptitious means, which Ms. Drummond 

just outlined, which could be applications that are incomplete. 

I have had cases where—in representing small employers—the 

applications are actually filled out in advance by union organizers, 

submitted with references, omissions and so forth, which are incomplete and inaccurate, but still those lead to NLRB proceedings 

that require the small employer to vindicate and show that these 

people just are not credible in their application process. 

Retirees are submitting applications. If they take a job, they lose 

their union retirement. So it does not make sense that a lot of people who are trying to become salts do become salt, or will become 

effective workers. 

17

Upon entering the workplace, what do we see? Do we see effective, good, skilled workmanship, helping the employer and all the 

employees to have a successful business where they all can take 

away from the hard work that they accomplish with continued jobs, 

and growth in the business? 

No, we do not see that. We do not see the focus being on organizing other employees. The focus is on doing things to trip up the 

employer who is probably not as—especially in small business, is 

not as adept and knowledgeable of labor laws, to engage in unfair 

labor practice activity. 

The end result is, in the cases I have been involved with, which 

have been numerous, and you could easily request information 

from the National Labor Relations Board, is how many of these 

types of cases get settled, and what do those settlements look like? 

They are basically payoffs. The union organizer agrees, okay, I 

will stop doing it if you give me a cash money, or I will agree to 

leave the company if you give me $5,000. They are essentially extortion payments which end up as part of the problem with this 

particular type of salting. 

If it could be, as Mr. Cohen indicated, purely an effort to organize workers, focused on activities of demonstrating the benefits of 

collective bargaining before work, after work, on lunch breaks, and 

on other breaks, that would be one thing. But the activities are focused on activities intending to put economic pressure on the employer to sign the workers over to the labor organization, and then 

collect dues and other things from the employees. 

So that has been our experience, and I think if you were to take 

a look at the case law and just on its face just look at the fact patterns that have occurred, and how the labor board has split hairs 

and said, okay, the salters are allegedly engaged in section 7 activity, which is protected activity, but the burden of proof is now on 

the employer to show and demonstrate clear business reasons why 

they took certain actions. 

The labor board council has a tendency to overlook certain aspects of litigation. One is the statute, section 10[b], says the Federal Rules of Evidence should apply to do these types of hearings, 

NLRB hearings. 

One of the rules, 201[c] under the rules of evidence, says that 

persons cannot get paid for their testimony. If they are getting paid 

for their testimony, then their testimony is not going to be admitted. 

Well, these salts are getting paid for testimony. They are actually getting paid for testimony, or developing fact patterns that 

they will then testify before the labor board on. 

There are also cases where employees are actually getting paid 

and receive payments, and one of the cases is Brandt Construction 

Company, which is cited in my statement, in which some of the 

salters— 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Your time has expired. 

Mr. AVAKIAN. Oh, I am sorry. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Perhaps in a question asked of you you 

may be able to elaborate on that. Thank you so very much. 

Mr. AVAKIAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

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

18

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. I appreciate all the witnesses’ testimony. I would like to recognize Mr. Westmoreland, if you have 

questions, sir. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Cohen, you are a brave man to be down here by yourself. But 

are you familiar with the literature that Mr. Mix and Mr. Isaac 

quoted from, the IBEW literature that talked about what to do 

with these salts, or what salts should do when they got in the company 

Mr. COHEN. If the piece of literature to which he referred is what 

I think it is, it was written by someone who has not been employed 

by the IBEW for 10 years, and whose approach to salting was disavowed even before he was forced to leave. 

We certainly do not subscribe to that philosophy. It does not 

serve the purpose of trying to gain union workers and union—new 

union employers. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I believe—are you familiar with this manual? 

Mr. COHEN. I cannot see it, sir. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. It is called ‘‘The Union Organization 

in the Construction Industry,’’ and it says Brotherhood of—International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. It has got their official 

trademark 

Mr. COHEN. That may be the same document. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I believe it is, yes. And it looks official document, that it was put out by the union itself. 

On the other hand, you have got ABC, which you quoted as in 

a video that they sent to their members, asking their members to 

abide by the law, and to hire a salt if they were equally qualified 

or better qualified to try to go along with the spirit of the law. 

It sounds to me like that from just listening to all of the testimony that the union, or at least the IBEW in the pamphlet that 

they have got here, their intent is to use the law that is there for 

disruption and to put these non-union companies out of business, 

whereas the people who are actually in the business, such as ABC 

and the people that they represent, are trying to get their members 

to actually abide by the spirit of the law. 

Do you have any comment on that 

Mr. COHEN. Well, all I can do, Mr. Westmoreland, is repeat what 

I just said. That the view of the IBEW today is diametrically opposed to what appears on those pages, and that the author of those 

pages is long gone. 

I would also say that while the advice on the ABC video was very 

sound, it is certainly honored far more in the breach than in the 

observance. Most non-union contractors as soon as a salt shows up 

immediately begin engaging in discrimination in either refusal to 

hire, or if one is a covert salt, and that is, he does not advertise 

that he is from a union, fired when his union affiliation is discovered on the job. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And one last question and comment if I 

could. Well, I do not know if you represent the IBEW or not or any 

of your— 

Mr. COHEN. We do. 

19

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. Then you know, you might want to 

give them some good legal advice, and to get their official symbol 

or recognition, I guess, of giving this some credibility off of that if 

they do not agree with it, but certainly I am in business for myself. 

And if my name was on something I did not agree with, I would 

certainly want it off of that. 

Then I guess my last question to you is this: Do you believe there 

is any place in labor for non-union companies 

Mr. COHEN. I think that ultimately is a matter of choice for the 

employees of any particular contractor. We would obviously, representing the unionized sector of the construction industry, like to 

see as many union contractors as possible. That is the whole point 

of organizing. 

But as to any given contractor, only that contractor’s employees 

can make that choice, which is one reason we are on the job trying 

to proselytize. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. But it should be a choice that they make 

on their own free will without anybody having to be subjected to 

undue pressures? 

Mr. COHEN. By anyone. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, sir. Thank you, ma’am. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Westmoreland. 

Mr. Lipinski, do you have questions? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

First of all, starting out Mr. Mix had stated at the beginning 

about salting being bad for food. Actually, I think a lot of people 

like salt put on their food. It is a problem for a lot of us actually. 

In regard to unions themselves, though, Ms. Drummond stated 

that—along the lines that union organizing is usually the purpose 

for salting, and Mr. Isaac had mentioned that usually what the 

salts do, they want to educate workers about their rights, and Mr. 

Mix, you had talked about in theory salting, you know, is not bad. 

My question, Mr. Mix, is do you think that—is the union necessarily—does a union necessarily work against the interests of an 

employer? Is it necessarily an adversarial relationship? And does 

the presence of a union mean that they are going to be anti-business? 

Because none of us want to be—none of us up here want to be 

anti-business. I do not want to be anti-business. But do you think 

a union is necessarily anti-business? 

Mr. MIX. I do not think so. I think the context in which I approach this issue, and I appreciate the question, is in the context 

of employee rights. 

You know, it is interesting that in these companies, the employees of these companies mentioned, had no interest in unionization 

or had not shown any until someone, an agent provocateur, if you 

will, had to be paid to show up and infiltrate the company, either 

overtly or covertly. 

Now, I think, as I mentioned in my testimony, the rights to protect individual workers in their exercise of section 7 rights under 

the National Labor Relations Act are steadfast. The question is do 

workers really want these unions, and do they—can their jobs exist 

after an employer spends a half a million dollars on legal fees? Can 

we increase their wages? 

20

If a worker has an individual choice, free of coercion to choose 

an organization, we are all for that. But I think there is definite 

coercion, and the stories we are hearing in this record are created 

by salting. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Do you think that workers definitely know what 

their rights are? Do you think that they automatically know? 

Where do they get this information from? Do you think that— yes, 

well, that is simply the question. Where do they get this information if that is the idea of salting? You said, in theory, salting is 

good. 

Mr. MIX. Well, I think the testimony of Mr. Cohen and the testimony we have read in the record in the hearings previously have 

indicated that in theory salting is an idea where workers get informed of their section 7 rights, their right to organize. 

You know, a worker can go to the NLRB website or to a union 

hiring hall to find out what their rights are. Those rights are available to them and understanding those rights. 

It is when those rights are violated by compulsory unionism 

agreements and forced unionism, and the coercion that we are seeing in the testimony of those that have experienced salting is 

where we get the problem. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Now you are bringing in forced or compulsory unionism. Where are you talking about that coming in? 

Mr. MIX. Well, I think just a couple weeks ago the National 

Labor Relations Board ruled in a case regarding 14 nurses in Missouri that because they did not pay their dues they would be fired. 

If that is not compulsory unionism, I do not know what it is. 

Under the National Labor Relations Act, workers can be fired for 

failure to pay dues as a condition of employment. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Is it not required that there is a vote before there 

is a union? 

Mr. MIX. If you want to use the idea of democracy to forfeit basic 

rights that should not be subject to a vote, I guess you could say 

that indeed they would. 

But is it appropriate that a worker has to give up their rights 

to negotiate and to contract with an employer of their rights of employment to a union official that they neither wanted, voted for, or 

asked for? I do not think so, and 80 percent of Americans do not 

believe that either. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Cohen, what do you feel about that 

Mr. COHEN. Well, the Congress decided first in 1935 and then 

changed the law slightly in 1947, that it is perfectly lawful for a 

union and an employer, which are parties to a collective bargaining 

agreement, to have a union security clause in that agreement that 

says that after a certain number of days of employment, those who 

are represented by the union, members and non-members alike, 

must pay either membership dues or an agency fee in order to support their collective bargaining representative, and that principle 

made sense then, it makes sense today. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. One more quick question, Mr. Mix, although it is 

probably not an easy answer. It seems that we are talking about 

not salting but other things that occur, other things that are not 

legal right now, sabotage for example. Is that not what we are really trying to aim at, and that we should be aim at ending? Not necVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:44 Oct 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\23176.TXT MIKE
21

essarily salting to educate workers, but stopping these other problems that sometimes do occur? 

Mr. MIX. I would hope so, Congressman, and I think the fact is 

in reality that is what we are seeing, that these salting campaigns 

manifest themselves into. 

The record on this of the people that have testified before, both 

the small business owners and those workers that are affected by 

this, indicate that, for example, in Illinois, Operating Engineers 

Local 150 salting of Randall Industries. 

In 23 years of operation, there was not one act of vandalism. As 

soon as the salting campaign started, things happened that cost 

this particular employer and his workers, jobs, and legal fees that 

could have been used for improved wages, et cetera. 

I would agree that we should get to the heart of it and say you 

have got to stop it. But when a salt comes in with a video camera 

rolling, a union hat on, and 16 of them come into apply for a job 

that perhaps does not exist according to testimony from the ABC, 

and then they have this prima facie evidence that you have discriminated because they are union members, and they are in there 

saying we are going to organize you, boy, that is pretty tough to 

take as a small businessman. I think the employees that work for 

those small businesses are really hurt by that. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Time has expired. Thank you. We may 

come back for another round if you would like. 

Mr. King, do you have questions? 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do, and in five minutes 

I am going to try to talk to four of you if I can pull this off. 

First of all, Mr. Mix, you started with a sequence of salting, and 

I believe the first word you used was ‘‘infiltration’’? 

Mr. MIX. Yeah, this quote, and I think Congressman Westmoreland had this up there, it is—let me just go back here real quick 

and I do it. ‘‘Infiltration, confrontation, litigation, disruption, and 

hopefully annihilation of non-union contractors.’’ 

Mr. KING. That is what I wanted to hear. Thank you. 

And then I will go to Mr. Isaac, a couple of questions for you, 

Mr. Isaac. 

The first one is Mr. Cohen made some remarks about your record 

as an employer. I want to make sure you have an opportunity to 

respond to that, and then I want to follow up with, as part of that 

response, could you give this panel some idea of about how many 

different incidents of salting type that you have experienced? And 

I do not mean just the number of employees that might have 

showed up, but the number of actions that have been committed 

in a cover fashion within your company that you suspect. 

Mr. ISAAC. All right, I will try to leave you some time for your 

other four people. 

Real quick, the one willful violation that we had the recent violation was a Department of Labor, New York State Department of 

Labor adjustment on a prevailing wage job where the municipalities in the towns were equally at fault in that they did not bid the 

jobs out properly. 

I should mention that one of the wage adjustments for one of our employees was $1.76, the majority of which was benefit adjustments; not that we denied benefits to any of our employees, but 

22

there was a difference between what our benefit value is that they 

gave credit for and what the union prevailing rate, which I do not 

know where they get prevailing rates from because it is the result 

of a collective bargaining agreement, but the difference between 

those was the adjustments. So that is one willful. 

There was actually eight different locations, and they saw that 

there was no intentional willful act there, so they condensed it 

down to one willful violation. So I appreciate the opportunity to 

clarify that. 

In our organization’s, salting—there were several stages. The 

original salting activity was only the beginning. We suspect, we do 

not even know who it was, but we suspect that a salt got into our 

location, and they educated our workers on what the union could 

do for them, and they got a large portion of our workers to go with 

them. 

You know what? Shame on us. We did not educate them properly 

on what we felt was the benefits of being in a merit shop, and 

maybe we were not providing them with everything they should 

have been getting. You know, sometimes after sixty years you become a little complacent. So shame on us. There was an education 

there. 

That went to an election. We won the election. It got thrown out 

on a technicality. Two other elections were scheduled, and then 

continually postponed because of ULP charges in a whole other 

area of, you know, situations that were all subsequently withdrawn 

after the NLRB told them that there was no cause for action. 

What has happened now and the reason I say salting has become 

peppering, it is an overt, outward harassment of our company by 

the unions. They walk in. Individuals that have been forbidden 

from entering our premises by the NLRB, the two union organizers 

of our local unions, the Sheet Metal Workers and the United Association, are not allowed on our property. This is by the NLRB, an 

agency that is there to protect them, told them do not come on our 

property because of their reprehensible behavior. 

Furthermore, in the last case, and I will summarize it here, the 

last case of this organizing where what everybody has said is what 

happens. They come in en masse. They do not follow the proper 

hiring procedures. They fill out mass applications. They cannot 

even take the time to type in my name. They have to scratch out 

‘‘Dear Sir,’’ and write ‘‘Ray’’ at the top, and fill in their name on 

a blank. You cannot even read the resume, and then they file a 

ULP charge saying you did not hire them. 

I do not care who they are. Union member, the best qualified 

person in the world, if that is the first impression that I am getting 

from this individual when they come in is that type of an impression, I am not going to hire them regardless of who they are affiliated with. It is improper and it is not professional, and they have 

been informed of that time and time again. They willfully deny or 

refuse to abide by our hiring procedures that every other employee 

that comes in abides by. 

What happened in the last case, and this is Case CA-22791 of 

the National Labor Relations Board, where they told us we did not 

have to even consider for employment two organizers for the two 

local unions, the last comment that was written down here by SanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:44 Oct 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\23176.TXT MIKE
23

dra Dunbar, the regional director, was ‘‘Finally with respect to the 

named alleged discrimnees,’’ and she named the people, ‘‘further 

proceedings would not be warranted inasmuch as you failed to 

present any evidence about them during the investigation.’’ 

What is a better term for harassment than something that you 

just throw out there. You throw as much against the wall, and see 

what sticks, and they do not even back it up with anything. No 

supporting documentation. 

We encountered tens of thousands of dollars over months to defend ourselves against something that our union counterparts 

would not even supply any information on. And if it is hearsay, it 

is hearsay, but I have talked to the regional, or to the investigator. 

He said this was the last straw, and she informed the unions that 

no longer were they going to, you know, consider this type of activity. 

So it is an outward—it has gone - that is why I say, it is—salting 

is one thing. I can see that. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. The time has expired. 

Mr. ISAAC. But once you get to peppering—I am sorry. I did not 

leave you enough time, but you know. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. We will do another round. 

Mr. KING. I will stick around for the next round. Thank you. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. We have been joined by Ms. Sanchez, a 

member of the full Committee. Do you have questions? 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Isaac, do you think that an avenue of recourse for people to 

try to assert or protect their rights should be thrown out because 

of some abuse by a small minority of people? 

Mr. ISAAC. Well, I guess ‘‘some abuse’’ would be the term that I 

would question. What is some abuse? 

In my experience, it has been that 100 percent. There was one 

instance of the covert salting, and for six years now this game is 

being played. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Have you ever heard of employers who have employed harassment tactics against their employees— 

Mr. ISAAC. Yes. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. —to keep them from joining the union? 

Mr. ISAAC. They are both sides, both sides, I agree with you. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay. And you did mention in your response to 

one of the questions that, you know, certain cases were thrown out 

by the NLRB; is that not correct? 

Mr. ISAAC. All of the cases were thrown out. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay. So in fact the NLRB was doing their job 

then, in other words, because they threw out cases that had no 

merit; is that correct? 

Mr. ISAAC. Yes. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay, thank you. 

I want to get to the issue, Mr. Mix, of educating workers and 

salts who educate workers. It is my understanding they do it on 

non-company time, otherwise they can be let go; is that not correct? 

Mr. MIX. I am not sure. There may be someone else who can answer that question. But it seems to me in the record that has been 

reflected on this particular issue as how this salting takes place— 

24

Ms. SANCHEZ. So the answer is you do not know whether they 

can take company time to educate workers? 

Mr. MIX. I would say that they are supposed to do it off company 

time, correct. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay. Mr. Cohen, can you edify us on that? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. Employers can legitimately enforce rules that 

organizing be done on non-work time, breaks, lunch time, prior to 

beginning work and so on. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And salts— 

Mr. COHEN. And salts are instructed to do that organizing only 

on non-work time. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And so if a salt is in fact using company time to 

try to talk to employees about unionization, they can be fired for 

that; is that not correct 

Mr. COHEN. If they violate those company rules, absolutely. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay, thank you. 

I want to get to the issue, Mr. Mix, about people representing 

dual interests or employees coming in to a work site and trying to 

educate workers about, you know, potential better wages. If I am 

not mistaken, Mr. Isaac said that sometimes employers do get complacent, and sometimes they are not giving employees everything 

that they should be receiving. And so tell me what the harm in 

educating workers about potential for higher wages or better fringe 

benefits? 

Mr. MIX. No harm. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay, thank you. 

I am interested in the fact that this panel is comprised of folks 

from the air conditioning and plumbing industry, and what seem 

to be sort of the construction industries. 

Mr. Mix, do you think that there is a lesser right to organize in 

these industries than other industries? 

Mr. MIX. Absolutely not. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act protects workers equally in their exercise of their bargaining rights. It is when they violate those laws is when the 

issues comes, and we have heard testimony of the salting campaigns, the intimidation in fact, as Mr. Isaac just said, I mean, 

these cases were filed. He had spent 10 to 20 thousand dollars to 

defend himself, and every single case was dismissed without merit. 

We have cases on the record in the hearing, if you will look back 

in hearings previous, where employers have been had to spend 10, 

20,000, up to a half a million dollars in legal fees to defend against 

unfair labor practice charges that at the end of the day had no 

merit where those people that filed the unfair labor practice 

charges have the taxpayers to pay for the cost to defend the litigation on the case. That is an outrage. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I would disagree with you on that point, but I 

would say that, again, you know, because there is in some cases 

abuse, correct me if I am wrong, but we are a democratic society, 

we do have a court system, we do have a system set up in place 

to throw out unmeritorious claims. 

Mr. MIX. That is right. And absolutely. Using that court system 

to leverage employers and their employees is outrageous, and 

maybe possibly we can amend the bill to apply the Equal Access 

to Justice provisions where if, if the NLRB loses these cases, and 

25

these cases are withdrawn, there may be some compensation or remuneration to those who have had to defend themselves against 

these frivolous charges. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I am willing to look into that, but I want you to 

keep an open mind about not destroying the process simply because 

there are a few problems with it. That seems to be the overwhelming, and perhaps your experience—in your experiences perhaps that has been the case. But what I am saying is keep a broader perspective that that may not be the case in all cases, and that 

in fact salting may do a real service to employees in terms of creating better working conditions for them, and better wages. 

Mr. MIX. I would suggest that—I would suggest those unions 

that exercise these salting tactics with the mindset that we have 

written into the record here that Congressman Westmoreland represented in the IBEW document are the ones that are abusing and 

using the process, and making— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And again, I can understand your point, but my 

point is also, you know, because there is a problem with something 

you do not scrap the entire thing. I think salting can be a valuable 

tool. I think it can be helpful for employees, and I think sometimes 

it can help move employers along in terms of shaking them out of 

their complacency, and perhaps doing the right thing by workers, 

and we will have to disagree on the rest. 

Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you. Mr. Westmoreland, do you 

have questions? 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Yes, ma’am. 

Mr. Isaac, even though these complaints were thrown out, does 

it still not cost you time and money to defend these things, whether 

they are thrown out or not, and cannot just be used as a harassment tactic? 

Mr. ISAAC. Oh, by all means. They call it economic pressure. It 

is outlined in their own operating procedures. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you. 

Ms. Drummond, have any policies ever been recognized as legitimate reasons not to hire a salt? Are there any legitimate reasons 

out there not to? 

I know that your video suggests that they give them all benefit 

of the doubt. 

Ms. DRUMMOND. As I indicated in my oral testimony, there has 

been a patchwork of case law which makes it very difficult for an 

employer that is trying to do the right thing to follow which—

which is the latest flavor of the law. 

Most recently, there has been a case where an employer has done 

an economic analysis of all employees, and determined that if an 

employee was making a certain wage prior to being hired that was 

significantly higher than that which he is paying, let us say 30 or 

40 percent, that that employee has a history of not staying on the 

job. 

If you are looking at a legitimate application for union orga- nizers, they can easily make $80,000 a year, and even a front-line 

electrician is not necessarily going to make that. So that policy has 

been recognized where the employer had to come back with extensive economic analysis of that policy. 

26

The other policy that has more recently been recognized is a 

strict referral system where unless they absolutely have no applicants that are referrals, that has been a policy where it has been 

both the policy and the practice. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you. 

Mr. Mix, I know that some people may see some benefit to a salt. 

I just wanted to ask you if they are educating the workers on 

wages and benefits, I wonder if the workers ever ask them why 

they are working there. I mean, if the wages and benefits are so 

much better somewhere else, why would they be working there? 

And also, what kind of money—I know there was an $80,000, but 

what kind of money are these salts paid by the union? And if you 

do not know that, I would like to ask that to Mr. Cohen to see if 

he knows what an average salary would be paid. 

Mr. MIX. Congressman, I am sorry. I cannot answer that question as far as what their payroll might be for these folks. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Cohen, do you have any ideas? 

Mr. COHEN. I cannot answer it either as a generalization. I can 

tell you two things though; that far more salts are volunteers, unemployed workers, than are paid organizers. And my understanding is that when salts are paid they are either paid the difference between the union contract rate and the non-union contractor’s rate which is invariably lower. They are paid the difference 

so that that employee does not suffer, or will be paid only for the 

non-work time that is devoted to organizing over and above what 

he is getting from the contractor; one of those two. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. So let me understand this. The person who 

is not able to get a job that is unemployed by the union goes into 

a shop where people are working to tell them the benefits of being 

in the union 

Mr. COHEN. Nicely done. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you 

Mr. COHEN. However, what he will be explaining are the union 

wages, the benefit package, et cetera. At any given moment there 

may be unemployment in a given area, perhaps just in a given 

trade. But the purpose is to get as many workers and many—even 

if a union is unsuccessful in organizing a contractor, they may convince some employees of the benefits who will leave that employer 

and sign up with the union hiring hall in order to stand in line to 

get the benefits when he is referred out. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, I think there is a lot of truth in the 

book that says you cannot serve two masters. Thank you. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Go back to Mr. Mix. Do you think this will—do you believe this 

bill would essentially overturn Town and Country? 

Mr. MIX. I think that allowing an employer to make a distinction 

from folks that storm his or her place of business with video cameras and signs and posters, and applications that say we are here 

to do one thing, to organize your business— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. So would that be yes? 

Mr. MIX. I would say that if that is the context, then I would say 

it ought to be. 

27

Mr. LIPINSKI. So you definitely want to get rid of it. The focus 

here is they should not be allowed to salt. 

Mr. Cohen, why is salting important? Why is it not possible that 

workers can learn in other ways about the benefits of unions? Why 

do you think salting is necessary 

Mr. COHEN. It would be wonderful if they could, but as a matter 

of practicality I do not think there are many non-union employees 

who even know there is an NLRB website to go check, and most 

of them either do not know there is a union or certainly if they are 

working for a non-union contractor, are not likely to go to the 

union hiring hall to get information. I wish they would. 

One of the reason that salting is necessary in the construction 

industry in particular is because so many jobs are of short duration. Work is intermittent. Employees go back and forth to different 

jobs through the hiring hall. And as a result of a Supreme Court 

decision in 1992, the Leachmere case, non-employee organizers are 

not allowed on employer’s private property, and as a result, the 

practice of having employee organizers has gained popularity since 

that decision. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Okay. Well, Mr. Mix or anyone else on the panel, 

would you favor—if the problem because they are employees and 

because they are employees and they can sabotage, they can do 

other things that employees can do, would you favor changing the 

law to allow non-employee individuals to go on a work site to organize? 

Mr. ALDI. In fact, I would. My name is Michael Aldi again, and 

I was a former union member myself of the IBEW. I know many 

salts and I know that they are part of the—they are victimized also 

in this, because usually salts are the guys that are laid off by union 

contractors that are not the best guys in the union, and they get 

laid off, and have to support their families. So they are forced by 

union organizers to go against their grain and sabotage jobs and 

to weaken non-union contractors to either put them out of business 

or get them to sign a collective bargaining agreement. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. So you would— 

Mr. ALDI. But we would be more than happy to have education. 

We would be more than happy to post the—like we post wages, 

minimum wage standards and OSHA standards. I would love to 

post it on my wall, let my employees read it. That right there educates. 

How do people get educated about the minimum wage laws? We 

post it. And we can post these requirements. 

Also, when I went to school— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. What about— 

Mr. ALDI. —I learned about unions. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. —allowing non-union employees onto the work 

site? 

Mr. ALDI. During break hours and during the lunch time coming 

and discussing with employees their benefits and their legal rights, 

I see no problem in it myself at all. 

Mr. MIX. One thing I might suggest is why is it not that they 

would knock on doors and go door to door after hours and talk with 

workers? 

28

I mean, organized labor in this country collects about $19 billion 

a year in revenue. Unfortunately, what most— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Wait. 

Mr. MIX. —most workers see— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. You are talking about knocking on random doors 

to do this because— 

Mr. MIX. Who knows? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. —they cannot get the information who is working 

in a place. 

Mr. MIX. Some of the techniques they use like getting license 

plates, and using friends to get license plate information, and following people home and video taping are things that I would be 

very, very concerned about. But you know, they spend 19—the raised $19 billion a year in 

revenue. The only thing that I think American workers see now 

from organized labor is their campaign slogans and their political 

activity. 

I would suggest that if they are interested—truly interested in 

representing workers— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Do you think— 

Mr. MIX. —they would spend some of their resources on this type 

of educational campaign. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. —this is different from businesses. This is somehow—there is an uneven playing field between unions and businesses? 

Mr. MIX. I am sorry? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Do you believe that the unions have more power 

than businesses? Somehow there is an uneven playing field. You 

were talking about all this money, and advertisements, et cetera. 

Mr. ISAAC. Congressman, I could probably address that real 

quick. The businesses are do not call lists. The union organizers 

have the cell phone numbers of company-provided cell phones of all 

of our employees, and just recently, within the last month and a 

half, called each one of them individually while on working hours 

on their cell phones. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Time has expired. 

Mr. Cohen, I have a question, some interesting questions from 

my friends on the other side of the aisle here. 

Are there any salts that are bad apples? 

Mr. COHEN. I am sure there are. However, they are a distinct minority compared to the number of law violators by contractors 

where the NLRB volumes are replete with cases finding unlawful 

discharges, unlawful refuses to hire and so on. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. What should we do with salts that are 

bad apples? What should happen to them? 

Mr. COHEN. If we are talking about what some of these witnesses 

have referred to this morning of deliberate sabotage, number one, 

fire them; and number two, if they have really done that, have 

them prosecuted. No responsible union wants to have their salt do 

what we are hearing of some of these allegations. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. What should we do about the cost that 

these individuals such as they men before us have incurred today? 

You know, it has been said that this is anecdotal. How does that 

feel to you, Mr. Aldi? Do you feel like your story is unique? 

29

Mr. ALDI. No, I know for a fact my story is not unique. I know 

of 10 other electrical contractors in my area who have been put out 

of business in the past, and now just drive around in one truck 

doing electrical work on their own because they cannot find jobs 

anywhere else, like myself. I have been black balled from the industry completely because no contractor wants to touch me out of 

fear of union reprisals. 

And even applying for a job as an electrical inspector in the State 

of New York, they have refused to give me a job due to the—they 

do not want the IBEW contractors to black ball their company from 

using them as an inspection agency. 

But I do not feel there is a fair playing field here. I had fired 

union salts for sabotaging work, coming to me, stealing equipment, 

laughing at me, about me to my face with witnesses present, and 

I have spent over $60,000 in legal fees to defend against allegations 

with National Labor Relations Board that I fired them for legitimate union organizing activities. 

Everybody says it is not—you know, then it is on for me to prove 

the NLRB wrong. It is my auspice to prove that they committed 

these crimes or that they broke the law. 

I had one employee arrested, and the prosecutor prosecuted the 

case. They did not put on a good defense. The police refused to investigate the crime after I reported it. So it went to the jury, which 

found reasonable doubt because of no police investigation was the 

reason. 

But I had other employees that stole equipment where district 

attorneys in other counties says this is a union matter, take it up 

in the civil courts. We want nothing to do with it. We are not going 

to prosecute anything. 

So to say that we can just report crimes to the police is wrong, 

and the cost of going through litigation—the decision by the NLRB 

was—had came about because all the electric—through cost of litigation, through cost of repairing union sabotage, spent over 

$100,000 in repairing union sabotage over the past two years has 

gone bankrupt, and did not mount a defense at this NLRB hearing. 

We had nobody there in defense. Only partial statements from our 

witnesses were put into evidence. And when you hear one side of 

the story, it is pretty easy to get a win. 

Hopefully that in the future I will have my day in court over 

this, and I have plenty of evidence and proof and witnesses to 

prove the NLRB wrong in their decision. 

And furthermore, I would like to add that Don Raum, the business agent, the elected business agent of IBEW Local 236 had a—

we had a private meeting at his office where he had indicated to 

me that he was going to make all electrical contractors in his collective bargaining area either union or put them all out of business, and he was going to use whatever means necessary he had 

at his disposal. That was directly to me, and that is my statement. 

You can believe it or not. 

Also, I have proof that some of these employees were brought 

during working hours down to the union hall on their way out to 

a job on payroll and forced to sign union cards. Two of them signed 

them under duress, being told that they were going to get their 

butts kicked because the other guys wanted the union. If you do 

30

not give us the union, we want a little bit higher pay, a little bit 

better benefits, or we are going to kick your butt if you do not sign 

these things. 

They signed them all with all these people around them, intimidating them. You had union organizers there saying, oh, it does not 

really mean anything. It is just to give you a vote and everything 

like that. And I spent thousands of dollars in defending against the 

vote that eventually was withdrawn by the IBEW because they had 

no cause for the vote. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Okay, the red light is telling us that the 

time has expired. 

Mr. ALDI. Right. Exactly. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Ms. Sanchez. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Aldi, I am not suggesting that forcing people 

to sign union cards under duress is a good idea, but there is an 

election that follows that process, is there not? 

Mr. ALDI. Well, we hope there is an election but— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And the election would be secret ballot election, so 

that employees would not—nobody would know whether they voted 

to have the union represent them or not? 

Mr. ALDI. Hopefully. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay, thank you. 

Also, I am a little startled by your comments that salts are forced 

by their unions and that they are victims of this process as well. 

Mr. Cohen’s testimony was that the large majority of salts are 

volunteer, unpaid workers that choose to go into workplaces and 

try to educate workers about their rights. So how does that make 

them a victim? 

Mr. ALDI. Well, like I said, I was a former union employee myself. I know some people who have done salting against other companies, and I have talked to some of the people that have salted 

my company and have actually gotten out of the union since their 

salting activities. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. But you feel the were coerced into doing it? 

Mr. ALDI. Yes. Well, Ann Marie Taknikas was told that she 

had—that she was out of work, and that if she wanted to stay with 

the union, because she had been laid off several times from union 

employers who were—I don’t know, either lack of work or whatever 

the reason, but that the union, if you want to stay a union member, 

you will go salt these different— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. My understanding— 

Mr. ALDI. —agencies, and then they gave them a list of things 

to do. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. My understanding is that so long as you pay your 

union dues you remain a union member in good standing. 

Mr. ALDI. Yeah, you can remain a union member, but if you want 

any work, you had better do what the union boss tells you to do. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. But do not hiring halls have a book that people 

have to sign and jobs go according to who is next on the list? 

Mr. ALDI. Our local jumps the names all the time. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Well, I would suggest that that is probably not a 

normal procedure or normal practice. Most union halls that I know 

that have hiring halls have a book that members have to sign, and 

they— 

31

Mr. ALDI. Yes, they do. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. —go in strict order depending who is next on the 

list. 

Mr. ALDI. Yes, they do, but— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Cohen, is that your experience 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. And if names are jumped without a legitimate 

reason, it is a violation of the act. 

I would just have to caution the Committee once again, with all 

due respect to Mr. Aldi, that if I may be humorous for a moment, 

his testimony has to be taken with a large grain of salt— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. No pun intended 

Mr. COHEN. —in view of the fact that he has been found guilty 

in an earlier case where he was represented by counsel, and that 

even though he did not defend himself in this case, the reasons asserted for the discharges were found to be protectual by the administrative law judge. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. 

Another quick question for Mr. Mix, and Mr. Cohen, and then I 

would like to go back to Mr. Aldi before my time expires. 

But it is my understanding that if union members want to contribute to political action funds, they have to do so voluntarily. 

Their dues cannot summarily be used by the union for political 

campaigns; is that correct, Mr. Cohen 

Mr. COHEN. It is. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Aldi, with respect to educating workers about their rights, 

have you ever been on a non-union construction site where prevailing wage law information was posted for the benefit of nonunion workers? 

Mr. ALDI. Yes, many times. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And were employees actually explained what the 

prevailing wage laws were and what peoples’ benefits were? 

Mr. ALDI. Yes. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I find that astonishing given that I used to patrol 

work sites to see if the prevailing wages were being paid, and at 

none of the several hundreds or even possibly thousands of job sites 

that I ever visited did I ever see a prevailing wage schedule posted 

on a construction work site for the classifications of workers that 

were doing work. That is just my personal account. 

Is the information that you saw posted, was that posted in several languages in the event that there were employees there that 

did not speak English fluently? 

Mr. ALDI. Well, in my experience, I have seen it posted in Spanish also. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay, Mr. Isaac, have you seen prevailing wage 

law information posted on construction sites for all employees to 

see, and in multiple language in case there were employees that 

did not speak the language fluently? 

Mr. ISAAC. I do not get on job sites as often as I used to. I am 

sorry. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay. Well, my experience has been— 

Mr. ISAAC. On prevailing rate jobs, I guess I should clarify? 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Yes, on prevailing rate jobs. 

32

Mr. ISAAC. Well, you probably would not see that because even 

the municipalities do not know that they are supposed to be bidding it out at prevailing rates. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay. Mr. Cohen, is it not a function of prevailing 

wage law that the prevailing law wage schedules have to be posted 

on construction sites 

Mr. COHEN. They are certainly supposed to be. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And in your experience have they always been 

posted on these site? 

Mr. COHEN. No. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Have they been posted in multiple languages in 

the ones where they were posted for workers who may not speak 

English fluently? 

Mr. COHEN. I really cannot answer that from personal experience, Congresswoman. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you. 

Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

First of all, I would point out to this panel, this Subcommittee 

and the panel of witnesses, I have spent my life in the construction 

business, and we do a number of prevailing wage scale jobs, and 

we have always had all the postings up that were required by law, 

and we make it a matter of standard practice, we do it one of two 

ways. 

One of them is we build a poster board, I mean, a plyboard sign 

and we will post all of those notices up there on that sign, and we 

will put plexiglass up over the top of that and we will seal it up 

so that the rain does not bother it. Or else we put it inside the job 

trailer where the employees are coming and going all the time. We 

make that information available. 

I had some questions, and I hope I get to them, but I also want 

to point out something that happens, and I can think of a case 

where we are a union shop operations, and we started a prevailing 

wage job, it was a large sewer lagoon project. My first employee, 

I sent him up there to just simply go in and bush hog the weeds 

off, and they we were hauling equipment in that day. When we got 

everybody on the job site, we would typically then have a construction meeting. It would be a safety meeting. It would be a meeting 

to layout all of the wage scale and all of the rules that we would 

follow by that job. 

Before I got there some of my employees arrived, and there is the 

federal government misrepresenting my company policy and their 

wage scale, and telling my employees that I could be subject to—

if I remember right—a $50,000 fine and maybe up to 15 years in 

jail, and allege that I was violating federal laws, which undermined 

my relationship with my employees. That was just a small thing 

in comparison to what at least two of the gentlemen sitting here 

in this panel have talked about today. 

And this undermining that goes on is something that—this adversarial relationship between labor and management, I want to 

associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Westmoreland when he 

said you cannot serve to masters. 

33

If someone comes onto my job and I am paying them the best 

wage that I can afford to pay them, giving them the best benefits 

I can afford to pay them because I want to keep highly qualified 

employees so we can be more competitive in the marketplace, and 

he is being paid by somebody else, even if it is that little sliver or 

that little extra for break, little extra for lunchtime, little after 

hours time, he is serving two masters. He is undermining you. 

It brings to mind a little anecdote that flipped up in my head 

here, and that is, I remember when I was a senior in high school 

we had a coach come in who was an MP in the marines, a drill instructor. He was just back from Vietnam. This was 1967. He decided he was going to make about 50 of us seniors in high school 

learn how to march. And we decided we will be doing that soon 

enough, and so we are going to figure out how he cannot force us 

to march. 

And so when he would say left, some of us would go right, some 

of us would keep going forward, and some would stop and some 

would turn left. And every time he issued an order some of us 

would go in the opposite direction. You know, you could never really tell who really knew what was going on, and who understood 

and who was doing it on purpose. 

This went on for several weeks, and he was a pretty determined 

DI. You know what those guys are like. And he took some of us 

down on the mat and rubbed us around on the mat. But in the end 

we did not learn to march. 

And in the end Mr. Isaac nor Mr. Aldi can force those union salts 

to do the job and do an hour’s worth of work for an hour’s worth 

of pay if they are determined to undermine the profitability of the 

company. It is impossible. 

And as a matter of meeting all the requirements and going and 

file your claim, and vindicate yourself before the NLRB, and come 

up with some profit with a company that is its proficiencies have 

been slowed down because the people that are serving another 

master, all of these rules and all of these hoops to jump through 

here are actually it is ludicrous to think that we can write enough 

rules. 

So I would pose this question, and it comes this when. When 

your survival of your company is at stake, and it is, then whether 

or not the law allows an employer to remove someone whom you 

are convinced as an employer has not the best interests of your 

company in mind, but the interests of the union or his own selfinterests in mind, either to destroy the competition or create a 

union environment? 

Then I would pose my question to Mr. Cohen, and that would be, 

how can you blame an employer for firing a union salt 

Mr. COHEN. For firing him or hiring him? 

Mr. KING. If that employer has gone through this scenario that 

I have described, how could you blame an employer for firing a 

union salt whether or not it complied with the letter of the law 

when you keep into consideration that the very survival of that 

person’s live’s work is at stake? 

Mr. COHEN. Well, I think the key is whether it is within the letter of the law, Congressman. If the law is broken by the discharge, 

then it is not acceptable. 

34

And I would like to answer your two master’s argument by 

quoting from the NLRB decision in Town and Country, affirmed by 

a unanimous Supreme Court, ‘‘The statute’s premise is at war with 

the idea that loyalty to a union is incompatible with an employee’s 

duty to the employer.’’ 

And later, ‘‘The statute is founded on the belief that an employee 

may legitimately give allegiance to both a union and an employer.’’ 

Mr. KING. I would call that a flawed premise, but thank you, Mr. 

Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. King. 

I am going to ask the final question today of Mr. Mix. Mr. Cohen, 

in his testimony said that salting is about organizing, and we had 

some excellent questioning by Ms. Sanchez with a very different 

viewpoint than I have, but could you please respond to salting is 

about organizing? 

Mr. MIX. Well, I would think that is probably absolutely accurate 

in the sense that organized labor has come to a point in their livelihoods where they are no longer organizing workers the traditional 

way. 

I think in the statistics, and the record would reflect the NLRB’s 

report for 2004, I think 90,000 workers were organized through 

conventional NLRB means. The other 400,000 workers were organized through top-down organizing campaigns, these types of corporate campaigns that are designed just like salting, to put pressure on employers to finally give in and say we give up, we can no 

longer afford to defend ourselves against this campaign of salting, 

or this campaign of death by a thousand cuts, as Richard Trumka 

put it, you know, in the quote I gave you in my testimony. 

I think what it is it is organizing but it is aggressive organizing 

in the sense that they come to a point where their political agenda 

and their government activity and all the things that they are 

doing have lost sight of what their actual role was. 

You know, Samuel Gompers said it best in 1918, when he addressed the AFL for the last time, he said, ‘‘Workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions. Anything contrary to that is a menace to their rights,’’ and he understand it. 

And prior, if you go back into the history before the Wagner Act, 

there were many members of organized labor that said when we 

get this compulsion it is going to be the death of our organization. 

It is a cancer inside unions where they use legal privilege of government to force these types of campaigns on workers and small 

businessmen who can barely defend themselves with the limited resources they have, and it is a war of attrition, and I would suggest 

to you that we need to find ways to again protect workers’ rights 

to join unions. It is clearly stated in the National Labor Relations 

Act, but these types of activities are reprehensible and I think we 

could bring in a whole another panel of workers and small business 

people that would say exactly the same thing, and story after story 

could be told. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you. Mr. Avakian, could you respond to that, please? 

Pull the microphone a little closer if you could. 

35

Mr. AVAKIAN. Okay. I think Mr. Mix has got it right. The history 

of the labor act, and we have heard the statement about how one 

cannot serve two masters. 

In this particular case where we are dealing with salting, we are 

talking about activities which are essentially of recent vintage, in 

the last 15 years, maybe 20 years maximum as the salting programs go. But we have union personnel who are entering a workplace, usually under false pretenses, engaging in activities, and 

these activities are not just organizational in nature, they are also 

designed to disrupt the employer’s operations, to harass him, to 

cause deep pain through the cost of litigation and so forth, and 

those are the costs which are not associated with normal organizing that we normally would see. 

There is no problems with unions having organizers outside the 

gates. When the employees leave work, they meet with them, meet 

them off-site at bars or restaurants, or visit them at their homes. 

Those are all legitimate activities. 

Here we have an activity which is designed on its face to do 

those same sorts of functions, but in actuality do not. There is no 

organizer at any of the cases that I—numerous cases that I have 

been involved in dealing with salting and litigation with the labor 

board and in the federal courts in which those salts only do activities on breaks, and after hours and so forth. They are doing it all 

day long. They are protesting all day long. They are engaging in 

conversations with employees, other employees who they are trying 

to proselytize on the job site all day long, and these employees are 

also fed up with that type of activity, and they cannot be violent. 

They cannot do activities against these particular person. 

But the whole point is it is a campaign not to organize the employees. It is a campaign to harass the employer to engage in topdown organizing, just to either surrender to the union or to go out 

of business, and those are fundamentally what the case law demonstrates to us. It has nothing to do with the historic, deep-seated 

interest in trying to organize the workplace, which is in section 1 

of the statute. It has to do—rather, it has all to do with power. It 

all has to do with control, and to either force the workers through 

these types of activities, to cave into the unions in order to avoid 

any further disruptions, or for the employer and his employees to 

go out of business. 

I think that is the fundamental question, and I think the statute—the bill as proposed will answer that question by making it 

very clear if you are an 80,000 or 90,000 dollar a year union organizer, and you are going in working part time, the mere fact that 

you can find something legitimate that you are doing to cover and 

disguise these adverse activities will not save you when the labor 

board—from an employer’s discharge, and the labor board will not 

save you, or will not be able to save you when that happens, and 

that is what this statute is going to allow to occur. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you very much. I would like to 

thank all of the witnesses. The time has expired, Mr. Aldi. I apologize. I would like to thank you all for coming today, particularly 

those of you who have the stories to tell that have made you very 

vulnerable when you have appeared before this Committee today. 

36

I would also like to acknowledge there were others who wanted 

to come and testify that did not do so out of fear. So thank you, 

members, and thank you, witnesses, today. 

This meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

37


23176.001
38


23176.002
39


23176.003
40


23176.004
41


23176.005
42


23176.006
43


23176.007
44


23176.008
45


23176.009
46


23176.010
47


23176.011
48


23176.012
49


23176.013
50


23176.014
51


23176.015
52


23176.016
53


23176.017
54


23176.018
55


23176.019
56


23176.020
57


23176.021
58


23176.022
59


23176.023
60


23176.024
61


23176.025
62


23176.026
63


23176.027
64


23176.028
65


23176.029
66


23176.030
67


23176.031
68


23176.032
69


23176.033
70


23176.034
71


23176.035
72


23176.036
73


23176.037
74


23176.038
75


23176.039
76


23176.040
77


23176.041
78


23176.042
79


23176.043
80


23176.044
81


23176.045
82


23176.046
83


23176.047
84


23176.048
85


23176.049
86


23176.050
87


23176.051
88


23176.052
89


23176.053
90


23176.054
91


23176.055
92


23176.056
93


23176.057
94


23176.058
95


23176.059
96


23176.060
97


23176.061
98


23176.062
99


23176.063
100


23176.064
101


23176.065
102


23176.066
103


23176.067
104


23176.068
105


23176.069
106


23176.070
107


23176.071
108


23176.072
109


23176.073
110


23176.074
111


23176.075
112


23176.076
113


23176.077
114


23176.078
115


23176.079
116


23176.080
117


23176.081
118


23176.082
119


23176.083
120


23176.084
121


23176.085
122


23176.086
123


23176.087
124


23176.088
125


23176.089
126


23176.090
127


23176.091
128


23176.092
129


23176.093
130


23176.094
131


23176.095
132


23176.096
133


23176.097
134


23176.098
135


23176.099
136


23176.100
137


23176.101
138


23176.102
139


23176.103
140


23176.104
141


23176.105
142


23176.106
143


23176.107
144


23176.108
145


23176.109
146


23176.110
147


23176.111
148


23176.112
149


23176.113
150


23176.114
151


23176.115
152


23176.116
153


23176.117
154


23176.118
155


23176.119
156


23176.120
157


23176.121
158


23176.122
159

Æ


23176.123