Testimony of Mark Mix in Support of the Truth in Employment Act of 2005

FOR RELEASE: June 21, 2005

Testimony of Mark Mix
in support of H.R. 1816
the Truth in Employment Act of 2005
before the House Small Business Committee's
Subcommittee on Workforce, Empowerment,
and Government Programs
on June 21, 2005

Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today.

My name is Mark Mix, and I am the President of the National Right to Work Committee. The Committee is a 2.2 million member grassroots organization dedicated to fighting compulsory unionism in the workplaces of America.

With this in mind, the National Right to Work Committee wholeheartedly endorses the passage of House Resolution 1816, the Truth in Employment Act, and commends Representative Steve King and the bill's 22 cosponsors for shedding "light" on the important issue of union "salting."

When a small, growing company seeks to hire new employees, union officials identify that business as a target to expand their forced-unionism reach.

Union officials coordinate a stream of job applicants some of whom openly identify themselves as “union organizers.”

Union officials call this “salting,” and it puts the employer, and his current employees, in a catch-22.

If the employer hires the union "salts," who are often actually paid union organizers, union officials instigate a quick-snap National Labor Relations Board or NLRB "representation" election. This so-called election then locks compulsory unionism on yet another company. Or, if they fail at that, they begin to sabotage their employer's business and manufacture a blizzard of unfair labor practice charges to bury the employer with legal fees until he signs over his employees.

If the employer doesn't hire the union-planted applicants, the union plants go straight to unfair labor practice charges and again the employer is faced with huge legal fees.

Thus, the company's choice will be either not to expand, or if they do seek new employees, to face a union “salting” campaign.

Either way, employers and employees both lose in the end. Either unwanted monopoly bargaining is forced on another small business which turns over control of its employees, or union lawyers bleed the company dry with unfair lawsuits, ultimately putting everyone out of work.

The problem is, "salting" is currently sanctioned by law, thanks to a ruling by the NLRB.

Federal law should not force anyone to hire union "salts" whose goal is to put him out of business, or force their unwanted "representation" on 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.

To give you a sampling of what employers face, I'd like to give you two examples.

As the first example, take the case of Randy Truckenbrodt, owner of a non-union equipment rental company in Illinois, who fought to save his business from union bosses’ "salting" tactics.

A union "salt" applied for a job with Mr. Truckenbrodt’s firm and was hired.

Within months, using company information provided by the "salt," union organizers began following Mr. Truckenbrodt’s employees as they delivered their products to client businesses.

There, they warned clients that they would face picketing and strikes unless they stopped buying and renting from Mr. Truckenbrodt.

Union members also picketed in front of Mr. Truckenbrodt's offices 24 hours a day, seven days a week for months until they cost the firm $600,000 in lost revenue from intimidated customers.

In addition to these intimidation tactics, Mr. Truckenbrodt's company was directly vandalized dozens of times during the union's so-called "organizing" drive.

Tires were slashed, electrical cables were cut, and truck windows were broken, all during the effort to unionize Mr. Truckenbrodt's company.

In the 23 years prior to the organizing drive, there had never been a recorded incident of vandalism at Mr. Truckenbrodt’s firm.

While this destruction was taking place, the union "salt" filed multiple false "unfair labor practice" charges against Mr. Truckenbrodt's company, all of which were eventually dismissed, but at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Fortunately, Mr. Truckenbrodt's business survived the "salting" campaign, and he and his workers are still able to provide for their families. But, Mr. Truckenbrodt's courage has come at great personal expense.

As another example, let me tell you about Charley Walz, who runs a masonry company in Nebraska.

Charley started out in the trades as a union man, but soon he figured out he could provide better service at lower prices for customers by going out on his own.

Charley wanted his piece of the American dream, and like many hard-working Americans, he started his own company to make that dream a reality.

Before long, his company was flourishing. His clients were happy, and so were his small but growing army of employees.

But Charley's success came with a price.

The bigger Charley's company grew, the more the union officials wanted to force his employees under union monopoly "representation."

When Charley's employees resisted the unwanted advances of union organizers, that's when the "salting" started.

Video taped evidence showed that the union “salts” had refused job applications that were offered to them.

But Charley's company was fined $20,000 by the NLRB despite that evidence (after having spent double that amount on legal expenses) for failing to hire union "salts."

Unfortunately, there is example after example of this happening all across the country.

"Salting" also leads to more working Americans being forced to pay union dues out of every paycheck.

Whether small businesses resist "salting" extortion and are subjected to potentially ruinous legal costs and fines, or acquiesce to union-monopoly control, their employees suffer.

Our nation's small businesses and employees deserve protection from these devious union tactics.

The Truth in Employment Act of 2005, introduced in Congress by Congressman Steve King of Iowa, would protect employers and honest employees by making it clear that an employer is not required to hire any person that does not have an honest interest in working for the employer.

The bill states that someone is not a "bona fide" applicant if such person "seeks or has sought employment with the employer in furtherance of other employment or agency status." Simply put, if someone wants a job, but his true intent is not to work for the employer, then the employer has not committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to hire the person.

This legislation simply removes the protection of Section 8(a) of the NLRA from a person who seeks a job without an honest motivation to work for the employer.

However, the legislation continues to recognize the role of organized labor, and it would not interfere with legitimate union activities. Similar legislation, H.R. 3246, the Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act, passed the House in 1998.

This bill will not affect the rights available under the NLRA to anyone, provided he or she is a "bona fide" employee applicant.

Employees and bona fide applicants will continue to possess their right to organize or engage in other concerted activities under the NLRA, and employers will still be prohibited from discriminating against employees on the basis of union membership or union activism.

The Truth in Employment Act does not change the definition of "employee" or "employee applicant" under the NLRA. It simply would change the Board's enforcement of Section 8 "salting" cases by declaring that employers may refuse to hire individuals who are not honestly motivated to work for the employer. So long as even a paid union organizer is at least honestly motivated to work for the employer, he or she cannot be refused a job pursuant to the Act.

This bill does not infringe on the rights of bona fide employees and employee applicants to organize on behalf of unions in the workplace.

In closing, Madam Chairman, forcing employers to hire union business agents or employees, who are primarily intent on disrupting or even destroying businesses, does not serve the interests of bona fide employees under the NLRA.

This bill does not prohibit organizers from getting jobs, and it is completely consistent with the policies of the NLRA. All this legislation does is give the employer the freedom to hire employees who really want to do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.

The Truth in Employment Act of 2005 returns a sense of balance to the NLRA, which is being undermined by the Board's current policies. Therefore, I urge Congress to take action to pass this vital piece of legislation.