Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: DEBATE: S.6 Truth in Employment Act
United States Government Simulation > Archives > Reset 7 Archive > Capitol Hill > Senate
GWB
DEBATE BEGINS ON THE FOLLOWING BILL

For debate to end, cloture must be invoked.


QUOTE (Archie Foster @ 07 April 2010, 21:42 ) *
Mr. FOSTER, for himself, submits:

A BILL

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to protect employer rights.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1: Short Title

This Act may be cited as the `Truth in Employment Act'.

Section 2: Findings

Congress finds that:
(1) An atmosphere of trust and civility in labor-management relationships is essential to a productive workplace and a healthy economy.

(2) The tactic of using professional union organizers and agents to infiltrate a targeted employer's workplace, a practice commonly referred to as `salting', has evolved into an aggressive form of harassment not contemplated when the National Labor Relations Act was enacted and threatens the balance of rights which is fundamental to the system of collective bargaining of the United States.

(3) Increasingly, union organizers are seeking employment with nonunion employers not because of a desire to work for such employers but primarily to organize the employees of such employers or to inflict economic harm specifically designed to put nonunion competitors out of business, or to do both.

(4) While no employer may discriminate against employees based upon the views of employees concerning collective bargaining, an employer should have the right to expect job applicants to be primarily interested in utilizing the skills of the applicants to further the goals of the business of the employer.
Section 3: Purposes

The purposes of this Act are
(1) to preserve the balance of rights between employers, employees, and labor organizations which is fundamental to the system of collective bargaining of the United States;

(2) to preserve the rights of workers to organize, or otherwise engage in concerted activities protected under the National Labor Relations Act; and

(3) to alleviate pressure on employers to hire individuals who seek or gain employment in order to disrupt the workplace of the employer or otherwise inflict economic harm designed to put the employer out of business.
Section 2: Protection of Employer Rights

Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(a)) is amended by adding after and below paragraph (5) the following:
`Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring an employer to employ any person who the employer has substantial evidence seeks or has sought employment with the employer in furtherance of other employment or agency status.'.
GWB
Cloture Begins On June 7th @ 23:01


Aye:
Halfhyde
Reiber
Foster
Calhoon
Khula

Nay:
McLaggan
Gerrard
Sorenson
Jackson
Santos-Carter
Everhardt
Wells
Waters
Present:
Cav
Madame President,

Would someoen in this chamber care to inform me as to the function of this bill?

I yield.
A. J. Dresner
Mme. President,

This bill prevents the use of "salting" tactics. "Salting" is when a person seeks employment, usually in association with or under the employment of union organizers, with the specific purpose of provoking and harassing employers in order to build support for a union at that place of business.

I yield.
McCloud
Mme. President,

Unfortunately, the Majority Leader is mistaken. Salts in the workplace are not meant to harass, they are a valuable educational tool for workers who have not yet unionized. Under current US law, it is illegal for unions to approach workers and begin unionization discussions, while employers are free to spread anti-union propaganda at their own discretion. Salting is one of the last few legal means that allow union organizers to talk with workers directly. Which is something which would be unwise for us to take away.

I yield.
Vincent Halfhyde
aye on cloture
Raddi
Nay on cloture.
Cav
Madame President,

How would an employer determine for certain if someone is there specifically to build up a union versus simply being very pro-union?

I yield.
McCloud
Generally speaking, it would be nearly impossible to prove decisively that an individual was a salt before employing them.


I yield.
McCloud
Generally speaking, it would be nearly impossible to prove decisively that an individual was a salt before employing them.


I yield.



EDIT: Double post.
Brocklin
(OOC: Rename last section "Section 4". There's two Sections 2.)

NAY on CLOTURE, for now.
Cav
Madame President,

I move to amend as follows:

QUOTE
`Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring an employer to employ any person who the employer has substantial evidence seeks or has sought employment with the employer in furtherance of other employment or agency status.'.


I yield.
Brocklin
I'll second.
A. J. Dresner
Mme. President,

I'll accept the amendment as friendly.

I yield.
Cav
Madame president,

With the acceptance of the amendment, I vote AYE on Cloture.

I yield.
Brocklin
Mme. President, let me enter the following fragment of an article into the record.

QUOTE
The NLRB Cuts Back on Salt(ing)
By Jeffrey Hirsch

(...) The wave of 3-2 NLRB decisions continues. This time, in Toering Elec. Co., 351 N.L.R.B. No. 18 (Sept. 29, 2007), the Board concluded that an applicant for a job is not protected by Section 8(a)(3) unless the applicant is “genuinely interested” in obtaining the job. The majority’s primary concern are salts who apply for jobs in the hopes of provoking litigation.

At issue is Section 2(3)’s definition of “employee,” because all employees are protected by Section 8(a)(3)’s prohibition against discrimination. In concluding that only those applicants who are genuinely interested in obtaining a job meet the definition of employee, the majority stated that salts who lack this interest do not have the economic relationship with the employer that the NLRA was intended to protect:

There is no economic aspect, actual or anticipated, to [these salts’] relationship with the employer. Neither in the present nor in the future do they “depend upon the Employer, even in part, for their livelihood or for the improvement of their economic standards. They do not work [or intend to work] for hire and thus the Act’s concern with balancing the bargaining power between employer and employees does not extend to them.” [WBAI Pacifica Foundation.] Thus, job applicants who lack a genuine interest in seeking an employment relationship are not employees within the meaning of Section 2(3). (...)


Knowing this, why is this bill needed?

I yield.
Jacob Black Deer
Mme. President,

What is substantial, and who is definining it in the case of this legislation?

I yield.
Cav
Madame President,

Should a prospective employee believe that they have been unfairly denied employment and file suit against the employer, it would be up to the judge to decide.

I yield.
Jack Stone
I object to friendly adoption of the amendment.
GWB
Objection noted, twenty-four hours for voting on the Reiber Amendment
GWB
Aye on Reiber
Nay on Cloture
Cav
Aye on Reiber
Gloria Delaney
AYE on Reiber
NAY on cloture
A. J. Dresner
Aye on Reiber
Aye on cloture
Jacob Black Deer
AYE on Reiber.
NAY on cloture.
Brocklin
AYE on REIBER
NAY on CLOTURE
McCloud
Aye on Reiber

Nay on Cloture
Jack Stone
Nay on Reiber.
Buford T Justice
NAY on REIBER
Mallory
Aye on Reiber.
GWB
Reiber Passes
Mallory
Nay to cloture.
Mitchell
aye on cloture
Kelly Selous
Aye on Cloture
Scott Edmondson
NAY on cloture.
Cav
Madame President,

Anyone else got anything they'd like to say on this bill? Amendments? Words? Anything?

I yield.
Jefferson Pooty
The Vice President shall take up the gavel for the remainder of this debate.
Jefferson Pooty
Cloture

Aye - 7
Halfhyde
Reiber
Foster
Calhoon
Khula
Justice
Holland

Nay - 7
McLaggen
Gerrard
Santos-Carter
Jackson
Everhardt
Wells
Waters

Present

Not Voting - 2
Buford T Justice
AYE on CLOTURE
Benjamin Kalrade
AYE on Cloture
Kent
Nay on Cloture
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.