IF THE COMPANY SAYS, NO, NO MOONLIGHTING, THE WORKERS IN OUR
           PARTICULAR SHOP CAN ONLY WORK ON ONE JOB -- WE WANT THAT FOR
           BUSINESS PRACTICES BECAUSE WE MIGHT NEED TO HAVE THE WORKERS
           WORK A SECOND SHIFT OR A THIRD SHIFT AND, THEREFORE, WE DON'T
           WANT YOU WORKING IN SOME OTHER KIND OF CAPACITY -- THEY CAN DO
           THAT. AND THEREBY EXCLUDE THE OPPORTUNITY THAT THEY APPARENTLY

           ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT. THAT HAPPENS IN THE SUPREME COURT
           DECISION. THE ARCHITECTURAL GLASS OF 1997. IT SAYS THEY CAN
           EFFECTIVELY BAN ALL KINDS OF MOONLIGHTING IF THEY HAVE A
           COMPANY-WIDE POLICY SO PEOPLE CAN'T BELONG TO OR PARTICIPATE IN
           OTHER KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT. THEY ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT IT, THEY
           CAN DO THAT -- THEY CAN DO THAT NOW. THAT'S A WAY FOR THEM TO
           TRY AND DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE IF THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IT.
           EMPLOYERS CAN ALSO DISCIPLINE OR DISCHARGE EMPLOYEES WHO
           NEGLECT THEIR JOB DUTIES. WORKERS WHO LEAVE THEIR STATIONS OR

           SIMPLY DON'T COMPLETE THE WORK REQUIRED OF THEM CAN BE
           DISCIPLINED. IN APRIL 1997 HE FOURTH CIRCUIT OF APPEALS UPHELD
           AN EMPLOYERS RIGHT TO DISCHARGE WORKERS WHO FAILED TO CARRY OUT
           THEIR DUTIES. THE WORKERS NEGLECTED THEIR DUTIES AND TRIED TO
           PERSUADE CO-WORKERS TO JOIN THE UNION. THE COURT HELD THAT THE
           EMPLOYER WAS WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO FIRE THE WORKERS FOR POOR
           PERFORMANCE. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, MR. PRESIDENT?
           THEY HIRE SOMEONE, BASICALLY A SHAM THAT THE PERSON ISN'T

           INTERESTED IN WORK; WON'T WORK, CAN'T DO THE WORK. THE SUPREME
           COURT HAS HELD UNDER THE HESS MECHANICAL IN THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
           1997 THAT THEY CAN FIRE THE WORKERS WHO NEGLECT THEIR JOB
           DUTIES. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO THE WORK FOR WHICH THEY ARE
           WIRED, IF THEY ARE NOT QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB, THEY DON'T NEED
           TO BE HIRED. IF THEY ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB, THEY ARE HIRED,
           THEY WORK. IF THEY DON'T WORK AND THEY'RE BUSY INVOLVING
           THEMSELVES IN THESE OTHER KINDS OF ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES, THEY
           CAN BE FIRED. THAT IS THE SUPREME COURT DECISION TODAY. TODAY.

           UNION MEMBERSHIP DOES NOT GIVE WORKERS THE RIGHT NOT TO PERFORM
           THE JOB. A COMPANY CAN SUSPEND WORKERS WHO FAIL TO PERFORM
           ADEQUATELY. THAT I PAY CAN BE DOCKED. DISCIPLINARY LETTERS CAN
           BE PLACED IN THEIR PERSONNEL FILES. EMPLOYERS CAN USE ALL OF
           THESE TOOLS OR MORE TO GET THE JOB DONE. THEY ARE FAR FROM
           POWERLESS TO ADDRESS THE TYPES OF ABUSES CITED BY THE BILL'S
           SUPPORTERS. EMPLOYERS ARE ALSO FREE TO DISCIPLINE WORKERS WHO
           DISRUPT THE JOB, HARASSING CO-WORKERS OR CUSTOMERS OR BLOCKING
           ENTRANCES, INTRUDING IN OTHER WORK AREAS, ALL THESE ACTS

           CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINE. EMPLOYERS HAVE MANY WAYS TO
           MAINTAIN QUALITY, EFFICIENCY PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT UNDERMINING
           THE PLOSE' LEGITIMATE RIGHTS. IF THE MISCONDUCT IS EXTREME,
           EMPLOYERS CAN CALL THE POLICE. VIOLENCE, THREATS, INTIMIDATION,
           CRIMINAL OFFENSES, DAMAGING OR DESTROYING PROPERTY IS A CRIME.
           NO EMPLOYER NEEDS TO SIT IDLY BY. CRIMINAL CHARGES CAN BE
           FILED. THE DEFENDANT CAN BE REMOVED FROM THE WORK SITE. THESE
           SANCTIONS ARE IN ADDITION TO ALL THE OTHER DISCIPLINARY
           MECHANISMS AVAILABLE TO THE EMPLOYER. ONCE AGAIN, UNION

           MEMBERSHIP CONFERS NO IMMUNITY. THIS BILL SUPPORTERS CONTEND
           UNION MEMBERS INHERENTLY SUFFER FROM DIVIDED LOYALTIES. THEY
           CLAIM A UNION MEMBER SIMPLY CANNOT BE TRULY LOYAL TO THE
           EMPLOYER -- CANNOT GIVE THE EMPLOYER THE GENUINE ALLEGIANCE
           REQUIRED FOR AN EFFECTIVE AND PRODUCTIVE WORKPLACE. BUT THAT
           EXTREME ANTIWORKERS, ANTIUNION VIEW WAS REJECTED OVER 60 YEARS
           AGO WHEN CONGRESS PASSED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. THE

           SO-CALLED DIVIDED LOYALTY ANTIUNION CLAIM WAS USED BY COUNTLESS
           HARSH EMPLOYERS TO DENY THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF WORKERS AND
           CONGRESS TO PUT A STOP TO IT IN THE 1930'S. MR. PRESIDENT, I'LL
           INCLUDE IN THE RECORD VARIOUS LETTERS THAT I HAVE FROM A NUMBER
           OF
           
           COMPANIES: FROM COAST ELECTRIC, "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN." HERE
           INDIVIDUALS -- COMPANIES THAT HAD BEEN ASSAULTED -- AND THIS IS
           THEIR REACTION TO IT. "MY COMPANY WAS SALTED BY A MEMBER OF AN

           IBW PAT MENGANO FOR PURPOSE OF ORGANIZING. THE WORK COMPLETED
           WAS OF TOP QUALITY AND WE MAINTAINED A FRIENDSHIP. GIVEN THE
           THOUGHT TO THE IDEA OF BECOMING A SIGNATORY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO
           THIS EVENT DUE TO THE INABILITY TO HIRE QUALIFIED PEOPLE.
           SALTING ACTIVITY CONVINCED ME THE DECISION TO BECOME A
           SIGNATORY WAS THE RIGHT ONE. HAVING A RELIABLE, QUALIFIED WORK
           FORCE AT ONE'S FINGERTIPS GOES A LONG WAY TO ERASE SOME OF THE

           PROBLEMS IN A STRESSFUL BUSINESS. THANK GOD I'M A UNION
           CONTRACTOR. CENTRAL SIERRA ELECTRIC COMPANY. IN RESPONSE TO OUR
           CONVERSATION HERE IS MY OPINION CONCERNING THE BENEFITS AND
           DRAWBACKS. AS YOU KNOW, CENTRAL SIERRA COMPANY HAS BEEN IN
           BUSINESS 14 YEARS, BEEN A SIGNATORY WITH I.B.W. FOR THE PAST
           TWO YEARS. LISTED BELOW ARE WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE AMONG THE
           UNION STRENGTHS. EXTREMELY HELPFUL, GETTING QUALIFIED MANPOWER,
           NOTIFIED US OF NUMEROUS JOBS, GIVEN OUR NAMES TO DEVELOPERS AND

           MANUFACTURERS. LOOKING FOR QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS, ASSIST IN
           GETTING JOBS WHEN COMPETING AGAINST NONUNION JOBS. ELECTRIC
           COMPANY IN MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA, 2296 MORA DRIVE. I WAS
           FORMERLY A NONUNION FIRM, RECENTLY ORGANIZED BY THE USE OF
           UNION SALTS BY A COUPLE OF IBEW'S IN CALIFORNIA. AFTER THEY
           MADE IT KNOWN TO ME THEY WERE AFFILIATED WITH THE UNION, IT
           BECAME APPARENT TO ME THEIR SKILLS COULD ONLY HELP ME TO BECOME

           A BETTER CONTRACTOR. YOU SEE, THE FACT IS, MR. PRESIDENT, WHEN
           THEY DO HAVE THE SALTING, THEY SEND THEIR BEST PEOPLE INTO
           THESE COMPANIES. IT WILBE REPRESENTED THA THEY DON'TAND THEY
           SEND PEOPLE THERE THAT ARE DISRUPTIVE AND HARASS AND BREAK UP
           THE SHOP, SO TO SPEAK. THEY SEND THEIR BETTER PEOPLE IN THERE
           TO BE AN EXAMPLE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO CONVINCE PEOPLE TO
           BECOME UNION MEMBERS. IF THEY AREN'T ABLE TO CONVINCE THE
           PEOPLE, THEY DON'T HAVE TO BECOME IT. BUT THAT HAPPENS TO BE
           THE EXPERIENCE, MR. PRESIDENT. I'LL GO ON WITH SOME OF THESE

           OTHERS WHEN I CONCLUDE. THE PRINCIPLE OF BASIC FAIRNESS WAS
           REAFFIRMED IN THE TOWN AND COUNTRY CASE IN 1992 DECIDED BY THE
           NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD COMPOSED OF MEMBERS APPOINTED BY
           PRESIDENT REAGAN AND PRESIDENT BUSH. IN THAT CASE, NLRB
           REJECTED THE EMPLOYEES' CLAIM THAT PAID UNION ORGANIZERS ARE
           NOT EMPLOYEES. UNDER THE LABOR LAWS -- AND THEY ARE INCAPABLE
           OF POSSESSING THE REQUISITE LOYALTY TO THE EMPLOYER. THE BOARD
           RULED THE STATUTE IS -- STATUTE IS FOUNDED ON THE BELIEF THAT

           THE EMPLOYEE MAY GIVE ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNION AND EMPLOYER. IT
           IS TO THE EXTENT IT GIVES RIGHTS TO A CONFLICT, IT WAS LONG
           SINCE THE UNION'S ABILITY TO ORGANIZE. THE COURTS DESCRIBE THE
           ISSUE
           
           AS FOLLOWS: CAN A WORKER BE A COMPANY EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE TERMS
           OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IF AT THE SAME TIME THE
           UNION PAYS THE WORKER TO HELP ORGANIZE THE COMPANY. THE COURT
           HELD WE AGREE WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. THE
           ANSWER IS IS YES. THE COURT NOTED IT PROTECTS THE EMPLOYEES

           RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN UNION ACTIVITIES IN NONWORKING AREAS. WE
           UNDERSTAND THAT, MR. PRESIDENT. THEY ARE ONLY ENTITLED TO
           PROMOTE AND TO TRIPE AND ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO INVOLVE -- TO TRY
           TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO INLVE THEMSELVESN UNION ACTIVITIES IN
           NONWORKING TIME IN NONWORKING AREAS. OTHERWISE, THEY CAN BE
           DISCIPLINED. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NONWORKING TIME IN
           NONWORKING AREAS. THAT'S KEY, MR. PRESIDENT. THE DECISION
           EXPLAINED THAT THIS IS TRUE EVEN IF A COMPANY PERCEIVED THESE

           PROTECTED ACTIVITIES AS DISLOYAL. AFTER ALL, THE EMPLOYER HAS
           NO LEGAL RIGHT TO REQUIRE THAT AS A PART OF HIS OR HER SERVICE
           TO THE COMPANY, A WORKER REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING IN PROTECTED
           ACTIVITY. MR. PRESIDENT, THE BILL BEFORE US -- THE SENATE
           DESTROYS THIS PROTECTION. IT LET'S EMPLOYERS FORCE WORKERS TO
           RENOUNCE THEIR RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN LEGITIMATE, LAWFUL
           ACTIVITIES. BUSINESSES CAN DISCHARGE EMPLOYEES WHO ATTEMPT TO
           ORGANIZE THEIR CO-WORKERS TO JOIN A UNION OR PROTEST DANGEROUS
           WORKING CONDITIONS, UNFAIR PAY PRACTICES IN RACE OR SEX

           SCRTIPLGS. THIS LEGISLATION TAKES A GIANT STEP BACKWARD. IT
           LEGITIMATEIZES CONDUCT OUR SOCIETY HAS CONDEMNED. IT IS HARD TO
           BELIEVE THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP IS GIVING MISGIND --
           MISGUIDED ANTIWORKER BILL SUCH HIGH PRIORITY NEAR THE END OF
           THE CONGRESS. I AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET LEGISLATION
           UP ON PATIENTS PROTECTION SO WE WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO

           DEBATE THAT I SHALL SHOE BEFORE WE WOULD BE ABLE TO RECESS AND,
           NO, THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP SAYS NO TO PATIENT PROTECTIONS,
           WHICH IS OF CENTRAL CONCERN TO MORE THAN 160 MILLION AMERICANS
           WHO ARE IN VARIOUS HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS. AND WHAT
           DO WE HAVE ON THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE?
           THE SALTING LEGISLATION. WE COULD ASK HOW MANY MEMBERS OF THIS
           BODY ON EITHER SIDE HAVE READ THROUGH THIS LEGISLATION,

           UNDERSTOOD IT; SCHEDULED AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS LAST FRIDAY
           FOR A CLOTURE VOTE TODAY. THIS EVENING. WE COULD BE DEBATING
           THE PATIENTS' PROTECTIONS DURING FRIDAY OR, IF NECESSARY,
           SATURDAY OR ALL DAY TODAY. I BET YOU'D HAVE TWO-THIRDS OF THE
           MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE HERE NOW INSTEAD OF TWO
           MEMBERS IF WE WERE DEALING WITH THE PEOPLE'S BUSINESS.
           TWO-THIRDS OF THEM, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE KIND OF CONCERN THAT
           FAMILIES HAVE ABOUT THE ABUSES THAT ARE TAKING PLACE IN TOO

           MANY INSTANCES IN OUR NATION WHERE IT'S INSURANCE ACCOUNTANTS
           AND AGENTS MAKING DECISIONS ON HEALTH CARE THAT OUGHT TO BE
           MADE BY DOCTORS. WHY AREN'T WE DEBATING THAT INSTEAD OF AN
           ANTIWORKER PIECE OF LEGISLATION?
           IT'S AMAZING, MR. PRESIDENT, HOW THIS IS -- THE SILENCE FROM
           OUR LEADERSHIP. NO, THEY SAY, YOU CAN ONLY HAVE THREE
           AMENDMENTS. YOU EITHER HAVE TO HAVE YOUR BILL OR OUR BILL OR
           TWO OTHER POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP

           THE TIME. WELL, HERE IT IS. TWO MEMBERS OF THE SENATE HERE. AND
           WE'RE MOVING OFF THIS BILL TO CONSIDER THE INTERIOR
           APPROPRIATIONS LATER IN THE AFTERNOON. THEY'RE GOING TO BE
           SCARCE IF THEY GET ANOTHER COUPLE OF SENATORS ON VARIOUS
           AMENDMENTS ON THAT. ALL RIGHT, MR. PRESIDENT, HOW MUCH TIME DO
           I HAVE?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR HAS 7 MINUTES, 45 SECONDS
           REMAINING.
           

           MR. KENNEDY: I'LL YIELD MYSELF -- I'LL RESERVE THE BALANCE OF

           MY TIME. MR. HUTCHINSON: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS.
           

           MR. HUTCHINSON: HOW MUCH SIDE DO OUR SIDE HAVE?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR HAS 11 MINUTES, 56 SECONDS.
           

           MR. HUTCHINSON: AFTER LISTENING TO SENATOR KENNEDY, I FEEL I
           SHOULD START BY CHECKING TO SEE IF I HAVE HORNS OR THEY OUGHT
           TO BE REMOVED. I WASN'T SURE WHETHER WE WERE DEBATING MINIMUM
           WAGE, COMPTIME, DAVIS-BACON OR SUMMER JOBS PROGRAM. I KNOW THAT
           WHILE THERE'S CONCERN ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME WE'RE SPENDING
           ON WHAT SENATOR KENNEDY FEELS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE BILL, THE
           TOTAL AMOUNT OF TIME DESIGNATED AND AGREED UPON IS TWO AND A
           HALF HOURS EQUALLY DIVIDED ON THIS CLOTURE MOTION. I THINK THAT
           THE THOUSANDS OF SMALL BUSINESSES ACROSS THIS COUNTRY AND THEIR

           OWNERS AND THEIR FAMILIES, THIS IS CERTAINLY WORTH TWO AND A
           HALF HOURS ON THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. AND I KNOW
           TO MANY BUSINESSES IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, IT'S
           CERTAINLY WORTH THE TIME THAT WE'RE DEVOTING TO THIS SUBJECT
           TODAY. WHILE SENATOR KENNEDY MAY BE CONCERNED THAT PEOPLE HAVE
           NOT READ THE BILL, IT'S THREE AND A HALF PAGES LONG, AND I
           SUSPECT THAT ANY SENATOR BETWEEN NOW AND THIS EVENING WILL HAVE
           TIME NOT ONLY TO STUDY IT AND TO -- AND TO STUDY ITS IMPACT BUT
           ALSO PERHAPS TO READ SOME OF THE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF
           LETTERS THAT EVERY SENATOR IN THIS BODY HAS RECEIVED ON THIS

           SUBJECT. BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THOSE WHO MAY NOT HAVE TIME TO
           READ WHAT I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT IN THIS BILL, I WANT TO
           READ IT FOR THE SAKE OF MY COLLEAGUES AND THE SAKE OF THE
           MANAGER OF THE OTHER SIDE. BECAUSE WHILE PART  THE BILL WAS
           QUOTED, A BIG PART OF THE BILL WAS NOT CITED.
           
           AND IT IS THIS: "PROVIDED THAT THIS PROVISION SHALL NOT AFFECT
           AFFECT" -- LET ME -- "THIS PROVISION SHALL NOT AFFECT THE
           RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THIS ACT OF ANY EMPLOYEE WHO
           IS OR WAS A BONA FIDE EMPLOYEE APPLICANT INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF

           SELF-ORGANIZATION TO FORM JOINT OR ASSESSED LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
           TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN
           CHOOSING AND TO EMERGE IN OTHER CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE
           PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR
           PROTECTION." THAT IS LANGUAGE DIRECTLY FROM THE NATIONAL LABOR
           RELATIONS ACT, AND WE SAY THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS BILL THAT CAN
           POSSIBLY INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHT OF A WORKER TO DO WHAT THEY'VE
           ALWAYS DONE. SALTING HAS NOT BEEN AN ACCEPTED PRACTICE.
           DISRUPTING THE WORKPLACE, CAUSING ECONOMIC DAMAGE, SEEKING TO

           DESTROY ONE'S EMPLOYER HAS NEVER BEEN AN ACCEPTED ORGANIZING
           STRATEGY IN THP COUNTRY, NOR SHOULD IT BE. AND THAT'S ALL THIS
           LEGISLATION WOULD RESTRICT. I WOULD SUGGEST WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
           FAMILIES THAT WE REALIZE THAT SMALL BUSINESSMEN AND WOMEN IN
           THIS COUNTRY HAVE FAMILIES TOO, THAT THEY ARE WORKERS TOO. AND
           TO INVEST A LIFETIME BUILDING A SMALL BUSINESS, BUILDING JOBS
           AND ECONOMIC FUTURE FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES, TO HAVE THAT DESTROYED
           BY THIS INSIDIOUS PRACTICE IS INDEFENSIBLE. AND I'M AMAZED THAT

           ANYBODY WOULD STAND AND DEFEND THE PRACTICE OF SALTING. NOW, WE
           HEARD A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES. I THINK THAT MISCHARACTERIZE
{END: 1998/09/14 TIME: 12-45 , Mon.  105TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}