SALT Act Proposes New Disclosure Rules for Union Spending and Organizing Activities

The "Start Applying Labor Transparency Act," or SALT Act, aims to amend the long-standing Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA). In plain terms, this bill would require labor unions, and individuals paid by them for certain activities, to file more detailed reports with the government about efforts to influence workers regarding union organizing and collective bargaining, or to gather information during labor disputes. The Secretary of Labor would have six months after the bill's passage to create the specific rules for how this new reporting works.

Shining a Light or Casting a Shadow? New Reporting Rules

So, what exactly needs to be reported under this proposal? For unions, Section 2 of the Act expands reporting under LMRDA Section 201. They'd need to disclose payments or agreements aimed at persuading employees about their rights to organize or bargain collectively, unless those payments were already reported elsewhere. This also includes agreements with consultants hired to sway employees or gather intel on worker activities during a labor dispute (though information gathered specifically for legal cases is exempt). Think of it like this: if a union pays an existing employee a bonus to talk up the union to colleagues, or hires an outside firm to gauge worker sentiment before a contract negotiation, those actions might trigger new reporting requirements detailing who got paid, how much, and why.

Individuals also face new requirements under changes to LMRDA Section 202. Anyone paid by a union to specifically seek employment at a company to influence organizing efforts (a practice sometimes called 'salting'), or to provide information about employee activities during a labor dispute (again, excluding info for legal proceedings), would have to file their own reports. These individuals would need to report the agreement within 30 days and file annual reports on payments received and expenses made.

Real-World Ripples: Transparency vs. Organizing Efforts

The core idea seems to be increasing transparency about how unions spend money and engage in activities related to organizing and labor disputes. Knowing who is being paid to influence workplace dynamics could, in theory, give employees a clearer picture. However, these new reporting requirements could significantly impact how unions operate. There's a potential administrative burden – more paperwork, more tracking – which costs time and money, especially for smaller unions. More critically, there's concern that these broad disclosure requirements could have a chilling effect on legitimate, legally protected organizing activities. Unions might become hesitant to engage in standard outreach or hire consultants if the details must be publicly reported, potentially giving employers insight into their strategies or exposing involved employees. The requirement for individuals acting as 'salts' to self-report could also deter participation in such organizing tactics.

What's Next on the Docket?

If the SALT Act moves forward, the immediate next step is for the Secretary of Labor to develop the specific regulations within six months. These rules will be crucial in defining the practical scope of the reporting – exactly what needs to be filed, by whom, and in what format. This bill doesn't create reporting from scratch; it builds upon the existing LMRDA framework from 1959, which already requires various financial and administrative disclosures from unions and employers. The SALT Act essentially proposes adding more layers focused specifically on activities intended to influence workers and gather information during labor disputes, potentially shifting the balance in labor-management relations.