SALT Act Mandates New Transparency for Union Payments and Labor Consultants, Setting Six-Month Deadline for Rules

The Start Applying Labor Transparency Act, or the SALT Act, is shaking up how unions and outside consultants have to report their financial activities related to employee organizing. Essentially, this bill is aiming to shine a spotlight on the money trail when a union or a consultant is trying to persuade employees about whether or not to organize or bargain collectively. It specifically amends the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, introducing detailed new reporting requirements for both labor organizations and the consultants they hire.

The New Rules for Union Spending

If you’re an employee, this is the part that tries to give you a clearer picture of who is talking to you and why. Under the SALT Act, a labor organization (union) must now file a detailed report if it spends money on activities meant to influence employee organizing. This includes any payment or loan made to an employee specifically to persuade other employees about their right to organize or bargain collectively. The only way around this reporting is if that payment is immediately or previously disclosed to the employees being persuaded. If reporting is required, the union must detail the date, amount, recipient, their position, and a full explanation of the circumstances, including the name of the targeted employer (SEC. 2).

For example, if a union pays an employee $500 to talk to their coworkers about the benefits of unionizing, that payment now has to be reported to the government, detailing who got the money and where they work, unless the union made sure everyone knew about that $500 payment upfront. While increased transparency sounds good, the devil is in the details: the language around “persuading other employees” is broad, and this new administrative burden could potentially chill legitimate internal peer-to-peer communication within a workplace.

Consultants and the Disclosure Deadline

The SALT Act also clamps down on labor relations consultants—the firms and individuals hired to advise on or influence labor matters. If a consultant is paid by anyone to try and influence employees regarding their right to organize, they must file a report with the Secretary of Labor within thirty days of starting that agreement, detailing the terms (SEC. 2). This is a fast trigger for disclosure.

Furthermore, if these consultants receive money from labor organizations (unions) for advice or services related to labor relations, they must file an annual report detailing all receipts from unions and all related spending. Think of it like this: if a law firm is advising a union on strategy, they now have to disclose how much they made from that union and what they spent related to that advice. The bill makes an exception for information strictly used in a court case or arbitration, but otherwise, the financial relationship between consultants and unions is now open for public review. For the consultants, this means a significant increase in administrative overhead and a loss of financial privacy regarding their union work.

What Happens Next?

This bill isn't self-executing. The Secretary of Labor has a hard deadline: they must write up all the necessary rules and regulations to implement these changes within six months of the bill becoming law (SEC. 3). This means the real-world impact—how broadly “persuading” is defined, and exactly how consultants must categorize their spending—will depend heavily on the regulations issued in that six-month window. For everyone involved—unions, consultants, and the employees the bill aims to inform—the clock is ticking until those final rules drop.