MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Commerce and Labor
Seventy-Second Session
March 14, 2003
The Committee on Commerce and Laborwas called to order at 11:48 a.m., on Friday, March 14, 2003. Chairman David Goldwater presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and, via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4406 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. David Goldwater, Chairman
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr.
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani
Mr. Josh Griffin
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. Ron Knecht
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard Perkins
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Barbara Buckley, Vice Chairwoman (excused)
Mr. David Brown (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Marcus Conklin, District No. 37
Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, District No. 14
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vance Hughey, Principal Research Analyst
Wil Keane, Committee Counsel
Diane Thornton, Senior Research Analyst
Sharee Gebhardt, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Michael Tanchek, Deputy Labor Commissioner
Bob Ostrovsky, Legislative Advocate, Cox Communications
Thomas A. Morley, Legislative Advocate, Laborers’ Union Local #872, Las Vegas
Larry O’Leary, Secretary-Treasurer, Bricklayers’ & Allied Craftworkers Local 13, Las Vegas
Tommy Ricketts, President, Las Vegas City Employees Association
Danny Thompson, Legislative Advocate, Nevada State AFL-CIO
Gary Wolff, Legislative Advocate, Teamsters Local 14, Las Vegas, and Nevada Highway Patrol Association
Jack Jeffrey, Legislative Advocate, Southern Nevada Builders & Construction Trades Council
Christina Dugan, Legislative Advocate, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce
Mary Lau, Executive Director, Retail Association of Nevada
Ray Bacon, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Manufacturers Association
Chairman Goldwater called the meeting to order at 11:48 a.m. He announced a quorum was present and noted that Ms. Buckley and Mr. Brown were excused. Mr. Goldwater said they would begin with the work session and would hold the hearing on A.B. 182 when the sponsor of the bill arrived.
Assembly Bill 32: Revises provisions governing payment and collection of certain taxes, fees and assessments relating to purchase of natural gas or energy, capacity or ancillary services under certain circumstances. (BDR 58-626)
Diane Thornton, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, summarized A.B. 32 and explained that, at the request of the Chairman, there had been a meeting of all the representatives from Southwest Gas, Reliant Energy, Nevada Power, Sierra Pacific, and the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUC), with Rick Combs, who was staff to Assemblyman Parks’ interim committee. She said the group agreed to the six amendments listed on the “Work Session Document” (Exhibit C). Ms. Thornton advised that, in addition to those six amendments, Dave Noble of PUC had suggested civil penalties should be imposed for violations of Chapter 703 of Nevada Revised Statutes. Ms. Thornton said Wil Keane of the Legal Division had reviewed the suggestion and had no objection. She added, however, that the other parties who had attended the meeting had not had an opportunity to review the suggestion.
Chairman Goldwater asked Mr. Parks whether the amendments comported with the intent of the legislation recommended by the interim committee from his assessment as Chairman. Mr. Parks said they did.
Chairman Goldwater queried if anyone had a problem with the proposed amendments or had other comments. There were none.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS
A.B. 32.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Buckley and Mr. Brown were not present for the vote.)
Assembly Bill 140: Provides penalty for failure to comply with order to cease business operations at place of employment for failure to maintain or provide industrial insurance. (BDR 53-437)
Ms. Thornton summarized A.B. 140 and advised there were no amendments.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 140.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Buckley and Mr. Brown were not present for the vote.)
Assembly Bill 168: Revises provisions governing industrial insurance. (BDR 53‑255)
Not heard.
Assembly Bill 190: Makes various changes related to contractors. (BDR 54‑406)
Vance Hughey, Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, advised A.B. 190 made a number of changes relating to contractors and was designed to broaden the powers of the State Contractors’ Board over certain unscrupulous contractors. He said that Assemblyman Parks worked with interested parties to arrive at amendments agreeable to all. He said the amendments were listed in Exhibit “A,” attached to the “Work Session Document” (Exhibit C).
Mr. Hughey noted on page 5, Section 3, of Exhibit C, the language would be changed back to that of the current statute. He continued that on page 6, Section 4, there was a proposal to change “shall” to “may” for the Board to “suspend the license of the licensee for the period of the prohibition.” Also, on page 6, Section 5, he cited the proposal to insert “certified payroll” to clarify the type of report addressed in that session.
Mr. Hughey said on page 7, Section 5, language was added to replace “in any” with the more specific language: “a pre-qualification application or certified payroll.” Continuing on page 7, Section 6, he said wording was added to clarify that the Labor Commissioner should notify the State Contractors’ Board “that a contractor has been prohibited from being awarded a contract for a public work.” Lastly, on page 7, Section 7, Mr. Hughey said the changes were designed to return the wording of the subsection back to the wording of the current statute with a couple of exceptions. One exception was to keep the proposed new wording that read “’Substantiated claims for wages’ means claims for wages ‘by an employee’ against a contractor” in the bill. A second exception was the change in wording in the current statute that the Labor Commissioner would determine “to be valid after providing notice and ‘an opportunity for’ a hearing.” He said he mentioned that the very first change on page 5 related to the change in Section 7, in that it made the wording comport regarding substantiated claims for wages.
Assemblyman Hettrick, referencing the language on the bottom of page 6, asked for a definition of “certified payroll report.”
Assemblyman Beers explained a “certified payroll report” was a listing required for doing work on prevailing wage jobs. The report listed the social security number of each employee and the specific hours worked each day. He said the report was the proof a contractor offered that he had complied with prevailing wage law.
Assemblyman Hettrick asked whether the Labor Commissioner was comfortable with the proposed amendments.
Michael Tanchek, Deputy Labor Commissioner, said the Commission had reviewed the language of A.B. 190 and they were satisfied.
Wil Keane, Legal Counsel, commented there was no problem changing the definition on the bottom of page 7 of “substantiated claims” back to “substantiated claim for wages,” but he preferred that the Committee kept the definition singular to make it clear that each claim by each employee counted as a claim and several claims by one employee counted as multiple claims.
Chairman Goldwater believed Mr. Keane’s suggestion would not damage the intent of the bill.
Assemblyman Parks reported that he had held discussions with various individuals interested in the legislation, including the Labor Commissioner, the carpenters who were the initial requestors of the bill, the Associated General Contractors, Gary Milliken, and Jeanette Belz. He reported that, as far as he was aware, no one had any further concerns.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 190.
Chairman Goldwater confirmed from Mr. Parks the amendments were those indicated on the “Work Session Document,” as well as those points of clarification by Mr. Keane.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Buckley and Mr. Brown were not present for the vote.)
Assembly Bill 231: Authorizes State Board of Podiatry to issue limited license to practice podiatry. (BDR 54-997)
Chairman Goldwater said he had recommended to the Committee A.B. 231, which allowed the Podiatry Board to issue a limited license to experienced practitioners. He said the bill, as it was written, was permissive for the Board. He expressed his desire to make it mandatory, but said it perhaps was not good public policy. He said no amendments were proposed to the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO DO PASS.
This motion was not seconded.
Assemblywoman Gibbons said she liked the bill, but advised she wanted to amend the language to “must” to make it mandatory.
Chairman Goldwater deferred to Mr. Keane.
Mr. Keane advised the proposed amendment was sufficient as long as the language of the bill made clear that the Board only had to issue the license if all the qualifications were met.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 231.
ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Ms. Buckley and Mr. Brown were not present for the vote.)
Assembly Bill 144: Prohibits employer of pharmacist from disciplining pharmacist for refusing to fill or refill prescription under certain circumstances. (BDR 54-210)
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she had met with the interested parties to A.B. 144 and had shared the concerns of the Pharmacists’ Board with Mr. Hillerby. She said the group had not reached a full agreement, but the majority believed that a pharmacist had a duty to dispense prescribed medicines. She said if a pharmacist suspected fraud or the prescription was contrary to state or federal law, he was not obligated to dispense. In dealing with contraindicated drugs, she said, some of the pharmacists had advised that a prescribing doctor might not be aware that there were multiple prescriptions from multiple doctors. They believed a pharmacist should be allowed to contact the doctors regarding his concerns.
Assemblyman Knecht noted the amendment did not address a pharmacist’s lack of inventory. He asked whether that was an oversight or something that was captured simply by the reference “duty to fill.”
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the sponsors had decided to pass on that provision because, she said, the inventory was more of a business decision. She said they did not know how to word a bill to say that if a pharmacy did not have a drug in stock, they had to go find it someplace. She said she did not believe it was appropriate to put that into law.
Assemblyman Knecht said in previous discussions of A.B. 144 he had stated his preference for the “fill or refer” language, and noted that the present language did not include the “refer” option. He said he, consequently, was not prepared to endorse the amendment.
Assemblyman Hettrick said he generally did not have a problem with the amendment. He noted that some rural Nevada communities had only one pharmacy and the “refer” language could force a person living in a remote area to travel long distances for the referral. He said he felt there was some duty to dispense the prescription. He said he still had concerns about the “dispense the prescription as prescribed” language because that excluded the substitution of a more economical generic form of the drug. He said there might also be certain health plans that required the use of certain brands of prescriptions. He believed the bill needed to provide some latitude in those circumstances, to ensure they were not doing something that was not originally intended. He concluded the bill needed more work.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she had inserted the “generic drug” language in her second draft of A.B. 144, but then learned there already was a state law that allowed for dispensing generic drugs in lieu of brand-name drugs. Ms. Giunchigliani said she then removed the generic language from the bill. She said she agreed with Mr. Hettrick that generic forms of medications should be available.
Mr. Keane advised that he believed there was such a provision in Chapter 639, although he could not, offhand, cite the statute. He said the Committee could insert language into A.B. 144 to state that a pharmacist must fill the prescription as prescribed except as otherwise provided in the section regarding generic substitutions. Mr. Keane said that would allow for a generic form of the prescription to be used.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated that would be agreeable to her. She said she had checked with rural pharmacists who had indicated no problem with filling prescriptions, providing the drug was in stock. She said she trusted their judgment and did not want to overstep it. She explained that was the reason for deleting the “refer” language from the bill.
Assemblywoman Leslie said that the previous evening, while at a pharmacy, she had seen a prominently posted notice regarding the NRS provision that generic drugs were available. She said that confirmed the existence of a statutory law.
Assemblyman Griffin said he had originally struggled with A.B. 144. Looking at the first sentence of the amended bill, “A pharmacist must be held to a duty to dispense a prescription as prescribed,” he asked whether that language was used anywhere else in statute.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded that it was not. She said the closest she came to that language was in the Nevada court case regarding the “learned doctrine.”
Assemblyman Griffin, referencing Mr. Knecht’s concern on a pharmacist’s right to “refer,” said he understood the rationale to delete the “must refer” clause. He asked, however, whether the Committee was comfortable that A.B. 144 would not impose a punishment if a pharmacy had inventory problems.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she did not believe the Committee could dictate that a pharmacy had to have all drugs in stock. She said she did not believe a pharmacy would or should be adversely affected if it did not have certain medicines in stock. She noted there was a wide spectrum of medications that required a three-day time frame to order. She agreed there should be no penalty for failing to have a drug in stock.
Assemblyman Beers said the summary description of A.B. 144 probably needed amending as well.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani agreed it would need to be rewritten to remove any reference to disciplinary action.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 144.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted the amendment should reference the NRS statute regarding generic drugs and included rewriting the summary to ensure it accurately reflected the new language.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. KNECHT VOTING NO. (Ms. Buckley and Mr. Brown were not present for the vote.)
Assembly Bill 232: Requires establishment of registry of certain telephone numbers and prohibits telephone solicitors from making unsolicited telephone calls to telephone numbers included in registry under certain circumstances. (BDR 52-1073)
Assemblyman Marcus Conklin, Clark County, District No. 37, reported that after the initial hearing on A.B. 232, he had met with a group of 12 to 14 interested business representatives and lobbyists, regarding amendments. He said although there was substantial disagreement among the parties, regarding the protection of business relationships, most finally agreed to provide an exemption for existing or established business relationships. He reported the group did not go into detail to define a “business relationship.” He noted some parties supported minimal to no exceptions to the legislation. He said businesses and industries supported either many exceptions or no bill at all.
Mr. Conklin noted that other states had enacted “no-call” legislation because the proposed federal legislation had many exceptions. He advised that many industries were included in the federal exceptions including telecommunications, banking, and insurance companies. Additionally, he noted, the federal law could not constitutionally affect intrastate commerce, i.e., commerce that was generated from within the state. He stated there was a “big gaping hole” in the federal legislation. He said his understanding, from speaking with Timothy Hay, Nevada Consumer Advocate, was that the federal government would create their registry based on all the states’ registries. He said generally the states’ bills were more stringent than those of the federal legislation. He explained that federal legislation set a benchmark and the states then enhanced it based on the political culture of their communities.
At the suggestion of legal counsel, Mr. Conklin said most of the interested parties had agreed on a compromise. The compromise was to provide an option to consumers either to exempt or to include their current business relationships. He explained there would be two lists. The first list would be very “broad-based” to include anyone with whom a consumer did business or from whom he wanted to receive calls. Mr. Conklin explained only telemarketers and “cold calls” would not be included on the list. The second list, he said, would be the “I really mean it, don’t call” list. There would be no exemptions if one signed the second list. He cautioned that a government could not legislate an individual’s right to give permission for people to call him. He said, for example, if a person submitted a form requesting more information from a company, that company had the right to respond. Mr. Conklin also advised that a company still had the right to call a client about current and ongoing business transactions.
Mr. Conklin summarized that this was a fair and equitable solution. A.B. 232 would give the consumer the right to decide for himself who he wanted calling him and who he did not want calling him, noting that the consumer was paying for their telephone service and should have some control over who called. Additionally, he said the supporters of the bill recommended the authority be moved to the Bureau of Consumer Protection under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Advocate. He said that the parties agreed that this was an appropriate place for it. He noted there were some fiscal matters that also would need to be considered.
Chairman Goldwater thanked Mr. Conklin for his diligent work on preparing the bill and working on the amendments.
Mr. Hughey said he believed that Assemblyman Conklin had reviewed two of the changes, which were also listed in Exhibit C. Mr. Hughey advised a third change was an addition to Section 1. He said the responsibility for the registry fund also would be directed towards the Consumer Advocate. He added there was still the issue of the source of start-up funding for the program that could either be addressed by the Committee or diverted to the Committee on Ways and Means. He said he had spoken to Tim Hay, Consumer Advocate, who had advised there was a “1039” account within the Attorney General’s Office that he thought would be an appropriate source of start-up funds. Mr. Hughey said he believed he was referring to the account established pursuant to NRS 228.340, but he said he would have that double-checked. He said that was the account established for the Bureau of Consumer Protection.
Chairman Goldwater said, in the interest of fairness, and because they did not want to rehear A.B. 232, he would indicate to the Committee that there were a number of parties who had signed in who were still opposed to the bill, even as amended. He said their opposition was noted in hearing and identified them as Mr. Ostrovsky, representing Cox Communications; Ms. Brower, representing the National Association of Insurance; Mr. Guild, Ms. Grimmer, and Mr. Gastonguay, representing the Cable Association; Ms. Lau, representing the Retailer Association of Nevada; and Mr. Tackes, representing AT&T.
Bob Ostrovsky, Legislative Advocate, representing Cox Communications, said he wanted to advise the Committee that they had offered an “existing business relationship” amendment. He confirmed their opposition to the bill in its current form.
Assemblyman Hettrick commended Mr. Conklin’s efforts. He said he still had a problem with the fee structure for small business owners, who could never afford a fee of up to $1,000 to get a list of names they could not call. He said he understood that the President signed the national bill and he did not know what that legislation would cover or what money might be generated. He said perhaps there would be federal money available to help offset the cost of state legislation. He said he did not believe A.B. 232 could be passed without first sending it to Ways and Means and cautioned that might mean “death” for this bill this session. He said he believed the amendments offered by Mr. Conklin improved the bill significantly, but stated he could not support the bill as currently written.
Chairman Goldwater thanked Mr. Conklin for the hours and work he had expended in preparing the bill.
Assemblyman Knecht thanked Mr. Conklin for his work and acknowledged that he had signed on for the bill when it first was circulated. He said that in view of the federal legislation, however, he agreed with Mr. Hettrick’s comments.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 232.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Griffin said he had problems with the original bill, but he believed the amendments moved closer to his endorsement. He asked whether the objection to A.B. 232 was that the existing business relationship was not inherent within the law, that it was the option of the consumer.
Chairman Goldwater conferred with Mr. Hughey and recalled from testimony that the objection was that they wanted exemptions for an existing business relationship. He said there were two tiers of “do not call.” The first tier, he explained, acknowledged an existing business relationship and allowed for continued telephone calls. The second tier was, to paraphrase Ms. Morgan, a “No, I really mean it, don’t call me” list.
Mr. Hughey said he believed Mr. Goldwater’s summary was accurate. He restated the options: the first list would allow the consumer to indicate that he did not want to receive unsolicited calls unless there was an established business relationship; the second list would not allow any calls even if there was an established business relationship.
Assemblyman Griffin responded he was curious about the objection. He said he supported the amendment, but would like to reserve the right to change his vote on the Floor, based on what he learned about the objection.
Assemblyman Beers said he did not enjoy answering telemarketer telephone calls, but he referenced a key point in Mr. Hay’s testimony that the money available to finance the bill would revert to the General Fund. He said, therefore, spending money on this project would be a “hit” to the General Fund. He added he was not certain that the bill could be enforced. He said for those reasons, and those outlined by Mr. Hettrick, he would be voting no.
Chairman Goldwater said he concurred with Mr. Beers’ interpretation that Ms. Gibbons’ motion included the references to the “1039” budget account. Also, he noted that Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, the Chairwoman of the Elections, Procedures, and Ethics Committee, had indicated to him that the two-thirds requirement held only to the Floor, not to Committee. He said he believed that was in the Committee rules as well.
Assemblyman Perkins said, in a positive sense, he had probably received as much correspondence on A.B. 232 as any legislation undertaken. He said he had seen what happened on the federal level. He noted that having spent his career in law enforcement, he had learned that the best predictor of future behavior was past behavior. He said he had no confidence that the federal government would assist in the current situation. He concluded that he believed it was very important to have the bill enacted.
Chairman Goldwater asked for other comments or questions. There were none. He then brought the Gibbons/Leslie motion to a vote.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. HETTRICK, MR. KNECHT AND MR. BEERS VOTING NO. (Ms. Buckley and Mr. Brown were not present for the vote.)
Chairman Goldwater said that concluded the Committee’s work session. He then opened the hearing on A.B. 182.
Assembly Bill 182: Authorizes employer to enter into fair share agreement with labor organization. (BDR 53-1076)
Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, Clark County, District No. 14, said she introduced A.B. 182 at the request of two gentlemen who were ready to testify via videoconference from Las Vegas.
Thomas A. Morley, Legislative Advocate, representing the 4,000 members of Laborers’ Union Local #872 in Las Vegas, said he supported A.B. 182. He said that for many years his membership had had to pull the weight of “freeloaders” who had chosen to take advantage of the union privileges, such as wages, health care, dental care, optical care, and life insurance. He said they also had benefited from contract negotiations, as well as from grievance and arbitration proceedings on their behalf. He noted that this was a financial burden for the union. Mr. Morley said the intent of the bill was not to violate the “Right to Work Act,” but simply to amend it. He said the act would in no way force or encourage non-members to join the union; however, he added, it would give the union the right to charge a service fee not to exceed monthly dues. He said he had provided a copy of a Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 29718 (Exhibit D) that was dated May 4, 2000, which supported the issue. He said the Court ruled that charging a reasonable fee did not violate the existing Right to Work laws. He said the court decision also ruled that the fees did not constitute discrimination against non-union members. In closing, Mr. Morley said, that the court decided that a service fee was not a condition of employment and, therefore, it did not breach the union’s duty of fair representation.
Larry O’Leary, Secretary-Treasurer, Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local 13, also testified in support of A.B. 182 via video conference from Las Vegas. Mr. O’Leary read from prepared testimony (Exhibit E). He explained that the labor union was the exclusive bargaining representative of all the workers of an industry, regardless of their union membership. He noted that the union did not discriminate against non-union members in their negotiations, grievance procedures, and other representations, adding that those services could be costly. Mr. O’Leary gave, as an example, the services the union would provide to a worker who was fired. He explained the grievance procedure, including investigations, meetings with management, research, interviews, legal analyses, and arbitration. He observed that procedures that went all the way to arbitration were very expensive for the union.
Mr. O’Leary emphasized that, under Nevada law, a worker would receive the same services whether he belonged to a union or not. He said the current law was not fair to union members who had to bear the costs of their union’s representation of non-members. He believed non-union workers were taking advantage of union members. He added there was little incentive for workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement to become union members since they already enjoyed all the benefits of union representation for free.
Mr. O’Leary explained that 28 states had enacted legislation requiring non-union workers to pay the union their fair share of costs incurred in the union’s representation of them. He said A.B. 182 provided that employers and unions were free to enter into agreements where, as a condition of employment, all employees covered by a union contract were required to pay the union a service fee equal to their pro-rated share of the costs of the union’s representation. He said the service fee was limited to “the employee’s proportional share of the cost incurred by the labor organization for collective bargaining, the administration of contracts and the adjustment of grievances.”
Mr. O’Leary continued that the bill did not force any worker to join a union, it did not force any employer to fire a worker who was not a union member, and it did not force any employer to enter into a fair share fee agreement. He said the bill prohibited a union from charging any non-member any amount in fair share fees that was greater than the amount it required of its members in dues. Lastly, he said, the bill prohibited a union from charging any service fee to non-members that included any share of a union’s political contributions. He noted that federal law limited the assessment of fair share fees to non-union workers to those that were “germane to collective bargaining.”
Exhibit E cited numerous United States Supreme Court cases that recognized the legality of fair share fee arrangements. Mr. O’Leary said A.B. 182 would clarify that it was fair for every worker to pay their share of the costs incurred by the union in representing them; the bill would also allow employers in both the public and private sectors to enter into agreements requiring fair share fees.
Tommy Ricketts, President, Las Vegas City Employees Association, and Vice-President, Working Assembly of Governmental Employees (WAGE), noted that WAGE had 143,000 employees in California. He referenced his written letter with attached summary of California legislation, and question-and-answer pages (Exhibit F). He explained the financial implications of fair share legislation, noting that he only represented classified city employees, who were public employees. Mr. Ricketts said there were 1,523 classified employees for the City of Las Vegas, and the City Employees Association had 1,002 dues-paying members. He said the contract negotiation fees cost about $60,000. He advised if all employees split the cost, it would be about $40 per employee, but with union workers having to currently carry the entire cost, each union member paid $60 and non-union members paid nothing. Mr. Ricketts stated that labor representation cost about $128,000. If all employees paid, he said, it would cost $84 per employee each year. However, he advised, the union members paid $127 per member a year. He said dues for their members were $12.33 per pay period. Adding 26 pay periods per year, he reported, the cost was $320.58 per member per year. He said if they were able to apply a “fair share equation” to this, non-members that would fall under the fair share amendment would be paying $4.77 per payday. He said that would compute to $124 a year, based on 26 paydays.
Mr. Ricketts explained the two costs computed for the non-union members would be the cost of representation and the cost of contract negotiations. Referencing California’s agency shop legislation, he said the Association would allow their membership to put it to a vote and if 30% of the members wanted to adopt a fair share agreement, they would then take the proposal to the City of Las Vegas. He concluded that was their idea of fair share and how it would apply to the City Employees Association. He added that the Association would also exempt any person who had a religious reason. He said they would ask such a person to donate his fair share to a specified charity.
Assemblywoman Gibbons queried Mr. Ricketts why a person would have a religious problem with the dues.
Mr. Ricketts responded that in Orange and San Bernardino Counties in California, there had been 32 employees claiming their religion precluded them from joining a labor union or an association to represent them with collective bargaining rights. He said those employees donated their fair share portion and remitted receipts. At the end of the year, when the Association made a certified financial report to the membership, that receipt would reflect that they had paid their fair share.
Assemblywoman Gibbons said she did not understand the language to mean that a person was joining a union; she thought it was stating that a person was paying his fair share, even if he chose not to join a union.
Mr. Ricketts agreed with her interpretation.
Assemblywoman Gibbons clarified that they did not have a problem with an employee refusing to join a union because of his religion.
Mr. Ricketts responded that everyone had a right not to join. He said the Association would just ask that they pay their fair share, or if they claimed a religious exemption, to donate their fair share to a charity.
Danny Thompson, Legislative Advocate, representing the Nevada State AFL-CIO, testified in favor of A.B. 182. He recalled that at one time he was the president of the Steelworkers Union. He said that occasionally he was mandated by law to represent non-union workers. He noted that this cost a considerable amount to the dues-paying members. He said Mr. O’Leary, in his testimony, had presented a very clear explanation of the problem. He noted the non-union worker who had lost her job received all the benefits but was never obligated to pay. He said the benefits included recovering her job and receiving pay raises. He said the fair share legislation had been introduced before and he said the union felt it was only fair that those who reaped the benefits should pay just like everyone else. He concluded that on behalf of the 165,000 members of the Nevada State AFL-CIO, he supported A.B. 182.
Gary Wolff, Legislative Advocate, representing the Teamsters Local 14, Las Vegas, and the Nevada Highway Patrol Association, testified that he supported A.B. 182.
Jack Jeffrey, Legislative Advocate, representing the Southern Nevada Builders & Construction Trades Council, testified in support of A.B. 182.
Chairman Goldwater asked for other testimony in support of A.B. 182. He noted for the record that Rusty McCallister, representing the Professional Firefighters of Nevada, had indicated support. Also, he said that Skip Daly, representing the Laborers, supported the bill.
Christina Dugan, Legislative Advocate, representing the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, testified in opposition to A.B. 182. She said the Chamber believed the bill would seriously damage Nevada’s Right to Work laws. She stated at the heart of the bill was a threat to the individual’s ability to exercise his own free choice. She suggested while it was true that non-union employees benefited from non-union contracts without paying union dues, it violated the principles of expression and free choice and required those employees to pay a service charge to the union. Ms. Dugan said Tommy Ricketts had explained that the bill would allow an agency shop to leave open the option to the employer and the union to decide if the employee had to pay the service fee. She said this could happen in the course of a union negotiation and the union could bargain for it, forcing the non-union members to pay a service fee. She stated it would fall under mandatory issues of bargaining, as opposed to permissive issues of bargaining, which provided that the employer had to bargain in good faith on this issue. Ms. Dugan added that it required the employee to pay the service fee to enjoy the union benefits.
Mary Lau, Executive Director, Retail Association of Nevada, testified in opposition to A.B. 182. She said the Retail Association supported the Chamber’s opinion, presented by Ms. Dugan. She said she did not know if, under the federal law, they could negotiate fees in a bargaining session.
Ms. Dugan said she had tried to research that issue and reported it appeared under federal law that one could negotiate under the mandatory issues of bargaining.
Chairman Goldwater inquired whether the professional negotiators in the audience were in agreement with that. He concluded that public employees could not negotiate.
Ms. Lau offered that they also shared concerns about the Right to Work Act, the status quo on the state, and an employee’s right to choose. She said she empathized with the unions and their problems regarding freeloading. She advised that she had offered an amendment to Assemblywoman Koivisto. She said if the bill would include trade associations, chambers of commerce, taxpayers’ associations, and all areas where people had representation but did not pay appropriately, that they would reconsider the bill. She concluded that as A.B. 182 was written, the Association opposed it.
Ray Bacon, Legislative Advocate, representing the Nevada Manufacturers Association, testified in opposition to A.B. 182. He said he agreed with the testimony presented by Ms. Dugan and Ms. Lau.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she believed the Committee would need to research the federal legislation. She knew it did not apply to public employees and noted it was not on the list of mandatory subjects for bargaining. She said she could not vouch for the private sector. She said she agreed that no one should be forced to join a union, but stated that A.B. 182 did not mandate that. She said she did not believe the bill violated the Right to Work Law; it simply charged for the cost of doing business, just as the Chamber of Commerce, the Retail Association, and anyone else did. She said it was the cost of doing business. She said that a business expected their customers to pay and to pay their taxes. She believed the agency shop fee would allow the unions to charge people for the purpose of business.
Assemblyman Perkins said, for the purpose of clarification, that the collective bargaining statutes allowed for employees to negotiate certain points of mandatory bargaining with their employers, but not for the union to negotiate with their employees.
Chairman Goldwater asked for any further testimony for or against the bill. There was no further testimony. He asked Mr. Keane to prepare a synopsis of the relationship of federal law, how it would apply to the bill, and what concerns the Committee might have with enacting the bill.
Mr. Keane said he would comply.
Chairman Goldwater closed the hearing on A.B. 182 and thanked everyone for their hard work. He reminded everyone of the dual Floor sessions on Monday. He adjourned the meeting at 12:55 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sharee Gebhardt
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman David Goldwater, Chairman
DATE: