MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Commerce and Labor
Seventy-First Session
March 26, 2001
The Senate Committee on Commerce and Laborwas called to order by Chairman Randolph J. Townsend, at 9:30 a.m., on Monday, March 26, 2001, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. This meeting was video conferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 555 East Washington Street, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman
Senator Ann O’Connell, Vice Chairman
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Michael A. (Mike) Schneider
Senator Maggie Carlton
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Scott Young, Committee Policy Analyst
Silvia Motta, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Terry Johnson, Labor Commissioner, Office of Labor Commissioner, Department of Business and Industry
Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors-Las Vegas
Linda Chavez-Thompson, Chairman, National Committee on Pay Equity, and Executive Vice President, American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations
Yvonne Stedham, Chairman, Managerial Science Department, College of Business Administration, University of Nevada, Reno
Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, Nevada Women’s Lobby
Brenda Carrera, Director, Nevada Empowered Women’s Project
Mark J. Nichols, Lobbyist, National Association of Social Workers
Janice Darleen Edera Duminie, Nevada Federation of Business and Professional Women
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Families For Freedom
Merritt K. Yochum, Lobbyist
Chairman Townsend opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 373.
SENATE BILL 373: Makes various changes to provisions relating to labor commissioner. (BDR 53-558)
Terry Johnson, Labor Commissioner, Office of Labor Commissioner, Department of Business and Industry, said this proposal was drafted with the intent to clarify the scope and duties of the labor commissioner, to streamline operations, and to enforce the laws more efficiently. He pointed out the statutes have not been revised for decades, and the statutes need to be clarified in several areas. Mr. Johnson made reference to S.B. 373’s proposed language to modify section 1 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 607.150, and carry out the provisions of the labor commissioner’s duties. He then said originally the statute allowed the labor commissioner to enter any business, or conduct inquiry for the purpose of gathering facts (during investigations), but he noted some would argue the statute precludes the labor commissioner from doing the same thing to enforce child labor laws, employment agency laws, and public works laws. Another reason for this proposal, he said, would be to ensure the law includes all the labor commissioner’s duties. Another key point, he said, page 2, line 1 of S.B. 373 would give his office express authority to adopt regulations and carry out the duties bestowed upon the labor commissioner.
Mr. Johnson indicated he strongly believed in clarifying matters through regulation because it lets the regulated know what the expectations are, causing a great deal of litigation to be avoided down the line. He drew attention to page 2, line 27 of S.B. 373, explaining existing statute, if the labor commissioner’s office does not have a claim for wages, it might preclude him from collecting wages owed to an employee; for example, when the employee does not want to file a claim for wages out of fear he or she might be terminated. The commissioner’s auditors must be able to audit records and other information, to let employers know the may be in violation without necessarily receiving a claim, he said. This would give the labor commissioner the ability to commence any other action in addition for claims for wages, to collect wages, commissions, or other demands for persons who cannot afford legal counsel, and to provide appropriate solutions for them. Referring to line 36, Mr. Johnson drew attention to the issue of a subpoena stating, according to the original statute, the labor commissioner could issue a subpoena, but it seemed to imply the subpoena could be issued only in instances of a hearing. But, he said, a hearing should not have to be scheduled just to issue a subpoena. Instead, he recommended, his office should be able to conduct an investigation and issue a subpoena then and there because it could tell investigators if it is necessary to continue with the investigation, set a hearing or continue with further litigation.
Mr. Johnson proceeded, stating another major change would revise NRS 607.205, which states the labor commissioner or a regular staff member from the labor commissioner’s office, may conduct hearings. He appealed for flexibility in the event of hearings getting backed up, so his office could appoint a person within the Department of Business and Industry, or the Hearings Division to assist the labor commissioner’s office. He continued, section 5 would amend NRS 607.220, for the labor commissioner to forward complaints to the attorney general’s office (AG). Then, Mr. Johnson expressed concern regarding proposed changes for NRS 608.250 section 9 of S.B. 373 on the wage and hour provisions, noting, as of today, the statutes state the minimum wage in Nevada is $3.35 an hour. He explained Nevada typically bases its minimum wage on what the federal government prescribes. While the federal government has recommended about 2 or 3 increases since 1993, raising it from $3.35 to $4.25 in 1995, then increased it to the current wage of $5.15 an hour, language in the statute was never changed. Mr. Johnson explained what his office is asking for is the ability to set forth the minimum wage and regulation, so if there are any wage changes after the Legislature adjourns, there would be no need to return in 2003 to clarify the language again. He established, the rest of the language in section 9 of the bill further elaborates a person shall pay no less than a minimum wage set forth by the labor commissioner pursuant to regulations, and the labor commissioner can, again, forward matters to the AG for prosecution, in order to expedite the prosecution if necessary. He reiterated his recommendations would assist the labor commission to adequately enforce the laws of this state, be fair and respectful of businesses, and better protect the interest of Nevada’s working families.
Senator Rhoads asked whether a young person under 16 years of age could be employed. Mr. Johnson confirmed a person under the age of 16 can be employed, but in certain circumstances approval would be needed from a district court and the person must obtain a work permit. However, the provisions indicate you can only pay a person under the age of 18, 85 percent of the minimum wages set for workers aged 18 years old and up. There are some exceptions, he said, NRS 608.250, subsection 2, states the minimum wage provision does not apply to some classifications of workers, such as babysitters, domestic service employees who reside in their place of employment, outside salespersons, taxi and limousine drivers, certain handicapped individuals, and employees engaged in an agricultural pursuit for an employer who did not use more than 500 man-days of agricultural labor in any calendar quarter of the preceding calendar year.
Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors-Las Vegas, voiced support for S.B. 373.
Chairman Townsend closed the hearing on S.B. 373, and identified several bill draft requests (BDR) for introduction.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 54-1209: Authorizes certain chiropractors to engage in practice of animal chiropractic. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 510.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 58-188: Revises authority of public utilities commission of Nevada to regulate certain public utilities, holding companies and other entities. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 514.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 54-578: Prohibits person from advertising himself as qualified to practice homeopathic medicine if he does not possess requisite license or certificate. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 515.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 54-619: Makes various changes relating to practice of homeopathic medicine. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 506.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 54-81: Makes various changes to provisions relating to investigations and proceedings for disciplinary action by regulatory bodies who regulate certain professions, occupations and businesses. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 513.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 58-1444: Revises provisions governing certain education and informational services provided by public utilities commission of Nevada. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 509.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1453: Requires audit of certain electric utilities, their affiliates, parent company and subsidiaries. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 508.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 58-1450: Revises and repeals various provisions concerning utilities and energy. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 507.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 54-1208: Revises provisions relating to accountants. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 512.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 53-189: Limits enforceability of certain contracts in restraint of trade. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 511.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 54-1452: Makes various changes concerning contractors and constructional defects. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 516.)
SENATOR O’CONNELL MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 54-1209, BDR 58-188, BDR 54-578, BDR 54-619, BDR 54-81, BDR 58-1444, BDR S-1453, BDR 58-1450, BDR 54-1208, BDR 53-189, BDR 54-1452.
SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman Townsend opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 85.
SENATE BILL 85: Creates commission to study disparity in compensation based on differing genders, races or national origins of employees in public and private employment. (BDR S-452)
Senator Margaret (Maggie) A. Carlton, Clark County Senatorial District No. 2, offered a proposed amendment to S.B. 85 (Exhibit C), proposing a Fair Pay Commission for State Employees. She stated the recommendations amend the bill as a whole by replacing the broad provisions of the original bill with a commission and study limited to state employee pay, as compared to studying compensation levels in local government, the private sector, and within the state workforces. She said she believed it would be advantageous to study private enterprise and local governments, but a study limited to state employees would be more practical and feasible at this time. She pointed out the state government is the entity most in need of a comprehensive study, and legislators have the responsibility and authority to resolve problems in state government. The ability of this state to provide the services taxpaying citizens expect and deserve is dependent on the quality of the state workforce, which she noted is plagued with excessive turnover and high costs for recruitment and retraining.
Senator Carlton maintained reducing this high turnover rate would not only be beneficial for the individuals who work in state government, but also for the citizens they serve, and would save the state money over the long term. She expanded on the reason for the study saying, in 1983 the Legislature directed the Department of Personnel to study the salary criteria to determine the current employees’ salaries in the classified services of the state. Some adjustments were made in determining the salary of state employees, and some recommendations on fair pay were not enacted. However, in 1997, the executive budget included funding for a study of the salary classifications’ system comparing similar and dissimilar jobs by using a point system factor. She said it has become necessary to conduct a comprehensive study on not only how state employees are paid, but how they compare with similar employees in private industry and local government, and also how the pay of similar employee classifications within state government compare to each other. She continued, there has been extensive discussion of how badly state employees are paid in Nevada compared to similar jobs in local government and private industry, which has been brought up many times in the Governor’s fundamental review committee.
Senator Carlton continued, “One only needs to look at the high rate of turnover in state government to know that indeed we are losing many of our best workers to greener pastures elsewhere, but we have no quantifiable data as to just how many are leaving for what jobs and for what reasons.” She said it is time legislators have accurate, well-documented information to determine just how bad this disparity of salary might be, in what job classifications it may exist, and why a fair-pay commission is necessary. To do so by bringing experts from business and community groups to help resolve this state problem makes good common sense, and is long overdue.
Senator Carlton remarked the second determination in this study is the degree of disparity between one job classification and similar jobs within state government. National census data shows nationally the wages for women and minorities lag behind wages for men and non-minorities. She said, in her opinion, it is critical to take the first step towards connecting pay and equity.
Senator Carlton added:
I believe it is wrong when a single mother, struggling to feed and clothe her children, ever has to work side by side with a man doing the same job, but the man earning more money. I believe it is wrong that we lose some of our most qualified state workers who would really like to continue working in state government, but, because they can earn so much more in local government or private sector jobs, they leave us; [and it is wrong] when we have worked so hard in this country to eliminate racial prejudice that we can still turn a blind eye to economic discrimination.
Senator Carlton said she recognized none of these problems can be corrected overnight, however, by approving S.B. 85, the Legislature would gather the appropriate information to begin the journey.
Linda Chavez-Thompson, Chairman, National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE), and Executive Vice President, American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), referred to her written testimony (Exhibit D) to address the issues and her point of view on S.B. 85. She testified a large percentage of working women say they would like to see equal pay, stronger programs to eliminate discrimination and sexual harassment, and better career development and training. She pointed out nearly 40 years have passed since passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the enactment of the comprehensive ban on workplace discrimination in 1964, yet women and minority workers remain the victims of wage discrimination. In 1999 the average earnings for women who worked full time year-round were $26,324 compared to the average $36,476 for men.
She said although the incomes of black and Hispanic households were the highest ever recorded at $27,910 for a black household and $30,735 for a Hispanic household, significant wage gaps between minority and nonminority workers also persist.
She said, according to the 1998 study by the AFL-CIO and the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, a typical woman in Nevada earns 72 cents for every man’s dollar, or $145 less per week, and the wage gap for women of color is even larger. According to the same study, working families in Nevada lose a total of $1.2 billion to the gender wage gap. She also said 20 states had successfully conducted studies to implement programs to raise the wages of workers in female-dominant jobs. She told the committee S.B. 85 would create a commission to study disparity in compensation of employees in state government, would provide data on the extent of pay disparities by gender, race and national origin, and would help end discrimination and close the pay gap. She concluded, women and people of color have made great strides in the workplace and the economy over the past several decades. Nevada can take an important first step by passing S.B. 85, she said.
Chairman Townsend said he wondered if there was any information to compare with, as in 1998 when West Virginia established its Pay Equity Commission, and in 1999, the Vermont Legislature authorized a job evaluation study.
Ms. Chavez-Thompson offered to research any updated information from both of those states and forward it to the committee.
Senator Carlton re-referred to Exhibit C, page 2, section 1, outlining several proposals. Sequentially she referred to section 2 on page 3, recognizing the need to make changes to the proposed language from “may” to “shall” on page 5, section 2, subsection 5. She then moved on to page 5, reviewing all subsections in sections 3 and 4.
Senator O'Connell asked for clarification on the language of the proposal in section 3, subsection 2 (page 6 of Exhibit C) quoting, “who are employed in similar positions or in positions that are not similar but require equivalent composites of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.”
Senator Carlton explained, there are a number of different studies available, based on such criteria as 5 years of formal education, and weighted against years of experience. The way a number of these studies are done is through a point system, where the tasks assigned to the employee are reviewed and evaluated; comparing them across the board between all different job classifications, then searching to see if, possibly, within state government, there might have been some “bracket creep,” or if a same certain job classification is at a particular grade, or another individual in the same classification may be in the same job but at a different grade in another agency.
Senator Carlton concluded her remarks, saying the proposal would assist in evaluating how all employees are treated and receive equal pay. She declared she is not an expert, and the information she has stated is merely the information she received from groups specializing in doing these types of evaluations. She told the committee Washoe County is currently going through the final process of a similar study.
Yvonne Stedham, Chairman, Managerial Science Department, College of Business Administration, University of Nevada, Reno, introduced herself as an expert in human resource management and compensation management. Ms. Stedham maintained it is sound business practice to do evaluations and to design an internally equitable compensation system, which means being consistent with the market by looking at the worth of jobs and creating a compensation system reflecting the worth of the jobs in an organization. She submitted a packet (Exhibit E) containing copies of a group of copied slides detailing the cash components of compensation and such elements as benefits and nonfinancial rewards, and how all the components must fit together by using strategic reasons to provide a certain level of composition of compensation. She elaborated, compensation in a business strategy, is designed differently than in a cost-cutting environment, where the pay is not just market driven, there are other reasons determining how compensation is put together.
Ms. Stedham said, with respect to human resources, there are specific outcomes to take into consideration in order to attract qualified employees, retain them, and encourage performance. She emphasized three important “social comparisons” (Exhibit E, page 2, copy of slide number 6) must exist in an organization to ensure satisfaction. She gave an example of a study completed 8 years ago on 415 casino employees in northern Nevada, which shows the reasons casino workers left employment were: subjective treatment from supervisors who did not follow rules and procedures, allocation of money, and allocation of working hours. “We need to establish fairness and equity, especially in this country [United States],” she said.
Chairman Townsend noted large amounts of effort and money are spent for a specific athletic coach, but not enough effort is applied to a professor’s position.
Ms. Stedham added, in some instances, in order to attract and hire qualified persons, it becomes necessary to compete with the market price, where a system is designed and adjustments are made according to market demands, and according to individual performance requirements. She referred to the copy of slide number 8, page 3 (Exhibit E), relating to job analysis, job description, and job evaluation. Then she made reference to slide number 10 on page 4, pointing out when determining the worth of a job in an organization, you start by defining “compensable factors” and what kinds of issues are important to the organization. Once the compensable factors are recognized, such as, know-how, accountability, problem solving and working conditions, the factors are weighed, developing scales for each factor. Then, the total points are determined for each job by applying the factors, the weights and the scales, and a job hierarchy is developed; for example, in a typical corporation, a CEO (Chief Executive Officer) job would have 20,000 points at the top of the job hierarchy, and all the way down to clerical workers with 500 points.
Ms. Stedham demonstrated (on page 5, copy slide number 13) hypothetical weight percentages for compensable factors, on how problem solving and accountability would be considered more important than know-how and working conditions; therefore, giving this factor a higher percentage. She moved on to the copies of slides number 14 and 15 of page 5 (Exhibit E), referring to examples of point methods, such as examples of the scales for each of the factors from 10 to 1000 points; and a hypothetical rating of points on two state job positions, such as a library assistant and a maintenance worker. She also made reference to three slide copies from page 6 of Exhibit E, but in particular, number 8, drawing attention to a strategic block chart, and slide number 18 in summary of all the elements proposed.
Ms. Stedham acknowledged prior requests of salary adjustments or changes of classification. She insisted, if a statewide compensation study is considered, all of the issues can be addressed at once by using the evaluation of worth. She gave the example of Washoe County’s evaluation study, which concluded typically most of the job duties actually stay the same, and 60 percent of the jobs were evaluated correctly within the same classification. However, 20 percent of their jobs were frozen due to being evaluated too highly, and another 20 percent had to be adjusted up because their current worth was evaluated too low.
Senator Amodei said he wondered, if this committee was to create a $10,000 commission, whose job it would be to raise money to perform a study like the one done in Washoe County, then report back to the legislators. Senator Carlton verified the commission would review different studies and evaluate them, then decide which study may be the best course to take, gather the data into a report, and submit it to the Legislature and the Governor.
Senator Carlton acknowledged a group of women in the audience wearing red clothing, in honor of the “red purse brigade” from the business and professional women’s institute, “to remind people of the unfairness in pay across the country between men, women and minorities.”
Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, Nevada Women’s Lobby, said it is time for the state to seriously consider these issues, which have been addressed since 1995 and in the Governor’s budget 4 years ago.
Brenda Carrera, Director, Nevada Empowered Women’s Project (NEWP), testified as a representative of low-income women and children, and as the director of NEWP, which is an advocacy group in favor of S.B. 85 from Washoe and Clark Counties. Ms. Carrera indicated 95 percent of the population her organization represents have received or are receiving some type of public assistance. Unfortunately, most of the women end up working one or more jobs to earn only the minimum wage. She stressed low-income families need to be compensated equally for the hard work they perform. Studies have shown if women’s salaries were brought up to men’s, the average income increase will be only $3000 per year. Ms. Carrera said she had asked a member of her organization, Ronda Harris, what she would do with an extra $3000, and Ms. Harris quoted:
With $3000 of extra income, my family would be able to pay off at least some of our debts and provide for school field trips and extra clothing; afford extra work on our pickup truck to make sure it is running safely to get to and from work, and take my daughter to her service learning class. As well as help provide new glasses for my daughter and I [sic]. Furthermore, this money would help my family move to a better location.
Ms. Carrera reinforced, fair pay for women would not only increase their families’ level of income, but it would encourage them to be self-sufficient and decrease the chance of them returning to public assistance. She said she strongly supports the bill for fair pay to all workingwomen and families, regardless of color or ethnicity.
Mark J. Nichols, Lobbyist, National Association of Social Workers (NASW), in support of S.B. 85, stated the female-dominated professions are affected by wage parity under the current system, many of them with 6-year college educations and are licensed professionals. By no means, he declared, are the children, the elderly and vulnerable populations less deserving than attorneys or engineers. He sustained, the current system is a “win/lose” situation with minorities and women losing, “I do not lose when women and minorities are paid fairly, no one loses with fair pay.” He acknowledged Senator Carlton, Bobbie Gang, and Linda Chavez-Thompson for their efforts “in making the state of Nevada a fair place for women and minorities.”
Janice Darleen Edera Duminie, Nevada Federation of Business and Professional Women, voiced support in favor of the bill. She contended fair pay has been an issue since 1919, when her organization was initially started. She spoke of her great-grandparents, who came to Nevada in the 1800s, and had to work very hard with unfair pay. She explained she started working from the age of 15 as a waitress for no pay, tips only. She was able to obtain college degrees as a paralegal and in business. However, currently due to illnesses, she is not able to work, and when she does work, she only receives $11 an hour. She further explained, her husband, being an auto mechanic with no college degree, makes $22 an hour; and her two sons, one a printer and her other son a home builder, earn $85,000 and $160,000 a year respectively, yet neither have ever been to college.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, submitted a report (“Job and Classification Study,” State of Nevada, Department of Personnel, January 1985 [Exhibit F. Original is on file in the Research Library.]), for the legislators to review, which she stated had valuable information in opposition to S.B. 85.
She said oftentimes, equity programs or comparable worth are like comparing “apples and oranges.”
Ms. Hansen pointed out this proposal has been repeatedly noted as a first step, and it is a compromised bill replacing the original proposal. If there are going to be examinations, she would recommend a “sunset,” so it is not rolled into the pay commission. She then referred to the members who will be forming the commission, claiming there is no representation for families, as weighted in section 2 of the bill. She quoted, “One member who represents an organization, which is undertaking advocacy, education or legislative initiatives, insisting it is in pursuit of eliminating disparate compensation of employment would be helpful.” The proposal, she added, leads to a committee determining what wages should be rather than the free market. Nevertheless, when it moves from state employees to the market system where a large number of women who are married to blue-collar men will be impacted, because their husbands are discriminated against by people who try to determine, outside the market, who should get what pay.
Ms. Hansen gave the example of her stepdaughter’s husband, who graduated with a degree in engineering, earning $40,000 to start, meanwhile, her stepdaughter, soon to be a college graduate in education, will not be starting in the same salary range, for the simple reason there is a great demand for engineers today. Ms. Hansen claimed this commission would provide for a “closed shop.”
Senator Carlton objected to Ms. Hansen’s assumptions. She said the commission would act under all open meeting laws, with an agenda, and possibly accessible in the north and south; it would be a state commission paid with state funds. She iterated the proposal is an amendment that substitutes the bill in its entirety. She agreed there were some issues left out due to legal and time constraints, but confirmed there will be a “sunset,” and at the end of the next legislative session, the commission would have completed the study.
Ms. Hansen added:
Several years ago, the legislature passed a bill for a women’s commission, and on that commission there was little representation for the women representing my point of view, and it was so bias towards one point of view, because their ultimate role was to bring forth legislation, that we sincerely objected that our tax dollars and the influence of this commission were being used to lobby against our point of view. I can envision that this commission may do the same thing, lobbying against those who are not in agreement with the philosophy of pay-equity, rather in agreement with the philosophy of open free enterprise.
Ms. Hansen drew attention to section 3, line 42, referring to the proposed language as drafted:
That this will be not only for people who hold the same job, but jobs which are not similar, but that require equivalent composites of skill, effort, responsibility in working conditions. When we try to compare blue collar jobs with jobs that may not be achieving the same amount of pay in white collar jobs, it becomes very difficult.
She concluded, any government who has the power to give you anything you want, is strong enough to take it away. The free enterprise system and the market system for setting wages is not perfect, there is great disparity and unfairness, but it is the best system we have.
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Families For Freedom, explained she was employed by Hewlett-Packard Company for over 16 years ago as a typographer, where she was earning more than the men who were performing the same duties, but due to personal reasons, she had to leave that job. She then proceeded, in the event she was to return to work, she feels it would not be fair to be hired at the same level of wages as the employees who have continued to work there for the last 16 years. She voiced her opposition to the bill, offering information on fair pay, pay equity, or disparity in compensation, by quoting a paragraph on page 4 of “The Phyllis Schlafly Report” (Exhibit G):
Comparable worth means relying on some functionary’s comparison of worth, not work. It has nothing to do with actual work at all, it prioritizes paper credentials over production, degrees over demand, and social theory over hard work. It is an incomparably bad idea because it is inherently unjust. No wonder the United States Commission on Civil Rights concluded in its recent 232-page study that the theory of “comparable worth” is profoundly and irretrievably flawed.
Merritt K. Yochum, Lobbyist, testified he is adamantly opposed to S.B. 85.
Chairman Townsend closed the hearing on S.B. 85, and introduced Bill Draft Request (BDR) 58-1121.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 58-1121: Requires public utilities commission of Nevada to adopt regulations pertaining to affordability of rates for certain utility services. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 526.)
SENATOR O’CONNELL MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 58-1121.
SENATOR SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 a.m.
Silvia Motta,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman
DATE: