MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
February 20, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:12 a.m., on Thursday, February 20, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4401 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. Mark Manendo, Chairman
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Tom Grady
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Speaker of the Assembly Richard Perkins
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
Nancy Haywood, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Scott MacKenzie, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association
Danny Thompson, President, Nevada AFL-CIO
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
James E. Wilkerson, Commissioner, State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board
Walter R. Tarantino, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association, Nevada Highway Patrol Association
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14
Liz Sorenson, Executive Vice President and Lobbyist, Communications Workers of America, Local #9413
Samuel McMullen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce
Assembly Bill 65: Authorizes collective bargaining for certain state employees. (BDR 23-659)
Chairman Manendo welcomed all Committee members and visitors to the Committee on Government Affairs and called the meeting to order at 8:12 a.m. The roll was called, and he directed the secretary to mark Assemblyman McCleary present upon his arrival.
Chairman Manendo asked the Committee to consider the introduction of the following bill draft request.
VICE CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 23-939.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. McCleary was absent for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo drew attention to the agenda and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 65. The first witness called to testify was Scott MacKenzie, Executive Director of the State of Nevada Employees Association. Chairman Manendo also stated that Mr. MacKenzie had permission to bring others to the witness table with him if he chose to do so.
Mr. MacKenzie greeted Chairman Manendo and members of the Committee. He began by introducing himself and then gave a history of collective bargaining, both at the federal and state levels. Over 60 years ago, stated Mr. MacKenzie, the United States Congress granted the right of collective bargaining to the workers in the private sector through the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1979 granted federal employees the right to bargain collectively, he continued. Although originally restrictive, today federal agencies were being granted exemptions from federal personnel laws and had been able to expand bargaining rights for federal workers as a result.
Currently 30 of the 50 states had passed collective bargaining laws for state workers. The District of Columbia also had collective bargaining laws. In all, there are 75 different state laws governing collective bargaining in the public sector at the state and/or local level.
Closed-shop organizations were prohibited in Nevada when Senate Bill (S.B.) 79 of the 45th Session was passed in 1951. Most workers had been and were currently afforded the choice of joining or not joining a union for collective bargaining purposes. No mandatory membership existed in unions in the state.
In 1969, the Local Government Employee-Management Relations Act was passed in Nevada. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) gave local governments the right to collective bargaining. The Nevada Legislature gave some public employees bargaining rights and was intended to apply principles similar to those of the federal labor law to its employees. Local Employee-Management Relations Boards (LEMRB) properly relied on precedents set by the federal National Labor Relations Board. That gave case law so that issues in the workplace would be more easily resolved. When that law was enacted, state employees were excluded from the act. The law was challenged in 1970. The Attorney General’s opinion, at that time, was that state workers were not allowed to engage in collective bargaining under the Local Government Employees-Management Relations Act.
The economic gap between city, county, private sector workers, and state workers since then had widened within the Nevada market. The widening gap reached nearly crisis levels in 2000 when the turnover rate reached a gross of 19.10 percent in corrections and a gross of 13.42 percent overall for Nevada state workers. The turnover rate was due to the differences in wages and benefits between those groups of workers, Mr. MacKenzie explained. At that time, the gap placed Nevada’s state workers 26.02 percent below in wages alone compared to their counterparts in cities, counties and the private sector. There was also a gap of 29.79 percent regarding benefits when compared to their counterparts. There was a slight recovery in 2002 due to the “four-plus-four” raises in the Governor’s budget during the last biennium. This brought the current lag of state workers behind their counterparts to 18.73 percent. The turnover rate was reduced in the corrections area to a gross of 13.72 percent, and the overall turnover rate to 11.24 percent. Currently, corrections workers were 41.50 percent behind in their wages, one of the highest lagging categories in state workers.
If that trend continued, the raises and benefits that would come out of the next bargaining agreements in cities, counties, and the private sector would create another crisis and the turnover rates would continue to rise. Results would be an unstable work force in the Nevada market. The increasing number of state workers who would be retiring within the next 3 to 5 years would compound that crisis. The projection was for 2,890, or 20 percent of the current workforce, to retire.
The crisis did not happen overnight; it had been in the making since 1969, stated Mr. MacKenzie. The rights to engage in collective bargaining of one body of workers were preempted by the Legislature over the rights of another group.
Opponents to A.B. 65 would make every effort to convince the legislators that there would be a disaster if state workers were granted the right to collectively bargain. The argument would be that the budget would be out of the control of the Legislature if they did not maintain full control of wages and benefits for state workers. That argument had already been disproved. In the last session of the Legislature, when the Governor put state workers’ raises in his budget, the issue of state workers’ raises was taken out of the hands of the Legislature. The Legislature had to approve the budget just as they would need to do with any collectively bargained agreement that would be negotiated. “The sky didn’t fall then, and the sky won’t fall now,” Mr. MacKenzie affirmed.
The research department was asked to investigate on the national level if the states currently experiencing fiscal crises related them to collective bargaining. The impact of collective bargaining, given the current fiscal issues across the country, was ripe for exploration. The study showed that, of 16 states with current budget gaps of over five percent in fiscal year 2003, only 7 of them had collective bargaining for their state’s workers. Considering that 30 out of 50 states plus the District of Columbia had collective bargaining that would be a very low number.
Collective bargaining, he continued, was not just about money and benefits. While they were very important, so were rights, respect, and dignity on the job. Having a decent seniority system, promotional opportunities, shift bids, and adequate training were also important. Collective bargaining would allow workers to discuss issues on the job without fear of retaliation. The current situation resulted in silencing workers; it deprived the Legislature and the public from information that would help state government run more effectively and to solve small problems before they grew into huge ones resulting in law suits, he claimed.
Mr. MacKenzie reminded Committee members that, in 1969, the Legislature granted city/county workers collective bargaining rights using the National Labor Relations Act as a model and providing case law to resolve issues in an effective, efficient, and consistent manner. Currently, there was no consistency in decisions coming out of the Employees Management Committee or the hearing officer’s decisions. That was an issue of considerable frustration for all state workers. Collective bargaining would not solve all problems but would improve the quality of lives of state workers while creating a better and more informed government for the citizens of Nevada, he claimed.
Mr. MacKenzie thanked the Chairman and Committee members. He asked for the privilege of making one more comment. He stated he was approached by two of his colleagues in the Communications Workers of America, Local #9413 and by the Teamsters Union. They had minor issues, language issues that needed to be worked out to be in full agreement. In that discussion, the issues seemed quite minor to him also. The request from Mr. MacKenzie was for some time to address those issues with his colleagues.
Chairman Manendo thanked Mr. MacKenzie. He was receptive to the suggested need for time, inviting those representatives to come forward to clarify their concerns over language in A.B. 65. The Chair declared that the Committee understood that A.B. 65 was a big issue, as collective bargaining was more than just pay and benefits. Chairman Manendo asked if Mr. MacKenzie had information for the Committee as to the financial impact on Nevada when trained personnel left state employment to move into city or county government positions or to the private sectors. A great deal of money was invested in the training of state workers, and, when there were vacancies due to moves to other sectors, he wanted information about that.
Mr. MacKenzie stated that he did not know the costs. He was certain, however, that there was considerable cost involved. He offered to investigate that for the Chairman.
Chairman Manendo accepted the offer with appreciation. He believed it to be a huge issue because retraining of existing personnel and the training of replacement personnel would be a very large fiscal note for the taxpayers. He then asked for questions from the members of the Committee.
Assemblyman Grady addressed Mr. MacKenzie requesting clarity of the geographical locations of city, county, and private sector workers who were compared to state workers in wages and benefits. He expressed his concern that too often state workers were compared to workers in Clark County. He specifically asked if the prison workers in Ely were making 41 percent less than the average wage of other citizens in Ely.
Mr. MacKenzie stated he did not have that information. The figures that he relied on came from the Nevada Department of Personnel, and they addressed the state as a whole. The only comparative groups considered by them were northern Nevada versus southern Nevada with no other specific geographical areas considered. There was a difference between those areas. In northern Nevada, the gap closed some and was significantly different.
Mr. Grady continued by asking to see those figures and requested the expansion of data to include rural Nevada also. He reminded the audience in general, and Mr. MacKenzie in particular, that there were 17 counties, not just 1 county.
Vice Chairman Williams, referring to the Chair’s request for information on training costs, asked to expand the amount of information gathered to include those employees entering the system for the first time. Many worked in other jurisdictions and were trained elsewhere, and the cost of that training would be read as a cost savings to the state. That would clarify the fiscal note and would make it more accurate.
Mr. MacKenzie again affirmed that he did not have that information but reminded Committee members that the state had the option of choosing from the top five candidates for any given position. Some of those candidates would be trained, he surmised, and agreed to look into that also.
Mr. Williams restated that he wanted Mr. MacKenzie to look into the cost factor of retraining so that the Committee would be able to determine whether retraining costs were added to or subtracted from the fiscal note.
Assemblyman Collins shared his memories of discussions about some practices relating to hiring practices of the state. When vacancies in the past failed to gain a given number of applicants, not to include those positions frozen by the Governor, his understanding was that the qualifying examinations were simplified so that there were candidates who qualified as per test results to choose from. He asked if that was still a practice at the state level.
Mr. MacKenzie thought that the state was very decentralized in how hiring practices were handled, specifically in corrections. For example, in corrections, many top people were being brought in from outside the state. Otherwise, they were still bound by the rule of choosing from the top five candidates.
Mr. Collins followed up by stating another of his concerns. Of the 39 or 41 vacancies within the Nevada Highway Patrol, some of those vacancies would remain unfilled, partially due to a lack of applications. He knew from the past that applicants who were applying might not have met standards as high as in years past when it was a more desirable job and before there were such large pay inequities.
Mr. MacKenzie stated he did not have information available about that.
Assemblywoman Koivisto disclosed that she was one of those state workers who would be affected by A.B. 65. From her perspective, she saw employment with the state as a “revolving door.” People left, once they were trained, to go to the counties or to the cities. It happened on a daily basis, according to her observations. The positions were too often filled with under-qualified people because those would be the people who applied.
Assemblyman Knecht asked that copies of Mr. MacKenzie’s prepared script be provided to the Chairman for the members of the Committee. Mr. Knecht also requested any of the studies or data he referenced therein or others that he had on hand.
Mr. MacKenzie agreed to provide the requested information.
Chairman Manendo then asked Mr. MacKenzie for the name of the person who would walk the Committee through the bill as a whole.
Mr. MacKenzie replied that he was not sure how the Chair wanted to do that.
The Chair left it to Mr. MacKenzie as to how he wished to proceed.
Danny Thompson, President of the Nevada AFL-CIO, was recognized by the Chair and stated that he was not prepared to go through the entire bill at that time, but he did wish to inform the Committee about the concerns of some labor organizations. What he believed they wanted to do was to meet together, agree to an amendment, and then return to the Committee with that in hand.
Mr. Thompson continued with an explanation of the composition of the Nevada AFL-CIO. It was comprised of over 220 different unions within the state. That collective group supported A.B. 65. The bill was not just about money and benefits. The Committee on Government Affairs, over the years, had been forced to deal with issues that should not have been dealt with at that level. Mr. Thompson felt he spoke with considerable personal knowledge as he had chaired the Committee on Government Affairs for two sessions in the past and had served on the Committee for a third year. Issues dealt with by the Committee would normally be dealt with through a collective bargaining unit. That unit’s members would sit down together, those parties being familiar with the issues, and would resolve them. Mechanisms existed in the law for local governments and for schoolteachers to do that, and it worked very well. Sometimes the unions won; sometimes management won. The bottom line would be the assurance that the process worked. From Washoe County to Elko County to the City of Mesquite, the process worked, he affirmed. Regarding inequities and the state acting as the training ground, the Nevada Highway Patrol lost almost an entire unit to the City of North Las Vegas, not to the county but to the city. The Legislature had been forced to offer dramatic increases in pay to keep some of those officers from leaving.
Mr. Thompson expanded on A.B. 65. Although it would not be possible to say that A.B. 65 would solve all problems, it would certainly address some of them. Small problems that would be solved through collective bargaining too often ended up in court, stated Mr. Thompson, and the court was a very expensive resource for problem resolution for the state. Collective bargaining, as an alternative, was greater than wages and benefits; it was about efficiency of time for legislators and cost-savings for the state. He echoed Mr. MacKenzie’s comments. In the 10 years he had served in the Legislature, the issues surrounding collective bargaining were frequently raised. In all probability, collective bargaining had been of concern to state workers since 1969 when the Dodge Act, S.B. 87 of the 55th Session, established the Local Government Employee-Management Relations Act that excluded state workers from that process. State employees wanted collective bargaining privileges from the point of fairness; it had been an issue of concern for years. The Legislature, as representatives of the state, was treating its employees differently than anyone else treated theirs in Nevada. In any other portion of the law, that discriminatory practice would be banned. If, as legislators, there was a preference for treating state workers differently, then A.B. 65 would earn a “Nay” vote. If the legislators believed in fairness, stated Mr. Thompson, then they would vote in favor. The issue, as he remembered it, had been centered on the fear that the Legislature would lose control of the process. In the 2001 Legislative Session, the Governor proposed a budget that included what he presumed to be adequate pay raises; the legislators in that session made some changes and adjustments, and that portion of the budget was passed. Since that process worked, Mr. Thompson posed that some of the smaller issues be taken out of the realm of responsibility that rested with the legislators by passing A.B. 65. He remained confident that the groups that attended the hearing would be able to work through their differences. He concluded his testimony by urging the Committee to believe that the Governor would not budget monies for raises that were beyond what was fair, as he and all administrators answered to the general public also.
Assemblywoman Pierce stated that she wished to add to what Mr. Thompson had said. She had been a member of the Culinary Union for an extended period of time having served for 10 years as shop steward in Las Vegas. Union members were assured of a process by which workplace issues would be resolved. If a worker had a problem, he or she would turn to the shop steward. The worker and the steward were able to talk with management in a manner considered respectful and committed to timely problem resolution. Should that not work, a formal process existed for grievances and decision-making. When legislators dealt with issues that could more readily be dealt with through collective bargaining and its grievance process, there was much less efficiency. Ms. Pierce agreed with Mrs. Koivisto regarding the investment of training dollars; when state workers left their positions within three to five years for higher salaried positions in county and city government or in the private sector, the monies spent had little payoff. She reiterated her strong support in favor of A.B. 65.
Chairman Manendo asked that the record reflect that Speaker Richard Perkins had joined his Committee for Government Affairs. Chairman Manendo invited Speaker Perkins to share words with the Committee.
Speaker Perkins responded by stating he was only visiting at that time.
Chairman Manendo thanked the Speaker for visiting the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs.
Assemblywoman Weber asked Mr. MacKenzie how many workers would be affected by passage or non-passage of A.B. 65.
Mr. MacKenzie estimated that 17,000 workers would be affected.
Ms. Weber asked if the 17,000 were new employees or existing employees.
Mr. MacKenzie assured her that they were existing employees.
Chairman Manendo asked if the 17,000 workers included both classified and unclassified state workers.
Mr. MacKenzie responded that there were 17,000 classified workers.
Chairman Manendo then asked if the bill would have an impact on unclassified as well as classified employees.
Mr. MacKenzie told the Committee and the Chair that collective bargaining would only affect classified workers, not both.
Assemblyman Collins expanded on previous comments by Mr. Thompson about the smaller issues that took so much of the legislators’ time during the 120-day sessions. A negotiating committee would include a few workers representing the majority of the workers in the collective bargaining group meeting with the pertinent people in management who knew and understood the issues. The negotiating committee would be comprised of two groups of experts, as he saw it. Those groups would know what work issues faced the employees and management as discussion of issues was brought to that committee. It would seem much more beneficial, affirmed Mr. Collins, to allow those who had the information to discuss and negotiate their issues; it would seem to be a much more competent, organized, and professional approach than what had transpired for decades in the Legislature. He concluded by stating that A.B. 65 presented the legislators a unique opportunity to demonstrate that Nevada was a state that cared about its people.
Assemblyman Atkinson wished to use the opportunity presented him to support A.B. 65. He stated that he worked for Clark County and had, for several years, been a Labor Relations Analyst. Listening to Mr. Collins’ statement about the process at work, Mr. Atkinson affirmed Mr. Collins’ belief that collective bargaining worked very well to settle issues of concern. Working with stewards and the management of different departments within the County’s government was a fruitful experience. State workers deserved collective bargaining. Too many leave state positions, he believed, not just because of salary differences, but also to belong to a union and to actively participate in decisions that affected them.
Ron Dreher and Walter Tarantino approached the witness table together and were recognized by Chairman Manendo. He requested that the witnesses wait to testify as a group of students had come to observe the Committee on Government Affairs. Mr. Grady was asked to introduce the visitors.
Mr. Grady extended a warm welcome to the students who were here from Fernley High School as he introduced them to the Committee.
Chairman Manendo welcomed the students on behalf of the Committee. He stated that the Committee represented their government at work.
Ron Dreher, President of the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, represented over 26 organizations and associations throughout the state including state law enforcement organizations and officers. It was his intent to ask the Committee’s support for A.B. 65 including those amendments that would be forthcoming. The intent of collective bargaining was a bipartisan effort to gain equity, the same equity that he enjoyed at the local government level, for those people at the state government level. For years, he reminded Committee members, testimony had been given underscoring the inequity that existed. During the election process just concluded, the groups Mr. Dreher represented had the opportunity to meet with and question candidates for office. All candidates but one supported collective bargaining for state law enforcement and state workers to eliminate the inequity of the existing system. The problem of inequity needed to be corrected at every level: federal, state, and local government levels. Collective bargaining was defined as two parties meeting, creating an agreement, and then having the agreement enforced. When one party failed to keep the agreement, a grievance procedure was in place to take it through the arbitration process. It was a reminder from him that the legislators would then be better able to deal with all of their other responsibilities in the fiscal areas.
The intent of collective bargaining seemed unclear to many. The current process required bargaining with the 63 legislators. If the legislators agreed with the bargained proposal in the form of a bill, the bill would be passed, and, if the Governor subsequently signed it, it would become law. Then, when conflicts occurred, the associations would need to go to court to resolve them. The fiscal note accompanying such a bill would state that, to carry an issue through litigation, the estimated cost to the state would be close to $200,000. That figure was the estimate of the American Arbitration Association, the Legislature’s resource. By comparison, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service offered those services without cost. There would be no cost to the taxpayers to resolve a dispute.
Mr. Dreher also wished to address the concern brought forward by Mr. Williams and other legislators. The concern was centered on the dollar cost of an employee who moved out of the state’s employ to another governmental agency or into the private sector. Suggestions had been made in the past that local governments or agencies that employed a state worker in law enforcement should be required to repay the state the costs for training. Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) administrative officers stated that the cost of training one highway patrol officer was between $53,000 and $58,000. Mr. Dreher spoke of his son who was employed as a NHP officer. His son left the NHP to work as a police officer in the City of Sparks. By doing so, he increased his income for his family by $9,000. That amount was only an increase in pay and did not include an increase in benefits.
The associations that Mr. Dreher represented were supporting bills to eliminate several inequities in law enforcement. If legislators were to tier wage and benefits packages, local government would appear at the top followed by county governments below. Even further down the list would be the NHP, the Nevada Division of Investigations (NDI), and then all other law enforcement organizations far below those. Some of the organizations need to be brought into a position of equity within their state’s government.
Mr. Dreher reemphasized the need for the legislators at a bipartisan level to correct the inequities that existed. It was a due process issue more than benefits, wages, and other issues brought forth in the testimony of previous witnesses. Due process was so crucial; it was so much more than money and benefits. The effort was to avoid lowering the standard of living in the state, to avoid recruitment of people to come into the state to fill vacancies. To do that would create a liability concern if those people were not properly trained.
The bill draft, according to Mr. Dreher, was based on the findings that collective bargaining worked. He had been a negotiator for law enforcement for over 20 years. It was a resolution process that worked, even when it became adversarial. It required just one human resources person, not 63 legislators, on one side meeting with representatives of the other side and agreeing on a solution that solved the problem as stated. He concluded by stating that the legislators would remain the ultimate decision-makers, as they would ultimately approve the budget for the state.
Chairman Manendo then drew attention to the witness seated at the witness table in Las Vegas and asked if he was James Wilkerson. The Chair had two persons listed as potential witnesses and wished to clarify their positions before inviting them to speak. Receiving affirmation from Mr. Wilkerson, the Chair asked about the second potential witness. That person had left the hearing room. Chairman Manendo affirmed to the witness that his testimony would be heard later in the hearing.
Walter Tarantino introduced himself as the legal counsel for the Nevada Highway Patrol Association, the Nevada Corrections Association, the Peace Officers Council, and the Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs of Clark County. Mr. Tarantino stated that he had been an advocate of collective bargaining for state workers, especially those in law enforcement, since 1989, his first session, when there was a collective bargaining bill put forth for consideration. Initially, he wished to applaud the Nevada State Employees Association for requesting the bill draft and for their sponsorship of the bill. As Mr. Mackenzie had referenced to the Chair, the law enforcement associations, including the NHP, had some technical concerns about A.B. 65. The groups were requesting time to meet and confer with Mr. MacKenzie. Mr. Tarantino stated he was confident that the differences would be dealt with and a consensus built so that the groups would return to meet with the Committee very soon.
Mr. Tarantino wished to provide one concrete example in support of the contention that collective bargaining was much more than wages and benefits. Working conditions were another area dealt with through collective bargaining. He had been representing law enforcement agencies since 1989, long before the NHP had adopted a policy, which allowed for shift bidding by seniority. Employees, in acknowledgment and recognition of their seniority, would bid for preferential days off, shifts, and assignments. He had also been representing the Nevada Corrections Association since 1989. It was not until the current year of 2003 that the Nevada Department of Corrections had embarked on a pilot program to test the feasibility of shift bidding. Prior to that pilot program, a 15-year corrections officer could be relegated to a non-preferential position such as a tower worker with mid-week days off; a relatively new employee with 1 or 2 years of experience could be assigned, however, to a more preferential job with Saturdays and Sundays off. Collective bargaining provided opportunities for correcting those inequities. Those situations of inequity were of as much concern to state workers as were wages and benefits.
Collective bargaining would not cure all of the difficulties faced by state workers. It would, however, certainly help. Mr. Tarantino’s experience in collective bargaining on behalf of law enforcement personnel reinforced his commitment to the system. He highly encouraged the Committee on Government Affairs to send the bill forward with a “Amend and Do Pass” recommendation when A.B. 65 came before the Committee again with the technical difficulties ironed out.
Gary Wolff, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, represented the Nevada Highway Patrol also, along with several other state employee groups. His background included employment as a state trooper for 31 years. He wished to echo what had already been said. The cost of training employees and then losing them presented a dilemma for the state. Another issue would be the process for airing grievances before an Employee-Management Committee and hearing officers. Employees had no right to arbitrate differences before an independent arbitrator. Too many grievances ended in litigation, which would have been avoidable under collective bargaining agreements. Employees would have the right to request that an arbitrator hear the grievances in a timely manner, which was not the current practice. Collective bargaining established rules that all could live by. Currently, Mr. Wolff stated, there were no set rules in state government other than rules against discrimination based on race, color, and creed. Mr. Wolff gave several examples. The Nevada Highway Patrol had seniority rights but no one else had those. Corrections officers injured in training exercises were forced to use sick leave because safety issues were not clarified nor incorporated in the prisons as they were in other agencies. Inequities existed throughout the state’s agencies. Collective bargaining would resolve those issues, he declared.
A.B. 65 provided an opportunity for all agencies to support equity for state workers. Mr. Wolff described the bill as a “fix” type of law. It would bring all groups to the table, it made sense, and the ultimate decision for money appropriations would continue to rest with the Legislature. In the past, collective bargaining had sparked many to state that unions would be in control. Mr. Wolff strongly disagreed. He affirmed that unions do not control the Legislature; control rested with the elected officials. He appealed to all legislators, regardless of their party affiliations, to support the bill.
Mr. Wolff related a historical perspective of individuals who, unlike all other workers, had been denied the right to negotiate. Current laws were oppressive to that group of workers. Those employees were unable to participate in the creation of their own destinies. He again appealed to the members of the Committee to support A.B. 65.
Chairman Manendo asked Committee members for questions and/or comments. Hearing none, he called the next witness.
Liz Sorenson, Executive Vice President, Communications Workers of America, Local #9413, and a lobbyist for the Nevada State Print Shop, began her testimony by firmly stating her support and the support of those whom she represented for collective bargaining but not for A.B. 65 as it was written. She referenced prior testimony by Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Thompson when she affirmed that she, too, would appreciate the opportunity to discuss an amendment to A.B. 65. She stated that she was very confident that the amendment would be agreed to and it would be back to the Committee on Government Affairs in a few days.
Chairman Manendo asked Ms. Sorenson to give Committee members an idea of what her concerns were.
Ms. Sorenson stated that she was not prepared to do that at the current time.
Mr. Tarantino gave an example of the concerns. In A.B. 65, the statement existed that only employees at Level 42 and below would be allowed to engage in collective bargaining. Mr. Tarantino reminded the Committee that approximately a decade ago, there was a lawsuit filed that cost the state several million dollars. The state had artificially created a “bright line” test as to who would qualify for overtime and who would not. Exempt versus nonexempt employees had been determined based on Level 37 or 38. If employees were above Level 38, they did not earn overtime; if below Level 38, they did. The lawsuit was basically filed, he continued, to demand a clarification of what constituted “managerial” or “supervisory.” It was not to be based on an artificial number but on the actual duties and responsibilities of each position. Groups that Mr. Tarantino represented had expressed concern about using level numbers, such as Level 42, to determine who could and could not engage in collective bargaining. Those groups would prefer, he said, that the language stated that a supervisor or manager of employees would not participate in the same bargaining unit as non-supervisory personnel. That would be one of the technical concerns that would be simple to resolve through an amendment to A.B. 65.
Mr. Collins asked the Chair to direct the Legislative Counsel Bureau staff to provide information about wage and salary increases for state employees over the last ten years. He stated that in every legislative session he had participated in, committees were asked to review proposals and expenditures then determine which ones to move forward. At the end of the session, if monies remained unspent, the Legislature was asked to use those monies for state employee raises. Historically, he believed that had been the way in which raises occurred. He affirmed his support for the group collected in the room to testify on A.B. 65 to meet together and discuss all issues of concern: wages, seniority, benefits, bidding for shift changes, movement from one position to another, working conditions, and so much more. The goal of collective bargaining, from his point of view, was greater efficiency and effectiveness for the state government as they sought to meet the needs of the citizens.
Mr. Dreher spoke to other concerns with A.B. 65. He referred the Committee to Section 27, page 10, lines 12 through 19. One concern would be that the bill should be more comprehensive to include all law enforcement associations and/or agencies throughout the state. To exclude some state agencies, as proposed, would again be inequitable. A second concern he addressed was how to have more effective government. Recruitment and retention were advocated whenever groups met at a bargaining table. The goal was not to bring someone to an agency for a short period of time then to have that individual leave for another agency; the goal was to have career professionals within our government. That made government work more efficiently as there would be caring professionals working for the state. Mr. Dreher hoped A.B. 65 would continue to mirror language as appeared in Chapter 288 of NRS, which granted the right to collectively bargain to local governments. Mr. Dreher stated that James Wilkerson, introduced as the Commissioner for Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board, would speak to how issues were resolved even at his level when there were prohibited practice complaints. He repeated that the basic issues included due process, recruitment, and retention.
Mr. Tarantino addressed the inquiry of Mr. Collins. He postulated that one of the first issues he would propose if allowed to sit down and engage in collective bargaining, would be the development of a labor-management committee. That committee would be created through a negotiated agreement, would be compelled to meet minimally once a month, and to have a prepared agenda to discuss and resolve problems to avoid their becoming critical issues. He surmised that that concept would be the kind of proposal that Mr. Collins was looking for. Collective bargaining would enhance the functions of government, reduce inequities, provide an avenue for continual communications, focus on solutions, and resolve day-to-day issues such as safety.
Mr. Collins asked if contracts could stand in place for longer than two years, as had been mentioned in prior testimony. One possibility would be to include “wage openers” while leaving the remainder of the contract in place for a protracted amount of time. State employees would find more security and assurance in that longer contract.
Mr. Tarantino stated that a two-year agreement was suggested only because the Legislature was a biennial body. The parties negotiating would not be limited to a two-year contract because of that. An opener for wages and benefits would still allow the Legislature to learn of and react to changes. In A.B. 65, stated Mr. Tarantino, one would be precluded from longer contractual terms for some of the working conditions and some of the benefits.
Mr. Wolff commented that collective bargaining would deal more directly with issues surrounding seniority. He recounted that a proposal was before the Legislature to eliminate 39 agent positions within the Nevada Division of Investigations (NDI). Those positions would not be determined based on seniority, as would be the case if a collective bargaining law were in place. Approximately ten years ago, he continued, the rule was that lay offs were to be determined by geographical location. The Commission would now determine what areas, geographically, were to be left uncovered. He foresaw the possibility that an NDI agent in Elko with 18 years of service, for example, would be laid off prior to another agent with minimal service positioned in a more active area.
After thanking Mr. Wolff for his testimony, Chairman Manendo called on Mr. Wilkerson, speaking from Las Vegas, to testify.
James Wilkerson, who was the Commissioner of the Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board, thanked the Chair for allowing him to speak. He gave his total support to the proposal that authorized collective bargaining for certain state employees. He spoke in the interest of the Local Government Employee-Management Board which was created in Chapter 288 of NRS in 1969 as proposed by Senator Dodge and ultimately approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. His contention was that the agency he represented could handle the added responsibility of providing the required and necessary protection of rights to the state workers and public employers without the cost of creating another agency as was proposed in A.B. 65. Currently the Board covered 63,000 to 65,000 classified employees in local governments. During that time of budget limitations, the cost of creating and constructing another agency was considered by him to be unnecessary. He proposed that, with some minor restructuring of the Board, the Board would be able to handle the additional duties and hearings. He recommended changing to a five member Board with three members constituting a quorum. At some time in the future, he postulated, the Board would probably need another clerical person to assist in handling the additional workload. Adding a staff member should not occur, he cautioned, until a clear understanding of the added workload was reached. Should the Committee on Government Affairs agree with the proposal, the Committee would need to study NRS 288.160, subparagraph 4, and, also, the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 288.110, subparagraph (d). He suggested that certain language be omitted in reference to representational elections. He proposed leaving out “A majority of the ballots cast in a proper election shall be the determining factor for deciding who will represent the specific unit.” If the Committee should choose not to reconsider the proposed bill, he wished to address some of the language as proposed in A.B. 65. He focused on Section 19, which he believed would present a legal problem for certain Board members depending on the case being heard. The final appointment, asserted Mr. Wilkerson, should be left to the Governor. He believed Section 27 would be a major concern to Board members if they were required to determine job classifications. Those decisions would be better left to the employers, subject to review by the employee representatives. He continued with Section 30, subparagraph 2, 3, and 4, which he believed were well stated. He stated that Section 27, subparagraph 2, should include the federal mediation services as an additional resource for arbitrator lists. He agreed with the language of Section 39, stating that it would enhance the bargaining process. Mr. Wilkerson spoke of Section 40, the arbitrator’s opinion, believing it should be final, especially if both parties had chosen to send the issue to arbitration. He thanked the Committee for their time and for allowing his testimony to be heard.
Chairman Manendo asked Mr. Wilkerson if he had a written statement that could be faxed by staff to Carson City.
Mr. Wilkerson stated that he did have copies of his testimony and would send them to the Committee (Exhibit C).
Chairman Manendo then asked those in opposition to testify.
Sam McMullen represented the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and the Retailers Association of Nevada. The Chamber of Commerce understood the issues of workplace, hours, salaries, working conditions, and others. There existed processes at the state level for state workers to deal with those issues at the present time. Whether adequate or not, they were not addressed as part of his testimony. He chose to focus on areas that continued to provide concerns for those he had represented for almost a decade. Those were serious concerns that included balancing the budget for the state, controlling the budget, maintaining legislative authority, and, most important, a recognition that what would result from passage of A.B. 65 would be a shift in the balance of power between employees and management in the state government setting. That shift would occur in a very interesting way, according to Mr. McMullen. It would add politics to the issue of bargaining and negotiation. Other process concerns would include the language regarding the legitimate rights of management, as noted in Section 26, that already existed in Section 55, which ought to remain. For example, the issue of supervisors being included as part of the bargaining unit would change the relationship between the supervisor and those whom they were to supervise. It would also undermine the supervisor’s authority. There were some substantive and specific issues that he would like to address at a later date. First and foremost, according to Mr. McMullen, was the legislative role. In so many ways, Mr. McMullen stated, balancing the budget was a very difficult task to accomplish. Little of it was subject to influence or adjustment. Only certain areas were flexible enough to accept change. One of the most malleable areas was the cost of labor. A collective bargaining arrangement, if A.B. 65 remained as originally written, would be handed to the legislators at the beginning of each session as a fait accompli. At that point, there would be very little ability for the Legislature to do what it currently did. Currently, the legislators had the ability to change and control certain aspects of the budget that corresponded with their obligations to adjust and balance a budget. In a year such as the current one, when tax increases were being considered, it was especially difficult to consider a bill, such as A.B. 65, which would adjust one of the features without the legislators maintaining the control to balance the budget. Mr. McMullen stated that a bargained agreement that could not be honored would require the elected members of the Legislature to report to their constituents that the agreement would not be funded. That would place legislators in a most difficult position, he claimed. He urged legislators to focus on what collective bargaining would do to them personally and how it would change their responsibilities.
Budget dollars were an issue. Mr. McMullen continued, “While those of us on the side of the private sector politic in a lot of areas, just as the unions and other people do because that is everyone’s right, the budget area is really an area that we have not really politicked.” A.B. 65 made the political aspects of labor negotiations at the state level a very key part. He further urged that legislators look carefully at that issue as that should not be political. If it changed, he guessed they would have to get into it as well and then try to get into the budget process. Clearly, he stated, the budget drove tax dollars and those were issues he and the associations he represented had a concern about. The measure before the legislators was considered to be a “budget buster.” It would take away the legislators’ authority, their responsibility, and, most important, their flexibility which was a key issue for balancing the budget.
Mrs. Koivisto asked Mr. McMullen if he thought it was a good thing to balance the budget on the backs of the state workers.
Mr. McMullen stated that there were lots of pieces that the legislators had to adjust to balance a budget. He was not sure that he was saying it would necessarily be taken from state employees; that would be a decision that the legislators made. This year, his compatriots were willing to step up to additional taxes, which, depending of what the legislators decided, would be one alternative way to work toward a balanced budget. Again, he said, the responsibility remained with the legislators. If he and those he represented were strongly opposed to new taxes, one could say that they were advocating for balancing the budget by increasing revenue from state workers. He repeated his belief that legislators needed to have the full authority and responsibility to make those decisions themselves.
Chairman Manendo asked if his position and belief was for the current year as opposed to other years.
Mr. McMullen responded by stating that the position and beliefs were for any year. He continued that “we” pay a lot of taxes and, functionally, that was what the process was about. “You all” were to make that decision.
Assemblyman Bob McCleary declared his status as a freshman legislator to whom the process was new. Several things had surprised him; one was the competence and the professionalism of the staff of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), and said he was impressed. Another was how poorly they were paid. He was appalled, he stated, by how poorly the legislators’ employees were paid. He took issue with Mr. McMullen’s statement that wages were political. He also strongly disagreed that collective bargaining would destroy the balance. Historically, employers had abused their employees, which gave rise to the union movement. He asked for further explanation of Mr. McMullen’s use of the word “balance.”
Mr. McMullen contended that whether the legislators as policy-makers liked the processes and procedures in place and whether they believed them to be balanced was a question only the legislators could answer for themselves. There was a process, a consistent one, a consistent set of grievance procedures in place and it had worked. In the legislators’ opinions, that process might not be seen as a balanced process. It was, however, in place with compensating factors. A.B. 65 would seriously change that. It would put it into a much more political and election format than where it should be which was a very meritorious consideration as to what was right, what should happen, and how that would factor into the budget.
Mr. McCleary respectfully disagreed with Mr. McMullen on the issue of balance. He did not see a balance. Although the legislation was said to need some amending, he thought it was the right direction to head.
Mr. Collins stated that he knew that Mr. McMullen was speaking as a representative of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce. He believed, however, that Mr. McMullen did not feel as strongly as was indicated by his testimony. Mr. Collins told the group that he had not served “consecutive terms” as a legislator as he stood by his beliefs. Since Mr. McMullen brought up taxes and took the position that state employees were to receive whatever remained in the budget after all other expenditures had been met, he wished to assure Mr. McMullen that wages were not the only consideration at that time. Vital to collective bargaining was the huge medical deficit at the University Medical Center year after year. Primarily, Mr. Collins believed, that came from uninsured workers requiring care without monies to pay for it, who were in low paid construction and retail areas of employment. If the legislators went to the business community and stated that, should they fail to provide medical insurance for employees, they would be responsible to pay an extra tax, which would be a form of collective bargaining. By passing a law legalizing collective bargaining for state workers, experts who understood working environments on the union side or the association side and the management people who understood the needs of their businesses would be allowed to make joint decisions. Legislators were attempting to make government more effective and more efficient. When competent employees left state offices and agencies for positions elsewhere, those who remained were often those who were hanging on for various reasons. Businesses needed to look at people, not as a controllable group, but as individuals who deserved some say in their own futures. The employer who loved his employees and treated them well remained in business. The reverse was that those employers who treated employees unfairly and without respect went out of business. Collective bargaining would allow state agencies, divisions, departments, and offices to remain competitive with employers in the private sector as well as in city/county governments. Collective bargaining allowed employers to treat employees respectfully and fairly with dignity. Mr. Collins continued to believe, he repeated, that Mr. McMullen personally accepted that position despite his testimony to the contrary. People must be treated correctly. There existed hire-and-fire provisions, as he knew from his position as a union contractor. That worked in the labor industry, and the unions heard from the contractors or the employers that candidates for various job openings needed to have greater skills and to be more productive. Taking the politics out of the process, declared Mr. Collins, would let the professional negotiators from employees and management negotiate. He further suggested that the Governor be allowed to appoint that team; let the leader of the state appoint that team to negotiate benefits. The intent of the bill was to allow people to be treated fairly and honestly and to have an opportunity to contribute to the community they lived in, rather than remaining dependent on community agencies and resources to meet their needs if they had low income, no insurance, and few benefits.
Mr. Collins addressed Mr. McMullen directly by stating that Mr. McMullen believed passing the bill was the right thing to do but he was paid to talk against it.
Mr. McMullen responded to Mr. Collins by reiterating that he did believe in what he had said in his testimony. He affirmed that he did not have a position that was different from that of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, either in his heart or as a matter of substance. He did agree with Mr. Collins’ contention that people needed to be treated fairly, and that they should be asked to be productive. On the other hand, there should be a balance, he insisted. He stated that the process should be as fair as the treatment of the employees. Again, his concern was that the bill made the process unfair. The position taken by Mr. McMullen and the Chamber was that a process not working needed to be fixed. He urged that legislators not do it in a way that who supported whom in an election for Governor would become a more determinant factor than the considered debate and an understanding of what the merits of those issues were. The process should not be unnecessarily adjusted so that it was unfair. If there were process issues, those issues would need to be addressed. If people were not being treated fairly, no one would say that was right.
Mr. Collins followed up by stating that the politics Mr. McMullen stated would enter in with collective bargaining had been in place “forever.” Every campaign cycle, candidates were asked to complete questionnaires as to their position on right-to-work and other issues. People who supported right-to-work found it difficult to endorse those who disagreed. That was politics. There would always be people who supported varying issues. The balance was the reason for collective bargaining. It would take issues out of the limited 120-day legislative session and would allow it to be an ongoing work. Just as in the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of Corrections, the budget would include, initially, a benefit package for workers who worked for the state and provided services to the citizens of the state. Constituents were the customers of the state and were taxpayers also, continued Mr. Collins. State employees deserved collective bargaining to take it out of the political arena. The Governor’s budget would then include figures earmarked for various agencies and for state employees at the beginning of the session. Mr. Collins reaffirmed his belief that the time had come to assist workers throughout the state to become contributors rather than takers of money not otherwise earmarked. There would be the balance needed.
Mr. McMullen stated that he appreciated Assemblyman Collins and his points of view. He wondered why the Governor did not put together a budget with employee benefits and wages placed in the budget as Mr. Collins suggested. The Governor was the manager of the employees and nothing that currently existed would stop that from happening. Again, if that process was not working as it existed, he offered to be part of helping to making it fairer and more appropriate. Collective bargaining, he believed, was an incorrect way to fix that process.
Assemblyman Knecht asked Mr. McMullen if the members of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce operated their own businesses with a budget constraint. He questioned whether they, like other businessmen, estimated their revenues to manage their costs.
Mr. McMullen responded by stating that Mr. Knecht’s questions were basically true statements.
Mr. Knecht followed up with a statement that those businessmen did not run their businesses by collecting everyone’s “wish list,” by adding up what salaries the employees hoped to get in the coming year, and by anticipating the cost of projects that they hoped to complete, to get the money figure that would be needed to accomplish the above items. Were they to do so, he wished to know if the businesses would then determine how to increase their revenues to afford those costs.
Mr. McMullen responded to Mr. Knecht by saying that he was asking excellent leading questions and he believed a one-word affirmative answer would do. Basically, he continued, there was a difference in how businesses operated when compared with the way in which the legislators, the stewards of government, operated. When businesses wanted more money, Mr. McMullen stated, they needed to find different ways to increase revenue.
Mr. Knecht followed through by stating that the procedure, as Mr. McMullen defined it, was not limited to business. Your family and every family operated that way also.
Mr. McMullen agreed that, without money, it was not possible to do the things one wished to do.
Mr. Knecht queried as to whether it would make sense for government to operate with a built-in budget constraint, as do families and businesses, instead of basically preparing a “wish list.” From his perspective, government prepared such a “wish list,” went through a process of seeming to pare it down, and then publicly stated how many items had been eliminated. Again, the government declared that what remained was what was really needed. It was at that point, according to Mr. Knecht, that raising more revenue became a topic for discussion. Mr. Knecht wanted a constraint placed on the budget before it was presented to the Legislature.
Mr. McMullen believed that constraints did exist within any process. It was the right and the obligation of the legislators to balance the different and competing priorities. The budget was a work in progress, he claimed. Unfortunately, the process was complicated. When state employees came to the Legislature with proposals, their concerns were one of the competing priorities. Establishing priorities and arriving at a balanced budget was the legislators’ job. He believed it to be a viable one. Whether state employee requests were placed in the initial budget, ahead of time, or left until the other needs had been met, behind the others, was another function of the process. There were many priorities, he concluded, that had to be balanced; they were not limited just to government.
Mr. Knecht, addressing issues specific to A.B. 65, asked Mr. McMullen if, assuming there was a budget constraint in existence on state revenues and spending, would that ameliorate some of his concerns about collective bargaining becoming a “budget-buster” as he had previously postulated.
Mr. McMullen believed an affirmative response would not be consistent with his prior testimony. He reiterated that it was the duty of the legislators to make those decisions. It was also conceivable that the Legislature would decide that the state did need increased revenues to fund the many competing priorities. It was critical, he said, that flexibility existed so that the priorities were balanced and the budget funded what was best for the citizens as well as what was best for the state. Mr. McMullen then clarified that he was giving a restatement of his position while not necessarily answering Mr. Knecht’s leading questions.
Mr. Knecht replied that he believed, unlike Mr. Collins, that Mr. McMullen did believe and mean the things that he said. He then referred to a conversation he had had the day before that meeting with a gentleman who had been in both state and private business as an executive for some time. That person had stated to Mr. Knecht, about the budget process, that the Legislature found it easy to add to the budget but they would never bring themselves to the point of making up the cost by reducing or deducting any programs, projects, or current spending.
Mr. Knecht believed that a structural reform of the budgeting process was needed, one that would introduce budget constraints that were general so that the budget remained balanced.
An additional concern of Mr. Knecht’s was whether Mr. McMullen had any statistics on comparable state versus local government compensation levels, comparable jobs, the relative compensation levels in state, local and private areas in Nevada. Mr. Knecht hoped that, if Mr. McMullen had that information, he would supply it to him.
Mr. McMullen stated that the Chamber actually had such data which was used when they had testified in past years. As Mr. McMullen had learned that the information was readily available from other sources, he had not done the research for the current year. He agreed to see that it was provided to the Committee and specifically to Mr. Knecht.
Mr. Knecht thanked Mr. McMullen and Chairman Manendo.
Assemblywoman Pierce spoke to Mr. McMullen in reference to making the process less political. It was her understanding that the Nevada Legislature had more lobbyists than almost any other legislature in the country. It appeared to her that politics played a role in all things legislative. Within the current process, for state employees to be granted raises, the Legislature must appropriate that money into the budget. She asked Mr. McMullen to affirm that belief for her.
Mr. McMullen answered that it was basically correct.
Ms. Pierce continued, if A.B. 65 were adopted, the Legislature would still need to appropriate whatever was agreed to in the collective bargaining agreement. Again, she asked Mr. McMullen to respond.
Mr. McMullen stated that, functionally, that was true. He specified that one of his concerns was that one.
Ms. Pierce asked for an explanation of that concern.
Mr. McMullen stated that a collectively bargained agreement would come to the Legislature as a defined prospect, maybe even an unchangeable prospect, removing the legislators’ ability, right or wrong, to flexibly work toward the balance of all priorities. It was a very interesting obligation to have a balanced budget by session’s end. That required the tools to accomplish that feat. Politics, he suggested, would add influence and the “torque” of a different area. The process did include some politics, referencing what Mr. McCleary had stated earlier, at the current time, but it maintained a sense of balance. Collective bargaining would bring a significant adjustment to those politics and would change the field. He did not see that as a positive outcome.
Ms. Pierce again affirmed that the end of the process required an appropriations bill that had to be passed by the Legislature.
Mr. McCleary respectfully disagreed with what he believed his colleague, Mr. Knecht, had said. Employees, Mr. McCleary affirmed, were not a wish list. They were a resource that must be taken care of, especially those who served in government.
Mr. Knecht firmly and strongly took exception to Mr. McCleary’s statement saying that he had never said nor implied that people were a wish list.
Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 65. No action was taken. He stated his hope that amendments would be agreed upon quickly. The Committee’s agendas were becoming quite filled. He specifically requested that the proponents of the bill designate a person to walk the Committee through the key components of the bill. Only one Committee member was serving on the Committee who had served on the Committee before. Therefore, walking through the bill would be very helpful.
Chairman Manendo adjourned the meeting at 9:54 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Nancy Haywood
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
______________________________________
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: _______________________________________________________