►
From YouTube: 5/7/2021 - Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
A
Here,
thank
you
so
much.
Madam
secretary,
please
note
that
we
do
have
a
quorum.
Please
mark
any
members
who
aren't
present.
I
believe
that
is
speaker,
fryerson
absent,
excused,
mark
any
members
present
when
they
arrive
and,
I
believe,
that's
assemblywoman
tools.
I
know
she
is
here.
She
just
stepped
out
for
a
quick
second
good
afternoon,
presenters
audience
those
listening
in
over
the
internet.
A
I
do
want
to
go
over
some
quick
housekeeping
items
before
we
get
started.
I'd
like
to
remind
everyone
to
please
silence
your
electronic
that
goes
for
members
and
for
members
of
the
audience
who
are
here
to
present
or
to
testify.
I
would
also
like
to
remind
everyone
that
exhibits
testimony
amendments.
A
All
those
documents
are
due
to
our
committee
manager
by
noon.
On
the
day
before
the
committee
meeting,
I
would
remind
everyone
to
be
courteous
and
respectful
with
others
during
the
meeting.
Please
note
that
committee
members
will
be
using
electronics,
that's
not
a
sign
of
inattention.
We
are
just
using
our
laptops
to
view
exhibits
and
the
bills
presenters
who
are
on
zoom.
Please
keep
your
selves
muted,
but
keep
your
cameras
on
that's
the
only
way
we
can
tell
that
you
are
with
us
with
that.
A
We
do
have
a
pretty
lengthy
agenda
today
for
those
of
you
who
are
listening
in.
I
just
want
to.
Let
you
guys
know
now
that
we
had
five
bills
listed
for
bill
hearing.
We
will
be
rolling
assembly
bill
75
until
next
week,
so
we
are
pulling
assembly
bill
75
from
for
the
agenda.
A
A
Okay,
with
that,
I
think
we
can
go
ahead
and
get
started
with
our
agenda.
I'm
gonna
start
by
opening
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
141,
which
revises
provisions
relating
to
public
works,
senator
burks,
welcome
to
commerce
and
labor,
and
welcome
back
to
the
room
you
just
left.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
on
commerce
and
labor.
It
is
good
to
be
back
here.
I'm
senator
chris
brooks
from
senate
district
three
in
in
the
middle
of
las
vegas,
and
today,
I'm
here
to
present
senate
bill
141
senate
bill
141
will
remove
the
statutory
expiration
and
allow
for
the
continued
use
of
construction
manager
at
risk
or
cmar,
as
we
call
it
by
our
state's
public
utilities.
D
D
Recent
cmar
projects
include
the
las
vegas
convention
center
expansion,
the
national
guard,
speedway
readiness
center
and
the
pennington
engineering
building
at
unr
upcoming
projects
include
the
unlv
engineering
building,
the
clark
county,
water
reclamation,
district
flamingo
water
resources
center
and
the
grant
sawyer
office
building
remodel,
just
to
name.
A
few
cmar
allows
the
builder
to
collaborate
with
the
designer
and
public
agency
early
in
the
project
design
state
to
help
avoid
costly,
missteps
or
unforeseen
design
challenges.
D
Cmar
is
just
one
tool
available
to
the
public
entities
to
deliver
construction
projects.
When
we
invest
in
public
infrastructure,
it
is
critical
that
we
apply
the
best
most
efficient
and
effective
method
of
delivering
the
project
by
allowing
public
entities
the
ability
to
continue
to
use
cmar.
In
addition
to
our
other
delivery
methods,
we
are
giving
them
the
tools
that
they
need
to
plan
design
and
build
projects
as
efficiently
as
possible,
and
I
have
with
me
today
also
brian
reader
from
ferrari
public
affairs
to
answer
any
questions
that
that
the
committee
might
have
that.
D
D
The
mechanisms
of
cmar
doesn't
redefine
seymour,
it
just
removes
the
sunset
and
the
sunset
was
there,
because
we
put
it
in
place
to
see
if
we,
if
we
were
successful
in
using
this
methodology-
and
it
turned
out
to
be
incredibly
successful
for
the
taxpayer,
for
the
public
entity
and
for
the
contracting
community,
and
so
here
to
remove
the
sunset.
The
second
thing
it
does
is
it
clarifies
horizontal
construction
and
vertical
construction
by
adding
just
a
few
things
that
those
two
things
would
cut.
D
Those
two
definitions
would
cover
and
it
makes
the
two
of
them
kind
of
conform
with
each
other
and
how
they're
defined,
and
that
is
it.
That
is
all
the
build
does
it
does.
It
is
a
little
confusing
because
it
looks
like
we
delete,
horizontal
construction
or,
and
we
delete
vertical
construction
and
we
delete
some
of
the
cmr
language,
but
that
is
the
that
was
necessary
for
the
mechanics
of
the
bill,
so
you
have
to
delete
part
of
it
to
be
able
to
preserve
it
in
another
portion
of
the
statute.
D
So
mechanically,
though,
the
only
or
practically
the
only
thing,
this
does
removes
the
sunset
and
and
changes
to
clarifies
two
of
those
definitions,
horizontal
construction
and
vertical
construction.
So
with
that
I
could
answer
any
questions,
and-
and
mr
brian
reader,
like
I
said,
is
here
to
help
me
as.
A
A
B
Senator
thank
you
for
being
here,
assemblywoman
kasama
district
2
for
the
record,
so
I
great
overview
I've
looked
at
this.
My
only
question:
can
you
further
clarify?
There
are
so
many
deleted
sections,
and
some
of
the
definitions
are
in
the
deleted
sections.
They're
put
back
in
the
new
one,
but
they're
such
so
much
of
the
section
is
completely
deleted.
Is
you
know
I'm
just
kind
of
wondering
about
the
implications
of
of
that
much.
D
Through
you,
madam
chair
to
assembly,
mum
kasama,
it
is
incredibly
confusing
and
I
at
my
last
bill
hearing
had
our
legal
counsel
write
me
a
script
that
explained
why
we
did
that.
I
failed
to
bring
that
script
with
me
and
I'm
wondering
if
there,
if
the
legal
counsel
of
this
committee
might
be
available
to
bail
me
out
on
exactly
why
we
had
to
do
that
from
the
mechanics
of
taking
it
in
and
putting
it
out.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
sam
klost
committee
council.
So
in
2013,
when
the
expiration
was
put
on
these
provisions,
they
had
to
enact
the
legislature
had
to
enact
new
provisions
to
account
for
those.
E
Deleted
sections,
so
that's
why
you
see
those
all
those
sections
in
the
repealed
sections:
they're,
not
repealing
the
sections
from
nrs,
because
those
haven't
been
enacted
yet
they're
due
to
be
enacted
when
these
provisions
expire.
E
D
And
assuming
kasama
that
was
far
far
better
than
what
I
did
last
time.
I
tried
to
explain
that
so
I
appreciate
that
mr
cross.
A
G
Thank
you,
chair
hadagi
and
committee
members
good
afternoon,
I'm
brian
reader
for
the
record
from
ferrari
public
affairs
representing
the
nevada
contractors
association.
I
think
the
most
the
committee
knows
ncaa
represents
general
and
subcontractors
and
businesses
affiliated
with
the
commercial
construction
industry
throughout
southern
nevada.
I
can
be
really
brief.
G
We
we
brought
the
stakeholders
together
once
again
during
the
interim
to
discuss
semar
and
those
stakeholders
include
our
friends
in
labor
our
public
entities
subcontractor
groups
to
to
discuss
what
we
wanted
to
do
with
cmr,
and
there
was
unanimous
agreement
that
the
the
method's
working
and
that
we
wanted
to
seek
legislation
to
remove
the
sunset.
So
I
want
to
thank
the
bill
sponsor
for
working
with
us
on
the
issue
and
thank
the
committee
for
hearing
the
bill
and
urge
your
support
thanks.
B
B
When
you
do
a
major
project,
it
really
hurts
the
business
when
you're
going
to
do
a
road,
we
all
need
it,
but
it
hurts
their
business.
So
they
were
able
to
work
together
to
design
the
schedule
when
the
timing
is.
When
are
you
going
to
bring
the
water
trucks
through?
When
are
you
going
to
do
the
things,
so
I
just
wanted
to
lend
support
and
tell
you
that
it
actually
opens
up
so
much
more
than
just
having
a
cmar
project.
B
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
alexis,
motorex
with
the
nevada
chapter
associated
general
contractors
representing
the
commercial
construction
industry
in
northern
nevada.
We
are
here
in
support
of
sb
141
and
appreciate
senator
brooks
for
bringing
it
forward.
Everybody's
already
said
the
reasons
that
it's
fabulous
and
it's
time
for
it
to
become
a
permanent
part
of
statute.
Thank
you.
C
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
warren.
Hardy
w-a-r-r-e-n
last
name
hardy
h-a-r-d-y,
representing
the
urban
consortium
here
today
in
support
of
this
legislation
at
the
risk
of
sounding
like
an
old-timer.
This
is
a
piece
of
legislation
that
I
actually
helped
bring
forward
at
the
request
of
agc
during
my
tenure
in
the
legislature
and
at
the
time
we
were
concerned.
This
is
a
this
is
a
process
that
works
very,
very
well
in
the
private
sector.
It's
a
preferred
process
in
the
private
sector.
H
We
weren't
sure
at
the
time,
as
in
terms
of
how
this
was
going
to
translate
to
the
public
sector.
So
that's
why
we
put
the
limitations
and
the
things
we
did
on
it,
and
so
I'm
pleased
to
report
that
this
is
a
process
that
is
working
very,
very
well
for
the
public
sector
as
a
tool
in
their
toolbox
to
loot
to
use
in
appropriate
cases.
H
C
I
L-I-N-D-S-A-Y-A-N-D-E-R-S-O-N
on
behalf
of
the
washoe
county
school
district-
and
we
are
here
in
strong
support
of
sb
141
and
thank
you
senator
brooks
for
bringing
it
forward.
Fortunately,
the
washoe
county
school
district
has
engaged
in
one
of
the
largest
construction
programs
since
2017
building
three
new
middle
schools,
a
new
high
school
and
several
elementary
schools,
along
with
major
renovations
expansions
and
remodels
of
our
existing
schools.
I
C
H
J-U-S-T-I-N-H-A-R-R-I-S-O-N
representing
clark
county
here
today
in
support
of
senate
bill
141
and
would
like
to
thank
senator
brooks
for
bringing
the
measure
forward.
This
is
a
project
delivery
method
that
we
have
seen
successfully
in
clark
county,
specifically
through
our
department
of
aviation
and
through
the
clark
county,
flood
control
district.
This
is,
we
believe,
in
an
important
step
in
making
seymour
a
permanent
part
of
statute
and
a
successful
project
delivery
method
going
forward.
Thank
you.
C
I
C
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
This
is
jessica,
ferrado,
j-e-s-s-I-c-a
f-e-r-r-a-t-o
here
today
on
behalf
of
granite
construction
and
strong
support
of
sc
144.
Cmr
is
another
helpful
tool
for
the
construction
industry
to
use.
We
want
to
thank
senator,
brooks
and
all
the
involved
stakeholders
for
their
work
on
this
important
issue.
Thank
you.
C
H
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
michael
flores,
with
a
record
with
the
university
of
nevada,
reno
m-I-c-h-a-e-l-f-l-o-r-e-s,
and
I
will
be
very
brief.
We
want
to
thank
the
sponsor
senator
brooks
for
this
bail.
We
are
a
strong
supporter
of
the
bill.
Thank
you.
C
I
Good
afternoon
committee
members,
my
name
is
eileen
a-I-l-e-e-n,
pastor
p-a-s-t-o-r,
with
the
regional
transportation
commission
of
southern
nevada.
The
rtc
of
southern
nevada
is
in
strong
support
of
senate
bill
141,
and
we
thank
senator
brooks
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
the
committee
for
hearing
this
bill.
Thank
you.
C
H
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
david
froelmer.
I
am
the
associate
vice
president
of
planning,
construction
and
real
estate
at
the
university
of
nevada,
las
vegas,
I'm
here
to
speak
in
support
of
fb
141
having
seymour
continue
to
be
available.
The
construction
delivery
method
is
very
important
to
unlv
and
we
use
all
construction
delivery
methods,
seymour,
design,
video
and
design
build.
H
It's
especially
helpful
where
there
are
complex
projects
with
unique
operating
drivers
and
other
complexities
during
the
construction
process.
We
thank
senator
brooks
for
his
efforts
on
this
and
appreciate
you
hearing
us.
Thank
you.
C
I
I
C
I
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
kanani.
Espinoza
k,
a
n
I,
with
the
rho
law
group
presenting
the
american
council
of
engineering
companies
of
nevada,
known
as
acec
acec,
represents
our
state's
design
and
engineering
community
and
we'd
like
to
thank
senator,
brooks
for
bringing
this
legislation
forward.
Please
stand
in
support
of
senator
141.
Thank
you.
C
A
C
C
C
Okay
sounds
great
chair.
That
is
the
only
color
that
we
have
in
the
cube
for
opposition.
A
C
Okay,
the
caller
did
just
drop
off
the
call.
A
Okay,
then,
seeing
no
other
callers,
we
will
move
to
testimony
in
neutral.
Is
there
anyone
in
carson
city
wishing
to
testify
in
the
neutral
position.
C
B
You
thank
you
madam
chair.
I'm
kidding
senator
brooks
I
I'm
not
I'm
not
throwing
a
rock
at
this
one,
I'm
just
I
was
just
going
to
say
thank
you
for
working
with
all
the
stakeholders.
I
know
there's
a
host
of
folk
that
always
have
concerns
with
seymour,
having
had
an
opportunity
to
work
with
that.
I
just
wanted
to
say
thank
you
for
working
with
everybody
and
kudos
to
you
brother.
I
virtual
hug
right
now.
A
Okay,
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill.
141.
next
item
on
our
agenda
is
senate
bill
247.
I
do
see
that
we
have
senator
dondera
loop
here,
senator
john
darrell
loop,
when
you're
ready
you
can
get
started,
I'm
going
to
open
the
hearing
on
senable
247,
which
revises
provisions
relating
to
apprenticeship.
Welcome,
senator
and
welcome
mr.
A
J
Good
afternoon,
chair
hattaggy
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
I'm
marilyn
donderol
loop
and
I
represent
senate
district
8..
Today,
I
would
like
to
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
present
senate
bill
247
in
its
first
reprint,
which
relates
to
apprentices
and
the
apprenticeship
program
in
nevada.
J
The
dol
has
carried
out
these
provisions
for
developing
a
system
in
which
the
dol
or
a
dol
recognized
state
apprenticeship
agency
registers,
several
individual
programs
as
meeting
federal
and
or
state
standards
in
nevada.
The
apprenticeship
program
is
administered
by
the
state
apprenticeship
director,
under
the
direction
of
the
governor's
office
of
workforce
innovation
and
with
the
advice
and
guidance
of
the
state
apprenticeship
council.
The
council
has
the
authority
to
approve
and
register
or
reject,
proposed
programs
of
apprenticeship.
J
Registered.
Apprenticeships
are
apprenticeship
programs
that
are
registered
with
the
dol
and
governed
by
regulations
laid
out
under
national
apprenticeship
dac
senate
bill
247
ensures
that
the
apprenticeship
programs
in
nevada
train
individuals
in
skills
and
knowledge
that
are
applicable
to
the
industry
and
not
just
specific
to
one
company
or
employer
I'd
like
to
provide
a
brief
summary
of
the
bill
before
I
turn
it
over
to
mr
stanley.
J
The
president
provisions
of
this
bill
generally
revise
existing
state
requirements
regarding
registered
apprenticeships
to
more
closely
conform
with
federal
regulations.
I
will
also
highlight
the
amendments
made
to
the
bill
section.
One
of
the
bill
refi
revises
the
division.
Sorry,
the
definition
of
a
program
to
more
closely
conform
to
federal
regulations.
J
A
composite
competency-based
program
that
measures
skill
acquisition
through
an
apprentices,
successful
demonstration
of
acquired
skills
and
knowledge,
or
a
hybrid
approach
that
combines
elements
of
both
an
apprentice.
An
apprentice
program
in
the
construction
trades
must
be
structured
as
a
time
based
program.
J
The
bill
also
prescribes
the
elements
of
the
council
and
required
to
consider
in
order
to
determine
whether
to
approve
or
reject
such
program.
We
amended
the
bill
to
clarify
that
a
proposed
apprenticeship
program
must
provide
training
for
the
development
of
skills
to
allow
the
apprentice
to
practice
the
skilled
trade
generally
rather
than
a
particular
employer.
K
Thank
you,
chairman
hartigan,
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
bill.
Stanley
for
the
record
representing
the
southern
nevada
building
construction.
Trades
council
sb
247
is
introduced
by
senator
dondero
loop
at
the
request
of
the
southern
nevada
building
trades,
along
with
the
northern
nevada
building
trade
union.
We
thank
her
for
her
leadership
on
this
issue.
K
I
have
with
me
today
to
introduce
this
bill.
Two
individuals,
our
three
individuals,
I'm
sorry
rob
benner
from
the
northern
nevada,
building
trades,
archie,
walden,
apprenticeship,
coordinator
from
the
southern
nevada,
labors
training,
trust,
and
he
is
also
the
chairman
of
the
nevada
state,
apprenticeship
council.
K
Additionally,
I
have
randy
canale
apprenticeship
coordinator
for
local
350,
pipe
trades
apprenticeships
here
in
northern
nevada,
and
he
is
also
a
member
of
the
state's
apprenticeship
council.
They
will
deliver
their
remarks.
Hopefully
briefly
and
we'll
answer
are
here
to
answer
any
questions
that
this
committee
may
have.
We
have
worked
with
the
stakeholders
from
inchi
and
other
registered
apprenticeship
programs
ensure
both
the
expansion
of
apprenticeship
opportunities
in
nevada
and
the
preservation
of
the
building
trades
apprenticeship
program
model
and
are
seeking
the
passage
of
sb
247
to
ensure
the
following.
K
That
only
work-based
learning
should
be
registered
as
an
apprenticeship
program
and
are
registered
in
nevada,
that
emerging
industries
have
the
statutory
structure
to
create
career
pathways
through
apprenticeship
and
three
to
ensure
that
building
trades
apprenticeship
programs
recognizes
the
gold
standard
of
work-based
learning
remain
and
maintain
their
proven
delivery
method.
This
bill
is
that
straightforward.
K
The
statutory
scheme
as
it
is
currently
exists
in
nrs
610
has,
from
its
inception,
created
to
regulate,
building
trades
apprenticeship
programs.
No
other
programs
existed
or
were
contemplated
at
the
time.
The
statutes
were
created,
as
non-traditional
programs
have
been
introduced.
Their
approval
by
the
state
apprenticeship
council
has
been
difficult
to
say.
The
least
the
statute
is
presently
constructed,
is
based
on
the
building
trades
model
and
does
not
contemplate
any
other
delivery
method.
K
K
I
want
to
say
first,
this
language
is
permissive.
It
says
the
council,
may
it
doesn't
say
they
shall.
It
is
permissive
in
nature,
two,
that
the
state
apprenticeship
council
requires
the
establishment
of
the
apprenticeship
wage
rate
annually
when
they
submit
their
form
5910
that
is
required
by
the
federal
government.
There
are
been
a
lot
of
conversations
about
whether
or
not
the
state
apprenticeship
council
has
the
authority
to
create
the
minimum
apprenticeship
wage.
K
The
state
apprenticeship
capital
sets
the
minimum
apprenticeship
wage
annually
and
we've
recently
done
it.
It's
somewhere
short
of
15
an
hour.
It's
14.87.
I
believe
in
that
ballpark
the
minimum
apprentice
wage
in
any
particular
craft
should
be
consistent
across
all
programs.
In
other
words,
an
electrical
apprentice
should
make
should
be
comparable
to
what
a
no
matter.
What
program
that
electrician
apprenticeship
comes
from.
K
We
amended
the
bill
and
put
compensation
at
the
request
of
stakeholders
who
who
had
asked
us
that
they
believe
that
wages
and
benefits
may
have
led
the
state
apprenticeship
council
to
assume
that
the
benefit
schedule
for
any
one
apprentice
had
to
be
the
same,
meaning
that
if
one
apprentice
had
vacation
pay,
they
all
had
to
have
vacation
pay
or
if
one
apprentice
had
a
defined
benefit
pension
plan
that
all
apprentices
had
to
have
a
defined
benefit
pension
plan.
I'm
here
to
tell
you
that
was
never
the
intent.
K
Therefore,
we
agreed
to
change
wages
and
benefits
to
compensation,
and
compensation
does
not
mean
that
an
individual
has
to
have
the
same
schedule
of
benefits
if
benefit.
If
they
have
any
benefits
at
all,
it
can
all
be
paid
in
wages,
just
as
we
do
currently
under
nrs
338
in
the
worker
I
mean
in
the
prevailing
wage
statute.
Compensation
does
not
dictate
what
type
of
benefit
schedule
and
combination
thereof,
with
wages
that
an
individual
must
earn
only
that
the
total
shall
be
equal.
K
So
so,
with
that
explanation,
I
was
asked
to
give
that
explanation
outside
the
room,
so
I'm
trying
to
add
lib
to
give
it
to
you
here,
and
so
I
bear
with
me
here
so
at
this
time.
I
thank
you
for
your
time.
This
morning,
chairwoman
and
members
of
the
committee,
I
have
mr
rob
benner
from
the
northern
red
of
building
trades.
He
I
see
him
on
screen.
K
G
Good
afternoon,
madame
chair,
I
don't
know
r-l-e-n-n-e-r
with
the
northern
nevada
building
trades.
G
The
intent
of
this
bill
is
to
remove
the
conflict
between
traditional
apprenticeship
programs
and
non-professional
programs
and
will
bring
nevada's
law
in
line
with
the
federal
regulations.
Current
nevada
law
only
provides
for
traditional
apprenticeship
programs
developed
and
registered
by
the
building
trades.
Now
non-traditional
programs
want
to
develop
other
delivery
methods
for
their
industries.
G
E-247
would
let
the
building
trades
maintain
apprenticeship
programs,
while
allowing
others
to
develop
new
ones
that
fit
their
particular
industries
without
affecting
the
building
trades
model.
This
bill
will
protect
apprentices
from
low
quality
programs,
preserve
valuable
attacks,
their
money
and
maintain
the
integrity
of
the
existing
registered
apprenticeship
system,
and
thank.
A
L
I
thank
you
so
much
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
it's
good
to
see
you
both,
and
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
it's
great
to
see
you,
mr
benner,
on
on
video,
and
I
I've
just
been
so
impressed
over
the
years
with
the
apprenticeship
process
and
I've
met.
So
many
talked
to
so
many
individuals,
who've
really
really
just
beamed
with
pride
over
it,
and
so
I
appreciate
everything
that
we
do
to
try
and
continue
to
improve
upon
it.
I
also
really
appreciate
your
answers
to
some
of
the
questions.
L
K
Thank
you.
So
there
was
only
one
of
us
could
be
here
in
person
either
rob
or
myself,
so
we
picked
the
younger
one.
So
so
thank
you
that
last
sentence,
assuming
women
told
so
the
council
may
condition
approval
of
the
provost
on
the
payment
of
compensation
to
apprentice
that
is
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
compensation
provided
by
the
approved
and
registered
apprenticeship
program.
So
this
would
come
to
play.
K
We
already
had
a
program
in
place
for,
and
I'm
just
going
to
pick
some
I'm
going
to
pick
on
my
own
trade,
because
it's
easier,
then
you
don't
get
in
trouble
right,
I'm
an
elevator
constructor
by
trade,
okay.
So
if
the
elevator
constructor
already
has
a
program
that
is
established
and
approved
by
the
state,
apprenticeship,
council
and
someone
brings
another
program
that
was
to
train
apprentices
as
as
elevator
constructors,
we
would
look
at
what
the
compensation
was
for
those
elevator
constructors
and
it's
forty
dollars
an
hour.
K
K
K
What
we're
trying
to
avoid
here
is
pitting
one
apprenticeship
program
against
the
other,
for
instance,
as
many
of
you
know,
in
the
last
session
last
legislative
session,
we
passed
sb
207,
which
was
the
apprenticeship
utilization
act,
where
we
now
have
a
requirement
to
use
a
number
of
apprentices,
ten
percent
on
on
vertical
construction
and
three
percent
on
horizontal
construction.
K
So
if
you
have
a
contractor
who
is
required
to
use
apprentices
on
a
prevailing
wage
job,
we
don't
want
folks
choosing
between
one
program
on
over
the
other
one
for
the
sake
of
using
apprentices,
because
one
has
a
more
favorable
wage
rate
than
the
other
program.
We
would
like
them
considered
the
same
and
that
individuals
could
go
out
and
work
and
have
that
opportunity
to
train
the
next
generation
of
construction
workers,
and
so
that's
really
what
we're
getting
at
here.
K
There's
no
hidden
agenda
here
we
want,
and
I
and
I've
told
you
guys,
the
folks
that
sat
in
this
room
two
years
ago.
K
K
We
have
a
need
to
train
the
next
generation
of
construction
workers
and
we
know
that
the
best
methodology
that
has
been
proved
over
the
last
last
70
years
to
train
them
is
through
weight,
work
based
learning.
That
is
an
apprenticeship
program
and
it
turns
out
the
best
skilled
workforce
in
the
world.
K
I
want
everybody
in
the
game
because
see
and
I'll
be
honest
with
you.
The
selfish
part
of
me
is
this:
if
only
the
union
program
union
company
are
in
the
apprenticeship
program
or
an
apprenticeship
business,
then
contractors
that
are
training
apprentices
have
a
higher
labor
burden
than
those
that
aren't
we're
more
competitive
when
more
people
get
into
the
apprenticeship
business.
But
I
think
it
is
better
for
the
industry
and
I'm
being
as
frank
as
I
can
be
with
you.
As
someone
told
I
hope
you
appreciate
it.
I
mean
that
is.
L
Thank
you,
madam
cherry
follow-up.
Yes
please
thank
you.
I
love
your
passion
and
thank
you
for
that,
and-
and
I
think
part
of
this
is
just
getting
the
record
clear
and
I
think
you
you
know.
L
I
appreciate
that
you're
answering
the
questions
just
so
that
those
concerns
can
be
addressed,
and
so
in
that
example,
that
you
gave
let's
say,
there's
two
different
programs
that
if
I,
if
I
understand
the
concern,
there's
two
different
programs
that
have
different
rates
and
and
then
a
third
program
is
rejected
because
we're
using
one
rate
versus
the
other.
L
Is
that
a
scenario
that
might
happen
and
how
do
we
reconcile
that
just
to
make
or
how
do
we
avoid
you
know,
sort
of
a
stepping
ladder
of
now
all
of
a
sudden
we're
just
everybody's
moving
up
and
up
and
up
in
in
those
wage
scales?
So
I
think
I
think,
just
maybe
clarifying
some
of
those
on
the
implementation
side
would
be
helpful.
Thank
you.
K
And
thank
you
so
much
so
I
think
it.
I
think
I
have
to
take
a
step
back.
So
when
an
apprenticeship
program
moves
forward
to
be
registered
by
the
state
apprenticeship
council,
they
have
to
bring
a
set
of
standards
forward
and
those
standards
are
reviewed
and
in
those
standards
they
have
the
curriculum
and
they
also
have
the
scale
of
wages,
because
an
apprenticeship
program
is
required
to
escalate
the
wages,
as
you
become
more
competent
in
the
trade.
K
So,
for
instance-
and
you
usually
call
them
terms
so
a
first
year,
a
first
term
apprentice
versus
the
second
term.
When
he
moves
from
first
year
to
second
year,
he
will
have
a
a
corresponding
raise
in
his
wages.
So
let's
say
you
have
a
four
year
apprenticeship
program.
So
by
the
time
an
individual
goes
from
the
first
year
to
the
fourth
year
of
an
apprenticeship
program.
K
Their
wages
will
have
changed
significantly
because
we
understand
that
their
ability
to
perform
the
work
has
has
gone
up,
their
understanding
of
the
craft
is
increased
and
they
can
do
more
of
the
work.
So
that
is
a
provision
that
is
in
the
federal
regulations
that
we
have
to
escalate
to.
So
the
wage
schedule
is
in
the
standards
as
they
are
submitted
to
the
state
apprenticeship
council.
So
when
the
state
apprenticeship
council
is
looking
at
the
standards
and
the
state
apprenticeship
director
works
with
a
new
program,
we
should
not
have
that
situation.
K
As
someone
told
because
the
state
apprenticeship
director
is
charged
in
statute
with
working
with
new
programs
and
they
he
he
at
this
point,
mr
richard
williams,
the
state
apprenticeship
director,
should
work
with
that
new
sponsor
and
those
standards
to
assure
that
when
they
get
before
the
state
apprenticeship
council,
that
those
wage
schedules
are
the
same,
so
there
should
be
no
rejection
of
any
apprenticeship
program
at
that
point
because
the
standards,
while
the
curriculum
may
be
a
little
different
or
written
by
somebody
else.
You
still
have
the
same
ojt
hours.
K
You
still
have
the
same
classroom
hours
required
and
by
the
way
in
statute,
that's
a
minimum
of
144
classroom
hours
per
year
and
2
000
on
the
job
training
hours
per
year.
That's
not
only
in
our
statutes
in
nevada.
Those
are
in
the
federal
statutes,
also,
okay,
that
we
we're
required
to
follow
under
29
cfr
29.
A
E
Sorry
about
that.
Thank
you,
madam
chairperson.
My
name
is
greg
dye
greg
dye,
I'm
the
general
manager
manager
for
briggs
electric.
I
am
also
the
representative
for
the
national
electrical
contractors
association,
the
greater
sacramento
and
rita
divisions.
We
are
very
thankful
for
senator
donderolu
for
sponsoring
this
bill.
E
This
is
very
essential
to
the
safety
and
health
of
our
construction
trades.
The
difference
between
a
job
and
a
career
is
a
registered
apprenticeship
program.
There
are
low
value
programs
out
there
that
represent
themselves
as
as
creating
journeymen,
who
have
skills
that
are
not
transferable
to
other
trades
or
other
journeys
or
other
companies.
E
E
A
C
I
A
A
Okay,
is
there
anyone
on
zoom.
C
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
committee
members,
for
the
for
the
record.
I
am
mac
by
the
m-a-c
b-y-b-e-e,
I'm
the
president,
ceo,
via
associated
builders
and
contractors,
nevada
chapter.
My
organization
is
the
only
association
in
the
state
that
offers
open
shop,
apprenticeship,
programs
and
multiple
trades.
We
are
currently
training
more
than
300
apprentices.
H
H
We
have
worked
in
a
bipartisan
manner
on
a
variety
of
different
workforce
development
efforts,
including
the
rewrite
of
the
law's
governing
apprenticeship
when
it
was
moved
from
the
labor
commissioner's
office
to
owen
under
governor
sandoval.
Most
of
sb
247
includes
reasonable
changes.
However,
the
last
sentence
of
sb
247,
specifically
subsection
3
of
section
2
lines-
28-31
authorizes
the
state
apprenticeship
council
to
condition
approval
of
new
programs
on
whether
apprentice
wages
are
the
same
as
existing
programs
in
the
trade.
H
H
One
program
could
be
approved
with
apprenticeship
council's
promulgated
wage
standard,
and
the
next
program
could
be
rejected
because
it
does
not
meet
a
wage
scale
established
by
an
existing
program.
This
inconsistent,
this
inconsistency,
will
undoubtedly
hurt
efforts
to
get
new
programs
approved.
The
legislation
can
stand
alone.
Without
this
provision,
we
are
already
facing
a
massive
shortage
in
skilled
labor
in
the
construction
industry.
Setting
up
additional
barriers
to
training
is
not
what
our
state
or
the
construction
industry
needs
to
succeed.
I'm
requesting
this
one
sentence
be
removed
from
sb247.
C
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
chris
ferrari
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
contractors
association
f-e-r-r-a-r-I,
echoing
the
comments
of
mr
bibi,
we're
also
here
today
in
opposition.
Thank
you.
A
A
J
A
A
J
Thank
you
very
much
chair
hatagi
and
committee
members
for
the
record.
I
am
marilyn
dondero
loop,
representing
senate
district
8
in
clark
county.
I
am
pleased
to
present
senate
bill
308
a
bill
that
seeks
to
establish
a
work
sharing
program,
which
is
an
alternative
to
layoffs
for
employers
experiencing
a
reduction
in
available
work.
The
covet
19
recession
abruptly
displaced
millions
of
workers
in
the
united
states
threatened
with
the
loss
of
stable
housing
and
imminent
risk
of
financial
rune
in
nevada.
J
There
have
been
more
than
878
000
new
claims
for
unemployment
since
march
14th
of
2020
unemployment
insurance
is
the
most
important
fiscal
response.
The
state
and
the
federal
government
has
during
a
recession
because
it
sends
timely,
targeted
and
temporary
financial
assistance
to
those
directly
affected
by
the
economic
downturn.
J
However,
what
these
workers
need
most
is
to
know
that
they
will
be
able
to
return
to
their
previous
jobs
as
the
pandemic
recedes
and
business
returns.
Workers
who
believe
that
they
are
likely
to
be
called
back
and
to
a
steady
job
can
relieve
workers
anxiety,
which
can
bolster
morale
and
increase
consumer
spending.
J
Work
share
programs
benefit
businesses,
workers
and
states.
Businesses
retain
their
trained
workforce
for
easy
recall
to
full-time
work
when
economic
conditions
improve
workers,
keep
their
jobs
instead
of
being
laid
off
and
collect
reduced
unemployment
benefits
to
partially
replace
their
lost
wages.
J
J
For
example,
an
employee
whose
hours
are
cut
by
10
percent
would
qualify
for
10
percent
of
the
state's
established
weekly
unemployment
benefit
amount,
while
that
does
not
fully
replace
the
lost
wages.
The
amount
supplements
a
worker's
income
until
they
are
recalled
to
full-time
work.
Currently,
27
states
have
work
share
programs
established
in
law,
some
of
the
states,
for
example,
arizona,
california,
colorado,
connecticut,
kansas,
maine,
minnesota,
nebraska,
ohio,
oregon,
pennsylvania,
vermont,
washington
and
wisconsin.
J
The
bill
is
quite
long,
but
I
will
provide
you
with
an
overview
of
some
of
the
sections
and
then
I
will
turn
it
over
to
some
of
the
deter
experts
who
are
with
me
today.
Section
11
will
require
the
administrator
of
the
employment
security
division
of
the
department
of
employment,
training
and
rehabilitation.
To
the
extent
that
funding
is
available
to
establish
a
workshare
program
to
authorize
payments
for
work
sharing,
benefits
to
establish
employees
whose
usual
weekly
hours
have
been
reduced
by
work
sharing
employer.
J
J
The
written
approval
of
the
bargaining
agent
designated
in
a
collective
bargaining
agreement
if
employees
affected
unit
are
part
of
such
collective
bargaining
agreement,
an
agreement
to
provide
the
administrators
certain
reports
concerning
the
work
sharing
plan
and
allow
the
administrator
or
his
or
her
designee
to
access
all
records
necessary
to
approve,
deny
or,
if
approved,
continue
to
evaluate
the
plan.
Any
other
provisions
added
to
the
work
sharing
plan
by
the
administrator
that
the
federal
secretary
of
labor
determines
to
be
appropriate
for
a
work
sharing
plan.
J
Section
13
requires
a
work
sharing
employer
that
provides
health
and
retirement
benefits
to
an
employee
under
a
defined
plan
to
credit
the
hours
that
are
reduced
under
the
work
sharing
plan
for
the
purposes
of
participation,
testing
and
accrual
of
benefits,
as
the
usual
hours
have
not
been
reduced.
However,
the
dollar
amount
of
the
employer
contributions
may
be
less
due
to
the
reduction
in
the
compensation
of
the
employee.
J
J
J
Section
15
additionally
provides
that
the
work
sharing
employer
may
terminate
the
plan
at
any
time
by
submitting
a
notice
to
the
administrator
and
authorizes
the
employer
to
submit
a
new
application
at
any
time
after
expiration
or
termination
section
16,
and
please
includes
provisions
when
the
administrator
may
revoke
approval
of
the
work
sharing
plan.
Section
17
authorizes
a
work
share
employer
to
request
a
modification
of
an
approved
plan
when
the
administrator
must
approve
or
disapprove
within
15
days.
J
Section
18
provides
that
a
person
is
eligible
to
receive
work,
sharing
benefits
within
respect
to
any
week.
Only
if
the
person
is
monetarily
eligible
for
unemployment
compensation
and
is
employed
as
a
member
of
an
affected
unit
under
an
approved
plan,
the
person
must
be
available
to
work
the
usual
hours
of
work
while
collecting
the
unemployment
benefit.
J
Section
18
also
provides
that
the
person
is
deemed
unemployed
in
any
week
during
the
duration
of
such
work
sharing
plan,
if
his
or
her
compensation
is
reduced,
based
on
a
reduction
of
usual
hours
of
work,
section
19
prescribes
the
manner
in
which
the
weekly
weekly
benefit
amount
for
work.
Sharing
benefits
are
calculated,
which
is
proportional
to
the
reduction
in
hours
for
the
employee
under
the
work
sharing
plan.
J
Thank
you,
chair
hadagi,
and
I
would
turn
this
over
to
dieter.
If
they
have
any
additional
comments
right
now
and
if
not,
we
can
go
to
questions.
M
Yes,
we
do
good
afternoon.
My
name
is
jeffrey
freshman,
I'm
with
the
department
of
employment,
training
and
rehabilitation
with
the
employment
security
division
on
may
10
2020,
the
usdol
issued
a
news
release
announcing
the
availability
of
up
to
100
million
dollars
in
grants
to
support
the
implementation,
promotion
and
improved
administration
of
work
share
programs.
M
F
F
So
on
page
five
section,
eight
sub
eight
there
any
employee
that
is
affected
unit
covered
by
a
collective
bargaining
agreement.
The
written
approval
of
the
bargaining
agent
is
is
designated
so
so
basically
you're
saying
if
this
isn't
in
your
cba,
it
can't
happen.
We
it's
not
because
sometimes
statute
will
trump
a
collective
bargaining
agreement.
We
understand
laws
stronger
than
a
union
contract.
J
Decision,
thank
you,
assemblywoman
carlton,
and
I'm
going
to
ask
the
people
on
the
zoom
screen
to
jump
in
there.
Please.
Thank
you.
M
F
And-
and
thank
you
much
very
much,
madam
chair-
I'm
eventually
I'm
going
to
need
something
more
than
it's
my
understanding,
yes
or
no
would
be
really
really
great.
So
I'm
going
to
go
to
the
other
side
of
the
coin.
Before
I
had
a
union
job,
and
I
was
waiting
tables
and
I'm
going
to
use
the
example
of
I'm
working
in
a
family
restaurant.
F
Let's
just
say
it
was
marie
calendars
and
the
a
downturn
happened
and
marie
calendars
came
forward
to
say
we
would
like
to
do
a
work
sharing
agreement
and
the
employer
would
make
that
decision.
The
employees
wouldn't
be
involved
in
it
at
all
and
then,
with
that
decision
made,
that
employer
could
share
that
job
between,
let's
say
two
servers.
F
But
how
do
the
tips
get
taken
care
of
in
this
scheme?
Because
it's
not
about
how
many
days
I
mean
that's
great
for
the
employer,
because
the
employees
still
getting
that
deter
component,
but
in
a
lot
of
jobs,
it's
the
tips
and
how?
How
do
you
deal
with
that?
How
will
that
be
made
up
to
that
employee.
J
M
Jeff
frishman
for
the
record,
when
an
employer
reports
an
employee's
wages
to
the
division,
those
wages
would
include
the
amount
that
they
would
have
earned
in
tips.
Those,
so
those
tip
monies
would
be
reflected
in
the
calculation,
for
the
total
weekly
benefit
amount
that
that
waitress
would
be
entitled
to.
F
So
would
that
be
the
allocated
tip
system
that
the
federal
government
has
set
up
where
I
haven't
allocated
tip
amount?
That's
applied
every
hour
that
I
work,
because
that's
the
amount
that
I
pay
taxes
on
or
would
it
be
the
actual
amount
of
tips
that
the
server
makes
declared
or
would
it
be
like
the
credit
card
tips?
There's
there's
three
different
ways
to
record
tips.
M
F
And
thank
you
very
much.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
get
that
on
the
record,
because
a
lot
of
people
live
off
of
their
tips
and
if,
if
the
employer
is
reporting
it,
it
may
not
actually
reflect
the
amount
of
money
that
that
tipped
person
is
making.
So,
thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair.
We
know
the
service
industry
in
las
vegas
is
huge
and
we
know
those
restaurants
have
been
hit
really
hard
and
we
want
to
do
everything
we
can
to
get
them
back
up
on
their
feet.
F
We
want
to
help
employers,
I'm
actually
supportive
of
a
restaurant
association
bill
this
year
for
the
first
time
in
24
years,
but
I
don't
want
to
see
the
tipped
folks
end
up
losing
money
in
the
long
run,
because
that's
the
biggest
part
of
their
wages
is
the
tips
not
the
hourly
wage.
Not
every
server
in
las
vegas
makes
a
good
hourly
wage.
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair.
L
If
I
may,
one
is
in,
let's
see
if
I'm
looking
at
section,
oh
section
12
on
page
four
down
to
subsection
three,
where
it
talks
about
the
reduction,
may
must
not
be
less
than
ten
percent
and
not
more
than
60
percent,
and
just
wondering
how
we
came
up
with
those
percentages,
because
I
would
think
that
10,
you
trigger
a
lot
more
applicants
if
we're
just
reducing
somebody's
hours
by
ten
percent,
and
you
know
versus
I
know
a
lot
of
other
states
as
I
just
looked
it
up
quickly
or
more
in
that
you
know
twenty
to
forty
percent
range
and
and
there's
a
good
portion
that
are
ten
percent.
L
J
M
Let
me
say
that
as
far
as
our
capacity,
there
is
a
amendment
to
this,
which
would
mean
that
we
would
not
have
to
implement
this
until
july
of
2022,
and
it
is
our
belief
that
we
would
be
able
to
implement
and
get
this
off
the
ground,
allowing
us
it's
13
months,
14
months
from
now,
and
we
believe
we
could
accomplish
that
regarding
the
10.
M
To
be
very
honest,
I'm
not
sure
on
the
the
bill
when
it
was
written
as
to
why
the
10
and
60
percent-
that's
an
answer.
I
honestly
just
don't
know
the
question
that
I
honestly
don't
know
the
answer
to.
L
J
Thank
you
very
much
and
and
marilyn
dondero
loop
for
the
record.
If
you'll
see
at
the
very
end,
the
2022
he's
referring
to
in
the
fir
is
in
the
first
reprint
where
that
date
is,
and
I
believe
when
we
crafted
the
bill,
I
think
we
looked
at.
If
I
remember
correctly,
we
looked
at
other
states
and
what
they
had
done
and
that's
where
the
10
to
60
percent
was
assigned.
A
Really
quick
senator
dondero
loop?
Is
there
an
additional
amendment,
or
was
he
referring
to
a
past
amendment
that.
J
L
Assemblymember
tools,
thank
you.
So
do
we
have
estimates
and-
and
I
know
it's
voluntary,
so
it
may
be
hard
too
hard
to
make
an
estimate,
but
do
we
have
an
estimate
if
this
were
enacted
in
july
of
2022?
J
Marilyn
dondero
loop
for
the
record.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
question.
I
will
let
dieter
jump
in
there,
but
because
this
you
are
absolutely
right.
This
is
may
it's
not
you
know
have
to,
and
so
we
it
would
be
really
hard
to
come
up
with
a
standard
number,
because
two
small
businesses
right
next
to
each
other.
One
may
do
it
and
one
may
not.
A
A
M
Jeff
frishman
for
the
record.
When
we
first
saw
this
bill,
we
did
contact
several
other
states
to
understand
just
how
many
employers
actually
utilize
this
choice
or
opt
into
the
program.
M
M
Oregon
also
has
approximately
double
the
number
of
employers
that
we
have
here
in
nevada,
so
we
would
assume
it
would
be
about
half
of
that
150..
That's
an
assumption
based
on
the
numbers
from
oregon.
We
also,
while
touching
with
other
states.
I
believe
it
was
a
state
of
oklahoma,
told
us
that
they
had
less
than
five
employers
in
a
year
that
were
using
it
prior
to
the
pandemic.
M
A
M
Jeff
freshman
for
the
record.
I'm
sorry
I
don't
have
that
information,
but
I'm
going
to
defer
to
our
chief
economist.
I
believe
he
could
probably
shed
some
light
on
that
dave
schmidt.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
G
David
schmidt
for
the
record
chief
economist
for
dieter,
because
of
the
relatively
low
overall
numbers
of
participation,
the
the
volume
isn't
really
there
to
have
a
really
big
impact
on
unemployment
rates.
We
could
certainly
take
a
look,
but
I
would
expect
it
would
probably
be
pretty
marginal
in
normal
times
trying
to
assess
what
impact
it
may
have
had
during
covid
would
be
really
challenging
just
because
of
everything
else.
G
A
Okay-
and
I
do
have
just
since
I'm
already
asking
my
line
of
questions-
I'm
just
going
to
keep
going
and
then
I'll
and
then
I'll
move
on
to
assembly
member
duran.
But
now
will
I
will
this
just
be
grant
money
that
federal
grant
money,
or
will
there
be
an
expectation
on
the
small
business
side
as
well.
M
Jeff
freshman
for
the
record
we
would.
We
would
expect
to
then
anticipate
that
we
could
receive
grant
money
in
order
to
implement
it.
Do
the
necessary
program
in
rit
system
and
from
what
we
learned
from
oregon
was
they
had
approximately
one
fte
or
two,
or
was
it
three
ftes,
I'm
sorry
that
were
assigned
to
this
particular
program
during
the
course
during
normal
times,
so
we're
looking
at
about
one
and
a
half
fte,
roughly
two
ftes.
M
As
far
as
the
employers
contributing
again,
this
is
an
opt-in
program,
no
employer's
force.
It's
a
choice,
it's
a
tool
in
their
toolbox,
and
I
cannot
think
of
where
this
is
going
to
cost
an
employer
more
money,
except
for
the
fact
that
they
will
continue
to
be
responsible
to
pay
for
the
benefits
of
those
employees.
M
F
F
M
Jeff
richmond
for
the
record.
I
do
not
believe
that's
correct,
I'm
totally
correct
the
the
dollars
that
would
be
coming
in
would
it
would
affect
the
the
experience
rating
of
the
employer
and
those
dollars
would
be
coming.
The
center
you're
right,
it's
coming
from
the
trust
fund,
but
the
employers
that
have
are
laying
folks
off
would
be
their
experience
rating
would
be
affected.
F
M
Jeff
hershman
for
the
record,
I'm
going
to
ask
dave
schmidt
again
to
respond
to
that.
He
has
a
better
understanding
of
the
repayments
in
the
trust
fund.
Thank
you.
G
M
G
David
chief
economist
for
dieter-
I
I
think
you
you
definitely
have
the
the
broad
strokes
of
it
correct,
because
the
benefits
being
paid
out
would
the
the
that
obligation
would
have
to
be
repaid
and
all
employers
will
will
be
participating.
All
contributory
employers
will
be
participating
in
the
repayment
of
those
benefits.
G
There
would
be
a
slightly
higher
burden
on
any
employer
who
is
participating
in
work
share
instead
of
keeping
people
employed,
but
because
the
amount
of
benefits
that
are
paid
under
work
share
are
potentially
less
so
it
would
cost
them
less
to
be
in
work
share
than
to
fire
a
person
potentially
if
they
end
up
having
fewer
benefits
paid
out
overall.
G
In
addition,
because
of
one
of
the
provisions
in
the
bill
which
states
that
employers
who
have
a
negative
reserve
ratio
cannot
participate,
the
there's
less
opportunity
for
an
employer
who's
already
under
water
and
at
the
maximum
rate,
they
can't
participate
in
this.
So
only
people
who
could
potentially
see
or
only
employers
who
could
potentially
see
higher
contribution
rates,
I
would
be
eligible
to
participate,
so
there's
no
sort
of
way
for
them
to
to
escape
the
charging
of
those
benefits.
F
And
thank
you
very
much,
madam
sharon.
I'm
sorry
it
took
me
a
couple,
but
it's
when
we're
doing
this
long
distance.
Sometimes
we
don't
really
get
our
point
across
as
well,
and
it's
been
a
long
day,
so
I
may
not
be
talking
as
clearly
as
I
need
to,
but
from
what
I.
What
I
have
heard
is
that,
in
order
to
repay
the
trust
fund,
this
will
impact
impact.
F
The
trust
fund
and
those
payments
are
spread
across
all
employers
that
pay,
but
that
will
have-
and
we
know,
they're
going
to
have
rate
increases
because
we
know
we've
been
pulling
money
down
from
the
trust
fund.
So
it's
a
given
that
there's
going
to
be
a
rate
increase,
but
this
will
be
applied
across
all
employers
is
what
I
was
hearing.
M
M
If,
as
an
example,
if
you
have
an
employer
who
has
two
employees
in
this
work
share
to
make
it
very
simple,
the
those
in
both
of
each
one
of
those
employees
earn
500
a
week,
each
one
of
those
employees
would
have,
for
instance,
400
from
unemployment
insurance
benefits
that
they
would
be
entitled
to
per
week.
M
So
if
each
one
of
their
hours
are
cut
to
20
hours
a
week
or
cut
in
half,
they
would
earn
from
their
job
250
dollars
from
wages,
and
they
would
be
entitled
to
half
of
what
they
would
have
been
entitled
to
for
their
unemployment
insurance
benefits.
M
Or
would
I
say,
400
a
week,
so
they'd
be
entitled
to
200
a
week,
so
they
would
take
home
450
dollars
each
now,
if
you
think
about
it,
if
they
laid,
if
the
employer
just
laid
off
one
employee,
four
hundred
dollars
would
be
coming
out
of
the
unemployment
insurance
trust
fund.
Anyway-
and
this
way
there
are
two
people
drawing
out
of
the
unemployment
insurance
trust
fund,
but
they're
drawing
two
hundred
dollars
a
piece
which
of
course
equals
the
400.
A
Mr
freshman,
I'm
gonna
encourage
you
to
maybe
chat
offline
with
our
vice
chair,
because
I
don't
think
that's
the
an
answer
to
a
question
that
she
asked.
I
think
she
was
asking
a
different
type
of
question
not
in
regards
to
the
benefits
received,
but
in
regards
to
how
many
employers
will
help
contribute
to
the
repayment
of
the
trust
fund.
So,
but
I
am
going
to
move
on
because
we
have
other
questions
from
the
committee
and
I
would
encourage
you
to
maybe
touch
base
with
our
vice
chair
offline.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
My
question
is
for
a
person
that
has
two
jobs,
because
there's
a
lot
of
times
that
I
know
that
they
lay
them
off
from
one
job
and
they
can
collect
because
they're
are.
How
is
this
going
to
affect
them
that
a
person's
laid
off
from
one
job
and
they
have
that
their
employers,
or
he
participates
in
that
work,
share
program?
How
does
that
affect
him
with
his
other
position?
G
G
If
the
total
reduction
across
all
of
their
jobs
is
less
than
10,
then
they
don't
qualify
for
work
share
in
sort
of
in
accordance
with
the
10
to
60
rule
and
also,
if
their
second
employer,
if
they
don't
work
at
all
for
them,
then
that
employment
is
not
considered
and
only
the
reduction
in
hours
from
the
work
sharing
employer
is
considered.
But,
for
example,
someone
who
works
40
hours
a
week,
let's
say
at
two
different
jobs
and
has
one
of
those
cut
in
half
to
participate
in
work
share.
G
Their
overall
reduction
in
hours
would
go
from
eight.
They
would
go
from
80
hours
to
60
hours,
they
have
seen
a
25
reduction,
and
so
that's
the
amount
that
would
be
applied
to
their
work
share.
So
they
don't
get
the
whole
sort
of
credit
for
their
their
hours.
Just
at
the
work
share
employer,
it's
proportional
to
their
total
combined.
A
L
So
you
know
I
mean
if
it's
150
employers
are
we
talking,
maybe
just
a
few
employees
at
each
of
those
or
are
we
talking
thousands
just
wondering
what
the
scope
of
impact
was
thanks.
M
A
M
M
Jeff
frishman
for
the
record.
Yes,
we
would
establish.
The
administrator
would
establish
what
that
process
is.
We
have
gotten
some
indication
from
other
states
that
they
have
some
specialists
who
help
walk
through
the
the
employers
to
they.
They
provide
staff
to
help
the
employers
walk
through
the
application
process,
and
I
would
anticipate
that
we
would
model
our
program
along
those
lines.
A
E
A
C
A
C
C
J
Just
thank
you
very
much.
I
know
it's
been
a
long
day,
so
I
appreciate
your
time.
A
N
N
We
worked
closely
with
senator
harris
on
this
bill,
as
well
as
the
various
stakeholders
in
the
field,
including
our
friends
in
organized
labor,
the
nevada
resort
association,
the
nevada,
self-insured
association,
employers,
insurance,
company
of
nevada,
nevada,
resort
association
and
employers
insurance
company
of
nevada.
Both
indicated
that
I
could
represent
today
that
they
are
in
support
of
this
bill
as
well
as
we
move
forward.
N
I
would
in
the
interest
of
time,
because
I
know
it's
a
long
day
here-
I'm
going
to
go
through
and
explain,
even
though
the
bill
has
various
sections
to
it.
The
way
lb
lcb
is
drafted
because
it
touches
so
many
different
areas
of
law.
N
It
causes
the
the
sections
to
jump
around
a
little
bit,
but
the
issues
are
the
same,
so
I'm
going
to
address
them
by
issues
and
then
reference
the
sections.
If
that
would
help
first
and
foremost,
is
that
sections
one
and
seven
are
dealing
with.
What's
called
the
apportionment
of
ppds
and
forced
installments
ppds
are
permanent
partial
disability
awards.
N
At
the
end
of
cases,
current
case
law
basically
says
that
if
you
had
a
prior
injury
or
a
prior
award
for
a
rating
that
that
the
same
body
part
was
implicated,
then
the
award
would
be
apportioned
or
reduced.
That
is
existing
law
and
what
we're
looking
to
do
with
sections
one
and
seven
is
to
further
clarify
exactly
how
apportionment
should
be
done,
specifically
that
the
apportionment
should
be
done
just
through
prior
ppds
or,
if
there's
existing
medical
records.
That
would
show
that
a
person
had
an
actual
impairment
prior
to
the
injury.
N
Finally,
if
there
were
no
medical
records
that
were
available,
there
will
be
a
section
there's
a
section
in
the
in
the
bill.
That's
namely
sections
one
pages,
four,
five
and
six
that
indicate
that
evidence
of
a
prior
surgery
would
allow
for
apportionment.
N
The
next
section
issue
to
be
addressed
is
found
in
sections
2,
4,
6
and
10..
That's
at
pages
8
10,
12,
13,
15,
16,
17,
24
25.
That
has
to
do
with
the
proof
of
service
of
determinations
by
insurers
on
claimants.
N
What
it
would
do
is,
if
requested,
would
require
an
insurer
when
they
issue
one
of
their
determinations
to
a
claimant,
that
they
would
have
to
send
it
either
by
fax
or
through
other
electronic
transmission,
with
the
proof
of
sending
and
receipt
that
is
readily
verifiable.
This
is
to
address
the
issue
of
determinations
that
sometime
are
questioned
whether
or
not
they've
actually
been
served
on
the
parties,
and
this
is
to
address
that
particular
issue
and
all
it
does.
N
If
there
is
no
proof
of
service,
is
it
simply
tolls
the
the
statute
until
the
parties
have
acknowledged
their
receipt
or
are
able
to
prove
the
receipt
that
they
did
deliver
it?
The
the
next
issue
to
be
addressed
is
in
section
three
that
introduces
lean
language
into
the
industrial
insurance
act.
N
That
is
essentially
in
complement
to
sb
33
from
the
2019
session
to
essentially
carry
out
the
intent
of
the
2019
session
to
allow
the
lean
language
that
was
created
there
to
also
exist
inside
of
the
act
and
therefore
be
internally
consistent.
N
The
the
next
section
is
section
5,
that's
found
at
page
15.,
that
is
with
regard
to
the
recoverable
costs.
That
can
be
incurred
in
the
workers
compensation
claim.
N
Currently
there
are,
there
is
no
mechanism
for
an
injured
worker
to
recover
any
costs
from
from
the
from
having
to
fight
or
defend
an
industrial
insurance
claim,
particularly
this
cost
section
would
allow
for
the
recovery
if
they
are
successful
on
a
litigated
matter,
such
as
deposition
costs,
clerk
of
court
costs,
expert,
witness
costs,
postage
and
copies
and
travel
to
those
deposition
costs,
it
would
only
apply
to
the
costs
that
were
generated
as
a
matter
from
the
issue
that
were
actually
litigated.
N
So
it's
not
the
cost
of
the
entire
claim,
but
only
those
issues
that
incur
costs
that
are
actually
litigated.
It
would
then
be
supplied
to
the
insurer.
N
So
the
insurer
has
the
right
to
review
it
and
then,
if
the
parties
don't
agree
on
those
costs,
then
the
the
appeals
officer
would
then
adjudicate
that
the
the
next
issue
has
to
do
with
the
effect
of
signing
lump
sum
or
your
award
payments,
what
we
call
ppd
awards
and
the
implication
of
what
that
does
to
your
claim,
that's
found
in
section
8
and
that's
at
pages
22
and
23..
N
This
section
would
make
an
amendment
that
if
there
is
any
pending
contested
matter
at
the
time
of
signing
the
the
ppd
or
the
award
documents,
then
those
two
are
preserved
ex
and
the
exception
would
be,
the
scope
of
claim
could
no
longer
be
fought
over
whether
or
not
the
claimant
was
stable
and
readable
could
no
longer
be
fought
over
and
the
average
monthly
wage
could
no
longer
be
fought
over.
N
However,
such
issues
like
out-of-pocket
expenses
that
are
often
left
hanging
at
the
time
when
the
award
needs
to
be
signed
by
the
claimant.
If
they
are
impending
litigation,
then
they
would
be
able
to
continue
on
that
issue
or,
for
example,
retroactive
benefits
that
were
still
owed
that
they
would
otherwise
lose
if
they
signed
the
award.
Even
though
the
parties
already
agreed
what
the
award
is.
N
I
think
it's
important
to
point
out
that
the
intent
and
meaning
of
the
phrase
that
has
to
do
with
when
any
contested
matter
is
pending
at
the
time
of
the
signing
of
the
ppd
documents
means
essentially
anything
that's
been
filed
in
front
of
the
hearing
office,
the
appeals
office,
the
district
court,
the
court
of
appeals,
the
supreme
court
or
any
other
court
of
competent
jurisdiction.
N
Those
are
the
five
sections
of
the
or
the
five
issues
that
that
I'm
addressing
today
and
my
colleague
ms
tosh
will
address
the
other
three
issues
that
are
in
this
bill.
O
Thank
you,
madam
chairwoman,
and
the
committee
for
allowing
us
to
speak
today.
I
am
erica
tosh
erica
last
name,
tosh
on
behalf
of
nja
I'll,
be
discussing
those
sections
that
have
not
already
been
covered
by
my
colleague
here,
specifically
under
sb
289.
O
The
addition
of
nurse
practitioners
and
physicians
assistants
have
been
added
as
medical
professionals
who
will
be
able
to
provide
initial
treatment
and
examinations
to
industrial
claim,
industrial
claimants.
It
allows
the
nurse
practitioners
and
physician
assistants
to
also
complete
c4
forms,
which
are
a
necessary
requirement
for
an
injured
worker
to
initiate
a
workers,
compensation
claim
these
provider.
Medical
providers
can
also
be
required
to
testify,
have
their
opinion
now
considered
and
relied
upon
by
appeals,
officers
and
hearing
officers
in
the
parties.
O
The
language
dealing
with
the
nurse
practitioners
and
physicians
assistants
kind
of
spread
out
throughout
the
bill,
but
you
can
most
readily
find
it
under
subsections
contained
in
section
one,
two:
three,
four:
six
and
nine
of
the
bill.
Next
dealing
with
sections,
2,
4,
6
and
10.
This
bill
will
allow
for
electronic
transmission
of
determinations
medical
signatures
and
providing
a
proof
of
service
by
electronic
means.
Should
a
claimant
or
a
person
acting
on
behalf
of
the
claimant
choose
this
method
of
service.
O
O
O
Section
9
of
sb
289
is
intended
to
rectify
that
situation
by
requiring
that
three
counselors
be
from
different
entities
or
companies,
thus
reinstating
the
choice
that
was
intended
originally
under
ab128.
O
In
short,
these
sections
here
will
provide
additional
medical
professionals
that
can
be
available
to
claim
its
industrial
claims.
It
modernizes
the
service
of
documents
and
it
clarifies
requirements
for
vocational
rehabilitation,
counselor
assignments
with
that
I'll
pass
the
floor
back
to
my
colleague,
mr
mills,.
N
Madam
chair,
that
concludes
our
presentation.
We
know
that
we
wanted
to
leave
as
much
time
as
possible
for
any
questions
that
you
or
any
of
the
members
of
the
committee
may
have
and
we're
available
for
any
of
your
questions.
A
F
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair
hello,
mr
mills.
It's
very
nice
to
see
you
again,
even
though
it's
remotely
so
in
all
my
years
in
this
building
doing
workers
comp
bills.
Thank
you
for
having
such
a
concise
presentation,
and
it's
my
impression
with
talking
with
the
folks
that
were
involved
in
this
particular
bill,
which
is
always
really
great
for
workers
comp
is.
F
N
Madam
vice
chair,
jason
mills
from
nevada
justice-
yes,
that's
correct.
We
spoke
with
all
of
the
major
stakeholders,
like
I
said,
including
the
nevada
resort,
association,
nevada,
self-insured
employers,
insurance
company
of
nevada.
In
fact,
much
of
this
bill
and
contained
language
from
a
bill
that
nevada
self-insured
association
had
pending
under
sb
266,
and
we
incorporated
much
of
the
language
from
their
bill
into
this
bill,
which
is
how
we
were
able
to
achieve
such
wide
consensus
on
this.
On
this
matter
of.
Madam
vice
chair.
F
And-
and
thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair
and
and
mr
mills-
it
it's
always
good
when
the
opposition
stuff
is
in
your
bill
too,
so
that
way
you
both
have
just
as
much
to
lose.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
all
of
your
hard
work
on
this.
I
think
this
will
will
benefit
the
folks
that
you're
trying
to
take
care
of
the
goal
in
the
state
has
always
been
to
get
injured
workers
back
to
work.
F
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
for
that
presentation
and
I
think
you
did
a
great
job
walking
us
through
that.
I
think
it'd
be
great
for
the
committee
and
for
the
record
to
understand
some
of
the.
I
guess
some
of
those
really
bad
practices
that
are
out
there
and
how
some
members
in
nevada
are
disproportionately
impacted
when
we're
talking
about
workers.
Compensation
say
when
we're
comparing
an
injured
employee
from
our
rurals
versus,
maybe
not
las,
vegas
or
reno,
and
I
asked
that
specifically
that
lead
up
question
or
better
said.
B
B
My
understanding
is
that
at
times,
there's
paperwork,
that's
completed
by
nurses
and
pas
and
then
later
results
in
in
those
claims
being
denied,
because
the
mds
didn't
sign
off
on
those
and
obviously
that's
a
there's,
a
whole
host
of
issues
behind
that.
But
I
think
if
you
could
provide
some
context
as
to
that
and
and
just
really
explain
to
folk,
what's
happening
out
there,
I
think
they'll
see
why
this
is
so
important.
O
Thank
you
assembly,
flores,
just
to
address
a
few
of
those
issues.
What
we
see
on
a
pretty
regular
basis
is
that
individuals
seek
out
medical
attention
quickly.
After
an
injury,
however,
there
may
not
be
the
medical
providers
available
to
them
in
the
rural
areas
and
therefore
there's
a
delay
in
getting
that
type
of
c4
or
document.
We
need
to
initiate
a
claim
providing
nurse
practitioners
and
providing
physicians.
O
Assistance
in
those
areas
which
are
are
more
readily
available
will
allow
injured
workers
to
get
the
necessary
documents
they
need
to
pursue
their
claim
and
ideally
get
treatment,
a
lot
quicker
than
they
they
often
are
here
in
in
urban
areas.
We
have
general
facilities
like
central
medical
center,
which
is
pretty
readily
available
for
people
to
seek
medical
attention
and
they
offer
24-hour
care.
B
A
C
H
Madam
chairman,
members
of
the
committee,
bob
ostrowski
for
the
record,
o
s
t
o-s-t-r-o-v-s-k-y
today
we're
representing
the
nevada,
resort
association
and
employers
insurance
company,
the
the
legacy
company
that
was
developed
from
the
old
state
industrial
insurance
system.
I
would
just
like
to
thank
the
members
of
both
the
nja
jason
mills
in
particular,
and
the
nevada
self-insured
employers
association,
who
worked
our
way
through
many
issues
in
this
bill.
H
We
think
we've
reached
a
very
good
balance
and
brought
clarity
to
number
areas
in
the
law
which
will
assist
employees
and
allow
employers
and
their
administrators
a
reasonable
opportunity
to
bring
forward
their
cases.
At
the
same
time,
we
think
this
is
a
very
balanced
bill
and
we
wholeheartedly
support
it
and
ask
for
the
committee
support.
Thank
you.
C
C
I
S-A-R-A-H-A-D-L-E-R
with
silver
state
government
relations
today
proud
to
be
representing
the
nevada,
advanced
practice.
Nurses,
association,
evaluations
required
for
assessing
injured
workers
are
within
the
scope
of
practice
of
nurse
practitioners,
as
ms
tosh
has
detailed,
sb
289
recognizes
the
full
practice
authority,
accountability
and
competence
of
aprns,
as
assemblyman
flores
just
pointed
out,
aprns
are
fully
trained
in
completing
the
c4
claims
and
other
responsibilities.
I
The
passage
of
sb
289
will
streamline
delivery
of
medical
care
to
injured
workers
and
nafna
appreciates
senator
harris.
Bringing
this
forward.
C
H
Unmute,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
This
is
my
name
is
dalton
hooks
I
apologize.
I
did
not
get
in
the
queue
under
support.
I'm
I'm
calling
in
support
of
this
bill
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
health,
insurers
association,
and
we
want
to
thank
mr
mills,
as
well
as
the
other
stakeholders
and
their
work
in
getting
this
very,
very
important
bill
together.
I
apologize.
A
C
A
N
I
would
just
like
to
jason
mills,
nevada
justice
association.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
would
just
like
to
say
thanks
to
senator
harris
for
bringing
together
this
much
needed
legislation.
I
would
like
to
thank
this
committee
and
yourself,
the
chair
and
the
other
members
of
the
committee
for
taking
this
bill
under
consideration
and
ask
for
your
support.
I
would
also
like
to
thank
the
stakeholders
that
we
worked
with
nevada
resort
association,
nevada,
self-insured
association,
the
the
employers,
insurance
company
of
nevada
and
other
stakeholders.
N
Your
dedication
and
understanding
of
these
topics
has
always
been
refreshing
to
me
and
I
just
wanted
to
say,
you're
going
to
be
missed.
F
A
Thank
you
and
committee
members
with
that
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
289.
Okay,
thank
you,
members.
I
know
this
has
been
a
long
day
for
many
of
us,
but
we
do
have
one
item
left
on
our
agenda,
which
is
public
comment
and
while
we
give
those
time
to
who
are
listening
over
the
internet
time
to
call
in,
I
will
go
through
quick
public
comment
housekeeping.
A
A
Bill
testimony
so
that
we
establish
a
public
record
on
it,
so
public
comment
is
not
intended
to
be
a
continuation
of
a
bill
hearing.
I
would
remind
everyone
to
please
be
respectful
while
providing
public
comment,
and
you
can
always
submit
your
public
comment
as
written
remarks
to
our
committee
manager
for
inclusion
in
the
record
with
that
broadcasting.
Is
there
anyone
in
queue
for
public
comment.
C
A
Okay,
thank
you,
members.
Any
other
comments
from
committee
members
before
we
adjourn
okay
at
this
time.
I
do
want
to
wish
all
of
our
mothers
on
the
committee
and
all
of
our
mothers,
who
are
committee
staff
a
very
happy
mother's
day.
This
weekend,
please
go
home
and
enjoy
a
wonderful
time
with
your
family
and
happy
mother's
day.
We
are.