►
From YouTube: 5/27/2021 - 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
E
C
A
Here,
thank
you,
madam
secretary.
If
you
will
mark
all
other
members
absent
excuse
and
please
mark
them
present
as
they
arrive,
welcome
everyone
who
is
here
with
us
in
person
to
everyone
who
is
listening
online
on
the
internet
and
everyone
who
is
on
the
telephone
line.
I
would
like
to
give
you
guys
a
lay
of
the
land
so
that
everyone
who
is
here
for
other
bills
can
excuse
themselves
if
we
do
not
get
to
them.
A
I
will
be
taking
the
agenda
out
of
order
today,
so
we
will
be
starting
with
assembly
bill
386,
followed
by
I'm
sorry
senate
bill
386,
followed
by
senate
bill
340,
followed
by
senate
bill
325.
A
Then
we
will
take
the
remainder
of
the
senate
bills
in
numerical
order,
so
senate
bill
205,
291
and
sb
453
last
for
those
of
you
who
did
not
make
it
into
the
room,
we
do
have
an
overflow
room
set
up
in
31.42
because
of
the
number
of
bills
on
our
agenda.
Today
I
would
like
to
get
through
as
many
of
them
as
possible.
We
will
be
limiting
the
bill
hearings
to
30
minutes
per
bill.
A
So
members,
if
you
have
questions,
I
would
encourage
you
to
take
them
offline
and
continue
the
conversations
we
will
be
meeting
again,
possibly
tomorrow.
So
there
is
time
to
continue
conversations
at
this
time,
I'm
going
to
forego
housekeeping.
I
think
everyone
knows.
Electronics
off
member
use,
members
use
their
laptop
to
view
exhibits
and
bills.
It's
not
a
sign
of
inattention,
so
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
roll
right
into
our
bill
hearings
and
open
the
bill
hearing
on
senate
bill
386,
which
revises
provisions
relating
to
certain
businesses.
A
G
G
Thank
you,
paul
moore,
with
mccracken,
stemmerman
and
holsberry,
and
here
with
dee
taylor
from
the
culinary
union,
we're
here
today
with
a
very
important
bill
and
a
bill.
That's
been
the
product
of
quite
a
bit
of
work
in
the
senate,.
G
By
the
committees
and
by
the
senate,
and
also
between
the
culinary
and
the
local
joint
executive
board
and
the
nevada
resort
association,
this
is
a
measure
that
is
quite
important
for
getting
nevada's
economy
back
to
work
for
getting
the
many
workers
who
were
laid
off
as
a
result
of
the
pandemic
back
to
the
jobs
that
they
were
in
before,
and
it
is
a
law
that
has
been
a
passed
in
similar
forms
in
many
cities
and
now
by
the
state
of
california
before
nevada.
G
The
basic
outline
of
the
law
is
as
follows:
workers
who
in
select
industries
the
industries
that
have
been
hit
hardest
by
the
pandemic
in
the
tourism
and
hospitality
and
gaming
industries,
those
who
have
been
laid
off
as
a
result
of
the
pandemic
and
through
no
fault
of
their
own,
will
have
a
path
back
to
their
jobs.
G
G
G
We've
worked
with
industry
to
make
sure
that,
if
someone
rejects
an
offer
that
eventually
employers
don't
have
to
keep
making
offers
to
that
person,
so
essentially
you
get
three
bona
fide
offers.
G
If
you're
a
laid
off
employee
that
you
can
turn
down
and
at
that
point,
an
employer
does
not
need
to
continue
making
offers,
and
we've
worked
very
closely
with
industry
to
create
an
enforcement
process
that
we
think
works
well
under,
which
laid
off
employees
who
believe
their
rights
have
been
violated,
can
either
go
to
court
or
can
take
their
complaint
to
the
labor
commissioner.
G
We
think
this
is
a
hugely
important
measure.
It's
important
for
the
many
many
workers
who
lost
their
jobs
during
the
pandemic,
and
they
were
now
looking
for
a
way
back
to
the
jobs
that
they've
worked
for
10
20
30
years
and
also
contained
in
sb
386
are
updates
to
sb4
from
2020,
which
created
certain
obligations
on
employers
to
address
the
risk
of
covid
spread,
and
we
have
again
worked
with
industry
to
look
at
ways
to
revise
those
obligations
to
bring
them
up
to
date,
with
the
most
recent
cdc
and
state
health
guidance.
G
G
We
believe
for
bridging
from
the
pandemic
partially
closed
situation
that
the
economy
was
in
to
bringing
those
who
were
laid
off
back
to
work.
G
I'm
going
to
stop
there
and
see
whether
detailer
wants
to
add
some
comments,
and
I
will
remain
if
there
are
questions
about
the
bill.
We
also
have
robert
ostrovsky
from
the
nevada
resort
association
who
is
with
us
and
with
whom
we
worked
quite
closely
on
refining
the
language
in
this
bill.
Who's
also
available
in
these
questions.
A
Thank
you,
mr
moore,
and
at
this
time
I
think
we
will
go
to
the
majority
leader
canazarro
first
for
remarks,
and
then
we
can
go
to
mr
d,
taylor
and
mr
bob
of
strawski
after,
and
I
would
just
like
to
remind
the
presenters
that
we
do
have
a
heavy
agenda,
so
we
could
keep
our
remarks
and
then
go
to
question
and
answers.
Thank
you.
D
Absolutely
and
thank
you
chair
haruki
and
members
of
the
assembly,
commerce
and
labor
committee.
My
name
is
nicole
cannazzaro.
I
represent
senate
district
six.
It
is
located
in
the
northwest
portion
of
the
las
vegas
valley,
and
I
am
pleased
to
be
here
today
to
present
to
you
senate
bill
386,
which
provides
a
pathway
towards
back
to
employment,
rather
for
so
many
of
our
workers
that
we
know
have
been
so
affected
by
the
pandemic
in
this
last
year.
D
D
Fundamentally,
I
think
what
this
bill
is
aiming
to
do
is
to
say
to
those
workers
who
have
been
laid
off
since
the
pandemic,
who
had
a
job
one
day
and
found
themselves
without
a
way
to
provide
for
their
families
the
next
day,
a
pathway
towards
getting
those
jobs
back
and
that's
exactly
what
this
bill
is
designed
to
do.
I
am
very
thankful
for
the
hard
work
of
the
culinary
union.
D
Our
resorts
partners,
the
involvement
of
the
governor's
office
to
make
sure
that
I
think
what
we
have
is
something
that
is
that
not
only
makes
sense,
but
also
provides
some
clarity
for
how
this
process
should
work
and
ensures
that
those
workers
who
have
lost
their
jobs
have
a
pathway.
Back
to
that.
D
I
obviously
have
grew
up
in
a
household
where
my
parents,
a
bartender
and
a
waitress,
worked
hard
every
single
day
to
make
sure
that
we
had
what
we
needed
in
our
household.
And
so
for
me.
I
understand
some
of
the
plight
for
those
who,
just
simply
don't
have
the
means
to
provide
for
their
family
and
how
important
it
is
to
make
sure
that
we
can
still
do
that,
and
I
think,
in
the
face
of
a
pandemic.
D
It
requires
us
to
take
action
to
ensure
that
that
is
something
that
we
can
promise
to
workers
here
in
nevada,
especially
those
who
support
one
of
our
top
industries
and
help
make
nevada
the
kind
of
place
that
people
do
want
to
come
and
visit
this
security
and
this
economic
security
of
knowing
that
they
have
an
opportunity
to
return
to
their
jobs.
When
business
returns-
and
I
think
that's
an
important
piece
as
well,
I
think
is
a
critical
piece
and
the
whole
purpose
for
this
legislation.
D
So
chair
hadiguya
can
walk
the
committee
through
the
bill.
Very
briefly,
section
4
of
senate
bill
386
in
its
first
reprint,
provides
that
the
provisions
of
sections
2
through
28
establish
minimum
labor
standards
and
does
not
preempt
or
prevent
employment
standards
that
are
not
that
are
more
protective
and
beneficial
for
employee.
Please.
Nor
do
these
provisions
supersede
an
employee's
right
to
recall.
Pursuant
to
a
collective
bargaining
agreement,
section
6-19
defines
certain
terms
applicable
to
the
provisions
of
this
bill.
D
Section
11
defines
covered
enterprises
as
an
airport,
hospitality
operation,
an
airport
service
provider,
a
casino,
an
event
center
or
a
hotel,
that
is
in
a
county
whose
population
is
100
000
or
more
section.
16
defines
a
laid
off
employee
as
an
employee
who
was
employed
by
employer
for
not
less
than
six
months
during
the
12
months,
immediately
proceeding
march
12
2020
and
whose
most
recent
separation
from
the
employer
occurred
after
march
12
2020,
which
was
due
to
a
governmental
order,
lack
of
business
reduction
in
force
or
other
economic
non-disciplinary
reason.
D
Section
20
requires
an
employer
in
the
event
of
a
layoff
to
provide
an
employee
who
is
to
be
laid
off
a
written
notice
to
the
layoff
of
the
layoff,
which
must
include
a
notice
of
the
layoff
and
effective
date
of
such
layoff.
A
summary
of
the
right
to
re-employment
pursuant
to
sections
2-28
of
the
act
and
contact
information
for
the
person
who
the
employer
has
designated
to
receive.
On
behalf
of
the
employer,
an
aggrieved
employee's
written
notice
on
alleged
violation
of
the
provisions
of
this
bill.
D
The
notice
must
be
provided
at
the
same
time
of
layoff.
However,
if
the
layoff
took
place
before
the
effective
date
of
this
act,
the
employer
must
provide
such
notice
within
20
days
after
the
effective
date
of
this
act.
Section
21
requires
employers
to
retain
certain
information
of
an
employee
section.
22
requires
the
employer
to
offer
a
laid
off
employee
each
job
position
which
becomes
available
after
the
effective
date
of
this
act
and
which
the
employee,
the
laid
off
employees
qualify.
D
Section
22
requires
employers
to
offer
job
positions
in
an
order
of
preference
beginning
with
the
same
or
similar
position.
The
employee
filled
at
the
covered
enterprise
at
the
time
of
the
layoff,
and
the
employer
is
also
required
to
afford
a
laid-off
employee
who
is
offered
a
position
at
least
24
hours
to
accept
or
decline.
D
The
offer
a
laid
off
employee
who
is
offered
a
job
must
be
available
to
return
to
work
within
five
days
after
accepting
the
offer,
if
the
laid
off
employee
does
not
respond
to
the
offer
or
is
not
available
to
return
to
work
within
five
days,
the
employer
may
recall
the
next
available
employee
with
the
greatest
length
of
service,
an
employer
who
declines
to
recall
laid
off
employee,
because
the
employee
lacks
the
qualification
and
hires.
Another
person
must
know
later
than
30
days
after
making.
D
Section
23
prohibits
an
employer
from
terminating
reducing
compensation,
refusing
to
employ
or
otherwise
take
adverse
action
against
a
person
who
takes
certain
actions
in
relation
to
the
provisions
of
this
act.
Section
24
authorizes
the
enforcement
of
the
provisions
of
this
act
by
an
aggrieved
employee
through
the
labor
commissioner,
or
a
civil
action
in
court.
Section
24
sets
forth
certain
standards
for
establishing
and
rebutting
certain
presumptions
concerning
violations
of
the
act.
D
Section
26
provides
the
sections
of
tw
sections
provisions
of
sections
2
through
28
apply
to
all
employees,
regardless
of
whether
the
employees
are
represented
by
a
collective
bargaining
agreement,
but
does
provide
that
the
provisions
of
this
act
do
not
apply
to
a
laid-off
employee.
Who
is
a
party
to
a
valid
severance
agreement.
D
Finally,
the
bill
provides
that
regulations
adopted
by
the
director
and
district
boards
of
health
to
reduce
and
prevent
covet
19
transmission
must
be
amended
to
reflect
the
new
requirements
and
that
provisions
in
these
regulations
that
conflict
with
this
bill
are
unenforceable.
Madam
chair,
that
does
conclude
my
brief
walk
through
of
the
bill.
I
know
that
mr
moore
had
already
addressed
the
committee
and
he
I
and
mr
taylor-
and
I
think
you
mentioned
as
well.
Mr
ostrowski
can
answer
any
questions
that
the
committee
may
have
about
this
bill.
A
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
forgive
me
nice
to
see
you
majority
leader
and
forgive
me
for
I'm
looking
at
a
couple
different
amendments,
so
I
I
want
to
make
sure
I
didn't
miss
anything.
I
I
do
appreciate
that
a
lot
of
stakeholders
have
come
together
and
worked
on
this
and
and
talked
through
concerns.
Was
there
any
kind
of
employee
limit
that
was
added
to
this,
where
it
would
impact
a
company?
Let's
say
that
has
50
employees
or
less
differently
than
a
company
that
has
50
or
more
employees
did.
D
F
You
follow
yes,
yes,
okay,
thank
you
and
I
I
do
appreciate
the
intent
you
know
we
have.
We
have
a
lot
of
tenants
in
northern
nevada.
It's
been
quite
a
year
about
120
small
businesses
in
northern
nevada
that
we're
connected
with
personally
and
just
trying
to
think
through
how
this
can
impact
them.
Have
you
spent
time
talking
with
those
small
businesses
working
with
chambers
working
with
those
groups
to
talk
through
how
these
provisions
might
work?
F
These
are
typically
small
mom-and-pop
shops
that
we're
not
dealing
with
collective
bargaining
agreements
or
what
have
you?
It's
just
you
know
those
tiny
retailers
and
tiny
restaurants
and
nail
salons
those
kind
of
places.
Just
what's
the
feedback
been
in
in
regards
to
how
this
might
impact
them
thanks.
D
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblywoman
nicole
canozzaro
senate
district
six,
so
I
would
point
to
section
11
for
what
constitutes
a
covered
enterprise
and
certainly
would
welcome
if
mr
moore
has
any
additional
information
he
would
want
to
provide
in
addition
to
that.
But
we
are
not
talking
about
every
business
throughout
the
state
of
nevada.
D
It
is
designed
to
get
at
those
hospitality,
type,
businesses
that
are
included,
and
so
we've
obviously
had
a
lot
of
conversations
about
some
of
the
more
impacted
businesses
that
would
face
some
of
these
some
of
these
provisions,
but
some
of
the
I
think,
some
of
the
smaller
businesses
that
you
might
just
be
thinking
of
wouldn't
fall
under
the
provisions
of
this
bill.
F
So
so
not
the
small
retailer
or
the
you
know,
small
nail
salon,
but
maybe
more
the
small
like
restaurant
or
bar
would
still
and
I'll
go
back
and
look
and
I
do
apologize.
I've
had.
I
have
a
couple
amendments
in
front
of
me,
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
was
looking
at
the
right
one
section
11.,
but
so
smaller
restaurants
and
bars
might
fall
into
this
in
within
that
hospitality
definition.
D
A
Okay,
I
do
I
have
a
question
majority
leader,
but
I
do
know.
I
believe
there
was
actually
remarks
that
were
part
of
the
presentation
that
I
skipped
so
at
this
time.
I
do
want
to
go
to
mr
ostrowski.
H
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chairperson
members
of
the
committee
bob
ostroska,
on
behalf
of
the
numbers
out
of
resort
association.
We
started
out
opposed
to
this
legislation
in
the
senate
through
some
really
good
faith.
Negotiations
may
be
able
to
move
our
position
off
of
that.
We
are
now
officially
neutral
on
a
majority
vote
of
the
board
of
of
the
resort
association.
H
So
that
should
be
clear
on
the
record.
You
know
we
had
350
000
employees
in
the
hospitality
industry
in
february
of
2020
by
april
of
2020
was
less
than
200
000,
so
it
was
greatly
impacted.
H
Our
association
has
77
members
out
of
175
plus
unrestricted
casino
licenses
in
the
state
to
represent
just
not
quite
a
majority
of
those,
but
certainly
their
larger
properties,
and
we
just
wanted
to
express
the
fact
that
we
appreciate
working
with
the
with
with
the
members
of
the
negotiating
side
on
behalf
of
the
culinary
union
and
to
the
extent
the
distance
in
which
they
moved
from
the
original
language.
H
H
It
is
so
very
important
for
us
to
understand
that
the
sections
involving
sb4
from
the
special
session
are
included
in
here,
and
the
record
should
be
clear.
H
We
discussed
this
with
the
advocates
of
this
bill
they're
in
agreement
with
that.
So
there's
no
confusion
about
the
difference
between
sb4
and
this
bill
and
clarify
that
those
sections
become
effective
on
june
1,
that's
28.1
to
28.3
and
section
28.5
does
not
authorize
the
department
of
health
and
human
services
or
local
health
district
to
make
further
amendments
to
provisions
of
these
sections.
As
stated
by
the
majority
leader
and
I'm
available
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
mr
strasskin.
That
was
actually
perfect
timing,
because
that
kind
of
leads
me
into
the
question
I
had-
and
it's
probably
going
to
be
for
our
legal
counsel.
If
that's
okay,
mr
quask,
because
I
know
that
during
the
summer
we
did
pass
sb4
and
section
4
was
it's
now
nrs,
and
so
I
had
similar
questions
that
sp
386
isn't
in
conflict.
Isn't
the
intent
of
sb
386
is
consistent
with
sb4
and
specifically
the
sections
that
mr
ostrowski
was
referencing
section
28,
1,
2,
3.
I
That's
correct,
nrs
447.32
sets
forth
certain
periods
in
which
the
provisions
of
that
you're
referring
to
an
sb4
provisions
of
nrs447.300
to
447.355
the
periods
in
which
those
apply
sections
28.1
to
28.3,
amend
sections
within
those
sections,
and
so
they
would
also
apply
within
the
periods
prescribed
in
447.325.
A
J
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair
detailer,
from
united
international
union.
I
want
to
applaud
and
thank
both
the
nevada
resort
association.
I
also
want
to,
I
obviously
recognize
speaker,
canazario
and
her
work
on
this,
and
I
want
to
put
this
in
perspective
in
one
way.
J
The
exact
same
workers
who,
before
the
pandemic
were
praised,
is
the
most
important
asset
of
a
company
should
not
be
viewed
as
discarded
like
a
pair
of
old
shoes
because
of
the
pandemic,
and
this
is
not
a
union
or
non-union
issue
at
all.
This
is
a
basic
worker
issue
that
allows
people
to
get
back
on
their
feet
and
get
back
to
work.
J
I
find
that
just
to
be
a
contradiction
that
cannot
live,
and
so
we're
very,
very
hopeful
and
appreciative
if
the
assembly
can
see
through
to
pass
this
measure
to
give
people
the
right
to
go
back
to
their
job
jobs,
they
lost
for
no
other
reason.
Besides
the
pandemic-
and
I
want
to
thank,
like
I
said
all
the
work-
that's
been
done
by
the
nevada
resort
association-
I
want
to
recognize
the
work
that
the
senate
has
done
and
I
would
like
to
have
this
go
forward.
J
So
workers
don't
have
the
double
hit
of
both
losing
their
job
because
of
the
pandemic
and
in
many
cases,
20
or
30
years,
at
a
place
that
they
would
be
discarded,
like,
as
I
said,
a
pair
of
shoes
and
not
be
able
to
go
back
to
work.
So
I
appreciate
it.
Thank
you
and
be
open
to
any
questions
that
are
asked.
K
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
to
the
presenters.
My
question
was
to
mr
ostrowski.
I
believe
the
name
is
so
I
believe
you
said
the
resort
association
was
employing
in
february
20
350
000
it
dropped
to
220
000..
Do
you
know
what
is
the
number
that
is
employed
currently.
H
This
for
the
record
bob
ostrowski
two
year,
three
from
through
the
chair-
I
I
don't
know
the
exact
number
we
were
at
350.
That's
not
just
the
association,
that's
a
industry-wide
number.
H
My
expectation
is
that,
when
this
is
all
over
about,
70
of
the
employees
who
were
working
for
us
back
in
february
of
2020
will
return
to
their
jobs.
Some
30
percent
will,
through
normal
regular
turnover
they
move
they
they
found
another
job.
They
want
more
than
the
one
they
had
we'll
be
have
to
be
filling
those
jobs
from
those
people
who
are
new
applicants
and,
of
course
we
have
new
competitive
casinos
opening
on
the
strip.
H
So
I
I
can't
give
you
a
good
hard
number,
but
I
I'm
guessing
it's
it's
closer
to
275
to
300
300
000.
Now
we've
got
a
ways
to
go,
but
tourism
is
accelerating
at
a
very
high
rate.
Conventions
are
beginning
to
return
and
we're
very
hopeful
that
by
the
time
the
next
convention
season
rolls
around
we'll
be
back
to
full
employment.
If
not
sooner.
Thank
you.
K
Follow-Up
chair
go
ahead.
We
all
hope
that
we
are
fully
fully
not
only
back
to
normal,
but
above
and
I
know
we're
all
wishing
for
that-
and
thank
you.
I
know
that's
kind
of
a
hard
question
for
for
me
to
ask
you
on
the
spot.
K
My
question
kind
of
goes
along
with
that,
though,
so,
if
we've
lost
so
many
people
and
we're
we're
ramping
up
again
we're
hiring
and
what
happens
if
we've
already
employers
at
this
point
have
hired-
and
I
don't
know
if
they've
already
reached
out
to
people
that
were
laid
off
if
they've
done
that,
first
or
not,
but
let's
say
a
lot
of
these
positions
have
been
filled
now
and
now
the
employees
that
were
laid
off
that
haven't
been
offered.
That
position
come
and
want
it,
but
they
don't
have
the
room
for
it.
H
For
the
record
again
bob
ostrowski,
the
the
question
from
the
assemblywoman.
This
bill
only
applies
to
vacancies
that
occur
on
and
after
the
the
this
act
becomes
law.
So
if
positions
have
been
filled
along
the
way,
either
through
recall
or
higher,
those
people
will
not
be
impacted.
H
H
If
I'm
wrong,
paul
can
fall
control
right.
K
So
it
wouldn't
be
a
requirement
to
hire
more
people
than
you
need
because
you've
already
hired
some
people
already,
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
a
lot
of
the
casinos
have
already
been
hiring
a
lot
of
people
to
ramp
up,
and
so
then,
if
this
bill
goes
through
and
it
says
you
have
to
offer
that
to
everybody,
but
there's
no
longer
a
position
for
them.
Will
the
casinos
be
required
to
hire
them
even
though
they
don't
have
a
need?
That's
what
I'm
trying
to
understand.
H
I
know
you're
reading
in
the
newspaper
that
we've
had
hiring
fairs
for
certain
jobs
and
we're
heavily
recruiting
we'll
go
back
again
through
our
recall
list
and
make
sure
that
people
have
seniority
they're
going
to
get
notified
under
the
act
and
they'll
get
recalled
under
the
act.
We
are
not
required
to
create
a
position,
we're
not
required
to
overstaff
in
any
way.
As
a
result
of
this.
A
L
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair
and
mr
strassky,
mr
taylor.
It's
very
nice
to
see
you
so!
Mr
ostrowski,
you
you
just
mentioned
the
question
that
I
had
and
I
I
wanted
you
to
reiterate
that
you
had
mentioned
the
word
seniority.
So,
no
matter
how
it's
looked
at.
If
a
waitress
had
been
a
treasure
island
for
15
years
and
another
one
had
been
there,
seven
that
one
that
had
been
there
for
15
years
would
get
the
first
call
and
you
would
work
down
that
seniority
list.
L
H
Yeah
for
the
record
again
bob
ostrowski
to
assemblywoman
carlton,
yes,
the
most
senior
employee
will
get
the
benefit
of
the
first
recall
on
the
provisions
of
this
bill.
They
actually
get
three
opportunities
at
recall.
There's
a
requirement
here
that
we'll
recall
the
the
person
can
turn
the
job
down
for
whatever
reason
or
no
reason
after
three
weeks,
we
could
recall
them
a
second
time
until
they,
a
third
time
been
recalled
and
and
said
they
did
not
want
to
return.
H
A
M
H
H
Some
of
those
agreements
have
actually
been
extended
by
our
members
so
that
those
recall
rights
have
been
extended
beyond
what
was
normally
about
12
months.
Some
have
extended
them
to
24
months.
Those
have
been
separate
private
negotiations
under
the
terms
of
their
collective
partying
agreements.
Some
of
our
operations
are
non-union,
have
various
policies
in
place
for
recall,
and
so
those
they've
applied.
Those
policies
this
bill
as
drafted,
would
would
overlay
a
new
set
of
rules
that
those
all
of
the
properties
would
have
to
to
go
by
and
benefit
the.
H
I
think
section
four
indicates
in
this
bill
that
if,
if
you
have
a
collective
party
agreement-
and
you
have
benefits
which
are
greater
than
contained
in
this
bill,
the
collective
bargaining
agreement
would
apply
if
your
agreement
doesn't
have
the
the
same
benefits
that
this
bill
offered,
then
this
bill
would
apply.
I
think,
mr
moore,
if
you
want
to
comment
on
that,
I
think
that
was
the
intent
of
section.
G
4.,
I
hope
that
answers
you
paul
moore
for
the
record
to
the
assembly
woman.
Yes,
we
because
collective
bargaining
agreements
frequently
have
recall
provisions
and
those
are
frequently
provisions
that
are
both
offer
greater
protection
and
are
part
of
complicated
systems
for
recall.
G
We
have
included
a
provision
in
section
four
that
makes
clear
that
if
there's
a
conflict
between
the
collective
bargaining
agreements,
recall
procedures
and
what's
in
this
bill,
that
the
collective
bargaining
procedures
would
be
followed
by
the
employer,
the
we
expect
and-
and
we
know
that
many
employers
will
be
bringing
back
their
long-term
employees.
And
so
this
bill
is,
is
there
for
what
we
hope
is
the
outliers
and
to
create
a
floor
so
that
everyone
is
following
the
same
rules.
G
Many
of
the
employers,
as
as
mr
ostrovsky
was
saying
covered
by
this
bill,
have
already
made
commitments
to
bring
back
their
experienced
workforce.
So
this
is
setting
a
minimum
standard
for
union
and
non-union
properties
in
the
covered
counties
so
that
they're
on
a
level
level
playing
field.
H
Yeah
it
just
made
a
chair
for
the
record
bob
ostrowski
again.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
didn't
misstate
that
that,
as
section
4
says,
the
collective
party
agreement
is
going
to
be
looked
at
first
and
clearly,
so
the
collective
agreements
that
I
have
signed
will
be
the
prevailing
document.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
Okay.
At
this
time
we
can
now
move
into
the
testimony
portion
of
the
bill
hearing.
We
are
going
to
start
with
testimony
and
support
in
carson
city
members
because
of
the
number
of
bills
on
our
agenda.
Today,
I
will
remind
you,
I
am
going
to
enforce
the
two
minute
per
speaker
rule,
so
we
can
hear
from
as
many
people
as
possible.
A
N
N
This
is
not
just
a
a
union
bill.
This
is
a
union
and
non-union
worker
and
it
doesn't
just
affect
people
from
the
culinary
union.
I
know
that
that
gets
mentioned
a
lot,
but
workers
for
the
united
auto
workers
who
represent
dealers
in
the
hotels
from
the
ayatse
all
the
stage
shows,
have
been
shut
down.
N
So
all
the
stagehands
that
work,
those
shows
have
been
laid
off.
This
is
teamsters
that
set
up
conventions
and
do
work
like
that,
along
with
operating
engineers
who
do
the
the
heating
and
air
conditioning
and
service
work
in
the
buildings.
So
this
is
covers
a
wide
range
of
employees
throughout
the
state,
and
so
for
those
reasons
we
are
in
support
of
this
bill.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
My
name
is
marlene
lockhart
l-o-c-k-a-r-d,
representing
seiu
1107..
We
are
in
support
of
this
bill.
We
recognize
what
a
horrendous
year
2020
was
for
workers
in
our
state,
and
we
appreciate
the
parties
coming
together
to
develop
a
path
for
workers
to
return
and
provide
some
certainty
again
in
their
lives.
Thank
you.
N
Madam
chair
chris
daley
nevada
state
education
association,
nsca
supports
sb
386,
giving
thousands
of
unemployed
workers
in
nevada
the
right
to
return
to
their
jobs.
The
culinary
union
is
an
important
labor
partner
of
nsca,
and
we've
worked
closely
together
during
the
coba
19
pandemic.
We
appreciate
the
tens
of
thousands
of
students
in
our
schools.
Have
parents
in
the
hospitality
industry
who
have
unfortunately
had
their
lives
upended
by
the
covet
19
pandemic.
The
safe
reopening
of
school
buildings
was
only
one
part
of
getting
our
students
through
to
the
other
side
of
this
pandemic.
N
The
ability
of
their
parents
to
return
to
their
jobs
would
provide
the
economic
stability
necessary
for
students
to
be
able
to
arrive
at
school,
truly
ready
to
learn.
Educators
know
this
is
too
often
not
the
case
when
students
struggle
at
home
with
issues
of
food
insecurity,
housing,
instability
and
parents
faced
facing
the
stresses
of
unemployment
and
not
being
able
to
provide
for
their
family
sb
386
is
the
right
thing
to
do
for
labor.
It
will
also
help
thousands
of
nevada
students
and
their
families.
Thank
you.
B
B
Once
hotels
and
casinos
started
reopening,
they
hoped
they
could
safely
return
to
work.
Some
did,
and
some
did
not
that's
what
many
workers
still
want
to
do,
but
they
haven't
been
called
back
to
work.
Do
you
know
how
heartbreaking
it
is
to
be
laid
off
from
work?
You
have
done
for
decades
and
not
be
called
back,
but
your
employer
is
holding
job
fairs
to
hire
hundreds
of
new
employees.
B
C
C
To
this
day,
unemployment
is
the
root
cause
of
many
issues
that
have
a
negative
effect
on
our
economy
and
the
lives
of
nevadans,
including
foreclosures
evictions,
car
repossession,
debt
collection,
bankruptcy
and
more
sp
386
will
ensure
that
these
qualified
and
well-established
employees
will
have
a
right
to
return
to
their
jobs,
which
will
in
turn
improve
our
economy.
Thank
you.
N
N
It
is
the
moral
thing
to
do
to
make
sure
that
we
are
getting
these
workers
back
to
work
to
their
jobs
in
order
to
make
sure
that
we
are
having
a
proper
recovery
from
this
pandemic.
Thank
you.
Thank.
N
O
M
Good
afternoon,
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
fran
almarez.
I
am
here
today
in
support
of
this
bill.
I
represent
teamsters
local
986.
We
have
many
people
working
the
front
desk
and
valet
at
these
hotels,
and
some
of
the
hotels
have
already
started
hiring
other
people.
Before
calling
our
members
back
to
work.
M
K
Afternoon,
chair
members
of
the
committee,
priscilla
maloney,
with
the
askme4041
retirees
we
too
are
here
in
support
of
our
brothers
and
sisters,
not
just
unionized
folks,
but
all
working
folks
here
in
nevada.
We
were
particularly
distressed
to
hear
that
a
lot
of
what
the
situation
was
was
older
workers
being
forced
out
of
their
jobs,
not
allowed
to
return
folks
who
had
spent
over
well
decades
in
their
positions.
K
A
C
P
P
We
know
nevada
was
one
of
the
hardest
hit
in
the
pandemic,
and
people
lost
their
jobs
to
no
fault
of
their
own,
and
women
have
been
affected
in
particular,
as
they
make
up
a
very
large
number
of
the
employees
in
the
hospitality
business.
So
it's
fair
to
bring
back
workers
at
the
pay
and
benefits
they've
earned,
and
we
ask
that
you
vote
yes
on
fb
386
and
support
our
nevada
workers.
Thank
you.
Thank.
C
P
P
C
C
A
A
Thank
you
broadcast
now
we
will
go
to
testimony
and
opposition.
Is
there
anyone
here
in
carson
city
wishing
to
testify
in.
N
Good
afternoon
chair,
I'm
paul
merakin
with
the
vegas
chamber.
The
last
year
has
been
challenging
for
all
nevadans.
We
all
want
to
move
forward
and
rebuild
our
state's
economy
together.
I
do
believe,
that's
a
common
goal
for
all
of
us.
We
appreciate
the
extensive
work
and
the
progress
that
has
been
made
on
this
bill
between
the
proponents
and
industry
and
the
compromised
version
you
see
today.
N
We
recognize
that
has
taken
the
law
of
good
faith
to
come
together
on
the
version
you
see
today
in
front
of
you
our
concerns
about
the
small
locally
owned,
independent
business
that
not
that
is
not
owned
by
the
hotel
properties
or
nationally
owned
corporations
that
happen
to
be
owned.
Sorry,
they
have
to
be
located
on
the
hotel
property
through
a
lease
that
may
be
unintentionally
impacted
again.
We
appreciate
the
work
that
has
been
done,
sb
386
for
today,
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
C
C
M
Good
afternoon,
chair
hatagi
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
mindy
elliot
representing
the
reno
sparks
chamber
of
commerce,
mr
moroccan
and
miss
thompson.
Both
both
eloquently
stated
the
concerns
that
we
have
it's,
not
the
large
casinos.
It's
a
small
businesses
that
have
been
struggling,
they've
been
struggling
to
keep
their
doors
open.
They
were
shut
down
too
they've
been
struggling
to
pay
their
bills,
and
now
we
have
a
bill,
that's
going
to
require
them
to
go
back
and
try
to
figure
out
what
is
happening
with
some
of
their
employees.
M
And
frankly,
some
of
these
are
really
small,
mom
and
pops,
and
to
have-
and
many
of
them
are
families
that
the
the
employees
they
become
family
members,
because
they've
worked
with
them
for
so
long.
It's
just
very
difficult
and
we're
hoping
that
we
understand
that
the
the
bill
and
the
merits
of
the
bill
and
what,
from
the
large
casinos
perspective
in
the
large
entertainment
industries
and
the
resorts,
but
for
the
small,
mom
and
pops
it
just
happened
to
be
located
in
the
under
the
umbrella
and
the
casinos.
M
A
C
C
C
P
A
Thank
you
miss
stewart
broadcasting.
If
we
could
go
to
the
next
caller.
C
P
P
We
too
can
appreciate
the
bill,
intent
and
all
the
work
that
has
gone
into
the
most
recent
amendment
to
address
the
concerns
of
some
of
the
large
casino
gaming
properties
and
their
providers,
but
also
we
too
continue
to
be
deeply
concerned
about
the
impact
this
bill
has
the
small
businesses
that
do
not
fit
within
that
collective
bargaining
measures
and
do
not
fit
with
or
and
do
fit
sorry
within
the
covered
enterprise
provisions
outlined
within
section
11
of
the
bill.
P
These
are
businesses
like
our
local
and
small
event,
and
banquet
centers,
independently
owned
small
casinos,
restaurants,
local
tour
operators.
These
are
businesses
that
are
too
small
that
have
limited
capacity
to
meet
the
provisions
about
language
in
this
bill
without
incurring
extremely
significant
expenses
and
liability.
As
a
result
of
these
efforts,
many
of
which
these
businesses
have
already
well
about
meeting
legislation,
we
too
would
have
urge
that
consideration
is
provided
for
a
small
business
exemption.
Thank
you.
C
P
My
name
is:
barry
lieberman
l-I-e-b-e-r-m-a-n.
I
represent
the
south
point
hotel
and
casino
when
the
global
pandemic
resulted
in
the
nevada
game
and
control
board
ordering
the
closure
of
the
gaming
areas
at
the
south
point:
hotel
casino
on
march
17th
and
events
that
have
never
taken
place
in
the
long
history
of
gaming
in
nevada.
The
south
point
had
no
idea
when
we
would
be
able
to
welcome
back
our
guests
and
return
employees
to
work.
P
However,
michael
gone,
the
managing
member
of
the
south
point
chose
to
keep
virtually
all
of
the
southpointe's
regular
employees
on
the
payroll
through
the
first
month
and
a
half
of
the
closure,
when
the
south
point
was
finally
financially
forced
to
furlough
some
employees.
In
early
may,
mr
gohan
made
the
decision
to
continue
to
pay
the
very
costly
health
insurance
premiums
so
that
the
furloughed
employees
could
control.
P
C
A
A
A
C
A
All
right
members,
we
will
come
back
out
of
our
recess
and
if
the
committee
secretary
would
indicate
that
speaker
fryerson
has
joined
us.
Thank
you
and
miss
pasilov
thomas.
I
think
we
were
did
we
finish
reading
through
the
work
session.
Opening?
Okay,
no,
I
think
we're
good.
We
just
heard
the
bill,
so,
okay,
members
at
this
time.
I
will
ask
if
you
have
any
questions
on
the
bill
before
you
seeing
none,
I
would
entertain
a
motion
to
do
pass.
A
A
L
Chair
carlton,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
I
just
have
to
say
something:
these
are
the
folks
that
I've
worked
next
to
for
most
of
my
career
and
when
you
can
find
a
good
waitress
job
and
be
able
to
work,
a
decent
shift
know
that
you
can
go
home
and
take
care
of
your
family,
be
the
sunday
school
teacher,
be
the
girl
scout
leader,
be
the
cub
scout
leader.
Do
all
those
other
things
we're
part
of
the
community.
L
The
people
that
we're
talking
about
protecting
in
this
bill
are
the
people
that
built
this
state.
They
are
the
economic
engine
of
the
state
they
have
given
their
lives,
and
I
know
a
lot
of
the
waitresses
that
I
worked
with
and
myself.
You
know
when
we
get
a
little
bit
older,
the
knees
that
we
took
advantage
of
and
the
shoulders
that
we
took
advantage
of.
We
all
get
sore
and
tired,
but
you
know
we
loved
art.
We
love
our
jobs
and
I'll.
L
L
They
want
nothing
more
to
go
back
to
work,
and
I
think
this
legislation
will
give
them
the
peace
of
mind
of
knowing
that
they
will
get
that
phone
call
and
they'll
be
able
to
go
back
to
work
every
day
and
do
the
thing
that
they
love
to
do
next
to
their
co-workers
every
day.
So
thank
you,
madam
chair.
F
Thank
you
so
much
chair
and
and
thanks
for
those
comments,
and
I
appreciate
the
you
know
what
we're
trying
to
do
to
help
everyone
out.
This
has
been
again
just
a
brutal
year,
but
I
was
waiting
with
baited
breath
during
that
little
pause
to
see
if
there
was
possibly
going
to
be
an
amendment
addressing
some
of
the
concerns
of
the
small
businesses,
but
also
knowing
that
not
all
the
members
voted
in
favor
also
for
larger
ones.
I
still
share
some
of
their
concerns
as
well,
so
I
will
be
a
no
thanks.
O
O
Construction
workers-
I
actually,
admittedly,
for
the
fun
of
yesterday,
filled
out
an
application
for
a
heavy
equipment
operator
without
any
experience
and
was
hired.
They'll
train
me.
I
turned
it
down,
but
I
do
think
there's
been
a
real,
strong
examples
given
or
needs
given
to
exempt
the
smaller
businesses,
and
I
would
like
to
work
towards
that.
I'd
love
to
see
an
amendment
to
exempt
a
smaller
under
50
or
less
even
under
20
30
employee
operations.
A
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
just
really
quickly.
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill.
We've
had
a
lot
of
talk
today
about
small
businesses.
I
own
my
own
small
business.
I
had
just
opened
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
covet
hit.
It
was
really
tough.
I
almost
had
to
close
down,
but
this
bill
is
for
the
good
of
the
people.
C
This
bill
is
for
the
good
of
nevada,
and
if
positions
in
my
firm
come
open,
I
need
to
give
it
back
to
the
people
that
helped
me
build
it
in
the
first
place,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
statement,
because
I
know
you
know
the
mom
and
pop
and
that's
what
I
consider
myself,
because,
obviously
you
know
I
have
a
very
small
business,
so
I
just
wanted
to
get
that
on
the
record.
Thank
you.
A
Members
any
other
discussion.
Okay,
seeing
none
at
this
time,
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
I
I
opposed
well
denise.
Please
raise
their
hand.
I
have
assembly
member
o'neal
as
a
nay
assembly
member
kasama
as
a
nay
assembly
member
hardy
azinay
assembly
member
tolls.
As
an
a
and
assembly
member
dickman.
As
an
a
motion
carries,
I
will
assign
that
floor
statement
to
vice
chair
carlton.
A
Okay,
members,
at
this
time,
we
will
go
back
into
the
bill
hearing
portion
of
our
agenda
and
next
on,
our
agenda
is
senate
bill
340..
So
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
340,
which
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
wages
and
working
conditions
of
certain
employees.
I
believe
we
have
senator
neil
here
with
us
to
present
and
senator
neil.
I
also
show
that
we
have
a
matthew
mcdonald
presenting
with
us
is
he
on
zoom?
A
Q
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
good
afternoon
assembly,
commerce
and
labor.
I
am
senator
dina
neal
representing
senate
district
four
here
to
actually
co-present
sb
340..
I
just
want
to
give
some
quick
opening
remarks.
I
think
every
time
I've
testified
on
this
bill,
which
I
think
is
twice
now.
I
have
a
different
story
or
different
memory.
Q
When
I
was
asked
to
bring
this
bill,
I
was
sitting
in
the
hospital
actually
waiting
on
my
dad
and
he
wasn't
even
at
the
stage
where
I
needed
to
get
personal,
a
personal
home
care
health,
but
I
ended
up
having
a
direct
relationship
to
this
bill,
not
knowing
that
when
I
was
asked
to
carry
it
that
I
would
have
that
relationship.
Q
Q
I
guess
it
was
15
hours
a
week
was
to
come
in
and
help
us,
because
it
was
me
my
doc
me
and
my
daughter
and
then
she
would
help
come
in
and
help
bathe
him
get
him
ready,
get
his
pajamas
on
while
he
was
in
hospital
bed
and
when
I
came
into
session-
and
I
realized
that
sb
340
was
going
to
give
a
voice
to
the
woman
that
I
encountered
and
the
other
workers,
men
and
women
who
do
this
work.
Q
Q
You
have
to
take
care
of
a
family
member
that
is
sick,
that
cannot
take
care
of
themselves
and
when
we
talk
about
proper
wage
and
having
a
seat
at
the
table
and
being
at
a
part
of
a
board
where
they
can
discuss
their
relationship
with
their
employer,
this
bill
sets
that
up.
I
had
a
different
experience
where
I
was
dealing
with
the
direct
employer
and
her
employee
and
on
the
days
when
her
employee,
miss
tina
could
not
come
her
boss
would
actually
come
in
and
fill
in
for
that
time.
Q
That's
how
small
of
a
business
it
was.
She
had
probably
four
personal
home
care
workers,
and
so
I
I
wanted
to
put
that
on
the
record,
because
I
read,
I
don't
know
if
it's
26
letters
of
opposition,
but
when
I
read
the
different
letters
and-
and
it's
and
and
the
comments
pretty
much
kind
of
reiterated,
the
same
comment
that
that
this
bill
was
somehow
an
assault
on
the
employers
and
somehow
an
assault
on
their
model.
I
disagree.
Q
It's
a
balancing
bill
that
gives
a
right
and
opportunity
to
the
workers
that
serve
those
families
and
share
households
with
them
for
hours
out
of
a
week,
and
I
think
that
they
deserve
a
seat
at
the
table
to
discuss
the
issues
that
affect
them
where
they
did
not
have
that.
And
so
I
will
then
turn
it
over
to
miss
lockard
and
then
I
believe
it's
another
person
will
go
through
the
bill,
but
I'm
here
to
also
help
and
assist
in
that.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
marlene
lockard
l-o-c-k-a-r-d,
representing
sciu
1107,
the
largest
movement
of
health
care
and
public
workers
in
nevada,
approximately
19,
000
strong
last
fall.
The
gwen
center
issued
an
assessment
of
the
personal
care
workforce
in
nevada
reporting
that
a
dire
crisis
is
on
the
horizon,
creating
a
dangerous
home
care
worker
shortage
which
will
hurt
nevadans,
nevada,
seniors
people
with
disabilities
and
home
care
workers
alike.
Nevada
has
approximately
13
000
home
care
workers
and
the
gwen
center
report
projects.
E
E
E
E
In
order
to
retain
these
essential
workers
that
this
board
will
bring
the
voice
of
all
parties
to
the
table,
to
coordinate
for
the
first
time,
the
development
of
consistent
standards,
best
practices
and
to
establish
a
stable,
long-term
and
committed
workforce
recognizing
home
care
as
an
undervalued,
yet
critically
important
profession,
sb
340
will
save
the
state
money.
According
to
expenditure,
data
provided
to
cms
the
state
estimates
an
average
per
capita
savings
of
over
seventy
thousand
dollars
per
year
when
a
senior
is
served
through
the
medicaid
waiver
program
instead
of
a
nursing
facility.
E
E
E
E
Before
the
board's
first
meeting,
the
hhs
director
and
labor
commissioner
shall
collect
relevant
data
on
the
wages,
working
conditions
and
compliance
with
relevant
laws
within
the
industry
and
share
their
findings
with
board
members.
The
compensation
composition
of
the
board
will
consist
of
the
hhs
director
or
his
designee.
E
The
board
members
would
consist
of
the
labor
commissioners,
three
representatives
of
home
care,
health
workers,
three
representatives
of
home
health
care
employers
and
three
representatives
of
home
care.
Consumers
members
serve
on
a
voluntary
basis
and
meaning
they
would
receive.
No
compensation
for
serving
on
the
board.
E
Topics
to
be
investigated
would
be
minim
the
wages
paid
to
home
care
workers,
safe
and
health
for
working
conditions.
The
bill
does
not
prescribe
the
exact
topics
that
must
be
investigated.
Instead,
it
lays
out
a
list
of
topics
for
the
board
to
consider
those
topics
include
reimbursement
rates,
wages,
training,
recruitment
retention
levels
and
worker
protections.
E
E
Lastly,
the
board
is
charged
with
developing
recommendations
relating
to
covid19
safety
protocols,
including
the
distribution
of
ppe,
effective
training,
outbreak
reporting,
vaccine
distribution,
equity
and
the
disbursement
of
federal
relief
funds.
These
recommendations
shall
be
shared
with
the
governor
and
the
legislature.
F
Thank
you
chair.
I
appreciate
the
indulgence
and
thank
you
it's
good
to
see
you
and
I
just
want
to
acknowledge
the
home
care
workers
in
in
this
room.
You
know
similar
to
senator
o'neill.
I
had
my
father-in-law.
We
got
the
privilege
of
taking
care
of
him
and
all
the
way
through
hospice
and
the
end
of
his
life,
and
I
I
couldn't
say
enough
about
the
home
care
workers
that
we
had
who
helped
us
through
those
last
years.
F
Just
unbelievable
god's
work
for
sure,
and
so
and
I
appreciate
the
conversations
around
this
bill.
I
particularly
I
I
appreciate
the
membership
of
the
board
with
really
bringing
together
collaboration
and
and
that
balance
of
the
employers
and
the
employees,
and
then
you
know,
representatives
and
so
forth,
and
I
appreciate
the
training
aspect
and
the
you
know
publishing
those
things
on
an
internet
website.
I
think
all
of
that
for
compliance
is
really
beneficial
and
and
and
helpful
overall
to
everyone
involved.
F
So,
as
I
read
it,
one
of
the
tasks
that
that
would
come
out
of
this
board
would
be
to
give
authority
to
come
up
with
recommendations
regarding
wages
and
then
conditions,
and
then,
if
those
recommendations
are
adopted,
then
every
employer
with
home
health,
health
care
workers,
whether
they're
engaged
in
this
board
or
not,
would
be
under
the
provisions
of
having
to
comply
with
with
those
new
wage
and
conditions.
So
in
other
words,
it's
not
something
that's
put
in
statute.
It's
a
new
layer.
Is
that
how
I'm
reading
it?
The.
E
F
E
F
Right:
okay,
because
that
forgive
me
I'm
sorry,
I
appreciate
the
ability
to
to
go
back
and
forth
with
that,
so
so
that
that
is
how
I
read
it
under
section
19
that
any
home
care
employee
for
a
wage
less
than
that
established
by
regulation
of
the
director
yeah,
so
that
that
would
be
so
follow
up
chair.
Please!
Yes,
thank
you!
F
So
we've
had
conversations
before
because
this
body
has
passed
changes
to
minimum
wage
and
there's
been
questions
and
conversations
about
what
what
happens
with
that
combined
with
our
overtime
laws,
how
that
prices
us
out
of
medicaid
reimbursement
and
and
the
concern
there
that
senator
neil
and
myself
were
were
able
to
provide
that
for
our
loved
one.
F
E
The
it
is
anticipated
that
increasing
the
medicaid
reimbursement
rate
would
be
fully
investigated
and
recommendations
made
in
that
arena
as
well,
because
that
is
a
critical
problem
for
the
health
care
worker
in
the
state
of
nevada.
And
I
would
turn
to
mr
mcdonald
if
he
has
any
further
comment
on
that
or
to
correct
me
on
anything.
I
may
have.
N
Stated
no
such
corrections.
I
I
think
that
the
board
will
have
to
examine
how
prices
are
set
in
the
private
pay
market.
I
think
that
there
is,
you
know,
no
distinct
methodology
to
that
and
rising
medicaid
reimbursement
rates.
In
this
case,
I
think,
would
overall
create
better
outcomes
for
consumers
and
workers
without
impacting
the
demand
that
will
be
placed
on
these
services.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
My
question
is:
I
know
that
some
of
the
home
health
care
workers
do
several
different
types
of
duties
when
they
are
hired.
Are
they
paid
based
on,
for
example,
I
know
it
says
personal
assistance
for
is
it
cleaning
or
doing
different
duties,
or
is
it
just
a
flat
rate
that
they
get?
Let.
Q
Q
They
could
wash
dishes
they
could
sweep,
they
could
bathe,
they
could
do
prescription
reminders,
not
give
the
prescription,
but
it
was
very
limited,
meaning
that
that
work
could
only
be
for
the
patient
or
the
patient
area.
So,
for
example,
so
my
dad
we
we
got
the
benefit
of
one
of
his
friends.
Renovating
this
really
big
house,
and
so
we
were
able
to.
Q
She
was
only
focused
on
one
area
of
the
house,
nothing
else
that
we
did
like.
So,
if
me
and
my
daughter
dirty
dishes,
okay,
she
was
not
responsible
for
that.
Nor
did
we
ever
ask
her
to
do
that.
We
we
put
her.
Although
those
are
duties
we
could
have
asked
for
we
just
kept
it
to.
Can
you
put
his
pajamas
on?
Can
you
bathe
him?
Q
Can
you
sweep
the
area
with
the
swifter
and
and
just
give
us
a
moment,
a
couple
of
hours
of
rest,
and
so
that
that
was
it,
but
the
contract
typically
spells
out
what
those
duties
are
and
you
can't
go
beyond
those
things?
No,
you
can't
ask
them
to
do
more.
They
expect
your
house
to
be
clean.
Q
You
can't
come,
you
can't
have
a
you,
can't
have
a
worker
come
into
your
house
and
you
have
all
of
these
barriers
like
it
was
important
that
the
employer
come
in
and
make
sure
that
the
pathways
were
clear
for
the
worker
that
they
weren't
going
to
be
stumbling
over.
Q
We
never
asked
her
to
help
put
him
in
a
lift,
even
though
she
could
have,
but
those
were
one
of
the
things,
but
it
was
based
on
the
skill
set
and
so
the
way
that
my
relationship
was
and
what
I
understood
was.
If
I
had
just
had,
there
were
different
levels,
and
so
I
said
exactly
the
skill
sets
that
I
needed,
and
so
because
we
had
a
lift,
but
me
and
my
daughter,
pretty
much
focused
on
the
lift
or
I
became
like
the
expert
in
lifting
humans
into
a
wheelchair.
Q
Q
Now,
whether
or
not
there
was
something
taken
off
the
top,
I
never
asked,
but
we
made
we
had
time
sheets
and
we
had
her
fill
out.
Just
the
same
was
if
her
employer
came
in
and
she
filled
in
for
her.
So
we
knew
that
when
we
wrote
the
check,
that
was
the
amount
that
we
wrote,
the
check
for.
We
wrote
it
for
22
an
hour
and
that's
what
we
expected
her
to
be
paid
for
and
the
reason
why
I
did
the
top
I
did.
Q
The
top
of
the
range
was
because
I
wanted
someone
with
more
skill
right
and
I
wanted
someone
who
was
going
to
come
in
and
really
assist
and
and
number
one
and
I
didn't
know
what
they
were
getting
themselves
into.
Nor
did
I
know
what
I
was
getting
myself
into,
because
that
was
my
first
contract,
and
so
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
number
one
they
were
paid
well
and
that
they
were
paid
for
the
for
the
couple
of
well
really
the
15
hours
a
week
that
they
were
coming
in,
that
it
was.
Q
Q
So
I
don't
know
what
other
pca
companies
are
doing.
I
just
know
the
one
that
I
work
with
and
I
got
the
invoices
every
two
weeks
that
showed
what
miss
tina
would
get
paid
and
versus
the
company,
and
I
had
to
do
an
initial
deposit
too,
when
when
we
brought
it
on
just
to
make
sure
that
there
was
a
buffer
to
if,
if
we
didn't
pay
on
time
to
make
sure
that
that
worker
was
paid.
M
Thank
you
so
much
chair
and
thank
you
to
all
the
home
healthcare
workers.
I
would
have
to
agree
with
assemblywoman
told
us
they
are
doing
god's
work
and
their
god's
angels,
but
I
do
just
have
a
question
about
section
20
sub
two:
don't
we
already
have
compliance
regulations
in
place?
What
was
the
thinking
behind
adding
this
misdemeanor
and
up
to
a
thousand
dollar
fine.
E
E
There
is
no
consistency
across
the
board
among
what
employers
implement
right
now,
they're
supposed
to
pay
for
training.
There
are
some
agencies
that
do
not
pay
for
training
and,
if
there's
some
300
employers
in
the
state
of
nevada,
if
we
could
develop
standards
and
and
consistency
through
this
board,
as
we
were
previously
discussing
the
wages,
the
average
wage
for
a
home
care
worker
is
11
an
hour,
that's
what
they
receive
on
average
in
the
state
of
nevada.
So
you
can
see
some
have
the
ability
to
earn
more
depending
on
the
employer
and
that
situation.
E
Q
Q
So
if
we
get
into
a
situation
where
we're
trying
to
establish
worker
protections
where
an
employer
is
discriminating,
threatening
or
doing
something,
that
is
a
negative
response
to
an
employee,
I
think
the
penalty
that
you're
addressing
assemblywoman,
dickman
and
sub
two
violating
that
provision
and
being
guilty
of
a
misdemeanor
and
shall
be
punished
by
a
fine
of
not
more
than
a
thousand
dollars,
is
actually
minimal.
If
we're
talking
about
a
discriminatory
action
or
if
we're
talking
about
threatening.
Q
I
also
don't
think
that
these
provisions
will
just
come
in
play
without
some
kind
of
review
or
action,
because
I
believe
that
I
my
way
I
read
this.
These
protections
come
in
a
labor
commission
and
that
the
labor
commissioner
will
then
do
their
review.
Do
there
should
be
a
hopefully
an
appeals
process
to
then
make
sure
that
number
one?
The
facts
are
correct:
that
there
was
a
threat.
There
was
a
discrimination
and
that
it
is
fully
vetted
before
this
is
triggered,
but
a
thousand
dollars,
I
think,
is
minimal.
A
And
I'm
going
to
jump
in
really
quick
before
I
come
to
you
for
follow-up
mystic
men,
but
did
you
see
that
the
average
home
health
care
workers
earnings
are
11
per
hour?
Is
it
is
that
what
I
heard
yes?
Well,
I
think
we
can
all
agree
that
god's
work
deserves
more
than
that
assembly.
Member
dickman.
Did
you
have
any
follow-up.
M
Q
So
that's
a
really
good
question,
but
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
answer
senator
dean
and
neal
for
the
record.
I'm
gonna
answer
this
in
part
and
then
I'm
gonna
turn
it
over
to
miss
lockhart.
So,
yes,
there
are
opportunities
for
a
let's
say,
a
sibling
or
whatever
to
get
trained
and
then
be
paid,
and
then
they
would
do
that
work
for
their
family
member.
Q
That
was
something
that
I
found
out
in
this
process
and
in
this
journey,
because
one
of
my
family
members
were
talking
about,
you
know,
trying
to
get
trained
and
then
quit
their
job,
and
I
was
like
negative
we're
gonna
stick
with
a
trained
professional
and
you're,
not
gonna,
go
through
the
training,
because
it
is
because
number
one
because
of
what
I
my
expectations
were
for
care
and
I
wanted
somebody
that
was
from
established
company.
But
that
option
is
there,
but
typically
it
is
a.
Q
It
is
a
person
that
you
know
who
then
goes
in
the
training
or
family
member
who
can
then
receive
that,
but
in
terms
of
how
this
would
apply,
they're
technically
they're
employed
by
to
me
the
division,
but
go
ahead.
E
E
So
if
one
of
our
healthcare
works
workers
work
for
a
licensed
personal
care
agency,
there
are
protocols
and
training
required
by
the
state
that
they
must
follow.
If
an
individual
is
hired
on
a
personal
level,
they
are
to
my
knowledge,
would
not
know
or
be
subject
to
that
training
or
the
required
protocols
of
a
licensed
home
care.
Employer.
A
O
Thank
you
gerald
try
to
make
this
really
quick.
If
I
understand
correctly
you're
saying,
we've
got
licensed
health
care
providers
and
that
dh
our
health
and
human
services,
their,
I
forget
which
division
is
the
quality
assurance
or
something
isn't
doing
their
job
and
overseeing
them
properly,
that
the
even
the
licensed
the
employees
of
these
agencies
aren't
being
properly
trained
provided
with
the
necessary
equipment
and
to
do
their
job
so
the
state's
falling
down.
Now
we
should
stick
with
the
law
we've
got.
O
E
E
One
of
the
problems
as
I've
stated,
is
the
inconsistency
across
employers
and,
as
I
stated,
some
of
these
employers
are
operating,
but
without
a
license,
and
so
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
need
a
board
is
to
pull
in
identify
and
there's
in
you
read
the
bill.
That's
why
there's
an
investigation
of
to
see
what
is
out
there
who
is
complying?
Who
is
not
complying
with
current
rules
and
then
the
regulations
that
will
be
adopted
as
a
result
of
some
of
these
investigations.
E
So
hopefully
that
answers
your
question.
O
Thank
you
so
if
I
may
chair,
so
I'm
thinking
of
the
contractor's
board
that
oversees
you
can
become
a
licensed
contractor
in
the
building
trades,
there
are
still
people
that
work
outside
of
that
and
then
it's
a
buyer
beware
operation,
but
what
I'm
hearing
also
is
that
those
that
are
now
being
licensed
aren't
being
held
to
the
standard
is
what
I'm
hearing.
But
the
other
question
I
have
for
a
time
frame.
E
No,
the
first
to
answer
the
second
part
of
your
question.
The
problem
is
identifying
those
folks
not
complying
when
you're
unlicensed
now
and
if
we
do
a
survey,
we
can
identify
folks
that
are
not
in
compliance.
The
the
second
question
that
you
had
the
board
will
make
recommendations
to
the
director
of
hhs.
E
E
Other
recommendations
that
would
be
subject
to
state
or
federal
requirement
would
come
to
this
body
for
approval,
so
it
is
not
standing
on
its
own
implementing
a
wage
increase,
for
example,
without
review,
so
senator
dean
o'neill.
Thank
you.
Q
K
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you
presenters.
I
was
just
curious
under
section
20
number,
two,
where
it
has
a
home
care
employer
who
violates
the
provisions
of
subjects
and
one
is
guilty
of
misdemeanor
and
shall
be
punished
by
a
fine
of
not
more
than
one
thousand.
I'm
just
wondering
where
you
came
up
with
that.
As
far
as
a
misdemeanor,
I
know
we're
trying
to
decriminalize
so
much
during
the
session
and
now
now
this
is
a
new
board
of
new
regulation.
We're
going
right
at
it
with
a
misdemeanor.
E
A
And
that
was
marlene
lockhart
for
the
record,
and
I
just
want
to
put
it
on
the
record
too.
This
is
actually
a
really
low
fine,
because
the
labor
commissioner's
administrative
fine
authority
goes
up
to
five
thousand
dollars
in
her
chapter
and
so
capping
it
at
one
thousand
dollars
is
actually
taking
away
some
of
the
labor
commissioner's
authority
that
already
exists
in
nrs.
Q
Senator
dean
o'neill
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
that
a
chairwoman
because
I
was
just
getting
ready
to
say
that
there
are
different
discrimination
provisions
that
you
can
find.
If
you
go.
Research
even
under
retaliation
provisions
discriminate
discrimination
provisions
under
nerc
labor,
commissioner,
where
the
fines
are
a
little
different.
I've
even
seen
bills
that
have
come
through
and
been
voted
on,
have
a
much
higher
threshold
bill
that
we
prior.
I
think
that
we
just
heard
actually
had
one
that
was
significantly
greater.
I
think
it
was
ten
thousand
perfect.
A
Okay,
at
this
time,
seeing
no
further
questions,
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
move
us
into
the
testimony
portion
of
the
bill.
Hearing
members
who
are
here
to
give
testimony,
I
do
again
want
to
reiterate:
we
still
have
four
bills
on
our
agenda,
so
I
will
be
enforcing
the
two-minute
time
limit
on
testimony
so
that
we
can
hear
from
as
many
people
as
possible.
So
if
you
are
here
in
carson
city
to
testify
and
support,
please
make
your
way
to
the.
B
Table
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
annette
magnus
and
I'm
the
executive
director
of
battleborn
progress.
We
are
here
today
in
strong
support
of
sb
340.
nevada's
home
health
care
workers
are
on
the
front
lines
of
caring
for
people
in
this
state.
The
importance
of
and
demand
for
their
dedicated
labor
has
increased
during
the
pandemic.
B
Without
oversight
of
working
conditions,
those
home
health
care
workers,
care
will
be
the
people
who
they
care
for
will
be
also
at
risk.
Our
home
health
care
workers
in
nevada
deserve
better
for
themselves
and
their
families,
while
they
maintain
the
health
and
independence
of
tens
of
thousands
of
nevadans.
Please
pass
sb
340.
Thank
you.
N
N
N
For
the
past
116
days,
nsca
has
advocated
for
educator
voice
and
decisions
that
impact
our
work,
but
educator
voice
is
only
part
of
our
larger
goal
of
establishing
true
worker
voice.
Sb
340
establishes
a
voice
for
home
care
workers,
a
vital
group
of
workers
who
are
too
often
overlooked,
nsea,
and
I
strongly
support
sp
340..
Thank
you.
M
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
rosita
love,
r-o-z-e-t-t-a
l-o-p-e.
I
live
in
las
vegas,
senate
district
four
and
I'm
a
constituent
of
senator
dean
o'neill.
I
was
born
and
raised
here
and,
as
I
watched,
our
city
grow,
I've
seen
the
need
for
home
care
service
keeps
growing
as
well.
I'm
here
today
to
ask
you
to
pass
sb
340
and
create
the
home
care
standard
board.
We
need
to
investigate
the
issues
facing
home
care
workers
like
me,
and
also
our
clients.
M
M
M
R
Hello,
my
name
is
shanika
cooper,
that's
s-h-a-n-I-e-k-a,
cooper,
c-o-o-p-e-r,
I'm
a
long-term
home
care
worker
and
a
constituent
in
las
vegas
assembly
district
3.,
I'm
speaking
in
support
of
sb
340,
because
home
care
is
essential
for
the
safety
and
well-being
of
seniors,
and
it
also
save
taxpayers
money.
We
we
need
to
make
sure
we
have
high
quality
home
care
systems
here
in
nevada,
so
home
care
workers
like
myself
can
provide
decent
lives
for
our
families
and
our
clients
get
the
very
best
care.
I
started
in
home
care
years
ago
after
caring
for
my
great
aunt.
R
R
This
is
a
really
burden,
if
you
don't
have
any
income
when
applying
for
a
job.
Not
only
are
home
care
workers
struggling,
but
our
clients
are
too
because,
with
the
low
wages
and
lack
of
benefits,
it's
very
difficult
for
clients
to
keep
and
find
quality
home
caregivers
with
our
aging
population.
Here
in
nevada.
R
M
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
carol:
matron
c-a-r-o-l-m-a-t-r-o-n-e,
I'm
a
long-time
las
vegas
resident,
I'm
here
today
in
support
of
sb
340.,
I'm
here
as
a
consumer.
My
daughter
is
30
years
old,
significantly
physically
challenged
and
disabled
and
has
received
home
care
worker
services
since
the
year
2000.
M
So,
in
addition
to
being
here
in
support
with
my
sciu
sisters,
I'm
also
a
long
time
afscme.
Member
as
I
was
a
state
employee
until
november
2019
at
that
time,
as
a
local,
long-term
care,
ombudsman
serving
seniors
and
vulnerable
adults
across
our
state.
In
las
vegas
I
mean
I
had
to
prematurely
retire
due
to
back
to
back
covered
scares
and
quarantines
of
my
daughter
and
myself,
often
being
the
last
caregiver
standing.
M
M
Then
it
often
devastates
my
daughter
who
is
dependent
on
these
workers
for
every
aspect
of
her
daily
living
activities.
That's
bathing
dressing,
grooming,
toileting
everything
getting
up
in
your
wheelchair.
All
of
that,
so
I
would
appreciate
your
support
of
sb
340,
not
only
for
those
home
care
workers
from
my
daughter
and
for
aging
parents
such
as
myself,
who've
had
to
step
up
and
become
caregivers
in
this
field.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
C
Thank
you
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
tess
offerman
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
women's
lobby.
First,
we
want
to
thank
senator
neal
for
working
on
this
bill
and
bringing
forward
such
important
legislation
that
will
help
families
seniors
women
and
people
of
color.
I
know
the
statistics
have
been
talked
about,
but
I
just
want
to
focus
on
the
fact
that
of
the
more
than
13
000
home
care
workers
in
nevada,
84
are
women
and
35
percent
are
women
of
color.
C
This
is
significantly
higher
than
the
general
population,
where
women
of
color
make
up
only
17
percent
of
nevada's
total
population.
These
workers
make
an
average
of
eleven
dollars
and
seven
cents
an
hour
which
is
simply
not
a
sustainable
living
wage.
This
leads
to
a
high
turnover
rate
in
the
home
care
industry
and
caring
qualified
workers
are
leaving
the
profession
at
a
rapid
pace.
C
We
have
an
entire
workforce
trained
to
care
for
our
aging
parents
and
grandparents,
allowing
our
family
members
to
stay
in
their
houses
and
get
the
services
they
need,
but
we
have
to
pay
a
living
wage
and
ensure
adequate
training
is
in
place.
We
urge
your
support
on
sb
340,
and
we
thank
you
for
your
time
this
afternoon.
I
Good
afternoon
committee,
my
name
is
jim
sullivan
and
I'm
representing
the
culinary
union.
The
culinary
union
supports
sb
340,
because
we
strongly
believe
that
all
workers
should
be
treated
with
dignity
and
respect
and
are
proud
to
support
home
home
care
workers
who
are
organizing
to
have
a
voice
on
the
job.
I
The
need
for
high
quality
home
care
services
in
the
silver
state
is
skyrocketing,
but
too
many
of
the
state's
13
000
home
care
workers
are
underpaid
and
exploited
to
ensure
that
all
nevadans
can
age
and
retire
with
dignity.
The
state
must
have
a
well-compensated
home
care
workforce
with
safe
working
conditions.
I
C
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
christine
saunders
and
I'm
the
policy
director
with
progressive
leadership
alliance
in
nevada,
providing
care
for
aging
adults
and
people
with
disabilities
isn't
just
a
job.
It's
a
deep
commitment
to
work
hard
to
support
nevadans
and
their
families.
C
K
N
Thank
you
chair
benjamin
chalinor
policy,
director
for
faith
in
action
nevada,
as
was
mentioned
during
the
presentation,
and
during
questioning
these
workers
are
doing
god's
work,
they're
taking
care
of
our
loved
ones,
and
we
would
like
to
echo
the
statements
before
especially
the
home
care
workers
that
came
up
and
spoke.
Thank
you.
I
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
tom
dunn,
representing
professional
firefighters
in
nevada
today,
I
sit
here
in
support
of
sb
340
as
a
child
who's
grown
up
here
in
nevada.
I
have
two
aging
disabled
parents
and
I
encourage
you
to
vote
yes
on
sb
340..
Thank
you.
A
Ditto,
I
appreciate
the
brevity
mr
irvin
okay,
seeing
no
one
else
here
in
carson
city
and
no
one
on
zoom
broadcasting.
Can
we
please
go
to
the
telephone
and
we
will
take
approximately
three
callers
on
the
telephone
so
that
we
can
move
into
our
next
portion.
C
P
Thank
you,
chairwoman,
sandra
hardike
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
jerry,
burton
it's
j-e-r-I
b-u-r-t-o-n
and
I'm
the
president
of
the
nevada
chapter
of
the
nationalization
for
women,
and
I'm
here
representing
our
members
in
support
of
sb
340.
as
you've
heard.
84
percent
of
the
home
care
workers
are
women
and
35
percent
women
of
color,
and
we
have
a
shortage
of
home
care
workers
in
nevada.
P
My
sister
is
a
home
health
care
worker
and
is
often
called
in
the
middle
of
the
night
to
run
to
the
aid
of
her
clients
and
families
who
often
do
not
even
live
nearby
rely
on
her
care
for
them
at
all
hours
and
when
the
pandemic
started,
she
didn't
have
the
option
to
stay
home.
Her
clients
needed
her
and
she
was
given
very
little
for
ppe.
She
mostly
provided
her
own
and
my
mother
had
a
rare
disease,
primary
progressive,
aphasia
and
required
around-the-clock
care
towards
the
end
of
her
life.
P
C
P
My
name
is
eva
love,
eda
l-o-v-e
and,
for
my
husband
had
a
bad
stroke
six
years
ago,
and
since
then
we
have
had
caregivers
in
our
home
take
helping
to
take
care
of
him,
and
I
know
that
many
of
the
agencies
that
hire
and
send
them
out
are
running
on
a
wing
and
a
prayer.
We've
had
a
lot
of
different
caregiver
agencies
over
the
years
with
a
lot
of
different
caregivers
and
most
of
the
agencies.
Don't
have
professional
staff,
they
don't
have
policies
that
support
the
caregivers
and
they
often
treat
the
caregivers
badly.
P
For
an
example,
the
caregiver
that
we
now
have
was
being
asked
to
work
a
6
a.m,
shift
for
another
client
before
coming
to
us
at
8
a.m,
and
then
a
9
30
from
8am
to
9
30..
Then
she
comes
back
from
8
30
to
10
30
and
she
she
has
to
drive
45
minutes
home,
and
then
she
was
supposed
to
you
know,
get
up
at
4
o'clock
in
the
morning
to
go
back
and
start
her
6
a.m
shift.
So
it
just
was
completely
unfair
and
she
she
had
to
you
know.
P
I
finally
talked
to
her,
and
I
said
you
know
this
isn't
right,
because
she
was
afraid
that
if
she
said
anything
about
it
that
they
would
not
give
her
any
more
hours,
so
the
caregiver,
the
caregivers,
don't
have
any
power
with
the
agencies
and
of
course,
this
isn't
the
worst
example.
But
you
can
see
that
if
the
caregivers
had
a
seated
at
the
table,
they
would
feel
like
they
wouldn't
have
to
take
the
medium
take.
I
am
in
support
of
sb
340..
A
A
C
P
Hello,
yes,
I
was
waiting
for
my
my
last
numbers
to
be
called
for
the
record.
Madam
chairman.
I'm
connie
mcmullen
representing
the
personal
care
association
of
nevada,
which
opposes
sb
340,
because
creation
of
a
labor
board
exceeds
what
is
already
in
statute.
Sb
340
creates
a
board
operating
alongside
the
current
regulatory
role
of
the
division
of
public
and
behavioral
health,
division
of
health
care
quality
and
compliance
and
the
office
of
the
labor.
P
P
Sb
340
will
also
give
the
board
the
ability
to
set
a
minimum
wage.
This
requirement
found
in
section
18,
raises
concerns.
Unless
mistaken,
it
is
the
role
of
the
legislature
to
recommend
increasing
the
minimum
wage
and
the
governor
to
approve
it.
Why
do
we
need
what
appears
to
be
an
aggressive
approach
to
force?
What
we
already
have
the
ability
to
do?
Sb
340
creates
the
board,
which
will
make
recommendations,
one
that
we
believe
will
be
a
recommendation
that
caregivers
working
in
medicaid
be
unionized
by
the
seiu.
P
The
bill's
main
supporter
nevada
is
a
small
state
with
limited
tax
dollars.
It
does
not
need
a
union
making
decisions.
How
the
state
should
provide
care
to
the
most
vulnerable
pecan
is
a
is
in
favor
of
the
legislature,
raising
the
personal
care
reimbursement
to
help
support
anticipated
demographic
growth,
as
the
state
increases
its
minimum
wage
pecan
does
not
support
sb
340,
because,
in
spite
of
a
good
intent,
it
is
a
bill,
is
a
bad
bill
for
business
and
for
seniors.
What
I
have
heard
today
is
fraught
with
little
understanding.
P
In
fact,
anyone
who
does
state
business
has
to
be
in
compliance
and
licensed
those
not
do
not
get
to
use
public
funds
period.
I
thank
you
for
listening
to
my
remarks
today
and
if
you
have
any
questions,
you
can
call
me
later.
Thank
you.
Broadcasting.
A
C
A
A
We
will
be
hearing
senate
bill
325
next
and
we
will
be
rolling
the
following
bills
until
our
next
meeting
so
right
this
time
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
325,
which
establishes
provisions
relating
to
preventing
the
acquisition
of
human
human
immune
deficiency
virus.
Thank
you
senator.
When
you
are
ready,
you
can
begin.
S
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
committee
of
commerce
and
labor
assembly
a
lot
of
times.
I've
been
back
in
commerce
and
labor
served
on
this.
My
first
two
sessions,
senator
from
district
17,
representing
all
douglas
all
of
carson,
lionel
story
county
before
you
today,
senate
bill
325.
As
you
indicated,
deals
with
human.
You
know
deficiency
what
it
really
means
to
do
I'll,
try
to
make
it
reader's
digest,
because
I
know
you're
all
busy
and
have
a
lot
of
other
things
to
get
done,
expands
access
to
the
underserved
communities
and
also
those
are
at
risk.
S
What
the
bill
seeks
to
do
is
allow
pharmacists
to
kind
of
step
in
and
help
out,
especially
in
the
realm
of
dealing
with
pre-exposure
to
immunodeficiency,
and
also
to
post
exposure
with
that,
though,
there
also
are
some
amendments.
I
believe
I
sent
the
chair
and
I
hope
that
the
committee
was
able
to
get
the
amendments
discussed
the
concepts
that
it's
come
to
our
attention.
S
There
are
actually
some
new
possibilities
on
the
horizon
to
help
out
in
this
regard,
and
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
language
is
changed
to
be
able
to
deal
with
that
now.
So,
in
that
respect,
we're
asking
that
the
word
administrator
be
re
and
administer
an
administrator
be
inserted
into
the
language
throughout
and
also
on
section
7
deals
with
a
concern.
I
believe
that
the
culinary
board
had
wanting
to
help
make
sure
that
reasonable
medical
management
techniques
are
utilized
and
also
the
prescription
grubs
to
present
the
acquisition
of
those
things
are
also
included.
S
So
we
tried
to
make
sure
the
other
outliers
that
were
out
there
were
included
within
the
amendments
to
try
to
make
sure
that
there
theoretically
is
no
more
arguments
how
to
swallow
some
things
that
we
didn't
necessarily
want,
but
sometimes
we
have
to
do
what's
best
overall
policy.
In
that
respect.
It
was
very
brief
if
you
wish,
at
this
time,
probably
would
be
best
to
go
to
lisbon
miniman,
who,
I
believe
is
on
the
line
who
could
go
into
more
detail
or
if
you
wish
to
go
to
questions
now.
That
is
your
choice.
Madam
chair.
A
T
Madam
chair,
for
the
record
liz
macmillan
retail
association
in
nevada,
I'm
not
going
to
keep
you
long.
I
think
senator
selimer
covered
the
major
points.
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
for
hearing
this
this
afternoon
bringing
this
forward.
This
is
a
really
important
bill
and
I
have
an
overview
of
the
bill
if
you
want-
or
I
will
just
remain
quiet
and
let
you
move
forward
with
any
questions
that
the
committee
may
have
you
it's
at
your
discretion.
A
T
Hiv
infections
disproportionately
affect
certain
minority
populations,
including
the
black
and
the
latinx
individuals.
They
represent
60
69
of
all
new
hiv
diagnosis
in
our
hiv
actually
is
estimated
to
have
impacted.
1.1
million
people
living
in
the
united
states
and
14,
or
one
in
seven,
are
unaware
that
they
are
even
infected.
T
We
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
able
to
reach
those
communities
where
health
care
is
is
difficult
to
obtain
and
a
lot
of
times.
The
pharmacy
is
the
one
place
where
people
that
that
a
patient
will
feel
more
comfortable
going
into.
It
seems
like
some
patients
feel
that
pharmacies
are
less
stigmatizing
than
the
traditional
test
hiv
testing
sites
and
are
therefore
more
comfortable
with
receiving
testing
and
treatment
at
these.
T
This
bill
points
out
that
the
pharmacist
has
the
ability
to
test
they
they
have
to
test
before
implementing
any
type
of
prevention
or
treatment
for
these
patients.
Hiv
prevention
medications
are
effective.
Public
health
interventions
with
prep
when
taken
daily,
reduces
the
risk
of
getting
hiv
from
sex
by
99
and
by
74
among
those
who
inject
drugs.
T
So
with
that,
I
just
ask
that
the
committee
look
at
this
bill
closely.
I
I
feel,
like
it's
important
piece
of
legislation
and
helping
the
community
with
the
hiv
issues,
and
you
know
I'd
like
to
see
these
life-saving
techniques
brought
to
my
brought
brookfield
in
the
state
of
nevada,
and
I
thank
the
committee
and
just
urge
your
vote
and
support
on
this
legislation.
T
A
A
And
I
know
we
said
we
have
no
questions,
but
I
do
have
one
clarifying
one
senator.
So
I'm
looking
at
the
bill
section,
seven
sub
four
and
then
I'm
looking
at
the
amendment
section
7
sub
4
and
they
appear
to
be
identical,
and
so
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
wasn't
an
error
and
maybe
there
was
supposed
to
be
an
amendment
but
or
if
that
was
left
over
from
the
amendment
on
the
senate
side,
it
looks
like
section,
seven
sub,
four,
where
it
says
section.
A
S
You
are
correct,
as
always,
madam
chair,
senator
meyer,
for
the
record.
It
looks
like
it's
just
left
over
right.
I
forgot
to
delete
that
out.
A
S
Correct
the
administrator
section
and
administration
administer
and
administration
for
the
concept
of
the
new
stuff
that's
coming
forward
is
in
section
one
and
two,
and
I
believe
the
section
10
has
a
change,
though
that
was
indicated
that
was
necessary
requested
by
culinary,
I
believe.
A
I
Good
afternoon
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
bradley
mayer,
b-r-a-d-l-e-y
m-a-y-e-r
partner
at
argentine
partners
representing
the
southern
nevada
and
washoe
county
health
districts.
Today
we
just
wanted
to
support
this
bill,
and-
and
it's
you
know,
it's
an
it's
an
important
bill
in
terms
of
getting
these
drugs
to
people.
But
we
just
want
to
also
emphasize
that
the
regulations
that
the
board
of
farmers
who
adopt
will
make
sure
that
they
have
the
proper
standard
of
care
for
administering
these
medications
in
regards
to
the
labs
and
follow-up
that
are
sometimes
required.
B
This
bill
will
lift
an
incredible
weight
off
our
already
strained
health
care
system
and
help
nevadans.
With
this
critical
issue,
pharmacies
providing
access
to
medications
to
prevent
hiv
in
nevada
will
be
a
relief
to
for
patients
as
well,
since
they,
since
this
will
mean
direct
access
to
life-saving
medication.
We
have
been
very
consistent
on
this
issue.
This
session
pharmacists
should
be
able
to
prescribe
these
types
of
medications.
This
is
basic
health
care.
Please
support
this
important
bill.
Thank
you.
C
C
C
N
This
piece
of
legislation
would
be
a
huge
game.
Changer
in
the
overall
fight
against
hiv,
nevada
has
the
highest
rate
of
hiv
west
of
the
mississippi,
and
this
fits
into
the
overall
plan
to
end
hiv
by
using
testing
as
a
core
tool
and
using
prevention
as
a
core
tool
with
prep
and
pep.
So
please
we
urge
you
to
be
in
favor
and
pass
this
bill.
Thank
you
very
much.
C
P
So
hiv
prevention
for
the
record,
I'm
bob
at
bond,
culinary
health
fund.
Hiv
prevention-
is
something
that
we
actually
dreamed
about
back
in
the
aids
epidemic
that
took
hold
of
our
nation
in
the
80s
in
the
first
half
of
the
90s,
I
was
a
graduate
student
in
public
health
at
that
time
and
when
I
moved
to
nevada
my
first
program
I
got
to
work
on
at
the
health
district
was
aids
transmission,
education.
P
Many
of
us
still
mourn
people
that
we
lost
and
many
more
have
died
since
then,
and
here
we
are
30
years
later,
there's
while
there's
still
over
a
million
people
in
our
country
that
have
hiv
new
infections
are
declining
and
programs
like
this
that
make
it
drugs
more
accessible
and
prevention.
More
accessible,
are
great
ideas
and
bring
the
state
forward
dramatically.
So
I
appreciate
the
bill.
P
We
appreciate
the
efforts
made
by
so
many
in
public
and
private
health
care
workers
and
advocates
to
make
hiv
prevention
a
reality
in
our
lives,
and
we
greatly
appreciate
the
work
of
the
sponsor
to
ensure
patients
have
appropriate
access
to
prevention
in
this
bill.
But
on
behalf
of
the
culinary
health
fund,
we
support
the
bill
and
we
appreciate
people
that
brought
it
to
the
table.
A
C
I
I
A
A
S
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
committee
of
commerce
library.
I
appreciate
your
time
here
today
if
you're
any
questions
or
issues
that
you
have,
please
don't
hesitate
to
reach
out
to
me
in
that
respect,
though
I
would
be
remiss
since
this
is
my
last
session
to
not
say
that
you
would
definitely
have
the
best
policy
analyst
in
the
building.
A
I
do
I
do.
Thank
you
senator.
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
325.
and
again
for
those
members
who
are
here
for
the
other
three
bills.
I
do
have
to
adjourn
to
let
my
members
go
to
the
education,
natural
resources
and
revenue
subcommittee,
so
we
will
resume
our
business
tomorrow
and
hear
the
remaining
bills.
Then
so,
thank
you
and
I
apologize
for
making
you
wait
at
this
time.
The
last
agenda
item
that
we
have
is
public
comment.
A
A
Thank
you
so
much
broadcasting.
Thank
you,
committee,
members,
broadcasting
and
committee
staff
for
being
able
to
pull
this
committee
meeting
together
on
such
a
short
notice.
I
appreciate
everyone
members.
We
are
adjourned
and
we
will
see
you.