►
From YouTube: 5/24/2021 - 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
C
A
Thank
you
so
much
secretary.
If
you
would
please
mark
the
members
absent
excuse
who
are
not
present
and
then
mark
them
present,
as
they
arrive
good
afternoon
members,
those
joining
us
on
zoom
and
those
here
with
us
in
person
today
we
do
have
a
short
agenda
and
I
think
everyone
is
familiar
with
our
housekeeping
items,
so
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
bypass
those
and
jump
straight
into
our
hearings.
For
today
we
do
have
two
bills:
senate
bill,
55
and
senate
bill
295.
A
That
will
be
heard
today
and
I
will
be
taking
those
in
order.
So
with
that,
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
55,
which
revises
provisions
governing
the
licensing
and
regulation
of
employee
leasing
companies.
Good
afternoon,
commissioner,
nice
to
see
you.
D
So
good
afternoon,
it's
nice
to
see
all
of
you
in
person
I'll
just
get
that
out
of
the
way
for
the
record.
My
name
is
shannon
chambers,
nevada
labor.
Commissioner,
I'm
here
today
to
present
senate
bill
55
and
to
kind
of
give
you
a
quick
statement
of
what
this
bill
does.
Let
me
first
say
that
this
is
a
bill
that
makes
a
great
deal
of
sense.
This
is
an
issue
that
has
been
before
this
body
for
about
25
years
of
how
to
deal
with
something
called
an
employee
leasing
company.
So
going
back
in
time.
D
Currently,
they
are
responsible
for
the
registration
of
employee
leasing
companies,
so
she
is
here
today
to
answer
any
questions.
So,
first
of
all,
what
we're
going
to
do
is
we
are
not
going
to
call
these
entities
employee
leasing,
companies
anymore,
they
are
going
to
be
called
professional
employer
organizations.
D
D
So
what
these
entities
are
doing
now
is
providing
labor
compliance
services
so,
for
example,
guidance
on
labor
laws,
guidance
on
benefits,
guidance
on
other
human
resources
issues,
so
we
are
going
to
add
that
to
the
definition
of
a
professional
employer
organization,
we
are
still
going
to
leave
the
language
in
there
about
the
ability
to
lease
employees.
However,
it
will
be
the
goal
of
the
labor
commissioner
to
identify
which
entities
are
actually
still
doing
that
and
then
transition
them
to
a
private
employment
agency
license.
D
So
by
moving
this
under
the
labor
commissioner,
the
labor
commissioner
will
be
able
to
review
these
entities,
find
out
what
they're
exactly
doing
and
then
get
them
in
the
proper
licensure
status.
So
the
other
thing
we're
going
to
do
is
instead
of
a
certificate
of
registration,
we
are
going
to
call
it
a
professional
employer
organization
license,
and
let
me
address
that
issue,
because
this
came
up
on
the
senate
side
of
the
bill.
We
are
not
adding
any
new
requirements.
D
D
D
D
We
also
changed
the
penalty
structure
that
was
in
kind
of
the
previous
statutes
to
a
five
thousand
dollar
administrative
penalty.
That
is
discretionary
at
the
option
of
the
labor
commissioner.
That
is
a
maximum,
so
it
could
be
anywhere
from
zero
to
five
thousand
at
the
discretion
of
the
labor
commissioner.
D
That
is
also
less
than
the
existing
penalty
structure
and,
quite
frankly,
will
offer
a
much
more
expedited
process.
The
labor
commissioner's
appeal
process
is
typically
30
to
60
days
at
the
maximum
so
again
trying
to
provide
some
oversight,
but
also
provide
some
avenues
for
due
process
to
a
professional
employer
organization.
Should
they
need
that?
So,
with
that,
madam
chair,
I
can
go
ahead
and
walk
through
the
main
sections
of
the
bill
that
are
going
to
be
changed
and
then
again
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
D
So
sections
1
and
1.5
again
we're
going
to
replace
the
term
employee
leasing
company
to
professional
employer
organization,
professional
employer
organization
will
now
then
be
part
of
the
entire
statutes
that
the
labor
commissioner
then
has
authority
over.
So
those
conforming
changes
will
be
made
throughout
the
bill
and
the
the
statutes
once
they
get
codified.
D
D
The
division
of
industrial
relations
will
still
retain
the
enforcement
provisions
over
workers,
compensation
insurance
that
is
appropriate.
The
labor
commissioner
does
not
enforce
the
statutes
on
workers
compensation,
so
that
will
stay
in
the
bill
and
just
for
reference.
That
is
the
same
with
a
private
employment
agency
as
well.
The
labor
commissioner
does
not
verify
or
approve
workers
compensation
insurance,
so
that'll
still
be
left
with
the
division
of
industrial
relations,
so
sections
two
and
three
of
the
bill.
D
Again,
as
I
said,
we
will
change
from
a
certificate
of
registration
to
a
license
and
transfer
the
licensing
responsibility
to
the
nevada
labor.
Commissioner,
the
nevada
labor
commissioner
currently
licenses
private
employment
agencies,
so
we
have
staff
who's
experienced
to
review
applications
to
review
bond
applications.
So
this
will
not
be
a
new
process
and
I
there
is
no
request
here
for
additional
staff
for
our
office
to
take
on
this
responsibility.
D
I'm
confident
that
we
have
existing
staff.
That
can
do
this.
So
again,
I
mentioned
the
right
of
appeal:
if
a
license
was
denied
or
it's
non-renewed,
a
peo
will
now
have
that
right
in
sections
four:
five:
six
and
seven
again
it's
moving
the
licensure
authority
and
then
adding
the
authority
for
a
discretionary
five
thousand
dollar
per
violation.
Administrative
penalty.
D
So
the
next
section
section
4.2
through
4.8
sections
8
through
18
and
then
section
19,
just
make
conforming
changes
throughout
the
bill
and
then
that
ultimately,
will
be
in
the
statute
and
again
why.
I
said
why
this
bill
makes
sense.
Is
I
reached
out
to
the
national
association
of
private
or
professional
employer
organizations
and
had
a
very
healthy
and
nice
discussion
with
them
about
why
this
is
needed
and
why
nevada
probably
should
have
done
this
20
years
ago?
These
entities
have
expanded.
D
The
labor
compliance
part
of
this
is
something
that
the
labor
commissioner
needs
to
have
jurisdiction
over
and
needs
to
have
the
authority
to
find
out
what
exactly
these
organizations
are
doing
and
make
sure
it's
consistent
with
nevada
law.
I
don't
anticipate
any
problems.
I
will
tell
you
my
conversation
with
the
napeo,
as
it's
called.
We
look
forward
to
working
together.
We
think
that
this
is
going
to
be
a
very
healthy
relationship
and
something
we
can
leverage
on
the
labor
commissioner's
side
to
spread
the
word
to
employers
about
new
laws
about
new
postings,
new
requirements.
D
D
Most
of
them
felt
that
this
was
a
really
really
good
idea
and
belongs
with
the
labor
commissioner.
So
that's
kind
of
where
we're
at
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
from
the
committee
and,
if
administrator,
carry
on
would
like
to
add
to
what
I've
just
testified
to
I'd,
be
happy
to
let
her
do
that
as
well.
A
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
would
like
to
give
remarks
when
you're
ready,
okay
victoria
cardin
for
the
record,
I
am
the
administrator
at
the
division
of
industrial
relations.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
and
we
appreciate
the
partnership
with
shannon
chambers
labor,
commissioner,
in
looking
at
this
in
the
appropriate
place
that
employee
leasing
companies
should
be
regulated.
So
the
division
of
industrial
relations
is
currently
responsible
for
the
registration
of
these
employee
leasing
companies.
The
fee
is
500
annually.
C
We
have
203
leasing,
companies
right
now
and
the
actual
revenue
that
we
brought
in
in
fiscal
year.
2020
was
114
thousand
115
dollars.
We
currently
have
about
0.4
fte
allocated
to
this
function.
It's
a
compliance,
audit,
investigator
2
position
that
was
within
our
workers
compensation
enforcement
unit,
so
that
position
is
really
better
equipped
to
do.
Enforcement
of
workers,
compensation
coverage
and
compliance
issues
and
not
does
not
really
have
the
type
of
expertise
needed
to
review
these
employee
leasing
company
applications.
So
it
really
is
a
much
better
fit
to
have
this
function
under
the
labor
commissioner.
C
As
shannon
chambers
mentioned,
we
will
continue
in
our
office
ensuring
that
the
employee
leasing
companies
have
workers,
compensation
coverage
and
failure
to
comply
could
result
in
administrative
fines
so
that
function
will
remain
within
our
office
and
just
to
help
clarify
for
the
committee.
We
previously
did
not
have
any
true
enforcement
authority
over
the
registration
requirements,
and
so,
if.
A
C
C
A
Any
thank
you
miss
carrion,
okay.
We
will
now
go
to
questions
for
members.
I
just
want
to
start
really
quick
just
to
make
sure
I
understood
this
correctly,
so
we're
basically
taking
employee
leasing,
companies
and
renaming
them
to
professional
employer
organizations,
then
we're
changing
the
registration
from
a
registration
to
a
license,
but
we're
not
changing
the
fee.
So
that's
for
issuance
and
renewal.
A
That's
staying
at
500
we're
just
calling
it
something
different
and
then
we're
taking
professional
employer
organizations
from
the
administrator
of
industrial
relations,
division
of
industrial
relations
and
moving
it
under
the
labor
commissioner,
and
that's
in
essence
what
they
told
us.
D
E
Yes,
thank
you
chair
and
back
in
many
many
moons
ago.
I
used
to
work
for
adp.
It
was
the
regional
manager
for
them
and
we
always
had
people
who
confused
us
with
you
know
employment
agencies
or
employee
leasing
agencies.
But
I
am
curious,
though,
if
we're
going
to
fall
right
back
into
that
a
little
bit
by
looking
at
the
definition
under
section
1.5,
subsection
4.
E
We
are
now
adding
a
definition
that
the
professional
employer
organization
means
a
company
which,
pursuant
to
a
written
or
oral
agreement
intended
by
the
parties
to
create
an
ongoing
relationship,
a
provides
labor
compliance
services
for
a
fee,
including
without
limitation,
the
management
of
human
resources,
employee
benefits,
payroll
and
workers
compensation
and
then
or,
and
we
get
into
b
and
b,
definitely
falls
more
in
lines
with
the
employee
leasing
or
what
we're
now
calling
the
the
new
terminology
professional.
E
You
know,
employer
organization,
so
I'm
just
curious
by
just
putting
that
ore
in
there.
Is
it
possible
that
this
is
now
going
to
be
interpreted
to
apply
to
those
payroll
companies,
because
that's
exactly
what
we
did
right,
we
we
sold
services
to
help
with
payroll
processing.
We
we
actually
added
on
a
human
resource
component.
D
So
again,
madam
chair,
for
the
record,
shannon
chambers,
nevada,
labor,
commissioner
and
permission
to
go
through
you
directly
to
assembly
women,
told
us
so
go
directly
to
the
members.
Thank
you
so
assembly.
One
tools.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
D
So
I
think
what
we're
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
and
your
points
are
good
ones,
we're
trying
to
take
the
first
step
to
get
these
under
the
authority
of
the
labor
commissioner,
these
what
are
now
called
employee
leasing
companies
find
out
what
they're
really
doing
and
then
determine
exactly
if
we
need
to
transition
those
companies
that
are
still
leasing,
quote
unquote
employees
to
a
private
employment
agency,
but
by
adding
the
new
definition
of
professional
employer
organization.
D
It
allows
them
to
provide
those
labor
compliance
services
to
provide
the
human
resources
services,
but
as
the
labor
commissioner,
I
didn't
just
want
to
close
the
door
on
those
companies
that
may
have
contracts
out
there,
where
they've
actually
leased
employees.
But
the
goal
will
be
to
work
with
203.
D
E
Follow-Up
chair.
Yes,
so
I
I
I
do
think
it
would
be
important
and
we
may
need
some
clarifying
language
there,
because,
as
it
reads
right
now
with
that
or
I
understand
you're
trying
to
capture
just
those
203
agencies
or
so,
but
I
I
think
that
it
could
be
just
as
I'm
reading
it
and
perhaps
legal
could
you
know
correct
me.
I
think
that
this
could
open
the
door
to
incorporate
all
and
that's
a
quite
a
large
net.
E
D
A
F
C
C
G
Thank
you
so
much
chair.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify,
because
the
chair
had
a
great
summary
of
what
we're
doing
just
moving
over
and
very
similar,
but
the
under
section,
seven
two,
so
that
penalty
of
not
more
than
five
thousand,
but
that
is
new,
correct.
D
So
again,
madam
chair,
for
the
record:
shannon
chambers,
nevada
labor,
commissioner,
it
is
new
under
the
existing
authority
under
the
division
of
industrial
relations,
the
potential
penalty
can
be
up
to
ten
thousand
per
violation,
so
we're
bringing
this
under
the
labor
commissioner
and
under
the
labor
commissioner
statutes.
D
G
Section
in
this
section,
but
under
the
the
previous
administrator
there
was
already
already
the
penalty
up
to
ten
thousand
correct.
Okay,
thank
you.
C
So,
just
to
clarify
the
only
authority
that
our
division
had
in
terms
of
loving
administrative
fines
was
if
the
employee
leasing
company
did
not
have
proper
workers
compensation
coverage.
Otherwise
we
didn't
have
any
authority
to
levy.
A
A
H
A
Okay
bps,
could
we
check
the
telephone
lines
for
anyone
wishing
to
testify
and
support.
G
A
G
A
G
A
Thank
you
and
before
I
go
to
you
for
closing
remarks,
commissioner,
I
do
want
to
go
back
to
a
question.
I
overlooked
our
member
who's
joining
us
digitally.
So
at
this
time,
I'd
like
to
acknowledge
ms
stickman
for
a
question.
G
Thank
you
so
much
chair
and
thank
you.
Miss
chambers
just
had
a
quick
question
about.
If
you
could
explain
why
this
is
a
two-thirds.
D
So
madam
chair
threw
you
to
assemblywoman
dick
dickman.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
So
what
it
is
assemblywoman
dickman
is
there's
going
to
be
a
transfer
of
revenue
of
a
little
over
a
hundred
and
fourteen
thousand
dollars
from
the
registration
fees
that
will
be
transferred
from
the
division
of
industrial
relations
to
the
labor
commissioner's
budget
account
if
this
bill
is
successful
and
passes.
D
So
that
is
my
understanding
of
it,
and
that
is
why
it
is
in
the
two-thirds
world
and
that's
basically
what
I
know.
So,
that's
what
I
can
tell
you.
D
As
far
as
I
know
again,
madam
chair,
through
you
to
some
of
them
dick,
as
far
as
I
know,
that
is
the
reason.
A
Thank
you,
mr
stickman,
and
I
apologize
for
overlooking
you
earlier
and
I
will
remember
to
check
in
with
you
for
questions
moving
forward.
Miss
chambers
did
you
want
to
give
any
closing
remarks
and
actually
before
we
do
that,
I
do
want
to
I.
I
do
want
to
check
with
my
legal
counsel
on
that
two-thirds.
If
that's
okay,
mr
cross,
could
you
explain
to
us
what
your
understanding
of
the
two-thirds
is.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair
sam
quask
committee
council.
It's
my
understanding
that
the
two-thirds
is
due
to
the
expansion
of
the
definition
of
professional
employer
organization.
Currently
under
employee
leasing
company.
It
just
regulates
companies
that
lease
their
employees
under
this
new
definition
there's
new
activities
that
would
require
persons
to
get
a
license.
So,
therefore,
you
could
possibly
receive
increased
revenue
due
to
the
increased
number
of
people
that
may
have
to
get
a
license.
I
Thank
you
so
to
clarify
with
legal
they
were
being
registered
before,
but
now
we're
calling
it
a
license.
So
it's
it
is
an
expan.
It's
it's,
not
necessarily
the
expansion
component.
It's
the
change
in
how
it's
ending
up
in
in
that
particular
area,
because
it
was
a
registration.
Now
it's
going
to
be
a
license.
It's
moving
from
one
division
to
another,
so
it's
moving
from
dir
to
miss
chambers.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair
sam
cross
committee
council,
the
change
of
the
name
between
the
license
and
the
registration
and
the
transfer
of
authority.
I
do
not
believe,
is
the
reason
for
the
two-thirds.
It's
the
expansion
of
the
definition
of
what
actually
is
being
regulated.
F
If
you're
a
company
leasing
employees,
then
you
would
be
required
to
be
licensed
as
an
employee
leasing
company
under
this
particular
license.
Now
we're
saying
that
these
companies
that
provide
labor
compliance
services,
which
are
not
currently
included
within
the
definition
of
employee
leasing
company,
would
also
require
to
be
licensed.
Therefore,
a
person
who
was
providing
labor
compliance
services
prior
to
this
would
not
be
required
to
be
licensed
under
this,
and
after
this
they
would
re.
They
would
be
required
to
be
licensed
out
of
this
and
pay
the
fees.
D
No
again,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
very
much
and
again
that
was
what
was
represented
to
me
as
far
as
the
fiscal
and
the
two-thirds.
So
that's
why
I
communicated
that
to
the
to
the
committee
just
to
be
clear.
All
those
entities
that
currently
have
a
registration
will
automatically
unless
they
don't
meet
the
requirements
we'll
just
roll
over
to
a
license,
so
that
is
built
in
in
here.
There
are
no
new
fees,
there's
no
new
positions
so
again
certainly
defer
to
legal
counsel
on
how
that
two-thirds
decision
was
made.
D
I
know
that
was
a
discussion
on
the
senate
side
of
whether
it
was
needed
or
not
so
just
want
to
address
that.
But
I
would
urge
support
for
this
bill
again.
It
makes
sense
to
bring
these
entities
under
the
labor
commissioner,
and,
like
I
said,
I
look
forward
to
working
with
the
industry
and
to
really
kind
of
getting
this
issue
where
it
probably
should
have
been
back
about
20
years
ago,
when
this
legislative
body
was
first
starting
to
hear
the
term
professional
employer
organization
and
what
should
we
do
with
employee
leasing
companies?
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee.
We
do
appreciate
commissioner
chambers
and
all
her
help
to
find
a
good
home
for
employee
leasing
companies.
We
totally
agree
that
renaming
them
professional
employer
organizations
and
regulating
them
under
the
labor
commissioner,
is
the
best,
of
course,
for
the.
A
A
Thank
you.
Okay,
with
that,
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
55.
next
up
on
our
agenda
is
senate
bill
295..
I
do
believe
that
the
majority
leader
is
still
on
the
floor
of
the
senate,
but
has
instructed
that
mr
inglesby
and
mr
mills
will
be
presenting
the
bill.
I
believe
mr
mills
are
you
with
us
on
zoom
there.
You
are
okay.
Thank
you
committee
with
that
we
will
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
295,
which
revises
provisions
relating
to
industrial
insurance.
J
J
In
case
he
needs
to
add
anything,
but
he
will
be
available
for
any
legal
questions
regarding
the
bill
too,
as
well
senate
bill
295
simply
clarifies
existing
law
for
fire
fighters,
police,
heart
and
lung
hepatitis
cases
where
those
diseases
cause
partial
disability
but
cause,
but
cause
one
not
to
be
able
to
be
a
firefighter
police
arson
investigator.
J
Such
members
may
elect
the
benefit
for
permanent
total
disability
there
after
call
it
permanent,
total
disability.
Ptd
note
it
is
not
an
actual
finding
of
total
disability.
No
existing
law
allows
any
offset
or
reduction
of
ppd
benefits.
Thus,
sb
295
is
a
clarification
bill.
Existing
a
law
allows
an
insurer
to
remove
ptd.
J
And
then
again,
good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
committee
members,
my
name
is
todd
inglesby,
I'm
representing
the
professional
firefighters,
nevada
every
day,
firefighters
put
their
lives
on
the
line
and
nevada
legislator
has
consistently
recognized
the
sacrifices
associated
with
our
profession.
Part
of
that
sacrifice
is
the
chance
of
suffering
a
career,
ending
disability
due
to
work
related
injury
or
disease.
J
We
have
recently
had
an
issue
where
third
party
providers
of
workers
compensation
have
been
ignoring
the
existing
law
by
denying
permanent
total
disability
payments,
even
though
the
firefighter
or
police
officer
can
no
longer
work
in
their
profession.
We
believe
this
bill
will
provide
language
to
help
clarify
existing
statute
and
prevent
these
third
parties
from
trying
to
get
out
of
the
disability
we
are
due
in
working
with
stakeholders
on
this
bill.
J
We
appreciate
the
majority
leader
for
always
being
a
champion
for
our
first
responders
and
bringing
this
important
piece
of
legislation.
I
also
want
to
introduce
again
jason
mills
to
the
committee,
who
is
also
here
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
We
urge
your
support
and
thank
you
for
hearing
our
bill.
K
Chairman,
how
did
he
jason
mills,
nevada,
justice
association?
Yes,
I
have
just
a
short
remarks.
I
I
wanted
to
point
out
and
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
be
here
today
and
thank
the
entire
committee
for
your
time.
I
wanted
to
point
out
that
the
amendment
that
be
brought
up
is
important
because
it
only
applies
to
police
and
fire
and
emergency
technicians,
heart
lung
and
hepatitis
claims.
K
K
If
you
continue
to
work
in
some
non-police
officer,
non-firefighter
non-arson,
investigator
capacity,
so,
for
example,
if
you
were
to
go
to
be
a
greeter
at
the
local
mega
mart
or
something
along
those
lines,
you
could
continue
to
work
and
receive
your
ptd
benefit.
If
you
can
still,
you
still
have
a
heart
disease,
lung
disease
or
hepatitis,
and
you
can
still
no
longer
be
a
police
officer
investigator
or
firefighter
existing
law.
K
The
same
statute,
that's
being
amended.
Existing
law
says
that
if
the
insurer
can
prove
that
that
disability
is
gone,
then
they
can
remove
the
ptd
benefit.
Thus,
even
with
this
change
being
put
into
effect,
if
they
can
show
the
heart,
disease
is
gone,
they
can
show
the
lung
disease
is
gone
and
they
can
show
that
that
they
can
become
a
police
officer
and
a
firefighter
investigator
again,
because
the
the
heart
disease
is
gone
and
the
lung
disease
is
gone
then
that
ptd
benefit
would
be
able
to
be
removed.
K
So
this
law
does
nothing
to
alter
or
change
or
amend
existing
law.
It's
just
clarifying
that
they
can't
remove
it
just
because
the
guy
is
working
at
the
library
on
the
weekends
or
just
because
he's
opens
up
a
a
a
little
business
on
the
side
to
augment
his
income,
because
he
or
she's
been
knocked
out
from
being
a
police
officer
a
firefighter,
often
prematurely
if
you're
doing
10
years,
12
years,
15
years
you
get
knocked
out
of
that
position.
K
You're
earning
potential
notwithstanding
receiving
these
ptd
benefits
is
still
great,
really
reduced,
so
they
need
to
be
able
to
add
these.
These
additional
ways
to
earn
income.
K
As
long
as
again
the
heart
disease
isn't
gone
or
is
gone
and
they're
they're
not
practicing
as
a
police
officer
firefighter
arson
investigator
and
a
doctor
has
said
that
it's
okay
for
them
to
do
that,
then
this
bill
just
simply
clarifies
that
these
benefits
would
not
be
cut
off,
and
I
I
bring
this
up
because
over
the
senate
side,
much
of
the
of
the
discussion
was
about
that
this
rule
is
somehow
going
to
change,
alter
or
amend
existing
law,
and
that
isn't
so
true
what
it
really
does.
K
Is
it
clarifies
existing
law
and
we
have
looked
at
old,
lcb
workups
on
this
for
previous
chairman
that
have
concluded
the
same
thing
that
we're
putting
for
you
to
you
today,
through
the
pffn
and
on
behalf
of
myself
at
the
nevada
justices
association,
I'm
available
for
any
questions
comments
or
that
you
or
any
of
the
members
have.
A
Thank
you,
mr
mills
and
mr
englesby.
I
do
have
one
question
when
you're
referring
to
the
amendment,
are
you
referring
to
a
new
amendment
that
you're
providing
to
the
assembly
or
the
amendment
that
you
guys
adopted
in
the
senate.
J
A
I
I
K
Okay,
madam
chair,
through
you
to
vice
chair
carlton,
jason
about
it
justice,
that's
correct,
and
not
only
that
it's
capped
vice
chair
remember
that
their
their
their
wages
can
far
exceed
the
cap,
so
it
caps
out
at
66
to
two-thirds
of
their
wage
or
66
and
two-thirds
of
the
cap,
which
is
usually
for
police
officers
and
firefighters.
K
I
K
Vice
chair
jason
mills,
in
about
it
justice,
it
is
currently
about
six
thousand
dollars
per
month.
So
the
award
is
just
shy
of
four
thousand
one
hundred
dollars
per
month
and
most
professional
firefighters
and
arson.
Investigators
and
police
officers
in
this
state
that
have
been
on
any
amount
of
time
typically
earn
more
than
six
thousand
dollars
a
month
in
wages.
I
Thank
you
very
much.
I
think
just
it's
just
good
to
be
able
to
put
some
relationship
points
in
this,
because
not
only
do
they
have
a
harder
lung
disease
or
hepatitis,
so
they've
got
a
chronic
illness.
They've
lost
their
job,
they've
got
a
pay
cut,
and
now
someone
wants
to
decide
well
if
they
go
open
up
a
little
side
business
they
want
to
take
that
benefit
away.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we've
got
it
from
start
to
finish.
I
What's
actually
happened,
and
I
will
say
from
personal
experience:
it's
not
easy
to
get
heart
and
lung
coverage
no
matter.
You
can
have
a
heart
attack
on
the
job
and
they
will
still
deny
you
heart
and
lung
coverage,
and
you
have
to
fight
for
years
to
get
it
so
just
want
to
make
sure
just
a
personal
point
of
privilege.
I
know
what
that's
like
going
through.
So
thank
you,
madam
chair.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
time
and
thank
you
miss
carlton
for
bringing
forth
some
of
the
information
I
wanted
to
bring
forward.
I
appreciate
that,
but
mr
mills,
I
just
have
a
question
and
it
may
be
a
little
confusing,
so
give
me
a
second
to
work
with
it.
Let's
say
a
firefighter
or
emergency
technician.
B
Would
they
be
able
to
do
that?
Or
do
we
lose
that
knowledge
that
the
state
that
we
have
learned
or
have
the
capability
of
continuing
with
is
that
lost
doesn't
seem
appropriate
to
me?
The
answer
is
yes:
they're
not
allowed
to
teach.
K
Chairman
howard,
jason
mills,
nevada
justice,
threw
you
to
assemblyman
o'neill.
We
believe
that
the
current
law
does
not
allow
them
to
do
that
already.
However,
there's
been
some
rulings
that
have
come
through
the
hearing
and
appeals
offices.
That
would
indicate
that
you
are
exactly
correct.
K
No,
you
cannot
do
that
according
to
a
particular
appeals
officer
down
at
the
administrative
hearing
offices,
if
you
did
do
any
amount
of
work,
because
that
would
show
that
you're
no
longer
permanently
totally
disabled,
notwithstanding
that
police
officers
and
firefighters
are
not
permanently
totally
disabled
when
they
receive
this
benefit
under
existing
law.
So
the
point
of
this
was
to
clarify
that
they
could
continue
to
do
such
work
like
that
teach
at
the
local
community
college,
earn
wages,
etc.
K
E
Yes,
thank
you
chair
and
first
let
me
just
say
that
I've,
I've
always
said
our
firefighters,
our
law
enforcement.
Our
you
know
your
first
responders,
you're
you're,
our
veterans.
We
talk
a
lot
about
benefits
for
our
veterans,
taking
care
of
our
veterans,
I'm
sister
of
two
law
enforcement
officers.
I
just
I
appreciate
the
risks
you
put
yourself
through
every
day
for
the
public
and
keeping
us
safe.
So
if
I
understand
it
correctly,
we're
talking-
and
that
was
a
wonderful
example
that
I
think
some
women
o'neill
gave.
E
So
the
idea
here
is
you
have
somebody
who's
on
ptd,
but
they
are
presumably
taking
a
less
risky
job,
for
example,
consulting
or
teaching,
or
what
have
you,
but
that's
not
written
into
this
statute.
So
is
there
ever
a
case
where
somebody
might
find
themselves
in
another
scenario
where
they're
in
a
job
that
they
may
get
injured
again?
What
would
happen
in
that
case?
Would
it
be
a
doubled
up
workers
comp
claim
how?
How
would
that
work?
E
K
Madam
chair,
through
you
to
assemblywoman
tolls,
jason
milson
about
it
justice.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
This
existing
law
already
indicates
that
there
can
be
no
greater
than
100
percent
benefits
being
provided
on
all
workers.
Compensation
claims
that
one
is
receiving.
So
if
a
person
was
out
on
a
permanent
total
disability
benefit
due
to
his
heart
disease,
he
got
knocked
out
at
year
10
because
of
his
heart
disease.
He
couldn't
be
a
police
officer
anymore.
K
She
and
then
goes
to
work
at
the
local
community
college
or
elsewhere
receiving
that
that
benefit
from
permanent
total
disability
gets
injured.
The
roof
falls
in
during
their
exam
during
their
day
and
they
break
their
arm.
G
Thank
you
chair,
and
I
think
this
is
a
great
bill.
I
just
want
to
clarification
so
we're
saying
with
permanent
disability.
It's
two-thirds
basically,
so
I
think
in
one
of
the
examples
it's
if
a
person
was
receiving
six
thousand
dollars
a
month
and
then
with
66
and
two-thirds.
Their
disability
would
now
be
four
thousand
dollars
and
then
it
gives
them
the
ability
to
go
out
and
get
another
job
teaching
or
whatever
it
might
be.
G
So
that's
great
so
so
my
question
is
what
is
if
they
go
get
another
job
and
now
they
earn
four
thousand
dollars
and
they're
getting
they're
getting
four
thousand
and
they
earn
four
thousand.
So
now
their
total
monthly
income
is
eight
thousand.
That's
two
thousand
more
than
what
they're.
In
the
example,
the
salary
was
of
six
thousand.
Is
there
any
reduction
if
their
income
is
more
than
what
their
their
normal
salary
or
cap
would
have
been?
K
Madam
chair,
yes,
madam
chair,
through
you
to
assembly
woman,
kasama,
jason
milner
justice-
remember
that
the
typically
what
happens
is
the
two-thirds
is
again
of
of
the
of
the
max
wage
they
could
be
earning,
so
a
firefighter
police
officer
could
earn
10
or
12
000
a
month
with
their
overtime
and
other
things,
and
and
then,
if
this
happens
to
them,
they
get
knocked
out
of
that
particular
job,
and
now
they're
only
receiving
four
thousand
dollars
per
month
from
this
ptd
benefit
at
current
rates.
K
If
you
were
older,
your
rates
would
be
lower
by
the
way.
So,
if
you
were
to
go
out
and
earn
any
money
or
income
current
law,
current
law
that
this
does
not
alter,
change
or
amend
current
law
does
not
provide
for
any
offset.
K
There
is
no
statute
or
regulation
or
nevada
supreme
court
case
law.
That
says
that
you
can
offset
ptd
benefits.
Remember
these
are
ptd
benefits
for
for
earning
additional
wages.
K
That
does
not
exist
in
current
law,
which
is
why
we
were
somewhat
stunned
when
an
appeals
officer
did
this
to
one
of
the
our
our
our
police
officers
down
here
in
the
south
in
making
such
a
ruling
and
then,
of
course,
the
the
the
police
and
fire
unions
were
rightly
upset
when
they
saw
the
assault
on
their
heart
and
lung
benefits
that
that
case
stood
for.
So
no
existing
law
does
not
does
not
allow
that
to
be
done.
A
Okay,
members
miss
stickman
any
questions.
A
Not
really,
but
I
could
come
up
with
one
it's
okay,
just
checking
in
on
you.
Okay,
then,
at
this
time
we
will
go
ahead
and
move
into
testimony
and
support.
Is
there
anyone
in
carson
city
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
senate
bill
295.
H
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
for
the
record
tom
dunn,
representing
the
professional
firefighters
of
nevada,
as
well
as
my
own
host
agency,
local,
the
reno
firefighters
association
and
reno
airport,
associate
renewal
airport,
firefighters
association.
H
We
sit
here
today
in
support
of
sb
295
and
it's
important
to
recognize
that
when,
as
a
police
officer
or
firefighter,
if
you're
diagnosed
with
heart
disease
in
our
profession,
you
you
are
exponentially
higher
to
have
another
cardiac
event.
Once
you're
diagnosed
without
heart
disease,
there's
definitive
data
to
that
there's
nfpa
standards
that
address
it
specifically
for
firefighters
that
once
you're
diagnosed
with
heart
disease,
it
is
exponentially
higher
that
you
are
going
to
have
another
cardiac
event
and
the
potential
of
having
a
significant
event
such
as
death.
H
Is
we
can't
put
it?
We
can't
put
a
number
to
that,
miss
carlton!
You
know,
based
on
your
statements
earlier,
I
got
a.
I
have
a
story
for
you
that
just
happened
this
past
week
and
it's
it
happened
to
me
in
a
workers
comp
hearing
where
the
third
party
administrator
has
accepted
the
claim
for
heart
and
law.
I'm
sorry
for
heart
disease.
However,
they
are
denying
the
employee
permanent
total
disability,
because
they're
saying
well,
you
know
it's
possible
that
they
could
take
a
light
duty,
job
or
an
administrative
job
with
their
fire
agency.
H
Well,
unfortunately,
this
fire
agency
does
not
have
a
light
duty
assignment
for
a
full-time
paid,
professional
firefighter,
and
that's
why
that
benefit
resides
in
the
statute.
Currently
is
because
you
are
getting,
you
are
getting
a
benefit,
because
you
are
no
longer
allowed
to
work
your
primary
profession,
which
is
either
a
police
officer
firefighter
or
arson
investigator.
So,
once
again,
we
are
in
support
of
this
legislation
and
I'm
here
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have
as
well.
Thank
you.
L
Thank
you,
ma'am
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
wrestling
mcallister
nevada,
state
afl-cio.
We
are
in
support
of
this
legislation.
As
someone
who's
worked
on
firefighter
and
police
officer
workers,
compensation
benefits
for
over
20
years.
I
can
say
that
this
is
a
benefit,
that's
needed
or
a
bill.
That's
needed!
It's
not
been
something.
L
It's
not
something.
That's
changed.
It's
just
trying
to
clarify,
what's
already
there,
so
that
we
don't
have
hearings,
officers
guessing
what
may
or
may
not
be
legal,
and
with
that,
madam
chair,
I
thank
you.
We
are
in
support
of
this.
A
G
M
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair,
my
name
is
bill:
gardner
d-I-l-l-g-a-r-d-n-e-r
and
I'm
calling
representing
iaff
1607
north
las
vegas
firefighters.
I
just
want
to
let
you
guys
know
how
much
we
really
support
this
bill.
I
want
to
echo
everything
that
mr
mcallister
just
said,
and
just
ask
that
you
please
move
this.
G
M
M
Firefighters,
I'm
asking
you
to
please
pass
this
bill
through
the
committee
here.
It's
very
important.
G
G
G
G
Chair,
he
is
still
on
the
line,
sir.
We
are
having
a
little
bit
of
a
hard
time
hearing
if
you
can
repeat
it
from
the
beginning,
starting
with
your
name.
G
M
Paths
to
being
made
only
partially
disabled
one,
okay,
no
rehabilitation
and
rethinks
normal
employees
would
the
other
is
locked.
A
At
this
time,
okay,
thank
you.
Is
there
anyone
in
carson
city
who
would
like
to
testify
in
neutral,
okay
bps?
Could
we
check
the
telephone
line
for
neutral
testimony.
G
G
G
M
I'm
calling
in
today
just
to
briefly
explain
our
opposition
here,
as
mr
hooks
was
trying
to
state
over
the
phone.
There's
two
methods
for
these:
these
partially
disabled
firefighters
and
police
officers
to
obtain
benefit.
The
permanent
total
disability
benefits
from
the
heart
and
lung
bill
when
they
meet
the
criteria
that
are
suggested
in
this
bill,
and
that
is
either
they
can
choose
to
be
vocationally
retrained
into
another
occupation
or
they
can
elect
to
receive
permanent
total
disability
benefits.
M
M
M
That
creates
a
huge
problem
here,
of
course,
and
and
a
huge
cost
to
to
the
state
and
and
to
these
local
agencies.
M
We
would
ask
that
this
that
this
be
that
does
not
pass
through
this
assembly
and
and
that
the
the
the
bill
is
written,
be
be
stricken
or
amended
so
that
the
exactly
what
mr
mills
was
talking
about,
so
that
the
the
employers,
the
the
state
or
local
municipalities,
so
that
they
can
offset
any
additional
pay
and
wages
by
the
by
the
amount
up
into
the
the
deemed
wage
from
the
permanent
total
disability
statute.
A
I
So
your
point
is
that,
because
they're
currently
permanently
totally
disabled,
the
classification,
that's
that
we
have
put
in
statute
they're,
getting
66
and
two-thirds
of
their
deemed
wage,
and
your
position
is
because
they're
getting
that
they
shouldn't
be
allowed
to
take
a
job
someplace
else
now
take
so
in
essence,
the
proposal
that
I
believe
you're
headed
towards
is,
if
they
take
a
job
someplace
else,
you
don't
want
to
pay
him
the
66
and
two-thirds
anymore.
That
doesn't
mean
that
they
don't
have
heart,
lung
or
hepatitis
issues.
I
M
Not
exactly
ma'am
the
the
goal
here
would
be
to
eliminate
the
wage
replacement
benefits
that
are
tied
to
the
permanent
total
disability
statute
and
to
a
and
and
to
reduce
those
benefits
by
the
amount
that
they
have
supplemented
through
their
new
occupation.
So.
I
Okay,
then,
that
was
that
you
made
it
perfectly
clear
right
there.
So,
let's
let's
go
ahead
and
stop
there
for
for
just
a
second,
so
the
grand
bargain
in
workers
comp
is
that
if
you
have
a
worker
that
has
been
hurt,
you
either
make
the
manhole
woman
whole,
but
the
old
statue
is
manhole
or
you
give
them
the
compensation
for,
but
not
being
able
to
go
back
to
their
job.
I
I
So
you
in
essence
want
to
penalize
them
a
second
time
because
they
go
get
another
job.
You
want
to
lower
that
60
now,
if
they
were
getting
100,
we
might
have
a
conversation,
but
because
they're
only
getting
66
and
two-thirds.
You
want
to
lower
that
amount
even
more
because
they
went
out
to
get
another
job
to
help
make
up
the
difference
of
their
pay
cut.
Is
that
what
I'm
hearing
you
say.
M
Well,
as
the
law
currently
sits,
ma'am
the
the
law
currently
sits.
There's
two
channels
at
the
at
the
culmination
of
this
elect
of
this
permanent
total
disability
analysis
or
this
heart
lung
bill.
You
know
sitting
out
there
one
they,
the
individual
can
choose
vocational
retraining,
whether
they
get
retrained
and
choose
not
to
receive
that
those
wage
replacement
benefits
but
to
be
retrained
into
a
new
profession.
M
Those
individuals
are
set
up
to
be
deemed
permanently
totally
disabled
for
the
remainder
of
their
career.
What's
being
proposed
through
this
bill.
Is
that,
instead
of
going
through
the
specific
vocational
retraining,
and
instead
of
those
individuals
who
have
elected
to
go
in
that
direction,
that
we
allow
these
firefighters
and
police
officers
to
elect
to
receive
the
deemed
or
permanent
total
disability
benefits,
get
two-thirds
of
their
of
their
wages?
M
Tax-Free
right?
So
they
don't
have
to
pay
any
taxes
in
in
association
with
this
work.
Comp
benefit
right
so
getting
very
close
to
to
their
normal
wage
and
allowing
them
to
then
go
and
get
the
same
benefits
of
those
who
have
chosen
to
give
vocational
retraining
because
they
secure
another,
a
second
job
and
double
up
on
their
wages,
with
no
effect
on
the
on
the
elected
permanent
total
disability
benefits.
I
I
Those
items
have
nothing
to
do
with
this
bill.
Those
are
benefits
that
are
earned
for
years
worth
of
service
and
those
should
not
be
part
of
the
conversation
at
all.
We're
talking
about
an
employee
who
suffered
who
is
suffering
a
chronic
illness
who
elected
to
take
the
ptd,
and
I'm
I'm,
I
believe,
you're
getting
a
little
squishy
in
in
some
of
the
comments,
because
part
of
this
election
choice
is
whether
you
want
to
take
a
lump
sum
or
the
monthly
part
and
the
voc
rehab
fits
in
another
component.
I
So
a
lot
of
the
things
that
you're
saying
if
folks
aren't
thoroughly
versed
in
workers
comp
can
be
very,
very
confusing
and
that's
part
of
the
problem
with
having
folks
testify
over
the
phone.
Is
it
can
make
it
very
difficult,
but
basically
what
I'm
hearing
from
you
is.
You
are
saying
that
if,
if
one
of
these
folks
has
a
ptd
and
is
only
making
66
and
two-thirds
of
their
wage,
you
believe
if
they
go
get
an
outside
job
that
should
be
credited
against
that
wage.
That's
the
position
that
I'm
hearing
from
you
is
that
correct.
M
A
If
you
take
this
part,
I'm
sorry,
mr
stickman,
I'm
going
to
have
you
take
that
question
offline.
This
bill
does
not
pers,
isn't
a
part
of
this
bill,
and
so
I
just
want
to
keep
our
questions
to
questions
regarding
senate.
G
M
And
just
answer
your
question:
no,
it
does
not
ordinary
permanent
total
disability
benefits
are
generally
offset
by
any
retirement
benefits.
However,
in
the
situation
that
we're
in
right
here,
the
suggestion
is
that
there
would
be
no
ability
to
offset
these
elected
permanent
total
disabilities.
A
What
I
think
we'll
do
is
we
can
probably
have
the
bill
sponsors
answer
that
question
when
they
come
up
back
for
closing
remarks.
That
might
be
a
question
better
addressed
to
the
bill.
Sponsors.
Okay,
so
then
members
see
no
other
questions
for
this
presenter.
I'm
going
to
ask
bps
to
move
on
to
our
next.
A
Caller-
and
I
would
like
to
remind
those
on
the
line
that
we're
actually
in
neutral
testimony-
I
know
that
I
know
that
the
caller
called
in
in
opposition-
and
we
were
hearing
testimony
in
the
neutral,
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
move
them
into
opposition.
But
in
this
virtual
world
I
wanted
to
go
ahead
and
take
his
testimony
and
so
bps.
If
we
could
check
to
see
if
there
are
any
other
color
callers
in
the
neutral
position,.
G
Oh
yes,
sure
there
are,
the
public
line
is
open
and
working,
but
there
are
no
more
callers
at
this
time.
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
at
this
time
I
would
like
to
call
mr
ingles
be
back
to
the
table
for
closing
remarks
and
mr
inglesby.
If
you
would
just
address
the
assembly
members
question
regarding
whether
benefits
continue
at
retirement
age,.
J
J
We
get
told
by
the
doctor
who
we
have
to
do
a
physical
every
year
and
the
doctor
says
you
can
no
longer
do
this
job
and
then
the
municipality
says.
Well,
we
don't
want
to
also
take
that
liability
of
you
doing
the
job,
even
if
you
want
to
we're
going
to
go
with
what
the
doctor
says.
Therefore,
your
option
is
to
take
permanent
total
disability.
If
that
clears
up
your
your
question,
assemblyman,
dickman
and
or
jason,
if
you
want
to
add
anything
on
that
you
might
you
can
as
well.
J
And
again,
I
just
want
to
thank
everybody
for
hearing
our
bill.
If
anybody
has
any
questions,
we
know
it's
time
pac,
it's
time,
everybody's
working
on
a
lot
of
hours.
I
know
you
guys
are
extremely
busy.
You
can
definitely
reach
out
to
me
or
I
can
follow
up
with
you
too
as
well.
Thank
you.
A
because
we
are
getting
towards
the
end
of
the
81st
legislative
session,
and
I
know
there
had
been
some
concerns
from
my
colleague
regarding
senate
bill
55,
that
at
this
time
I
would
like
to
move
into
a
work
session
on
senate
bill.
295,
though
so
we
can
go
ahead
and
get
that
moving,
I'm
going
to
hand
it
over
to
ms
pasloft
thomas,
so
she
can
kind
of
walk
us
through
senate
bill
295
a
work
session.
C
Thank
you,
ma'am,
chair
margie
thomas,
for
the
record.
We
just
heard
senate
bill
295,
which
is
sponsored
by
senator
cannizzaro
and
revises
provisions
relaying
to
industrial
insurance,
and
there
are
no
proposed
amendments.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
members.
At
this
time
I
would
be
looking
for
a
motion
to
do
pass.
I
have
a
first
by
assemblymember
o'neill.
I
have
a
second
by
vice
chair
carlton,
any
I'm
so
sorry
before
we
go
into
accept
a
motion.
I
want
to
ask
if
anyone
has
a
question
on
the
bill
before
you,
okay,
then
I'll
I'll
go
ahead
and
accept
my
motion
from
assemblymember
o'neill,
a
second
from
vice
chair
carlton,
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
A
Okay,
we
have
an
eye
from
assembly.
Member
dickman.
Is
that
correct?
Yes,
okay,
the
motion
passes
unanimously.
Thank
you,
members.
Okay,
now
next,
oh,
I
would
like
to
assign
that
floor
statement
to
assembly
member
o'neil.
A
Okay
members
at
this
time,
our
the
last
item
on
our
agenda
is
public
comment.
Well,
we
give
those
listening
over
the
internet
time
for
to
call
in
for
public
comment.
I'm
gonna
see
if
there's
anyone
here
in
carson
city
wishing
to
give
public
comment.
A
Okay,
seeing
none
broadcasting
can
we
check
the
telephone
line
for
anyone
wishing
to
provide
public
comment.