►
From YouTube: 2/17/2021 - Senate 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
Here,
thank
you
record
reflect
that
we
have
all
members
present
and
accounted
for.
A
A
A
These
include
registering
to
participate
in
a
committee
meeting
through
the
news
through
the
new
system
on
nellis,
which
places
you
in
line
to
testify
on
a
bill
or
provide
public
comment.
During
the
meeting,
you
may
also
submit
written
comment
to
the
committee
email
address
or
fax
number.
As
listed
on
the
agenda,
you
can
also
share
your
opinion
via
the
legislature's
opinion
application
on
nellis,
or
you
may
view
committee
meetings
online
through
nellis
or
on
the
legislature's
youtube
channel
during
the
2021
legislative
session,
to
testify
on
a
bill
or
provide
public
comments.
A
Members
of
the
public
must
first
register
for
the
meeting
and
you
the
meeting
you
would
like
to
participate
in
committee
meetings
are
listed
in
several
places
on
nellis
and
to
register
simply
click
the
participate
button
near
the
meeting
date
and
time
then
fill
in
the
required
information,
such
as
your
name.
The
agenda
item
that
you're
interested
in
and
position
on
the
bill.
Once
your
registration
is
submitted,
you
will
see
a
confirmation
screen
and
you
will
also
receive
an
email
with
the
phone
number
and
meeting
id
to
call
at
the
time
of
the
meeting.
A
Just
to
note
that,
while
meeting
registration
is
required
to
participate,
it
does
not
guarantee
that
you,
everyone
will
be
able
to
speak
similarly
to
previous
sessions.
Comment
and
public
comment
may
be
limited
due
to
time
constraints
and
I'll
announce
the
time
frame.
How
many
minutes
we
have
for
each
section
before
we
begin
it
will
be
helpful
if
you
or
your
organization
will
comment
to
remember
who
comment
remember.
Ditto
is
a
good
response
and
when
someone
has
already
covered
your
points,
that's
quite
all
right.
You
don't
have
to
read
three
sheets
of
paper.
A
A
A
If
you
need
assistance
with
any
of
these
processes
or
if
you
would
like
to
receive
an
electronic
notification
of
the
committee's
agendas
and
minutes,
please
contact
our
committee
manager
at
the
committee
email
listed
on
the
agenda
any
exist.
Any
exhibits
for
the
committee
must
be
submitted
in
electric
electronic
format.
No
later
than
eight
o'clock
am
the
day
before
to
our
committee
manager,
terry
miller,
or
our
committee
policy
analyst
cesar
madrejo
committee
contact
information
may
be
found
on
the
committee
page
in
nellis.
A
A
I
will
not
entertain
any
amendments
if
the
bill
sponsor
is
not
aware
of
the
amendment,
the
proposed
amendment
must
be
submitted
in
writing.
24
hours
prior
to
the
meeting,
please
include
the
bill
number,
a
statement
of
intent
and
your
contact
information
when
testifying.
Please
remember
to
unmute
your
microphone
and
to
clearly
state
your
name
and
the
entity
you
represent
at
the
beginning
of
your
testimony,
speak
clearly
and
project
your
voice
to
ensure
that
those
who
are
watching
remotely
can
hear
your
testimony,
and
this
is
very
important.
I
said
it
even
when
we
were
not
virtually.
A
If
you
don't
speak
loudly,
there
are
several
people
who
are
trying
to
listen
on
the
computer.
They
will
not
be
able
to
hear
you,
so
please
speak
and
project
your
voice
to
ensure
that
those
who
are
watching
remotely
can
hear
your
testimony.
Please
remember
to
turn
the
microphone
off
when
you
finish
speaking
a
reminder
to
all
those
who
testify
pursuant
to
nevada,
revised
statutes
nrs218e.085,
it
is
unlawful
for
a
person
to
knowingly
represent
facts
when
testifying
before
a
legislative
committee.
A
A
person
who
knowingly
does
so
is
guilty
of
a
misdemeanor,
the
chair
or
any
other
members,
may
request
that
a
testifier
submit
documentation
supporting
their
testimony
to
committee
members.
During
these
virtual
meetings,
when
an
agenda
item
is
called
for
a
vote,
our
committee
will
be
using
roll
call
to
do
so.
When
the
committee
secretary
calls
your
name,
please
answer
with
a
yes
or
no,
so
that
there
is
no
confusion.
A
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
cesar
margaret
committee
policy.
Analyst.
We
just
have
one
bill
on
our
work
session
today:
senate
bill
55,
sponsored
by
senate
committee
on
commerce
and
labor
on
behalf
of
the
division
of
industrial
tribulations
of
the
department
of
business
and
industry,
and
this
bill
was
heard
on
february
3rd
2021.
D
There
are
some
amendments
proposed
by
shannon
chambers
labor,
commissioner,
from
the
office
of
the
labor
commissioner
department
of
business
industry.
Her
proposed
amendments
and
explanations
are
attached
to
this
work
session
document.
D
The
first
amendment
is
to
amend
the
bill
to
transfer
the
duties
of
supervising
employee
leasing
companies
from
the
administrator
of
dir
to
the
office
of
labor.
Commissioner,
next
is
amend
the
bill
to
change
the
term
employee
leasing,
company
to
professional
employee
organization
and
amend
the
bill
to
change
the
term
certificate
of
registration
to
a
license
and
to
expand
the
definition
of
client,
company
and
professional
employer
organization
to
allow
professional
employee
organizations
to
manage
the
labor
compliance
services
of
the
client
company
without
hiring
and
leasing
back
to
client
companies.
Employees.
A
Thank
you
and
I
believe
it
was
much
my
attention
yesterday
that
there
may
be
some
a
couple
of
hiccups
with
respect
to
adding
people,
and
maybe
perhaps
that
will
add
more
money
if
it
adds
money
to
the
bill.
It
certainly
turns
into
a
two-thirds
vote.
So,
mr
keane,
will
you
please
talk
to
us
about
what
that
means.
Please,
and
I
would
ask
that
the
labor
commissioner
come
up
or
anyone
else
who
may
have
an
answer
to
this
question.
If
you
just
stand
by
and
once
he
finishes
you
can
respond.
E
Thank
you,
chair
spearman,
yes,
the
labor
commissioner
did
an
excellent
job
of
putting
together
this
proposed
amendment.
This
is
one
of
those
kind
of
amendments
that
appears
more
complicated
than
it
is.
E
Essentially
what
is
happening
is
the
entire
subhead.
Regarding
employee
leasing,
companies
in
616b
is
going
to
be
moved
to
chapter
611
and,
along
with
that,
there's
a
substantive
change
of
changing
the
entity
responsible
for
supervising
employees
and
companies.
It's
going
to
be
changed
from
the
division
dir
and
the
administrator
of
dir
is
going
to
be
changed
to
the
labor.
Commissioner.
E
There's
also
be
two
non-substantive
changes
which
make
the
make
the
amendment
look
confusing,
but
it's
really
not.
E
We
changed
the
name,
employee
leasing,
company
to
professional
employer
organization,
and
we
changed
the
name
certificate
of
registration
to
license,
but
those
are
non-substantive
changes
and
then,
as
far
as
substantive
changes
go
other
than
the
fact
that
the
labor
commissioner
will
now
be
supervising
this
process
instead
of
dir
the
the
the
more
substantive
change
you
can
find
on
the
on
the
labor
commissioner's
proposed
amendment,
it's
on
page
two,
the
page
will
have
the
number
two
at
the
bottom.
E
That's
page
two,
the
proposed
amendment,
the
the
definition
of
professional
employer
organization,
is
being
expanded,
and
I
discussed
this
with
a
with
the
legislative
council
and
with
the
labor
commissioner.
I
certainly
don't
want
to
put
words
in
labor
crucial's
mouth,
but
it's
my
understanding
that
the
labor
commissioner
is
updating
this
definition,
because
in
practice,
in
more
modern
times,
these
companies
generally
do
not
actually
lease
the
employees
back.
E
From
a
legal
point
of
view,
though,
as
I
discussed
the
with
the
legislative
council
on
its
face,
it
appears
that
we
are
expanding
the
scope
of
what
a
professional
employer
organization
is
and
because
of
that,
at
least
on
its
face.
It
appears
that
there
will
be
entities
or
potentially
entities
out
there
who
currently
do
not
need
to
be
registered.
E
Who
will
have
to
be
licensed?
I
don't
want,
like
I
said
I
would
prefer
the
labor
commissioner
comment
on
the
actual
real
world
implications
of
this.
It's
my
understanding.
There
aren't
any
companies
that
fall
into
that
category,
but
from
lcb
legal's
point
of
view,
we
have
to
put
a
two-thirds
vote
on
it
because,
at
least
on
its
face
it
appears
that
there
will
be
people
who
previously
did
not
have
to
be
registered.
Who
now
have
to
be
licensed
and
being
licensed?
E
Not
only
has
whatever
costs
it
takes
to
apply
for,
but
there's
also
a
500
fee
every
year,
which
is
a
fee,
and
so
that's
why
we
would
have
the
two-thirds
vote
and
the
other
changes
other
than
this.
Some
of
them
have
some
minor
substitute
effects,
but
for
the
most
part
they
just
facilitate
the
movement
of
these
sections
from
chapter
616b
to
chapter
611.
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
about
that.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Experiment
so
let's
have
the
labor
commissioner
comment
on
on
that
and
maybe
clarify,
so
we
make
sure
that
what
we
think
we're
voting
on.
We
are
indeed
voting.
F
On
chairwoman
spearman
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
very
much
for
the
record.
Shannon
chambers,
nevada,
labor,
commissioner,
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
proposed
amendment
and
to
your
point,
chairwoman
spearman.
This
was
a
friendly
amendment,
it's
a
pretty
pretty
a
big
amendment,
but
it
is
friendly,
and
I
will
tell
you
that
I
did
reach
out
to
the
industry.
So
it's
the
national
association
of
professional
employer
organizations,
I've
reached
out
to
the
chambers
to
associated
general
contractors,
nevada
contractors
association
so
to
understand
kind
of
the
origins
of
why
we're
here
today.
F
So
this
is
really
bringing
the
statutes
and
the
language
up
to
2021
standards.
It
is
not
the
intent
of
the
labor
commissioner,
with
this
amendment,
to
create
new
fees
or
to
make
these
companies
get
re-licensed
or
apply
for
a
new
license.
Based
on
my
conversation
with
the
professional
association,
these
companies
have
not
been
leasing.
Employees
for
over
20
plus
years,
what
they're
actually
doing
is
providing
payroll
and
human
resources,
kind
of
consultation
and
labor
compliance
services,
so
the
intent
would
be.
F
We
would
capture
these
companies
in
the
renewal
period,
so
they
would
be
renewing
anyway,
and
they
would
have
to
go
through
that
process
anyway.
But
it
is
not
the
intent
of
the
labor
commissioner
to
create
a
new
fee
or
to
make
these
companies
go
through
a
new
process
to
get
a
new
license.
It's
essentially
just
ensuring
that
they
are
now
under
the
proper
terminology
in
the
industry
and
that
on
upon
a
renewal,
their
license
would
reflect
professional
employer
organizations.
So
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Thank
you,
miss
chambers,
any
questions
from
committee
members.
G
With
your
permission,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
So
with
this
change
the
shift
from
one
the
other,
is
it
budget
neutral
or
is
there
something
else
that
we're
aware
of
that
is
going
to
increase
the
cost
or
the
fee.
F
So
again,
thank
you
for
the
question
senator
hardy
again:
shannon
chambers,
nevada
labor,
commissioner
for
the
record
and
chairwoman
spearman
with
permission
I'll
go
directly
to
senator
hardy.
So
there
is
the
the
transfer
of
revenue
from
the
license
fees
senator
hardy,
but
there
are
no
new
fees,
the
license
fee
and
the
renewal
fee
would
stay
exactly
the
same.
The
labor
commissioner,
is
not
asking
for
any
new
positions,
so
it
would
simply
be
the
transfer
of
that
revenue
from
the
license
fees
and
renewal
to
the
labor
commissioner,
but
no
new
fees
at
all.
G
F
A
Thank
you,
I
think
senator
pickett
were
you
next
or
somewhere.
C
Hi
deferring
to
senator
sotomayer.
H
H
F
F
Again,
if
there
was
concern
about
that,
I
did
talk
to,
like
I
said
the
national
association
of
professional
employer
organizations.
They
were
supportive
of
the
term
license.
F
They
would
still
have
all
the
due
process
associated
with
that
which
they
already
have
with
the
certificate,
but
they
would
have
a
right
to
appeal
a
denial
or
a
revocation,
but
they
thought
it
reflected
more
accurately.
What
is
going
on
in
the
other
states
and
actually
what's
going
on
in
the
industry.
H
Okay,
I
appreciate
that
my
second
question,
then
I
have
a
comment:
if
that's
okay
with
you,
madam
chair,
is
number
five:
the
authorization
labor
commission
to
impose
an
administrative
penalty
of
I
assume
up
to
five
thousand
dollars.
So
in
other
words,
it's
not
guaranteed
that
every
violation
is
five
thousand.
I
would
hope
that
there's
a
staggered
concept
that
if
it's
a
minor
violation
or
are
you
saying
it's
a
flat
fee
of
5
000
for
each
violation?
F
So
again,
shannon
chambers,
nevada,
labor,
commissioner,
for
the
record,
so
it
is
new
in
terms
of
professional
employer
organizations.
It
would
not
be
a
maximum
and
an
automatic
5000,
senator
settlemyre.
It
would
be
a
sliding
scale,
and
the
labor
commissioner
would
have
discretion
on
that.
That's
typically
consistent
with
the
authority
that
the
labor
commissioner
already
has
under
nevada
labor
laws.
F
It's
up
to
5000
again,
there
would
be
a
right
to
appeal
any
penalty
that
was
imposed,
but
it
would
not
be
an
automatic
five
thousand
and
again
this,
in
my
opinion,
as
the
labor
commissioner,
is
a
better
way
to
regulate
an
industry
like
this,
because
the
existing
language
requires
the
filing
of
a
lawsuit
and
then
potential
damages
and
actually
bigger
penalties
for
these
companies
right
now.
So
this
would
be
more
consistent
with
the
penalty
structure
of
the
labor.
Commissioner,
as
it
exists
in
statute
right
now,.
H
F
F
H
Okay
with
that,
madam
chair,
I
understand
the
bill.
I'm
I'm
apprehensive
about
the
violation,
because
this
is
the
first
time
five
thousand
dollar
violation.
The
first
time
we've
seen
that
so
I'm
going
to
try
to
reach
out
in
the
meantime
after
we
process
this
and
I'm
sure
and
talk
to
professional
employer
organizations
and
see
what
their
thoughts
are.
H
Because
again,
this
is
the
first
time
I've
ever
heard
of
it
in
this
respect,
and
with
that,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
transferring
it
to
the
right
entity,
because
when
we
started
out
it
was
going
on
one
place
and
then
during
the
testimony,
went
to
another
place
and
just
want
to
make
sure
we
don't
go
yet
another
place.
So
hopefully
this
is
the
right
place
to
have
this
situated.
So
with
that,
thank
you
for
allowing
me
the
indulgence
of
the
questions.
Madam
chair
I'll.
Let
the
next
person
go.
E
Yes,
thank
you
chairman,
just
a
quick
point
on
the
administrative
penalties.
I
I
absolutely
agree
with
the
labor
commissioner.
The
five
thousand
dollar
penalty
is
in
line
with
the
other
existing
penalties
that
she
has
in
different
areas,
including
in
particular
in
chapter
611.
E
The
611
already
regulates
private
employment
agencies
and
they
have
that
same
five
thousand
fine,
five
thousand
dollar
fine,
and
it's
an
up
to
so
it's
not
it's
not
absolutely
five
thousand
it's
up
to
five
thousand,
but
it's
worth
also
saying
that
where
these
sections
are
now
in
chapter,
616,
b,
they're
all
enforced
by
dir
through
dir's,
rather
robust
investigation
and
fine
structure
and
in
fact
the
fines
are
currently
set
forth
for
for
these
provisions
in
nrs
616
d
120,
and
they
have
a
they-
have
a
more
complicated
fine
structure,
as
you
can
imagine
for
workers
comp,
but
essentially
for
intentional
violations.
E
Right
now,
an
employee
leasing
company
would
have
a
fine
of
a
minimum
of
fifteen
hundred
dollars
for
their
initial
violation
and
fifteen
thousand
dollars
for
second
and
subsequent
violations
for
unintentional
violations.
They
would
get
a
cease
and
desist
letter
and
then,
after
that,
penalties
of
375
dollars
to
three
thousand
dollars.
So
it's
a
more
complicated
structure
right
now
and
they'd
be
moving
over
to
labor
commissioners
5
up
to
5
000
penalty.
A
Thank
you
for
that
explanation.
Senator
sotomayor.
Did
he
answer
your
question
or
address
your
concerns.
H
He
answered
his
yes,
he
gave
me
some
information
about
the
concerns
like
I
said,
this
is
the
first
time
I've
seen
this
penalty.
You
know
in
this
amendment
that's
coming
forward
and
I
am
going
to
try
to
reach
out
to
some
of
those
entities
that
she
said
she
had
talked
to
agc
and
so
forth
in
order
to
try
to
hear
back.
H
So
I'm
apprehensive
about
that
concept,
because
again
it's
brand
new,
it
just
was
you
know,
came
up
with
an
amendment
and
I
appreciate
I
should
have
done
my
homework
last
night,
so
I
could
have
reached
out
to
him
before,
but
sadly
I
did
not
and
therefore
I'm
apprehensive
about
it.
But
thank
you,
madam
chair
I'll.
Let
the
next
person
in
line
go.
Thank
you.
A
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
going
to
circle
back
to
the
topic
of
licensure
in
just
a
second,
but
I
wanted
to
first
make
sure
that
is
the
issue
of
the
financial
review,
which
I
understood
to
be
the
genesis
of
this
whole
process
of
this
whole
purpose
of
removal.
C
F
So,
thank
you
for
the
question
senator
pickard.
This
is
shannon
chambers,
again
nevada
labor,
commissioner,
for
the
record.
So
after
the
previous
hearing
on
this
bill,
I
had
discussions
with
the
commissioner
of
insurance
and
the
administrator
of
the
division
of
industrial
relations
and
also
again
with
the
industry
and
the
association,
the
national
association
of
professional
employer
organizations,
to
understand
what
that
review
actually
entails,
and
I
am
comfortable
that
the
labor
commissioner
can
do
that
review.
We
already
do
that
review
for
private
employment
agencies.
F
C
Great
all
right,
that's
explains
why
I
didn't
see
it
in
the
amendment.
Thank
you
for
that.
I
want
to
circle
back,
though,
to
the
difference
in
licensure.
Just
as
a
backdrop,
one
of
the
things
that
chair
spearman
has
pushed
in
the
sunset
subcommittee,
for
example,
is
to
ease
the
barriers
to
entry
to
various
employment
opportunities
and
to
reduce,
ultimately,
as
part
of
that,
to
reduce
the
licensing
requirements.
C
These
organizations
only
had
to
register
before
they
did
not
have
to
meet
any
requirement
or
testing
or
or
pre-qualification
for
licensure
there's
no
statutory
scheme
for
licensure
and
even
though
other
states
may
call
it
a
license.
We
don't
there's
nothing
in
our
statutory
scheme
and
our
statutory
scheme
across
the
entire
statutes
make
a
distinction
between
registration
and
licensure
and
there's
nothing
in
the
regulations
or
the
statute
that
are
prepared
to
handle
a
licensure.
C
You
know
would
would
survive
the
effective
date
of
the
legislation.
So,
all
of
a
sudden,
all
these
individuals
or
all
these
entities
are
out
of
compliance
they're
not
licensed.
Unless
we
get
through
this
and
there's
no,
we
have
to
promulgate
the
regulations,
so
I
I
mean
I
guess
this
is
really
a
question
for
mr
keane
when
you
said
this
was
a
non-substantive
change.
Wouldn't
you
agree
that
changing
from
under
a
nevada
regulatory
scheme
changing
from
a
registration
to
a
license,
it
is
indeed
a
substantive
change.
E
Your
experiment,
with
your
permission-
yes,
please
well,
thank
you.
No
senator
picker,
there's
no
substantive
change
here.
It's
purely
a
name
change!
There's!
No,
there's
no
substantive
difference
between
this
license
and
this
certificate
of
registration
is
purely
a
name
change.
All
the
requirements
are
exactly
the
same.
C
Okay
and
and
so
we're
going
to
use
the
term
license
in
a
new
way
in
our
statutory
scheme,
I'm
concerned
about
ambiguities
that
will
arise
and
whether
or
not
this
then
opens
the
door
to
licensing,
even
though
the
requirements
arguably
aren't
changing
we're
using
a
word
in
this
well,
can
you
point
to
another
regulatory
body
that
uses
the
term
licensure
for
what
is
what,
in
this
case
has
been
called
the
registration.
A
Yeah
can
can
I
just
jump
in
and
I
think
I
think
what
what
mr
keane
said
is
that
in
his
opinion,
an
lcb
is
the
one
that's
the
last
arbiter.
When
we
have
questions
that
there's
no
substantive
change,
and
if
there
were
a
question
about
it,
we
can
always
like
we
do
with
any
bill.
That's
already
passed
anything
that's
in
statute.
We
can
always
go
to
lcb
and
get
our
the
legislative
intent
clarified.
Okay,
I
want
I
want
to
move
on.
A
A
Exactly
senator
pickering
senator
picker,
we
have
a
clear
record.
Okay,
we
have.
We
have
a
clear
record.
I've
got
a
couple,
other
people
that
want
to
want
to
testify,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
time
for
our
public
comment
after
the
bill
after
the
bill
closes.
So
he's
already
he's
already
said,
there's
no
substantive
change
already
said
that
it
answered
your
question
and
I
think,
he's
answering
sort
of
several
questions.
A
A
Just
a
minute
hold
on
okay,
senator
hardy,
your
your
hand
was
up.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
It
was
a
simple
question.
You
know
we're
we're
not
making
a
substantive
change,
we're
making
a
shift
from
one
senator.
G
Yes,
so
we're
making
a
non-substantive
change,
we're
shifting
from
one
entity
to
the
other
we're
putting
in
a
fine
that
is
different
than
the
other
fine
schedule.
So
my
question
would
be
how
many
and
what
did
we
actually
have
a
history
of
finding
before,
under
the
division
of
insurance
versus
this
up
to
five
thousand
dollars?
So
in
other
words,
it
are
we
doing
more
fining
or
are
we
doing
less
finding,
or
did
we
even
do
any
fining
and
if
we
did
finding
before?
G
A
Go
ahead:
yes,
please,
and,
and
after
you
do
I'd
I'd
like
for
I'd
like
for
mr
king
to
step
in
because
I
don't
want
to
be
redundant
with
the
questions.
Some
of
the
things
he's
already
answered.
So
if
we'll,
if
you'll
step
in
after
the
labor
commissioner
and
make
sure
that
we've
got,
we've
got
whatever
we
need
from
a
legal
standpoint.
We've
got
that
and
it
clarifies
in
everyone's
mind
and
if
not,
if
not,
there's,
always
the
opportunity
to
go
to
either
lcb
or
go
to
the
labor
commissioner
or
whomever.
A
A
I'm
I'm
I.
I
really
have
to
make
sure
that
the
questions
that
we're
asking
have
already
been
answered
and
if
not,
if
there's,
if
there's
a
peculiarity
about
it,
then
I
would
really
suggest
that
you
go
to
lcd
or
the
labor
commission,
commissioner.
But
for
me
I'm
satisfied
that
he
answered
the
question
about
five
thousand
dollars,
but
he
can.
He
can
take
it
next
and
after
after
you
said
a
hearty
I'm
going
to
vice
chair
neal.
B
Madam
chair,
this
is
victoria
carrillon,
the
administrator
at
the
division
of
industrial
relations.
Since
we
currently
have
this
function,
I
wanted
to
clarify
that
we
have
not
done
any
fines
on
any
employee
leasing
companies
and,
in
fact,
when
there
is
an
issue
we
have
referred
it
to
the
attorney
general's
office.
Thank.
F
B
E
Thank
you,
chair,
spearman,
just
repeat
on
the
on
the
fine
issue,
the
the
fine
provision
it
does
appear
as
new
language
and
it's
new
in
the
sense,
oh
well.
What
I
would
like
to
just
do
a
comparison
currently
under
the
current
statutes.
E
The
the
penalties
that
would
apply
to
an
employee
leasing
company
are
just
set
forth
in
a
different
section.
The
way
that
the
workers
comp
statutes,
are
organized
into
chapters
616a
through
616d.
They
have
a
chapter
616d
which
handles
things
like
enforcement
investigations,
fines
and
that's
where
those
statutes
are
located.
So
you
don't
see
them
in
the
same
subhead
with
the
employee
leasing,
company
statutes.
E
If
it's
intentional,
like
I
said,
the
the
intentional
fines
range
from
fifteen
hundred
dollars
per
violation
to
fifteen
thousand
per
violation
and
the
unintentional
range
from
first
a
notice
which
has
no
fine
and
then
a
range
of
375
dollars
to
3
000,
the
labor
commissioner,
instead
of
so
in
place
of
that
existing
scheme
that
would
apply
because,
right
now,
the
employee
leasing
companies
are
regulated
by
dir
in
place
of
that.
E
The
labor
commissioner
has
put
in
a
five
thousand
dollar
penalty,
which
does
not
differentiate
between
intentional
and
unintentional,
at
least
not
on
its
face.
E
But
the
5000
is
a
cap,
and
I
wouldn't
want
to
speak
for
a
labor
commissioner,
but
I
believe
that
she
said
that
they
take
into
account
whether
it's
intentional
or
unintentional,
when
they
decide
how
much
the
fine
would
be.
E
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
I
know
that
we're
not
in
title
54
right
now
with
all
professions
but
title
54
is
where
most
of
the
professions
are
located
and
for
the
most
part
there
are
licenses,
sometimes
they're
registrations,
and
just
be
really
blunt
about
it.
The
requirements
for
each
license
or
registration,
whatever
it's
called,
are
simply
the
requirements
that
are
set
forth
in
statute
for
that
license
or
registration.
Ultimately,
it
doesn't
matter
whether
it's
called
a
registration
or
called
a
license.
E
Perhaps
the
public
conception
of
what
these
things
are,
that
registration
is
easier
to
obtain,
but
that's
not
legally
necessary,
which
is
why
I
said
this
change
is
a
non-substantive
change
because
we're
not
changing
any
of
the
requirements
for
getting
this
registration
or
licensure
and
as
far
as
the
transition
lcd
be
putting
in
a
transitory
provision,
saying
that,
upon
the
effective
date
of
this
bill
or
something
to
this
effect
upon
the
effective
data
spill,
the
existing
registrations
will
be
give
you
licenses
and
upon
the
next
re-registration
or
renewal.
Then
they
will
be
called
licenses.
A
Thank
you
vice
chair,
neil.
B
Thank
you,
chair
spearman,.
B
I
wanted
to
ask
well
two
questions
one
to
miss
carry
on.
I
think
mr
keane
really
spelled
it
out,
but
I
just
wanted
to
know
from
his
carry
on
for
the
ag
and
how
you
send
it
to
the
ag.
Is
there?
What
are
the
fines?
Are
there
fines
administered
through
the
ag.
B
B
So
miss
chambers-
my
only
my
only
I
guess,
issue
or
concern-
is
for
the
peo.
Since
you
said
it's,
it's
been
the
standard
definition
for
20
years.
Does
this
now?
Does
this
broaden
the
place
or
your
regulatory
authority
in
regards
to
do
you?
Will
you
need
more
expertise
by
taking
on
that
broad
language,
or
is
it
the
exact
expertise
that
you
need
for
the
switch
that
we
anticipated
at
the
beginning
of
the
hearing.
F
So
again,
chairwoman
spearman
shannon
chambers,
nevada
labor,
commissioner,
for
the
record,
through
you
to
vice
chair
neil,
so
in
terms
of
the
term
professional
employer
organizations
and
the
expertise
of
the
labor
commissioner
vice
chair
neil.
This
fits
squarely
within
the
expertise
and
regulatory
authority
of
the
labor
commissioner,
and
to
your
point
that
this
terminology
and
these
entities
have
been
around
for
20
plus
years.
F
The
nevada
legislature
and
the
different
industry,
organizations
and
associations
have
been
trying
to
figure
out
where
these
belong
best,
and
it
is
my
opinion
and
in
conversations
like
I
said,
with
the
professional
association
with
the
associated
general
contractors,
the
chambers
and
reaching
out
that
these
belong
with
the
labor
commissioner.
And
we
have
the
expertise
to
do
this.
G
The
the
way
I
look
at
this
is
there's
an
issue
that
maybe
we
haven't
resolved
offline,
so
I
I
recognize
the
issue
and
I
I
quite
frankly
could
go
either
way
and
make
sure
that
I
reserve
a
right
change
depending
on
you
know
where
we
go
with
this.
I
appreciate
mr
keane's
evaluation
and
it
was
kind
of
enlightening
because
in
different
places
like
in
the
cosmetology
board,
we're
looking
at
registration
versus
licensing
and
apparently
there's
no
real
difference
from
a
practical
standpoint.
G
So
I
appreciate
the
education.
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
we
haven't
had
any
fines
by
the
insurance
division
as
it
were,
but
I
don't
know
what
the
ag's
office
has
done.
So
in
essence,
there
probably
have
been
some
kind
of
blind
done
through
the
ag's
office,
but
I
don't
know
that
so
there
are
some
unresolved
questions,
but
I
don't
think
we
need
to
get
upset
about
what
it
is,
because
I
think
you
know
this.
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
my
only
point
through
this
is
I
don't
want
to
keep
asking
the
same
question
five
different
ways
when
our
legal
counsel
has
clarified-
and
I
will
say
again,
if
there's
anything
about
this-
that
you're
uncomfortable
with,
if
there's
a
an
I
not
dotted
or
a
t,
not
cross,
you
can
always
change
your
vote
on
the
floor.
You
can
always
say
that
so
anyone
who
hasn't
spoken
yet
have
a
question.
A
H
Madam
chair,
yes,
I'm
still
checking
with
individuals
at
this
time.
I
will
be
going
no
with
the
reservation
to
change
to
a
yes
on
the
floor.
I
disagree
with
the
concept
that
the
lcb
is
final
because
they
are
not.
The
supreme
court
is
final,
not
because
they're
right,
but
because
they're
final
thank.
A
I'm
not
stupid.
I
understand
the
supreme
court,
but
when
we're
talking
about
bills
that
we're
getting
ready
to
pass,
when
you
ask
a
question
and
lcb
answers,
that's
it!
If
people
don't
like
it,
then
they
can
take
it
to
court
or
they
can
keep
going
to
the
supreme
court.
Supreme
court
is
not
here
right
now
and
the
people
who
write
the
concepts
that
we
give
them
for
bdrs
to
become
bills.
A
A
I'll
take
a
vote
all
those
in
favor,
madam
secretary,
please
call
the
rule
and
you
can
always
change
your
vote
on
the
floor.
C
A
Yes-
and
I
believe
that
means
we
have
more-
how
many,
how
many
yes,
how
many
yes.
G
A
A
Okey
dokey
now
that
we
have
closed
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
55.
That
is
the
only
business
that
we
had
today.
With
the
exception
of
public
comment,
and
so
excuse
me,
we
will
move,
I'm
sorry
yeah.
We
will
move
to
public
comment
and
we'll
have
20
minutes
for
public
comment
would
like
for
each
person
that
speaks.