►
From YouTube: 5/25/2021 - 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
A
C
Please
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
cesar
monreal
committee
policy.
Analyst
senate
bill
386
was
sponsored
by
the
this
committee.
It
was
heard
on
april
7th.
The
bill
requires
certain
employers
who
laid
off
employees
because
of
the
declaration
of
emergency
for
coven
19,
to
offer
a
laid
off
employee
each
job
position
that
becomes
available
and
for
which
the
employee
is
qualified.
The
bill
prescribes
an
order
of
preference
for
the
employer
to
offer
such
employees.
The
bill
also
requires
certain
employers,
in
the
event
of
a
layoff,
to
provide
an
employee
who
is
to
be
laid
off.
C
A
written,
written
notice
containing
certain
information
concerning
the
layoff.
The
bill
prohibits
an
employer
from
terminating
reducing
compensation,
refusing
to
employ,
or
otherwise
taking
any
adverse
action
against
a
person
who
takes
certain
actions
in
relation
to
provisions
of
this
act.
The
bill
authorizes
employees
a
designated
agent
or
representative,
on
behalf
of
employees,
to
bring
a
civil
election
in
a
court
of
competent
jurisdiction.
C
This
establishes
a
rebuttable
presumption
in
a
civil
matter
concerning
the
requirement
for
certain
employers
who
purchase
or
otherwise
acquire
another
employer
that
late
that
laid
off
certain
employees
covered
by
this.
This
act,
finally,
the
bill
establishes
minimum
labor
standards
and
does
not
preempt
or
prevent
employment
standards
that
are
not
that
are
more
protective
and
beneficial
for
employees
and
madam
chair,
there
is
a
mock-up,
that's
been
uploaded
to
nellis
and
I
believe
the
sponsors
of
this
bill
and
the
amendment
are
ready
to
present
the
maca.
A
D
If
I
may
chair
good
evening,
chair
spearman
members
of
the
committee,
it's
good
to
be
with
you
this
evening.
I
would
note
that
we
do
have,
for
the
committee's
consideration
proposed
amendment
3439
to
senate
bill
386
and
chair.
I
am
joined
virtually
by
several
individuals
who,
I
think
can
help
walk
through
the
provisions
of
the
amendment
and
then
answer
any
questions
that
members
of
the
committee
may
have.
We
are
joined
this
evening
via
zoom
with
paul
moore
d,
taylor,
bob
ostrovsky
and
kevin
benson
from
the
governor's
office
and
madam
charges.
D
And
so
with
that,
I
can't
thank
the
all
of
our
resorts
and
partners.
Who've
been
working
on
this,
the
culinary
union
and
the
governor's
office
and
the
leadership
of
the
governor
in
helping
to
get
to
a
place
where
I
think
we
have
a
structure
that
will
allow
for
for
workers
to
return
to
work
and
also
help
those
employers
get
back
on
track.
So
with
that
manager.
D
What
I
would
like
to
do
is
turn
it
over
to
our
presenters
on
the
zoom
to
walk
through
some
of
the
provisions
that
you
see
reflected
in
the
amendment,
and
then
we
would
be
happy
to
take
any
questions
from
the
from
the
committee.
As
I
know
that
the
amendment
was
recently
posted,
and
so
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
just
do
a
little
walkthrough
of
what's
contained
in
it.
D
I
see
well,
I
see
I
I
see
on
the
screen
that
we've
got
paul,
moore
and
detailer,
but
I
don't
know
if
mr
moore
or
mr
ostrovsky
or
mr
benson
maybe
wants
to
go
first
I'll
kind
of
leave
it
up
to
them.
E
I'm
I'm
happy
to
to
walk
the
committee
through
the
amendments
that
are
in
the
mock-up,
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
do
this.
I
want
to
particularly
thank
the
nevada
resort
association,
virginia
valentine
bob
ostrovsky
ellen
whitmore
for
working
with
us
really
tirelessly
for
the
last
month
and
a
half
now
since
the
april
7th
a
meeting
to
look
at
this
bill
top
to
bottom
and
to
find
places
where
we
can
come
to
common
ground
on
what
I
think
are
a
series
of
improvements
to
it
again.
E
The
the
purpose
of
the
bill
is
to
ensure
that
there's
a
pathway
back
to
work
for
the
many
thousands
of
employees
in
affected
businesses
in
nevada,
who
have
been
laid
off
as
a
result
of
the
pandemic,
does
not
require
that
any
work
be
created.
It
simply
provides
that
for
those
who
have
worked
in
the
position
or
in
a
similar
position
previously,
there
is
a
an
opportunity
to
return
to
their
previous
jobs.
E
E
E
The
second
change
to
section
four
is
to
recognize
that,
where
there
is
a
collective
bargaining
agreement
in
place,
that
provides
for
recall
rights,
which
are
frequently
more
detailed
and
more
protective
than
those
that
will
serve
as
a
baseline
in
this
bill,
that
those
collectively
bargained
recall
rights
will
prevail
in
the
event
of
a
conflict.
That's
again
to
ensure
that
those
that
are
subject
to
those
collective
bargaining
agreements,
both
employees
and
employers
are
not
subject
to
inconsistent
standards.
E
First,
on
page
six
in
section
10,
there's
a
clarification
that
the
requirements
of
recall
do
not
apply
to
gaming
establishments
that
are
operating
under
a
restricted
license
that
they,
these
obligations
solely
apply
to
those
operating
under
unrestricted
licenses,
there's
a
clarification
that
this
will
not
require
the
recall
or
rehiring
of
managerial
or
executive
employees
and
provides
a
a
standard
based
on
a
well-established
exception
to
the
federal,
fair
labor
standards
act
for
those
who
are
acting
in
executive
capacity.
E
That's
in
section
12.
in
section
13,
we
have
proposed
an
amendment
to.
E
Then
moving
to
page
seven,
we
have
clarified
the
definition
of
resort
hotel
to
encompass
a
number
of
properties
that
were
grandfathered
into
the
definition
of
resort
hotel
in
1997,
and
that
may
not
meet
the
current
definition
of
a
resort
hotel
but
would
be
covered
by
this.
E
In
section
20
paragraph
three,
we
have
replaced
proposed
replacing
broader
language
about
the
languages
that
notifications
to
employees
must
go
out
in
to
require
that
the
notifications
be
in
spanish,
english
and
any
other
language.
That's
spoken
by
10
or
more
of
the
employers
workforce.
E
Turning
to
page
eight,
we
have
an
amendment
in
paragraph
four
subparagraph
c,
an
additional
type
of
notification
to
go
to
employees,
along
with
the
notice
of
their
layoff
and
the
effective
date
of
their
layoff
and
a
summary
of
their
rights
to
re-employment,
and
that's
contact
information
for
the
person
that
the
employer
designates
as
the
individual
to
receive
complaints
from
employees
if
they
believe
that
they
have
had
their
rights
violated
under
this
act.
That
will
become
clear.
E
So
it
removes
the
section
requiring
that
open
positions
be
made
available
and
offered
to
laid
off
employees
in
positions
that
they
didn't
previously
work,
but
that
they
could
become
qualified
for.
E
Turning
to
page
nine
of
the
mock-up,
we
in
paragraph
four,
we
had
quite
a
bit
of
discussion
about
how
to
make
this
recall
prasha
process
as
efficient
and
timely
as
possible.
Since
business
is
picking
up
and
there's
an
interest
on
the
part
of
all
employers
to
make
sure
the
positions
that
they
have
open
get
filled.
E
The
original
version
of
the
bill
would
have
given
employees
10
days
to
respond
to
an
offer
of
an
open
position.
This
amended
version
would
reduce
that
to
24
hours
time
after
they
receive
the
offer.
E
It
would
also
require
that
the
laid
off
employee
be
available
to
return
to
work
within
five
calendar
days
after
they
accept
the
offer,
meaning
that,
in
total,
the
maximum
amount
of
time
between
the
offer
being
received
and
the
return
to
work
would
be
six
days.
E
In
all
of
this,
the
bill,
as
originally
proposed
and
as
amended
permits,
employers
to
make
simultaneous
offers
to
employees,
conditioned
on
the
ultimate
job
going
to
the
one
with
the
most
seniority.
E
So
these
are
all
mechanisms
to
ensure
that
this
process
of
having
a
fair
means
for
laid
off
employees
to
return
to
their
jobs
does
not
unduly
do
delay
the
hiring
process.
That
employers
have
we've
added.
A
new
provision
proposed
in
paragraph
6,
which
addresses
situations
in
which
a
laid
off
employee
either
does
not
respond
or
declines
offers
of
employment.
E
We
have
made
some
changes
to
proposed
changes
to
section
24,
which
is
the
method
of
enforcement.
E
Previously,
the
original
version
of
the
bill
was
enforceable
only
by
private
right
of
action
by
an
aggrieved
employee
and
as
proposed
to
be
amended.
The
bill
would
allow
an
aggrieved
employee
either
to
file
a
complaint
with
the
labor
commissioner
or
bring
a
civil
action
in
any
court
of
competent
jurisdiction.
E
We
have
proposed
removing,
what's
really
extraneous
language
in
section
24,
about
bringing
actions
on
behalf
of
other
employees,
private
actions
on
behalf
of
other
employees
and
we've
done
that,
because
nevada
code
of
civil
procedure,
rule
23,
provides
the
basic
rules
in
nevada
for
class
actions,
and
this
bill,
as
proposed,
would
not
amend
those
basic
procedures.
E
E
E
In
on
page
11,
in
paragraph
5,
we
have
modified
the
remedies
that
are
available
to
include
many
of
the
same
remedies
as
we're
in
the
original
bill,
but
we've
changed
two
elements
of
them.
The
first
is
that
we
have
proposed
adding
a
civil
penalty,
a
baseline
civil
penalty
of
a
hundred
dollars
and
an
additional
civil
penalty
of
five
hundred
dollars
payable
to
the
employee
for
violations,
and
also,
instead
of
making
an
award
of
attorney's
fees
mandatory
in
the
event
that
a
plaintiff
prevailed.
E
E
Finally,
as
regards
with
regards
to
the
original
sb386
on
page
13,
section
26
in
paragraph
two,
we
have
proposed
adding
language
that
makes
clear
that
the
acts
act
does
not
apply
to
a
laid
off
employee
who
is
party
to
a
valid
severance
agreement.
E
E
Those
are
the
the
main
proposed
amendments
to
the
original
sb386.
F
That
that's
fine,
madam
chairman,
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
bob
ostrovsky,
ost
rov
sky,
I'm
here
today
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
resort
association
made
up
of
77
member
hotels
out
of
about
175
licensed
facilities.
F
The
the
language
found
in
the
later
sections
of
the
bill
relative
to
sb4
make
changes
which
are
consistent
with
the
new
cdc
guidelines
and
we're
consistent
with
the
case
loads
and
positivity
rates
in
the
state.
It
does
not
repeal
sb4,
there's
still
a
number
of
other
items
included
in
sb4
that
provide
protections
for
employees
and
make
sure
we
have
adequate
cleaning
standards
to
protect
both
our
employees
and
our
customers.
F
But
it
does
in
fact
remove
a
number
of
the
sections
which
are
now
not
considered
no
longer
consistent
with
the
cdc
guidelines.
I
think
the
legislature
attempted
at
the
time
to
to
do
the
best
it
could
with
the
information
that
had
in
kind
of
a
dark
period
of
our
history,
and
we
were
able
to
comply
with
those
through
that
period.
But
given
the
fact
that
the
governor
has
loosened
things,
the
local
governments
have
been
able
to
apply
new
rules.
We
think
these
changes
are
to
sb4
are
appropriate.
F
F
That
number
had
dropped
it
204
000
and
I
would
consistently
believe
it
probably
dropped
below
that
as
time
dragged
on
so
clearly
that
and
the
indirect
effect
on
employees
who
serviced
casinos
that
did
not
actually
work
there.
The
estimate
from
applied
analysis
is
about
66.
000
jobs
made
these
kind
of
negotiations
a
little
difficult.
We
certainly
have
to
think
about
in
terms
of
the
masses
of
employees
and
the
masses
of
paperwork
that
are
required
here.
F
F
So
the
association
of
fish,
officially
on
a
majority
position
is
neutral
and
we
we
will
not.
We
don't
support
the
bill
and
we
will
not
work
against
the
bill
as
an
association
we
are
neutral.
We
appreciate
the
efforts
of
the
governor's
office
members
of
the
culinary
union,
detailer
and
others
through
some
hard
negotiations,
I
mean,
if
you're,
environment,
environmentally
conscious.
This
was
not
a
good
time
for
you.
F
We
must
have
killed
a
tree
and
used
a
terabyte
of
of
storage
to
get
here,
but
we
did
get
here
and
we
are
hopeful
that,
given
the
amount
of
business
and
the
situation
has
arrived
today
that
that
most
of
the
most-
if
not
all,
these
employees
will
come
back
to
work
very
quickly
long
before
we
get
to
the
the
dates
that
are
in
this
bill,
we
know
we've
employed
a
lot
of
folks
there's
a
lot
of
hiring
going
on.
There's
a
lot
of
positions.
F
We
can't
fill
recognition
that
the
industry
always
had
a
relatively
high
turnover
rate,
so
we
quite
expect
a
number
of
these
employees.
We
offer
positions
to
are
no
longer
either
in
the
las
vegas
area
or
they
took
other
kinds
of
jobs,
so
we'll
be
continuing
to
recall
under
these
procedures.
At
the
same
time,
finding
new
employees
to
fill
build
jobs
as
well
as
competitive
situation.
We
all
know
there's
another
major
hotel
casino
opening
on
the
strip
next
month.
F
D
A
Thank
you,
questions,
senator
settlemyre
and
then
vice
chair
and
senator
lange.
B
D
Madam
chair,
nicole,
cannizzaro
senate
district
six
for
the
record,
I
will
defer
to
any
of
the
either
mr
moore,
mr
ostrovsky,
but
I
I
don't
believe
that
that
has
been
part
of
the
conversations,
but
I
would
defer
to
them.
If
there's
additional
information
they
may
have
on
that.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chairman,
bob
ostrowski.
No,
we
had
did
not
have
any
discussions
about
that.
This
bill
has
drafted,
of
course,
covers
employ
employers
who
have
establishments
within
the
bounds
of
of
a
non-restricted
licensee.
So
if
you
have
a
food
court
or
you
have
a
restaurant,
you
these
these
apply.
E
I
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
the
the
definitions
here,
the
hotels
that
are
covered
are
going
to
be
those
with
200
or
more
guest
rooms
that
qualify
as
a
resort
hotel
or
that
don't
qualify
as
a
resort
hotel,
but
nonetheless
have
200
or
more
guest
rooms.
The
event
centers
that
are
covered
are
going
to
be
those
with
at
least
50
000
square
feet
or
more
than
5
000
seats.
E
B
Thank
you
I'm
sure,
but
in
that
respect
some
of
these
entities
operate
those
smaller
establishments
as
sub
businesses
independently.
Will
the
entire
business
be
utilized
or
again,
because
you
could
have
a
small
faction
running
the
restaurant,
which
may
only
have
you
know
30
or
40
employees,
and
this
could
be
very
problematic,
but
I
guess
you're
saying
that
it
would
apply
to
everyone
due
to
its
part
of
the
whole
business.
E
The
both
in
terms
of
the
hotel
and
in
terms
of
the
licensed
gaming
establishment,
the
requirements
would
apply
to
contracted,
leased
or
sublet
premises,
so
not
just
any
business,
but
only
those
that
have
contracted
leased
or
sublet
to
the
larger
establishment.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
I
had
a
question
to
the
attorney.
What's
his
last
name,
ben
moore,
okay,
all
right
set
a
question
on
section
24..
All
I
can
say
is
just
wow.
So
when
I
first
read
it,
I
was
thinking
okay.
Well,
maybe
we're
going
tit
for
tat
here,
so
in
section
24,
where
the
this
is
the
rebuttable
presumption
piece.
G
And
it
was
sub
4,
which
then
ties
back
to
subsection
3
about
the
legitimate
business
reason,
so
legitimate
business
reason
was
in
the
original
language,
but
but
when
I,
when
I
re-read
this
about
how
you
tie
it
back,
which
is
in
subsection
three,
I
guess
I'm
wondering
how
an
employee
is
going
to
fight
back
under
the
under
that
actual
provision,
because
I
you
know
the
bill.
I
understand
what
the
bill
was
doing,
which
is
to
get
workers
back
to
work.
G
But
when
you
have
the
legitimate
business
reason
tied
you're
kind
of
baking
in
affirmative
defenses
to
me,
and
typically
when
you
have
a
legitimate
business
reason,
the
court
gives
the
highest
deference
to
that
legitimate
business
reason
which
will
offset
any
other
defense
that
a
an
employee
may
bring,
and
it's
just
I'm.
I
guess
I
wanted
to
understand
more
about.
G
I'm
gonna
win.
But
can
we
talk
about
this
because
it's
disturbing
sure.
E
And
I
I
appreciate
your
question
so
just
to
to
be
clear.
This
language
on
a
rebuttable
presumption
only
applies
in
instances
where
there's
an
allegation
that
an
employer
has
retaliated
against
someone
for
asserting
their
rights
under
this
act.
E
E
E
The
idea
behind
it
is
that
frequently
an
employee
will
not
know
all
of
the
reasons
why
an
employer
made
a
decision
to
terminate
them,
and
so
what
this
does
is
it
puts
the
burden
on
the
employer
to
explain
the
justifications
for
the
termination
if
the
termination
was
done
close
in
time
to
the
point
at
which
the
employee
asserted
their
rights,
so
there
becomes
then
a
initial
presumption
that
the
action
was
retaliatory
and
the
burden
shifts
to
the
employer
to
prove
that,
in
fact,
it
was
a
legitimate
business
reason.
E
So
it's
modeled
off
of
a
quite
well-known
burden-shifting
system
called
the
mcdonnell
douglas
test
in
the
title
vii
context
and
the
intent,
and
we
expect
the
effect
of
it.
Should
there
ever
be
a
case
of
this
nature
and
that's
certainly
opened
a
question
we
don't
expect
employers
to
retaliate
against
employees
for
asserting
their
rights
would
simply
mean
that
that
employers
would
have
to
lay
their
cards
on
the
table
if
there's
an
allegation
that
they
acted
in
a
retaliatory
manner.
G
So
so,
thank
you
for
that
because
I
I
it's
it's
interesting
that
you
said
that
in
this
mcdonald
version,
but
when
you
read
section
24
sub
3
right,
and
so
let
me
let
me
let
me
walk
you
back
through
this,
because
I
heard
what
you
just
said.
So
you
look
at
section
24
sub
4,
which
then
line
6
takes
you
back
to
subsection
3
and
then
the
line
subsection
3
takes.
G
You
then
back
to
sub
3,
which
talks
about
the
violations
in
sections
23
of
this
act,
and
then,
when
you
read
sections
23
of
the
act,
which
then
references
seeking
to
enforce
any
lawful
means
of
his
or
her
rights
pursuant
to
sections
2-28.
G
If
an
employee
then
wants
to
challenge-
and
I
guess
the
thing
that's
concerning-
is
that
typically
you
have
mult,
you
have
several
defenses
that
you
can
play
out,
but
then
you
put
in
the
pretext
language,
but
there
is
no
pretext
argument.
When
you
do,
when
you
state
legitimate
business
purpose
like
you
might,
it
doesn't
actually
exist
like
you
can
make
the
argument
and
you're
probably
gonna,
get
laughed
at,
because
the
pretext
mean
that
something
else
occurred,
and
I
guess
hey.
Listen,
it's
not
my
bill,
but
I
just
think
that
it's.
G
I
think
that
this
is
creating
a
very
heavy
burden
for
an
employee.
A
casino
worker
to
have
to
overcome
and
fair
is
fair.
It's
not
fair
to
me
right,
I
and-
and
I
this
is
so
difficult
for
me,
because
when
I
first
saw
this
bill,
I
was
super
alarmed
at
so
much
the
ability
to
do
with
class
action,
and
now
I
see
this
and
I'm
saying
okay.
Well,
it's
not
even
a
fair
fight
in
in
a
discriminatory
pattern.
Legitimate
business
reason
will
kill
your
arguments
all
the
time.
G
E
Thank
you,
paul
moore,
with
mccracken
stumbling
and
holsberry.
I'm
happy
to
go
into
more
detail
about
that
section
and
to
to
respond.
We've
we've
crafted
it
in
a
way
that
we
think
is
a
a
balance
between
the
need
in
situations
of
retaliation,
to
ensure
that
employees
have
all
of
the
facts
that
they
need
by
having
an
employer
have
to
justify
the
termination
or
the
alleged
retaliatory
act
in
the
first
instance.
A
H
H
My
question
more
has
to
do
with
getting
the
people
back
to
work
in
that
process.
So,
as
I
read
the
bill
well,
first
of
all,
what
capacity
are
we
at
right
now
we're
for
in
on
the
resort
corridor.
E
I'm
going
to
defer
to
d
taylor
on
that
question.
I
Hi
madam
chair
d,
taylor
from
unite
here
international
union.
In
our
capacity
I
can't
speak
for
the
entire
workforce,
it's
about
55
and
that's
due
to
the
fact
that
the
weekends
are
good.
But
obviously
some
of
the
midweek
is
weaker,
since
we
still
have
not
gotten
the
international
travel
and
the
business
travel
back.
So
we're
so
far
short
of
where
we
were
pre
pandemic.
H
So,
mr
taylor,
I'm
what
I
what
I'm
concerned
about,
I
guess
what
I
have
a
question
about
is
like.
H
Mgm,
for
instance,
just
use
mgm
as
an
example.
They
have
many
properties,
and
so,
if
are
we
in
your
process,
are
you
going
to
call
people
back
on
a
property
basis
or
on
the
mgm
basis,.
I
Well,
I
can
I
I
can
speak
to
that.
That
would
be
done.
I
think
for
the
folks
that
we
represent
that's
done
on
a
property
basis
and
that's
how,
as
paul,
had
laid
out
earlier
about
the
obligations
of
those
who
have
more
detailed
obligations
than
what's
in
this
bill.
H
And
then
can
I
may
I
keep
following
up
and
then,
if
they're
called
back
and
just
for
an
example,
just
say
that
x,
property
doesn't
have
any
people.
They
haven't
called
back
in
that
position,
because
they've
left
and
gone
other
places,
but
that
group
mgm
would
have
in
a
pool,
let's
say
people
that
could
be
available.
Fill
that
position.
Would
you
then
go
to
a
pool
from
another
property
within
that
group,
or
does
it
just
open
up
well.
I
I
I
can
speak
about
mgm
because
I'm
familiar
with
it,
they
generally
don't
like
to
have
people
work
in
different
properties
for
a
variety
of
legal
reasons,
and
so
generally
they
bring
back
those
folks
from
that
particular
property
and
then
they
open
up.
If
they're,
not
enough
employees,
then
they
open
it
up
to
whomever,
but
they
don't
transfer
people
between
properties
for
legal
reasons,
which
I
certainly
don't
feel
like.
I
should
talk
about
since
that's
a
company
but
has
been
explained
repeatedly
due
to
dol
audits,
etc.
I
Well,
I
wish
it
was
yesterday,
but
I
think
that's
really
relying
on
three
different
things.
Overall,
I
think
this
bill
would
be
extremely
important
to
get
those
folks
back
who,
for
no
faults
of
their
own,
have
been
not
brought
back
due
to
the
pandemic
and
not
start
over
as
new
employees.
I
We,
you
know,
we
have
cases
where
people
are
20
or
30
years
at
a
property,
and
the
companies
have
used
this
to
frankly,
say
they're
terminated
and
then
they
can
come
back
and
reimply,
but
they
lose
those
20
or
30
years,
which
you
can
think
about
those
complications,
but
we
think
it's
going
to
take
a
while.
Just
like
we
look
at
all
the
industry,
we
listen
to
the
industry.
I
think
business
travel
is
absolutely
essential
to
get
back.
I
think
conventions
are
absolutely
entertainment,
absolutely
necessary
international
travel.
I
So
if
you
put
those
all
together,
I
think,
hopefully,
by
some
time
frankly
a
year
from
now,
we
would
be
back
completely
now.
At
the
same
time,
things
change
no
one
ever
anticipated
this
pandemic,
but
we're
overly
optimistic
that,
with
the
vaccine
available
with
people
feeling
safe,
business
will
pick
up.
That
certainly
happened
with
leisure
travel.
That
has
not
overall
happened
with
convention
and
business
travel,
and
it
certainly
hasn't
happened
yet
with
international
travel
either.
F
I'm
sorry,
madam
chairman,
this
is
bob
mastrowski.
If
I
just
helped
him
respond
to
senator
lang,
I
would
expect
when
this
is
all
said
and
done
about
70
percent
of
the
employees
who
lost
their
positions
will
eventually
return.
We
know
just
because
of
our
turnover
history.
We
won't
get
all
those
employees
back,
but
the
other
30
of
the
jobs
will
be
filled
by
new
referrals
from
the
union
hall
if
you're
a
union
property,
if
you're
not
through
regular,
hiring.
Remember
this.
F
This
covers
not
just
union
employees,
but
all
the
employees
in
the
facility
non-union
and
union,
so
we'll
never
see
100
of
our
people
back
hopefully-
and
I
agree
with
mr
taylor-
international
travel
convention
conventions
at
return
are
the
key
to
the
success
of
the
industry,
the
success
of
the
state
and
the
success
of
our
employees.
I
mean
there's
just
no
way
around
it.
Thank
you.
H
And
I
I
would
just
add.
Finally,
I
think
this
bill
is
really
important
because
it
provides
a
road
map
not
only
for
the
union
and
the
employees,
but
also
for
the
resorts
and
that
everybody
can
agree.
This
is
the
roadmap.
This
is
what
we're
going
to
follow
and
it
it
helps
the
employees
who
are
laid
off
right
now
to
know
that
they're
going
to
have
an
opportunity
to
get
back
to
work,
and
this
is
how
it's
going
to
happen,
because
it's
been
difficult
for
everyone,
and
I
know
that
senator
settlemyre
mentioned
small
businesses.
H
A
So
saying
none
let's
go
to
the
phones
and
I'm
sorry.
Anyone
in
the
room
that
is
here
in
support.
A
A
Okay,
seeing
no
questions
I'll,
entertain
a
motion
amend
to
pass.
Second,
I
have
have
amended
to
pass
from
senator
lang.
Second
from
senator
scheible
additional
questions.
B
I
don't
have
a
question,
but
I
just
wanted
to
comment
that
I
want
to
commend
the
majority
leader
culinary
the
nevada
resource
association
and
all
of
the
other
stakeholders
who
came
together
to
come
to
a
consensus
on
this
bill.
B
I
understand
that
it
was
a
hard
fought
consensus
and
I'm
really
happy
to
see
that
the
bill
is
in
a
place
that
we
can
move
it
forward,
because
I
agree
with
my
colleague
senator
lang
that
it's
really
important,
that
we
have
a
path
forward
to
ensure
that
people
are
able
to
get
back
to
work
in
nevada.
And
so
I
want
to
thank
you
for
all
of
your
efforts
on.
G
Chair,
thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
ditto
that
response.
I
understand
that
you
know
hard
policy
takes
a
lot
of
negotiation,
but
I'm
I
am
super
hoping
that
section
24
in
any
language
in
the
future.
I
guess
if
I
see
any
retaliatory
cases
or
not
cases
but
bills
that
come
through,
that
we
don't
see
a
repeat
of
section
24,
because
I
think
I'm
just
going
to
be
watching
out
for
all
that
language
in
the
future.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
I
like
where
this
has
come.
B
I'm
still
deeply
troubled
by
the
rebuttable
presumption.
I
think
in
many
respects,
this
is
better
than
some
of
the
cbas
I've
reviewed
in
the
past,
and
this
is
applying
to
non-union
shops
that
don't
ordinarily
have
to
deal
with
these.
I
think
it's
going
to
be
a
significant
burden,
so
I
just
can't.
I
still
think.
Although
we
come
in
a
good
direction,
I
don't
think
it's
come
far
enough
for
me
to
be
able
to
support
the
bill.
Thank
you.
A
B
A
And
so
let
the
record
show
that
the
motion
does
pass
and
majority.
You
want
to
take
the
floor
statement.
Okay,
all
righty!
Thank
you!
So
much
we'll
move
now
and
thank
you
all
for
joining
us
in
the
on
zoom
in
the
brady
box.
A
We're
all
getting
used
to
that.
So,
thank
you
all
appreciate
you
taking
the
time
to
do
so
with
that,
let's
go
to
public
comment
broadcast
anyone
on
on
the
lines
for
public
comment.
B
A
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record.
Will
king
committee
council,
if
so
senator
meyer,
would
like
to
vote.
He
can
vote.
A
Okay,
and
with
that,
I
think,
that's
all
the
business
that
we
have
this
evening
committee
members
all
righty.
Well,
we
will
adjourn
this
edition
and
please
stay
tuned
for
the
rest
of
the
the
week.
We
may
wind
up
doing
this
again
and
again
and
again
and
again
and
again
again
again,
some
more
so
just
stay
stay
tuned,
and
this
is
this.
This
is
the
time
of
the
session
where
we
have
to
really
be
flexible.
Okay,
so
thank
you
all
for
joining
us
and
we
are.