The Senate Taxation Committee met for about six hours today to take up several bills.
I was there to testify against SB 368, which, originally, was intended to implement a weight-distance tax on Nevada’s trucking industry.
Chairman Bob Coffin, who introduced the bill, offered an amendment at the beginning of the hearing that gutted the bill and instead would impose a diesel tax increase of 12 cents per gallon and would institute a study of the weight-distance tax.
While the amended version is much better than the original bill that is linked above, the Chamber still opposes any single-industry taxes. Especially a tax that will make everything that we buy more expensive, including groceries.
90% of all of the goods that we consume in Nevada arrive in a truck. Any tax increase on moving those goods will be passed down and be included in the final purchase price of that good.
Lance Gilman is building the largest industrial park in the world, the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, in Storey County. That project could allow for Northern Nevada to become a warehouse, logistics, and transportation hub. We must be careful about doing anything that will make it more expensive to ship things in and out of here.
Most of the hearing centered on various studies that NDOT had undertaken over the last few decades that claim that trucks do not pay their fair share of road costs. The Nevada Motor Transport Association, however, hired two university professors who produced their own study that refuted NDOT.
Due to the late hour, I was forced to be brief in my testimony. I pointed out that the Chamber supports broad, user-based funding for roads, but that we oppose singling out any industry for taxation.
I then referred to our strong support for SB 201, the implementing bill of the RTC-5 ballot question. That would index gas taxes for ALL users of the roads, passenger cars and trucks. The voters were also given a specific list of projects that would be funded with the new revenue.
The Chamber welcomes a conversation on potential solutions for a statewide funding plan, but we believe that all highway users should shoulder the burden.
The Committee voted to “indefinitely postpone” the bill, as everyone is waiting for a final tax package at the end of the session.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The Costs of Doing Business
Several more workers comp bills were considered this week. I went to the table in opposition to two of them specifically.
The first, AB 511, came up on Monday in Assembly Commerce and Labor. This bill would allow employees to sue their employer for “bad faith” claims outside of the workers comp system. Current law specifies that the workers comp system is the “exclusive remedy” for employees and does not allow lawsuits for bad faith.
The second bill, SB 366, was heard in Senate Commerce and Labor today. Committee Chair Maggie Carlton amended the original bill so that it does not seem nearly as onerous as the original, which would have required employers to prove that an accident did not happen at work. Current law requires the employee to prove that it did. Unless an employer has video cameras that cover every inch of his property and they are running 24/7, there is no way for him to definitively prove that something did not happen.
Of course, any time you introduce the potential for increased and frivolous lawsuits into the system, costs WILL go up. Just as the med-mal discussion below, these lawsuits would be factored into the costs of workers comp policies and will have to be paid for by all Nevada employers.
Unlike health insurance coverage, employers are required to have workers comp insurance. The increased cost will have to come from somewhere. That may mean that a small employer can no longer afford health insurance for his employees, or those employees will have to pay more for their health coverage, or those employees may not have a place to work anymore!
To use a cliché, these bills and the med-mal issue seem to throw the baby out with the bath water. They try to attack the problem of bad actors by punishing everybody in the system. If there are a few insurance companies who are not treating workers comp claims with the seriousness that they deserve, then we should beef up our regulatory agencies to ensure that they do.
We must find a way to punish the bad folks, without sinking everybody else.
Once concern that several of the business lobbyists in the building have is that there is no holistic view of bills and issues that could negatively affect business.
We are dealing with health care coverage mandates, workers comp, med-mal, and whatever potential tax package is being cooked up. Each bill by itself may not be that bad, but all of the bills taken cumulatively spell trouble.
I have started making the same point each time I testify on one of these issues: Our members cannot take much more. Please do not put each of these bills into a separate bubble. We must look at all of these issues as a whole and ensure that we do not do more harm than good.
The first, AB 511, came up on Monday in Assembly Commerce and Labor. This bill would allow employees to sue their employer for “bad faith” claims outside of the workers comp system. Current law specifies that the workers comp system is the “exclusive remedy” for employees and does not allow lawsuits for bad faith.
The second bill, SB 366, was heard in Senate Commerce and Labor today. Committee Chair Maggie Carlton amended the original bill so that it does not seem nearly as onerous as the original, which would have required employers to prove that an accident did not happen at work. Current law requires the employee to prove that it did. Unless an employer has video cameras that cover every inch of his property and they are running 24/7, there is no way for him to definitively prove that something did not happen.
Of course, any time you introduce the potential for increased and frivolous lawsuits into the system, costs WILL go up. Just as the med-mal discussion below, these lawsuits would be factored into the costs of workers comp policies and will have to be paid for by all Nevada employers.
Unlike health insurance coverage, employers are required to have workers comp insurance. The increased cost will have to come from somewhere. That may mean that a small employer can no longer afford health insurance for his employees, or those employees will have to pay more for their health coverage, or those employees may not have a place to work anymore!
To use a cliché, these bills and the med-mal issue seem to throw the baby out with the bath water. They try to attack the problem of bad actors by punishing everybody in the system. If there are a few insurance companies who are not treating workers comp claims with the seriousness that they deserve, then we should beef up our regulatory agencies to ensure that they do.
We must find a way to punish the bad folks, without sinking everybody else.
Once concern that several of the business lobbyists in the building have is that there is no holistic view of bills and issues that could negatively affect business.
We are dealing with health care coverage mandates, workers comp, med-mal, and whatever potential tax package is being cooked up. Each bill by itself may not be that bad, but all of the bills taken cumulatively spell trouble.
I have started making the same point each time I testify on one of these issues: Our members cannot take much more. Please do not put each of these bills into a separate bubble. We must look at all of these issues as a whole and ensure that we do not do more harm than good.
Paper or.....
Today was plastic bag day, as I spent several hours in the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee waiting for SB 397 to come up.
SB 397, proposed by Commerce and Labor Chair Maggie Carlton, would require all retail stores to charge 10 cents per plastic bag given out until July 2011, when all non-biodegradable plastic bags would be outlawed in the State of Nevada.
Senator Carlton’s purpose for introducing the bill was to deal with all of the plastic bag litter that she has encountered. Her contention is that there is not a strong enough recycling effort for these bags and far too many of them are getting thrown away.
While there were two people that rose to speak in support of the bill, the vast majority of those who had signed in opposed it.
I followed representatives from the retail association, the petroleum marketers, and the manufacturers. So, while I had several points jotted down that I had planned to make, I ended up just echoing the comments before mine and relayed to the Committee some of the efforts the Chamber has made in regard to increasing the use of recycling.
The main points against a ban on plastic bags are as follows:
1. It is a consumer choice issue. Consumers should be able to decide what type of grocery bag they want and retailers should be able to meet the demands of their customers.
2. Paper and reusable bags are already available at most of our retailers. Those same retailers offer large bins in the front of every store in which shoppers can deposit plastic bags for recycling.
3. Over 90% of Americans reuse their plastic bags.
4. Paper bags are more expensive to produce and buy than plastic bags. They are heavier and take more trucks to deliver. They cause more pollution and greenhouse gases and take up more room in our landfills.
5. Reusable bags are much more expensive than paper or plastic and could cause health issues if not cleaned between uses. Retailers are also concerned about theft with several opaque bags being brought in and out of the store.
6. Trex, a large employer in Fernley, takes used plastic bags and makes fence and decking material out of them. They are useful and they provide jobs.
Finally, a new fee or ban on plastic bags will make every trip to the grocery store more expensive.
Not exactly the type of bill we need in the type of economic environment we have.
SB 397, proposed by Commerce and Labor Chair Maggie Carlton, would require all retail stores to charge 10 cents per plastic bag given out until July 2011, when all non-biodegradable plastic bags would be outlawed in the State of Nevada.
Senator Carlton’s purpose for introducing the bill was to deal with all of the plastic bag litter that she has encountered. Her contention is that there is not a strong enough recycling effort for these bags and far too many of them are getting thrown away.
While there were two people that rose to speak in support of the bill, the vast majority of those who had signed in opposed it.
I followed representatives from the retail association, the petroleum marketers, and the manufacturers. So, while I had several points jotted down that I had planned to make, I ended up just echoing the comments before mine and relayed to the Committee some of the efforts the Chamber has made in regard to increasing the use of recycling.
The main points against a ban on plastic bags are as follows:
1. It is a consumer choice issue. Consumers should be able to decide what type of grocery bag they want and retailers should be able to meet the demands of their customers.
2. Paper and reusable bags are already available at most of our retailers. Those same retailers offer large bins in the front of every store in which shoppers can deposit plastic bags for recycling.
3. Over 90% of Americans reuse their plastic bags.
4. Paper bags are more expensive to produce and buy than plastic bags. They are heavier and take more trucks to deliver. They cause more pollution and greenhouse gases and take up more room in our landfills.
5. Reusable bags are much more expensive than paper or plastic and could cause health issues if not cleaned between uses. Retailers are also concerned about theft with several opaque bags being brought in and out of the store.
6. Trex, a large employer in Fernley, takes used plastic bags and makes fence and decking material out of them. They are useful and they provide jobs.
Finally, a new fee or ban on plastic bags will make every trip to the grocery store more expensive.
Not exactly the type of bill we need in the type of economic environment we have.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Kick Our Doctors Out of Nevada
AB 495, heard in Assemblyman Bernie Anderson’s Judiciary Committee, was an all-day affair. The hearing started at 8 am with another bill, then proceeded for three hours until the floor session interrupted the proceedings. The Committee then reconvened at 6:30 pm to hear the rest of AB 495 and then still had another bill to hear after that!
AB 495 would roll back the med-mal reforms that almost 60% of Nevada voters approved back in 2004. The bill, as introduced, would repeal the limit on “non-economic” damages (pain and suffering) and would extend some of the time frames that plaintiffs have to file a claim.
When the hearing opened, the Nevada Justice Association (Justice League?) presented an amendment that would keep most of the current law, but would allow a verdict of “gross negligence” to be used to get around the non-economic damage cap.
We know that prior to 2004, physicians’ insurance rates were rapidly increasing, doctors were threatening to leave our state, and a trauma center in Las Vegas actually closed due to a lack of available specialists.
Since 2004, rates have decreased by as much as 30%, Nevadans have saved almost $400 million a year, and doctors are staying put. Even California has stricter caps on lawsuits than we do!
Of course, the reason we are having these discussions is the disgusting endoscopy clinic scandals that occurred last year. This is a perfect example of a few very bad actors causing havoc for all of the good doctors in our state.
This bill attempts to deal with the few by punishing everyone.
The Chamber testified that if the insurance rates of doctors go up, the insurance rates of EVERYONE goes up. The threat of lawsuits will not increase just the insurance rates of bad doctors, it will increase the rates for every doctor, who will then pass on the cost to YOU.
This bill allows trial attorneys to run amok and put right back where we were at the beginning of this decade.
We need to figure out a way to punish the bad actors and protect the public. The Legislature has been diligently working on increased inspection and review requirements. One option is to drastically increase criminal fines on doctors and nurses who, for instance, reuse needles, take their licenses away, and maybe even put them in jail.
Which is a greater deterrent? Potential jail time or a payout by your insurance company?
Let’s punish the bad doctors without burdening the entire state with higher insurance costs and provider shortages.
AB 495 would roll back the med-mal reforms that almost 60% of Nevada voters approved back in 2004. The bill, as introduced, would repeal the limit on “non-economic” damages (pain and suffering) and would extend some of the time frames that plaintiffs have to file a claim.
When the hearing opened, the Nevada Justice Association (Justice League?) presented an amendment that would keep most of the current law, but would allow a verdict of “gross negligence” to be used to get around the non-economic damage cap.
We know that prior to 2004, physicians’ insurance rates were rapidly increasing, doctors were threatening to leave our state, and a trauma center in Las Vegas actually closed due to a lack of available specialists.
Since 2004, rates have decreased by as much as 30%, Nevadans have saved almost $400 million a year, and doctors are staying put. Even California has stricter caps on lawsuits than we do!
Of course, the reason we are having these discussions is the disgusting endoscopy clinic scandals that occurred last year. This is a perfect example of a few very bad actors causing havoc for all of the good doctors in our state.
This bill attempts to deal with the few by punishing everyone.
The Chamber testified that if the insurance rates of doctors go up, the insurance rates of EVERYONE goes up. The threat of lawsuits will not increase just the insurance rates of bad doctors, it will increase the rates for every doctor, who will then pass on the cost to YOU.
This bill allows trial attorneys to run amok and put right back where we were at the beginning of this decade.
We need to figure out a way to punish the bad actors and protect the public. The Legislature has been diligently working on increased inspection and review requirements. One option is to drastically increase criminal fines on doctors and nurses who, for instance, reuse needles, take their licenses away, and maybe even put them in jail.
Which is a greater deterrent? Potential jail time or a payout by your insurance company?
Let’s punish the bad doctors without burdening the entire state with higher insurance costs and provider shortages.
Friday, April 3, 2009
This is the end of a very long day that capped off a very long week.
Today found me testifying four different times in four different committees.
Since the Weekly Report e-mail already came out, I won’t rehash all of that.
But I should have added that the Senate Finance Committee heard SB 367 this morning, which has been introduced by the Governor. This bill comes directly from the SAGE Commission and deals with public employee retirement system (PERS) reform.
As you know, that is one of the main issues on our long-term spending reform agenda.
I testified in strong support of this bill and stated that the Reno Sparks Chamber of Commerce will not support any tax increases unless and until long-term spending reforms are implemented.
The Committee took no action on the bill today.
Up next week: gutting the voter-approved medical malpractice reforms on Monday, a slew of workers comp bills all week, a ban on plastic grocery bags on Wednesday, and Friday brings the deadline for all non-exempt bills to get through their first committee.
Today found me testifying four different times in four different committees.
Since the Weekly Report e-mail already came out, I won’t rehash all of that.
But I should have added that the Senate Finance Committee heard SB 367 this morning, which has been introduced by the Governor. This bill comes directly from the SAGE Commission and deals with public employee retirement system (PERS) reform.
As you know, that is one of the main issues on our long-term spending reform agenda.
I testified in strong support of this bill and stated that the Reno Sparks Chamber of Commerce will not support any tax increases unless and until long-term spending reforms are implemented.
The Committee took no action on the bill today.
Up next week: gutting the voter-approved medical malpractice reforms on Monday, a slew of workers comp bills all week, a ban on plastic grocery bags on Wednesday, and Friday brings the deadline for all non-exempt bills to get through their first committee.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Prevailing Wage
Prevailing wage was the issue du jour in the Assembly Government Affairs Committee. While three bills were on the agenda, the committee barely got through two of them due to the large amount of people that signed in to testify.
I stepped forward in strong support of AB 298, a bill introduced by Heidi Gansert, who worked with Clara Andriola of the Associated Builders and Contractors. This bill would make much-needed and long-overdue reforms to the prevailing wage process.
For those of you who don’t know, any contractor who bids a public works project in this state that costs more than $100,000 must pay his workers “prevailing wage.” This is sometimes known as “Little Davis-Bacon,” after the federal law of the same name that came to pass in the 1930s.
The idea is to ensure that workers are paid a “fair” wage and one that represents the average wage in the area. The problem is that the way the system currently works, the formula favors collective bargaining agreements and taxpayers get left holding the bag.
The short version of the process is that the State Labor Commissioner sends out a survey to every licensed contractor in the state, who fills out the wages they pay in various trade categories on every project they worked on. The list also includes the location (county) that each job was performed in.
A few issues:
1. Very few companies actually fill out the survey. This makes the sample that much more unreliable. There is a specific sub-group of companies that are very good at returning these surveys: union contractors. Why? Because their collective bargaining agreement requires them to. I stated on the record today that is incumbent on this Chamber and the trade groups that we work to educate employers about how important it is to fill out this survey. It could mean more money in their pocket!
2. When filling out the survey, a contractor is required to list the work done on private AND public projects. This means that public project wages, which are inflated by the prevailing wage, are included in the final formula scheme. In other words, prevailing wages help determine the prevailing wage!
3. It is important to note that there is a large chunk of the prevailing wage rate that never gets into laborers pockets. Some of that wage gets funneled back to labor unions, which use that money for other things besides worker safety and welfare.
One of the beauties of AB 298 is that it would exempt K-12 and higher education construction projects from the prevailing wage requirements. During my testimony, I mentioned the Chamber’s strong support of the failed WCSD-1 failed school revitalization ballot campaign last year. I pointed out that we could build more schools and serve more children if we spent extra prevailing wage money on building school facilities.
Truth be told, the Chamber opposes any type of prevailing wage law (see page 7 of our Agenda for Economic Vitality in Nevada).
When asked by one Committee member if the Chamber supports eliminating prevailing wage completely or just reforming it, I replied: “Both.” AB 298 is a good first step.
I stepped forward in strong support of AB 298, a bill introduced by Heidi Gansert, who worked with Clara Andriola of the Associated Builders and Contractors. This bill would make much-needed and long-overdue reforms to the prevailing wage process.
For those of you who don’t know, any contractor who bids a public works project in this state that costs more than $100,000 must pay his workers “prevailing wage.” This is sometimes known as “Little Davis-Bacon,” after the federal law of the same name that came to pass in the 1930s.
The idea is to ensure that workers are paid a “fair” wage and one that represents the average wage in the area. The problem is that the way the system currently works, the formula favors collective bargaining agreements and taxpayers get left holding the bag.
The short version of the process is that the State Labor Commissioner sends out a survey to every licensed contractor in the state, who fills out the wages they pay in various trade categories on every project they worked on. The list also includes the location (county) that each job was performed in.
A few issues:
1. Very few companies actually fill out the survey. This makes the sample that much more unreliable. There is a specific sub-group of companies that are very good at returning these surveys: union contractors. Why? Because their collective bargaining agreement requires them to. I stated on the record today that is incumbent on this Chamber and the trade groups that we work to educate employers about how important it is to fill out this survey. It could mean more money in their pocket!
2. When filling out the survey, a contractor is required to list the work done on private AND public projects. This means that public project wages, which are inflated by the prevailing wage, are included in the final formula scheme. In other words, prevailing wages help determine the prevailing wage!
3. It is important to note that there is a large chunk of the prevailing wage rate that never gets into laborers pockets. Some of that wage gets funneled back to labor unions, which use that money for other things besides worker safety and welfare.
One of the beauties of AB 298 is that it would exempt K-12 and higher education construction projects from the prevailing wage requirements. During my testimony, I mentioned the Chamber’s strong support of the failed WCSD-1 failed school revitalization ballot campaign last year. I pointed out that we could build more schools and serve more children if we spent extra prevailing wage money on building school facilities.
Truth be told, the Chamber opposes any type of prevailing wage law (see page 7 of our Agenda for Economic Vitality in Nevada).
When asked by one Committee member if the Chamber supports eliminating prevailing wage completely or just reforming it, I replied: “Both.” AB 298 is a good first step.
Monday, March 30, 2009
The week is off to a fast start.
My morning began in the Assembly Government Affairs Committee, where “fire-safe” cigarettes were discussed. AB 229 would mandate that all cigarettes sold in Nevada be tested to ensure that they are easily extinguishable and protect people and property from fire. There was no opposition to the bill, as cigarette manufacturers helped craft it and the Retail Association proposed an amendment to ensure that their members (and the Chamber’s) are properly notified of those brands that have been approved.
The afternoon found me in Assembly Commerce and Labor, where I went to the table in opposition to two bills.
The first was AB 365, sponsored by Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie. This is yet another insurance mandate bill. This one in particular would require all small employer insurance policies to cover treatment for eating disorders. Again, while each of these bills may seem to have merit, and the proponents always argue that the cost is minimal, it is the added effects of all of these insurance mandates that really drive up health care costs.
Nevada is something like 3rd in the nation with the amount of health insurance mandates on small employers. We have over 50 mandates! Large businesses covered under ERISA plans have only 6 or so mandates to deal with.
When you add all of the workers comp bills to this, the dollars really start to add up.
The second bill which brought me to the table was AB 381. This bill would do away with binding arbitration in various consumer contracts, thereby driving cases into already overcrowded courtrooms. Arbitration can save both sides in a dispute a lot of money. Obviously, any company that has to deal with a new wave of attorney fees and court costs will pass on those costs to the consumers.
My morning began in the Assembly Government Affairs Committee, where “fire-safe” cigarettes were discussed. AB 229 would mandate that all cigarettes sold in Nevada be tested to ensure that they are easily extinguishable and protect people and property from fire. There was no opposition to the bill, as cigarette manufacturers helped craft it and the Retail Association proposed an amendment to ensure that their members (and the Chamber’s) are properly notified of those brands that have been approved.
The afternoon found me in Assembly Commerce and Labor, where I went to the table in opposition to two bills.
The first was AB 365, sponsored by Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie. This is yet another insurance mandate bill. This one in particular would require all small employer insurance policies to cover treatment for eating disorders. Again, while each of these bills may seem to have merit, and the proponents always argue that the cost is minimal, it is the added effects of all of these insurance mandates that really drive up health care costs.
Nevada is something like 3rd in the nation with the amount of health insurance mandates on small employers. We have over 50 mandates! Large businesses covered under ERISA plans have only 6 or so mandates to deal with.
When you add all of the workers comp bills to this, the dollars really start to add up.
The second bill which brought me to the table was AB 381. This bill would do away with binding arbitration in various consumer contracts, thereby driving cases into already overcrowded courtrooms. Arbitration can save both sides in a dispute a lot of money. Obviously, any company that has to deal with a new wave of attorney fees and court costs will pass on those costs to the consumers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
