Clark County School District (CCSD) recently announced a looming budget deficit estimated to reach $20 million. The outcomes of this financial shortcoming did not take too long to surface as layoffs and cuts in teaching hours have already taken place. In a letter sent to State Superintendent of Public Instruction, CCSD attributed the crisis to enrollment changes, salary increases, and necessary investments in cybersecurity and litigation.  

At an initial glance it might seem as if the cause of the deficit is mismanagement or a lack of substantial funds. However, this is not the story. CCSD was granted a record-high amount of state funds, ensuring that there should not be any financial strain. So, what is the problem? 

CCSD Salary Increases

A deeper look into the situation shows that the problem lies in the unmatched salary increases of the CCSD staff members. According to the former CFO of CCSD the reason behind the budgeting failure was precisely these increases.   

Starting from February 1, 2024, new salaries were implemented resulting in a 10% across-the-board salary increase in the first year and another 8% hike in the second year, as stated on the negotiated agreement between the Clark County Education Association (CCEA) and CCSD. The contract  also granted extra benefits to CCEA members such as increased health insurance contribution, increased Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) contribution, and extended-day extracurricular pay.

Blame Collective Bargaining

The roots of this issue can be found in the collective bargaining system. The negotiations between CCEA and CCSD were a result of compulsory collective bargaining with mandatory arbitration. Mandatory collective bargaining grants unions an excessive leverage, allowing them to influence state budgets, increase government spending, and gain alarming amount of political power.

Once a union secures the vote of just half the members in a bargaining unit, its representatives gain the right to represent all workers in the unit, even if some workers would prefer the freedom to speak on their own behalf. Nevada’s mandatory bargaining rules require elected officials to work toward agreement with union officials across a wide range of pay and perquisites even if they have campaigned on a platform of restraining costs. Even if elected officials fail to agree with union leaders, the binding arbitration procedure guarantees a union contract.  

The arbitration process allowed CCEA to obtain every demand it originally made to CCSD even though CCSD officials worried such an agreement would constrain the budget. That’s because the criteria Nevada law instructs arbitrators to use in evaluating the fairness of proposals in a union contract dispute is not based on prevailing market conditions. Instead, the central criterion is the employer’s “ability to pay.” In other words, if budget forecasts indicate there may be an ending fund balance or cost savings, arbitrators are instructed to award those funds instead to the union. If market conditions change even slightly thereafter—resulting in fewer tax revenues—a public employer may face a budget shortfall like CCSD right now. 

Unlike private-sector union bargaining, the people who foot the bill for government union contracts—taxpayers—are completely cut out of the bargaining process. Not only are their elected representatives constrained by law, but the entire procedure remains concealed from the public eye. Although two-thirds of the states require mandatory collective bargaining for most employee groups, Nevada is one of only 11 states that shield these bargaining sessions from public records and open meetings laws.  

Research shows that collective bargaining mandates add more than $1 billion every year to Nevada’s government spending. Hence, returning to the state’s original legislation by removing the compulsory bargaining opportunities for unions can save Nevada over $1 billion annually. Also, it would allow the public to have input into the negotiation process and encourage current union members to seek the representation they desire.  

Reforming Contract Negotiations in Nevada

Most critically, repealing the overindulgent powers extended to unions via collective bargaining can prevent future budgetary crises both for the state and the school districts. If Nevada wants to avoid another situation like the current CCSD budget deficit, a reform is urgently needed to serve the interests of all Nevadans, not just those at the negotiating table. The financial health of the schooling system, and ultimately the quality of education for our children, depends on it.