Nevada’s economy thrives when businesses and workers compete on a level playing field. Unfortunately, Assembly Bill 303 (AB 303) would do the opposite. This bill proposes expanding prevailing wage mandates to broadband and telecommunications projects that receive public funding. While it is marketed as a way to ensure fair wages, in reality, it would drive up labor costs, hurt taxpayers, and slow down infrastructure development. 

What Exactly Is AB 303? 

AB 303 is a legislative proposal that would extend Nevada’s “prevailing wage” requirements to broadband and telecommunications projects—like installing fiber-optic cables or expanding internet access—whenever they receive public funding. Prevailing wage laws have been part of Nevada’s legal framework since 1937, mandating that workers on public works projects (think highways or government buildings) earn a set wage based on local standards. On the surface, it sounds like a win for workers. But Nevada Policy warns that applying these rules to broadband projects could backfire, big time. 

The Flaws in Prevailing Wage Rules 

So, what’s a prevailing wage? It’s supposed to reflect the typical pay for a job in a given area, but in Nevada, it’s not quite that simple. The rates are determined by the Nevada Labor Commissioner through a survey process—one that critics say is skewed. Construction unions, which represent organized labor, heavily influence these rates, pushing them well above what the free market would naturally set. Data shows Nevada’s prevailing wages are, on average, 45% higher than actual market wages for similar work. That’s not a small gap. 

Take this real-world example: in 2011, an alarm installer in Clark County earned $55.95 per hour under prevailing wage rules. Meanwhile, the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation reported the average wage for that same job was just $24.59 per hour. That’s more than double the market rate—an inflated cost that gets passed on to taxpayers. 

The Financial Fallout 

Here’s where it hits home. When labor costs skyrocket due to prevailing wage mandates, public projects get a lot more expensive. Between 2009 and 2010, Nevada taxpayers shelled out an extra $1 billion in prevailing wage premiums because of these rules. Now, AB 303 wants to slap the same requirements on broadband and telecommunications projects—sectors that aren’t traditionally considered “public works.” Increasing costs with artificial wage hikes could slow progress and drain public funds. 

Think about it: every dollar spent on inflated wages is a dollar that can’t go toward more healthcare, education, or tax relief. Nevada Policy argues that AB 303 would saddle taxpayers with unnecessary burdens while making it harder to achieve the state’s broadband goals efficiently. 

A Smarter Alternative 

Opponents of AB 303 aren’t saying workers should be underpaid—they’re pushing for a different approach. Nevada could ditch these rigid wage mandates and embrace open, competitive bidding for projects. In this system, companies would offer their best prices, and wages would align with what the market naturally supports. It’s a free-market solution that could keep costs down, speed up broadband expansion, and still ensure fair pay—without taxpayers footing an oversized bill. 

Why Nevada Should Say No 

Nevada Policy’s stance is clear: AB 303 might be pitched as a way to protect workers and increase transparency on labor records, but it’s really a recipe for higher costs and slower progress. The bill takes an outdated, union-friendly policy and stretches it into new territory, threatening to bog down a vital industry with red tape and inflated expenses. They’re calling on lawmakers to reject it in favor of a leaner, more practical strategy.