fbpx
Nevada Policy

Press

Press Releases

Collective bargaining for state workers is about politics, not fairness

Granting collective bargaining powers to Nevada state workers will increase annual spending by an estimated $500 million annually, a cost that will be passed onto taxpayers through higher taxes, reduced services or both.

The arguments most commonly used in support of Senate Bill 135, which is scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Government Affairs Committee next Wednesday, is the false belief that state workers are underpaid.

But a new study from Nevada Policy, The Political Push for State-Worker Collective Bargaining, shows that compensation for Nevada state workers already ranks among the highest nationwide, and dwarfs the amount earned by the average taxpayer.

Specifically, the report found that average compensation for Nevada state workers ranks 10th highest nationwide on a raw, unadjusted basis, and fifth highest when accounting for the different price levels among the 50 states.

At 49 percent greater than the average private-sector worker, compensation for Nevada state workers ranked second highest nationwide:

Perhaps most revealing is the expressed preferences of Nevada state workers themselves, who have a voluntarily quit rate of roughly one-third the level found in the private sector nationwide.

So why do so many lawmakers support a policy that will require raising taxes on those earning less to enrich those making more?

Politicians embrace the unionization of government workers for political reasons, according to NPRI Policy Director Robert Fellner.

“Politicians are happy to promise above-market compensation to government unions, as they do so with other people’s money. Moreover, politicians are keenly aware of the outsized role these organizations play in the election process, essentially operating as tax-funded political action committees.”

This “corrosion of the democratic process” comes at a heavy price for ordinary Nevadans, Fellner said.

“Raising taxes on private-sector Nevadans, who on average earn much less themselves, to further inflate the pay premium enjoyed by Nevada’s government workers is neither fair nor sustainable,” Fellner said.

At the very least, the public deserves to have accurate information about the laws that are ostensibly being passed on their behalf, Fellner says.

“Lawmakers should not be enacting policies based on misinformation. Those arguing for collective bargaining for state workers, and the additional $500 million in annual spending that comes with it, have repeatedly espoused falsehoods regarding state worker compensation.

“The data is clear and overwhelming: Nevada state workers receive compensation that ranks among the richest nationwide, regardless of the metric used.”

To read the full study, please click here.

 

[sgmb id=”1″]

Learn More
Nevada Policy responds to Gov. Sisolak’s plan to slash scholarships for low-income students

In response to Governor Steve Sisolak’s announcement that he intends to reduce funding for the Opportunity Scholarship program, which would rip away scholarships from approximately 950 students just two years after receiving them, Nevada Policy Communications Director Michael Schaus released the following statement:

Our hearts break for the children whose scholarships are now at risk — and we will do everything we can to partner with parents to make sure their voices are heard during the legislative session.

Sisolak’s plan to slash the funding of Opportunity Scholarships means approximately 950 of the roughly 2,500 low-income students who take advantage of these scholarships are going to be forced back into the very schools where they struggled to succeed in the first place. They’ll be forced to leave the new teachers they have found who connect with them, the new friends who encourage them and the new schools that cater to their unique needs.

In short, if these scholarships are not continued, political leadership in Nevada will have told each one of these disadvantaged students that their shot at a good education isn’t nearly as important as protecting the political interests of the public-school system that left them behind in the first place.

Parents need to let Gov. Sisolak and the legislature know that lawmakers should be focused on helping kids get in the classrooms where they can truly succeed — not taking away scholarships that put such classrooms within reach.

Read more about how Opportunity Scholarships benefit students and taxpayers alike, while also reducing overcrowding and increasing available per-pupil funding for public schools: Nevada’s Opportunity Scholarships: A Win for Students and Taxpayers

Learn More
Nevada Policy Co-signs Amicus Brief in Public Employee Union Supreme Court Case

Nevada Policy is one of 18 organizations across the country listed as co-signers on an amicus brief filed last week in support of Kathleen Uradnik, a university professor in Minnesota, in her US Supreme Court lawsuit, Uradnik vs Inter Faculty Association.

The brief, filed and authored by the Center of the American Experiment, urges the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Uradnik v. Inter Faculty Organization, which calls for an immediate end to laws that force public-sector employees to accept a union’s exclusive representation. The case, filed by The Buckeye Institute, is the first major post-Janus labor challenge filed with the United States Supreme Court. The counsel of record is Andrew Grossman of BakerHostetler.

The Uradnik case challenges state laws that appoint a union to represent and speak for all workers, even those who disagree with it – an arrangement known as “exclusive representation.”

Uradnik, who has had major disputes with her faculty’s labor union, which has discriminated against her, is nonetheless required by state law to associate with it and to allow it to speak for her. Nevada has similar laws imposing exclusive representation upon public employees, limiting their freedoms and opportunities for advancement.

A win for Uradnik would strike down such laws nationwide, another major blow against union favoritism and in favor of First Amendment rights. The amicus brief encourages the Supreme Court to hear the case, hopefully in its 2019 session.

Nevada Policy Communications Director Michael Schaus released the following statement:

“Exclusive representation laws deny government workers the right to vote on which union, if any, represents them. All workers — even those who opt not to pay union dues — are forced into a binding relationship with the union, as collectively-bargained agreements apply to the entire bargaining unit. The irony is that unions claim to have the best interests of their members at heart, yet exclusive representation does nothing but strip away their members’ workplace rights.”

Nevada lawmakers shouldn’t wait for the Supreme Court to declare this scheme unconstitutional, however. A simple legislative fix known as Workers’ Choice would restore workers right by as early as this summer, should the Legislature choose to act.

To learn more about Workers’ Choice in Nevada, click here to read Employee Freedom: A Primer on state-based, pro-worker reforms.

Seventeen groups signed on to American Experiment’s amicus brief including: the Alaska Policy Forum, Americans for Lawful Unionism, Americans for Tax Reform, the Beacon Center of Tennessee, the Center for Worker Freedom, the Freedom Foundation, the Illinois Policy Institute, the Liberty Justice Center—which successfully argued Janus v. AFSCME, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Maine Heritage Policy Center, Montana Policy Institute, Nevada Policy Research Institute, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Rio Grande Foundation, Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights, and the Wyoming Liberty Group.

Professor Uradnik’s case was filed on July 6, 2018, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, with a preliminary injunction motion filed on July 31, 2018. The motion for preliminary injunction was denied on September 27, 2018, and The Buckeye Institute immediately filed its notice of appeal and asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to quickly deny its motion so the case could be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. On December 4, 2018, The Buckeye Institute filed its appeal in Uradnik v. Inter Faculty Organization with the Supreme Court of the United States—the first major post-Janus labor challenge before the court. The counsel of record is Andrew Grossman of Baker Hostetler.

You can read Professor Uradnik’s commentary in the St. Cloud Times here.

Learn More
PERS files motion to overturn recent Nevada Supreme Court ruling

Apparently, not even repeated losses before the state Supreme Court will make some government officials comply with the Silver State’s public records law.

It’s another example of why lawmakers need to add teeth to the Nevada Public Records Act.

In October, the Nevada Supreme Court reaffirmed that the public is entitled to information regarding taxpayer-funded pensions paid to government retirees.

Yet rather than accept the Court’s clear and well-reasoned decision, the PERS Board instead chose to extend the legal battle — at taxpayer expense — by voting 4-2 last month to file a petition for rehearing.

Rehearing petitions allow parties to ask the Court to reverse itself on the grounds that its previous ruling contained a significant error of fact or law.

“PERS conflates its dissatisfaction with the Court’s ruling with actually having a legitimate legal basis to petition for rehearing,” argues NPRI Policy Director Robert Fellner.

In the petition, the agency merely repeats the same meritless arguments they have made at every turn throughout this multi-year legal battle, rather than identifying any actual error of fact or law within the Court’s ruling.

However, while it is unlikely that the petition will succeed in convincing the Court to reverse itself, it has allowed PERS to, once again, delay production of the requested public records by several months.

“Despite having the most favorable outcome possible at every stage of the legal process, taxpayers are still unable to view the records first requested by Nevada Policy in 2015,” Fellner says.

The delay tactics used by PERS highlights just how prohibitive it is for the average citizen to enforce their rights under the law, according to Fellner.

“How many ordinary citizens can afford to engage in such a lengthy legal battle?” Fellner asked.

“Taxpayers wishing to understand how the government spends their money should not be forced to spend years in court just to get the government to comply with its own transparency law,” Fellner concluded.

It’s for this reason that lawmakers need to treat Nevada’s public records law the same as every other law and add penalties for those who choose to violate it.

Unfortunately, the lack of penalties for violating the public records law has created a culture in Nevada government where officials are often quick to deny a legitimate public records request.

It’s a problem that extends far beyond PERS.

  • The Incline Village General Improvement District’s refused to provide its own Board Treasurer with copies of basic financial records.
  • The Clark County School District (CCSD) denied a request for a copy of an employee directory.
  • CCSD denied a request to provide information related to its decision to bar a school trustee from district property.
  • CCSD refused to release any emails sent by a staff executive, claiming every single one of them contained confidential information.
  • Metro denied to release records relating to the 1 October shooting — creating a level of secrecy and uncertainty that contributed significantly to the wild speculation and fearmongering that unfortunately followed the tragedy.
  • The Washoe County School District hid a taxpayer-funded investigation regarding allegations of bullying and harassment within its special education department.

“And the list could go on and on,” says Fellner. “This trend is evidence of the pressing need for the Legislature to add teeth to Nevada’s open records law.”

Doing so, however, requires a legislative fix.

“Lawmakers must amend Nevada’s public records law to give courts the ability to hold government officials who violate the law personally liable for the requester’s fees,” explains Fellner.

“After all, what good is a law, if there is no penalty for ignoring it?”

For a complete chronology of the legal events and arguments regarding the ongoing PERS lawsuit, please click here.

And to learn more about Nevada Policy’s work on the importance of a transparent and accountable government, please click here.

Learn More
Economic Freedom up slightly across U.S.; Nevada drops to 21st

LAS VEGAS—Nevada ranks 21st out of all 50 states in this year’s Economic Freedom of North America report, released today by Nevada Policy in conjunction with Canada’s Fraser Institute.

Last year, Nevada ranked 19th, which suggests Nevada is moving in the wrong direction, according to NPRI Policy Director Robert Fellner.

“Significant increases in government spending and taxation in recent years are responsible for Nevada’s declining economic freedom ranking. Lawmakers must reverse course so that all Nevadans can benefit from the opportunities and prosperity that result from a government that seeks to maximize freedom, rather than restricting it.”

This year, Florida has surpassed New Hampshire as having the highest level of economic freedom among all U.S. states. It scored 7.87 out of 10 in this year’s report, which measures government spending, taxation and labor market restrictions using data from 2016, the most recent year of available comparable data.

“The freest economies operate with comparatively less government interference, relying more on personal choice and markets to decide what’s produced, how it’s produced and how much is produced. As government imposes restrictions on these choices, there’s less economic freedom and less opportunity for prosperity,” said Fred McMahon, the Dr. Michael A. Walker Research Chair in Economic Freedom at the Fraser Institute and report co-author.

Rounding out the top five freest states are New Hampshire (2nd), Texas (3rd), Tennessee (4th) and South Dakota (5th). For the fourth year in a row, New York was ranked least free (50th), followed by Kentucky (49th), West Virginia (48th), California (47th) and Alaska (46th).

The report also includes an additional all-government ranking, which adds federal government policy to the index and includes the 50 U.S. states, 32 Mexican states and 10 Canadian provinces.

From 2004 to 2013, the average score for U.S. states in the all-government index fell from 8.24 to 7.66, but increased slightly to 7.9 out of 10 this year, driven largely by changes at the federal level.

In the most-free states, the average per capita income in 2016 was 7.3 per cent abovethe national average compared to roughly 10.5 per cent below the national average in the least-free states.

“The evidence is clear—lower levels of economic freedom lead to less prosperity, slower economic growth, less investment and fewer jobs and opportunities,” said Dean Stansel, economics professor at Southern Methodist University and co-author of the report.

The Economic Freedom of North America report, also co-authored by José Torra, the head of research at the Mexico City-based Caminos de la Libertad, is an offshoot of the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World index, the result of more than a quarter century of work by more than 60 scholars including three Nobel laureates.

See the full report at www.fraserinstitute.org/economic-freedom.

Nevada’s scores in key components of economic freedom (from 1 to 10 where a higher value indicates a higher level of economic freedom):

  • Government spending: changed to 6.82 from 7.26 in the last year’s report.
  • Taxes: changed to 6.40 from 6.61.
  • Labor Market Freedom: changed to 5.68 from 5.54.

“This report should serve as a wakeup call to the Nevada Legislature. It should be the goal of all lawmakers to make Nevada the most economically free state in the nation, which is the most effective way to improve the well-being of all Nevadans.”

About the Economic Freedom Index

Economic Freedom of North America measures the degree to which the policies and institutions of countries support economic freedom. This year’s publication ranks 92 provincial/state governments in Canada, the United States and Mexico. The report also updates data in earlier reports in instances where data has been revised.

For more information on the Economic Freedom Network, datasets and previous Economic Freedom of North America reports, visit www.fraserinstitute.org. And you can ‘Like’ the Economic Freedom Network on Facebook at www.facebook.com/EconomicFreedomNetwork.

Learn More
Nevada Supreme Court upholds state’s open records law

Nevadans still have the right to see what the government is doing with their money, thanks to today’s state Supreme Court ruling that firmly rejected a series of legal arguments that, if adopted, would have eviscerated Nevada’s public records law.

The ruling means that the Nevada Policy Research Institute has prevailed in its public records lawsuit against the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada (PERS), but the impact extends to all Nevadans, according to Nevada Policy Research Institute Policy Director Robert Fellner:

“PERS argued that public records should be defined narrowly to only include existing documents or reports, rather than all forms of recorded information related to governmental affairs. Had the Court accepted this argument, governments across the state could simply hide information they did not wish to be made public by keeping it stored in a computer database. Thankfully, the Court upheld the plain, statutory definition of a public record to include information stored in a computer database.”

The lawsuit stems over PERS denial of Nevada Policy’s request for records documenting how taxpayer-funded benefits are calculated and distributed.

Specifically, Nevada Policy requested the precise information ruled public by the Court in the 2013 Reno Newspapers decision, simply updated for the then-current 2014 fiscal year.

However, because the Reno Newspapers ruling was narrow in its scope, PERS argued they could lawfully conceal this public information in future years by simply changing its record-keeping practices so that there was no single report with all of the requested information.

But this argument — that PERS could hide public information by scattering it among multiple reports, and then refuse to compile those reports together — directly contradicted binding Supreme Court precedent from a different case, not to mention the plain intent of the state’s public records law.

In Blackjack Bonding, the Nevada Supreme Court addressed a nearly identical situation and held that if “an agency has a computer program that can readily compile the requested information, the agency is not excused from its duty to produce and disclose that information.”

Today’s decision reaffirms that ruling, with the Court finding that when a request for information “merely requires searching a database for existing information…the Act mandates [disclosure].”

Today’s decision was published as an Advanced Opinion, which is intended to provide guidance to courts, lawyers, legislators and the public and can be cited as precedent to help resolve future cases.

Nevada Policy sought the records to aid public understanding of a system which consumes nearly $2 billion tax dollars annually.

These costs don’t just impact taxpayers, however. The past decade’s 40 percent cost hike has left new teachers paying national-high rates, while receiving the lowest PERS benefits of any member in over a generation — an inequity which is expected to negatively affect teacher quality and recruitment.

Need for penalties in NPRA

As this case shows, even when a requester prevails in court, the government is still able to keep the requested information hidden for several years.

Fellner believes that Nevadans will never receive the full transparency promised to them under state law unless government officials who knowingly violate the law face some sort of penalty for doing so.

“No regular Nevada citizen can violate state law with impunity, so why should government employees be treated any differently? The Legislature must impose penalties on government officials who knowingly violate the law and deny Nevadans their fundamental right of a transparent and open government.”

For a complete chronology of the legal events and arguments that preceded today’s court ruling, please click here.

And to learn more about how PERS impacts Nevada taxpayers, teachers and the public at large, please click here.

For more information about this lawsuit, please contact NPRI Policy Director Robert Fellner at 702.222.0642 or via email at Robert@NevadaPolicy.org.
Learn More

Media Mentions

All Media Mentions

Nevada families hungry for lower food costs

Opinion piece by Nevada Policy president, John Tsarpalas

A Brighter Tomorrow through Business Regulations

Nevada Policy article on business regulations in the state of Nevada

The Government Took Their Home. Now, a Family’s Lawsuit May Change Nevada’s Forfeiture System

Quote from Outreach and Coalition Director, Marcos Lopez.

Nevada Policy

Media Inquiries

Please put “Media” in the subject line and include your questions, deadline, and contact information, and we will respond as soon as possible.

Email: communications@nevadapolicy.org

Phone: (702) 222-0642
Contact
Download Media Kit

Join the fight to save Nevada.

Sign up for Nevada Policy’s weekly emails to stay up to date on the most pressing issues facing Nevada today.

Media Inquiries

Name(Required)
Search
Facebook Linkedin X-twitter Instagram Youtube