The Governor surpassed his own record veto tally from the last session with 87 vetoes. Unsurprisingly, a number of those vetoes were bills related to collective bargaining and workers. Most of the veto messages noted something about not burdening any business in these bad budget times, but even before the May Economic Forum projections, most of our labor allies were predicting vetoes from the Governor on these bills presuming the Governor is looking ahead on stances beneficial to his re-election campaign. Casualties of the veto pen include:

• SB182: Would require certain staffing levels and health care provider to patient ratios in hospitals. The veto said this would not work without addressing health care worker shortages first.

• SB 301: The right to collective bargaining for unclassified peace officer groups. This veto worried that other distinctions between unclassified and state classified system officers would also be challenged. This does not signal that the Governor would be open for other unclassified groups (like NSHE faculty and professionals) to gain collective bargaining rights under his watch.

• SB 410: This bill would clarify that insurance benefits under collective bargaining agreements for local government employees also means dependent benefits. Lombardo vetoed this one because legislatively mandating subjects of bargaining “put the thumb on the scale” to the benefit of labor. 

• AB 155: Expands collective bargaining topics to include class size for K-12 groups; the veto message assumes this would require building new schools and be unfeasible.

• AB 112: Allows use of sick leave to care for family members without retaliation; Lombardo said that this would mandate a benefit and disrupt collective bargaining negotiations.

• AB 434: Prevents retaliation of employees who do not participate in meetings where political or religious views are promoted by the employer. The Governor was concerned about limiting free speech, even though the bill is clear it is just about not retaliating against employees who do not participate in such meetings. 

• AB 388: Would require employers with 50 or more employees to offer 12 weeks of paid family, medical, or safety leave; state workers currently receive 8 weeks of paid leave. This was one of the “no burden to businesses” veto messages, even though the bills would not go into effect for another two years.

The Governor’s veto arguments, especially against collective bargaining bills, echo a lot of what we heard in NSHE’s opposition to AB 191 (the right to collectively bargain for NSHE professions and graduate assistants). NSHE/Governor prefer limited mandated topics of bargaining because otherwise it get too complex; legislation should not allow the “thumb on the scale” in bargaining to be on the side of workers. Based on veto messages, we can also the Governor and NSHE also agree that we can’t affirm the rights of workers, because somehow that will impede the rights of management.

In the long list of vetoes (check out the Nevada Independent’s veto tracker), bills requiring prevailing wages for construction projects, workplace safety requirements, or mitigating heat or air quality hazards at work sites also got the veto treatment.  We assume many of these bills will come back next session, so their chances of passing will be largely dependent on who is in the Governor’s Office.