Frequently Asked Questions on Assembly Bill 191

This FAQ on AB 191 addresses questions and corrects misperceptions of AB 191.

What is AB 191?

Assembly Bill 191 would establish regulations for collective bargaining for NSHE professional employees in Chapter 288 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, similar to those for local government employees and state Classified employees (including Classified staff at NSHE).

Where is AB 191 in the legislative process?

AB 191 had its first hearing in the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on March 5, 2025.  The next step is a work session to vote the bill out of committee. It is then expected to be re-referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways & Means for consideration of fiscal issues.

Update: AB 191 was passed by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs and has been re-referred to Ways & Means for a fiscal hearing. It is exempt from deadlines.

Don’t NSHE faculty already have collective bargaining?

Since the mid-1970s, the Board of Regents has allowed collective bargaining for faculty under its own constitutional authority. However, Title 4 Chapter 4 (T4C4) of the NSHE Handbook has not had a major update since 1990 and it has not kept up with changes in collective bargaining statutes for other public employees in Nevada. It also does not match current practices for the existing faculty collective bargaining units at CSN, NSU, TMCC, and WNC.  For example, T4C4 states there is a single bargaining unit for the community colleges, but de facto there are three separate negotiations and three collective bargaining agreements approved by the Board of Regents at the three community colleges with faculty bargaining units.

Couldn’t the Regents just update Title 4 Chapter 4 of the Handbook?

In principle, yes, but NFA has been seeking revisions to update and modernize T4C4 since 2022 to no avail–the proposals have not even been agendized for Board discussion. Regardless, only the Legislature can authorize important pieces of the provisions for collective bargaining and labor relations that other Nevada public employees have in NRS 288; for example, access to the state Employee-Management Relations Board for efficient resolution of disputes over contract provisions. T4C4 currently limits conflict resolution to fact finding and mediation while AB 191 also provides for arbitration. We see expanded conflict resolution options as positive. AB 191 creates a level playing field for negotiations between professional employee associations and management.

Would AB 191 expand the number of NSHE employees with collective bargaining agreements?

Not by itself.  AB 191 provides the framework for organizing bargaining units, the first step toward negotiating a collective bargaining agreement.  With AB 191, groups of professional employees with a shared community of interest could come together and ask for recognition and for NFA or another employee association to represent them.  

Would AB 191 increase the number of NSHE employees with collective bargaining from 930 to 22000 (as implied by Deputy Counsel Carrie Parker at the March 7th Board meeting)?

No. The current number of NSHE employees eligible to form bargaining units includes 2500 Classified employees, 3200 full-time academic faculty, and about 4000 full-time non-managerial administrative faculty (total of about 9700 employees). Under AB 191, the additional eligible employee groups would include about 2400 graduate assistants, 550 postdocs and medical residents, 53 DRI technologists, and an unknown number of part-time instructors (LOAs) and hourly workers who work over 160 hours per year (more than one 3-credit course for LOAs). The 22000 number quoted by NSHE is an exaggeration–it appears to be the headcount of all NSHE employees other than Classified staff and Executives, including part-time and temporary workers who would be excluded by AB 191.  

The number of members of the current faculty bargaining units at CSN, NSU, TMCC, and WNC is about 870.  The new bargaining unit at NSU adds 126 academic faculty, for a total of under 1000. That is, 33 years after the first faculty bargaining unit formed at TMCC only 14% of the eligible 7200 faculty employees have chosen to form bargaining units by a majority vote.

By their nature, collective bargaining agreements are collective, group contracts, not individual faculty contracts where the workload would scale with the number of employees. So although 1000 faculty are members of bargaining units, there are only four CBAs to be negotiated and managed.

How would the number of NSHE employees with collective bargaining agreements increase with AB 191?

By itself, AB 191 does not increase the number of collective bargaining agreements from the current four at CSN, NSU, TMCC, and WNC, with a total of about 1000 faculty members in those bargaining units. New bargaining units would first have to be established under the rules of AB 191, then negotiations would ensue leading eventually to new agreements. 

How many new bargaining units are likely to form under AB 191?

Beyond the four current faculty bargaining units at CSN, NSU, TMCC and WCN organized under the T4C4 rules, Graduate Assistants represented by the Nevada Graduate Student Workers-UAW union are seeking recognition. Graduate Assistants are asking NSHE to ‘count their cards’ showing their super majority. Organizing any units beyond those will be a deliberative and democratic process, often taking a few years.

Even in the unlikely scenario that all eligible professionals chose to organize, the total number of bargaining units would likely be fewer than a dozen bargaining units. Some employees are challenging to organize, some might not want to. The principle we hold is that all employees should have equal rights and equal terms. AB 191 rationalizes and simplifies the process not only for workers, but for NSHE, too.

Because Section 25 of AB 191 establishes a presumption that academic faculty bargaining units will be formed within each institution, there are four additional possible academic faculty units (DRI, GBC, UNLV, and UNR academic faculty).  Other occupational groups such as Graduate Assistants would presumptively have a single bargaining unit statewide, but ultimately the membership of bargaining units results from consultation between NSHE and the professional organization seeking to be designated as an exclusive representative.

Can’t UNLV, UNR, and DRI help graduate assistants (GAs) without allowing them to collectively bargain?

The power imbalances and resulting mistreatment reported by graduate assistants are best addressed through collective bargaining, giving GAs input in their workplace policies. Only recently have institutions provided any due process for terminating GA positions; NSHE Handbook policy is mostly silent as it relates to GAs--there is no grievance process for them. Allowing GAs to collectively bargain ensures that everyone (GAs and their supervisors) know their rights and responsibilities and hold to them. A supermajority of GAs at UNLV, UNR, and DRI have requested recognition of their union for collective bargaining.

Do Nevada Revised Statutes currently allow NSHE to collectively bargaining with (a) faculty and (b) graduate assistants?

Yes.  Under NRS 396.110 and 396.280 as well as its constitutional authority, the Board of Regents can and does collectively bargain with faculty employees, as provided in Title 4, Chapter 4 of the Board of Regents Handbook. 

NRS 396.251 exempts NSHE from nearly all statutes related to personnel for student workers (which includes graduate assistants), postdoctoral scholars, and medical residents.  That means NSHE is not bound by state personnel law and is free to recognize an association of graduate assistants and collectively bargain with them.  Title 4 Chapter 4 would simply need to be revised by the Board of Regents to include graduate assistants as a bargaining unit.

However, only the Legislature can provide for certain aspects of collective bargaining; for example, access to the state Government Employee-Management Relations board by employees and governmental employers for resolution of issues regarding formation of bargaining units, negotiations, and contract compliance. AB191 provides the same rights and responsibilities for NSHE professional employees that other Nevada public employees have. AB191 would also ensure the rules of engagement for collective bargaining would not be entirely under the control of management, an apparent conflict of interest.

How does collective bargaining work for tenured or grant-funded faculty?

All academic faculty share most working conditions and employment policies, but with different contract termination provisions for tenured, tenure-track, non-tenured-track and grant-funded faculty members.  A negotiated collective bargaining agreement can take those differences into account and provide appropriate due-process provisions for all. A collective bargaining agreement bolsters, rather than replaces, shared governance and peer review processes--which would remain in place for academic faculty. For public colleges and universities with faculty collective bargaining units, it is common for negotiated provisions about tenure procedures to be limited to permanent state-funded positions, for example. 

Does AB 191 increase the compensation and benefits of professional employees? How would that be funded?

Not without mutual agreement in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Compensation and benefits are a topic of negotiation for CBAs, but any compensation approved that requires new state appropriations for implementation would be a budget request by NSHE through the regular state budget process. Such provisions would not go into effect unless and until the state funds are appropriated. The Governor is not required to include funding of collective bargaining agreements in the Executive Budget, and the Legislature is not required to approve them.  However, NSHE and the employee association could to to the Governor and Legislature with a united message to implement a collective bargaining agreement.

Important cost-free policies and procedures can be negotiated in CBAs to improve working conditions and the efficiency of the colleges and universities.  Studies show that institutions of higher education with faculty unionization have lower costs and better student outcomes. The current CBAs at CSN, TMCC, and WNC are available for review at https://nevadafacultyalliance.org/page-1464388 .

How much would AB 191 cost NSHE to implement?

NSHE’s fiscal note claims it would need to hire 20 new staff including seven new labor attorneys to implement AB 191, but at the three current bargaining units at CSN, TMCC, and WNC, negotiations have been handled by existing administrators and human resources staff. Since NSU's bargaining unit has already formed under T4C4, AB 191 does not add to the cost at NSU. In the Labor Relations Unit of the Office of the Attorney General, two attorneys handle collective bargaining negotiations and litigation for the 12 statewide bargaining units for Classified employees represented by five employee associations. NSHE's fiscal note for AB 191 is a gross exaggeration of any realistic needs. NFA has prepared a full analysis of the fiscal impact of AB 191, including a recommended appropriation for reasonable expense. 

After CSN faculty negotiated their first CBA in 2019, the labor-related staff in CSN legal and human resources departments did not require an increase in positions–although the responsibilities of some positions may have shifted for different processes under the CBA.  

The NFA supports appropriations to cover reasonable costs of implementation.  AB 224 in 2023 included appropriations, but was vetoed by Governor. It would be reasonable for NSHE to add a labor attorney and a labor relations specialist at the system level to provide support for the institutions and to handle an additional bargaining unit for Graduate Assistants. 

The only direct cost of AB 191 is the fee to support the EMRB. That fee is up to $10 per year per bargaining unit member, so the fee will be roughly up to  $8700 per year until additional bargaining units are established.  The actual EMRB assessment for State Classified employees is currently $4.25/year, well below the $10 statutory maximum.  The EMRB fees would be offset by savings on resolution of bargaining unit, contract, or negotiation issues by the EMRB that would otherwise go to voluntary private arbitration or to litigation.

The costs of arbitrations for grievances will likewise be more than offset by savings from avoided litigation. While NSHE's fiscal note on AB 224 in 2023 projected 200 to 800 binding arbitrations for grievance appeals each fiscal year, the 2025 fiscal note indicates their are only 17 grievances last year statewide that escalated to a president or the chancellor.  Even if all of those were appealed to an arbitrator, the cost at NSHE's (high) estimate of $5600 each in the fiscal note would be $95,200 split between NSHE and NFA.  Much more is being spent by NSHE on litigation, both with internal general counsel and on outside counsel, that could be avoided through arbitration. 

Does AB 191 require binding arbitration for all grievances?

No, that is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding. AB 191 allows arbitration as the final level of appeal of a grievance that is not resolved at lower levels.  Collective bargaining agreements negotiated under AB 191 would provide for binding resolution by an independent arbitrator of final appeals, but it would only apply to members of bargaining units with a collective bargaining agreement.  Arbitration avoids expensive litigation, a cost savings to NSHE which regularly hires outside counsel to handle lawsuits over personnel issues. Collective bargaining agreements can provide better methods for resolving workplace disputes; for example, TMCC has been able to reduce the frequency of grievances through provisions for informal resolution in its collective bargaining agreement.

Does AB 191 expand what is grievable in comparison to the NSHE Handbook? 

Yes, but only once a collective bargaining agreement is established for a particular employee group. The scope of grievances for faculty in Title 2 Chapter 5 is narrowly defined and does not encompass the standard definition of grievances NSHE classified employees in bargaining units currently have. There is no grievance policy in the Handbook for graduate assistants or other non-faculty professional employees. AB 191 provides the same foundation for all employees.

How many grievances will go to arbitration?

In 2023, NSHE claimed AB 224, the nearly identical predecessor of AB 191, would lead to hundreds of arbitrations over grievances. If that were the case, it would just show a dire need for collective bargaining to improve working conditions for professional employees at NSHE.  In the fiscal note for AB 191, NSHE reports that last year there actually were only 17 grievances statewide that were denied by Presidents, the final level of decision under NSHE Code. Those would be eligible for appeal to arbitration under AB 191.  To our information and belief, since collective bargaining agreements for Classified employees have been in place after 2021, only one grievance for a Classified employee at NSHE has gone to arbitration.

Does AB 191 allow NSHE professional employees to strike?

No, NRS 288 has strong prohibitions against strikes by public employees in Nevada, and AB 191 does not change that.

Does AB 191 change Nevada as a Right to Work state?

No.  Right to Work means that employees are not required to join a union or pay dues to receive the benefits of collective bargaining. Employees cannot be forced to join a union as a requirement of employment.  That will not change with AB 191.

What happens in case of an impasse in the negotiation of a collective bargaining unit? 

Under T4C4, there is a mediation and advisory fact-finding process but management is not required to accept the recommendation of the independent fact-finder. That means negotiations can drag out for a long time–the first contract at CSN took years to negotiate.  Under AB 191, which follows the same process as in NRS 288 for state Classified employees, an impasse first goes to mediation and then binding arbitration under strict timelines.  The arbitrator is required to choose the more reasonable proposal from the two parties based on stated criteria, and is not allowed to modify the chosen proposal. That forces both parties to make final proposals that are reasonable, not ask for exaggerated provisions hoping the arbitrator will split the difference.  The two parties can extend the times for negotiation, mediation, and arbitration only by mutual agreement.

Would AB 191 cover Unclassified or Nonclassified employees in state agencies outside of NSHE?

No.  The definitions of “professional employee” and “state professional employer” in AB 191 effectively limit its applicability to NSHE.

Would the Labor Relations Unit in the state Division of Human Resource Management negotiate with professional employee associations on behalf of NSHE?

No.  AB 191 both authorizes and requires NSHE to conduct its own labor relations and collective bargaining negotiations with its professional employee bargaining units.  NSHE could choose to use the services of the DHRM or the Office of the Attorney General for labor relations, but those entities could charge NSHE for any such service.

Are the rights reserved to management restricted by AB 191?

AB 191 recognizes the principles of shared governance, which is a good thing. Academic freedom means that the determination of the “means and methods” of delivering education and research are the responsibility of teachers and scholars, not management. Personnel decisions in academia involve peer review.  More expansive management rights for a governmental agency such as the DMV or Corrections, for example, for absolute control over staffing and services would not be appropriate for institutions of higher education.

Does AB 191 extend collective bargaining to “at will” employees such as Unclassified and Nonclassified employees in state government?

The Unclassified and Nonclassified employees in other state agencies are political appointees and upper management.  As “managerial” or “confidential” employees, most if not all would be ineligible to collectively bargain under AB191 if the bill included those agencies among “state professional employers”, which it doesn’t.

NSHE suggested that graduate assistants are “at-will” as a means to justify their current exclusion from T4C4 and implied that NSHE might oppose AB 191 because it includes graduate assistants. However, in practice, having any due process for termination (as we have with most NSHE employees, including graduate assistants) demonstrates exceptions to a position where “at-will” means firing anyone at any time. Collective bargaining allows for termination procedures to be standardized and negotiated with recourse for violations of them.

For further information contact: Kent Ervin, kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org

Updated 3/28 with additional information about fiscal impact and effect on tenured or grant-funded faculty.

Updated 4/6/2025 to recognize the successful bargaining unit election at NSU.

Updated 4/18/2025 with current legislative status and other clarifications.

Updated 4/23/2025 with a discussion of whether current state law allows NSHE to voluntarily recognize and bargain with profession employee associations.

Updated 4/27/2025 to indicate that there are five employee associations representing the 12 state Classified bargaining units.

On Monday, March 10th, The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision by a lower court to dismiss the case of Jensen v Brown, et al. and remanded it back to the US District Court of Nevada in Reno.

The case was brought by Dr. Lars Jensen, a tenured professor of Mathematics at Truckee Meadows Community College. Jensen alleges that he faced retaliation from multiple administrators after he voiced concerns about the college bypassing established shared governance procedures to impose weakened curriculum standards designed to make it easier for students to pass math courses. He used various methods to express these concerns including email communications and in a handout he distributed outside a mathematics summit organized by the college in 2020. After being denied the opportunity to speak during a question-and-answer session during the summit, he returned to his office, printed the handout, and distributed it to attendees during a break.

Professor Lars Jensen, PhD  (KJBursey Photography)

The college pursued multiple disciplinary actions against Jensen following the summit including a formal reprimand for insubordination, and an unsatisfactory rating on his annual evaluation. The college also initiated proceedings to terminate Jensen for cause, a process in which Jensen ultimately prevailed.

Jensen subsequently filed a federal lawsuit pursuant to Section 1983, seeking to protect his constitutional rights. The case was dismissed by former Judge Larry Hicks, who cited sovereign immunity, a legal principle that generally prevents individuals from suing the government without the government's consent; and qualified immunity, a defense that protects public employees from civil liability when they injure you or your property while carrying out their official job duties. Jensen successfully appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court.

In February 2024, the Nevada Faculty Alliance joined the American Association of University Professor to file a joint amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court in support of Dr. Jensen. The brief maintained that the district court erred in its decision that Jensen’s right to such speech in the workplace was not established. It further cited Demers v. Austin which clearly established the right of faculty to engage in academic speech as part of their official duties. Afterwards, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) joined the appeal and and provided the attorney, Daniel Ortner, who argued the case before a Ninth Circuit panel last November.

The appeals court decision not only reverses Hicks’ decision and remands the case back to the district court, it also gives Jensen the right to amend his original complaint to address technical deficiencies claimed by TMCC’s attorney.

MORE: 
VICTORY! 9th Circuit rules in favor of professor punished for criticizing college for lowering academic standards

Governor Lombardo's Executive Budget includes funding to cover the  continued cost the historic Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLAs) provided to the faculty and Classified staff of NSHE colleges and universities in FY2024 (12%) and FY2025 (11%).  In advance of the legislative hearing on NSHE budgets on March 11, 2025, the Nevada Faculty Alliance is publishing a white paper on the history of the funding and budgeting policy for NSHE COLAs:

History and Analysis of Funding and Budgeting for NSHE Cost of Living Adjustments

Without the supplemental state funding for continuation of the COLAs, students will pay higher fees, the current budget cuts and position vacancies will become permanent, and/or additional cuts will be necessary to cover one-time budget remediations.

UPDATE 3/7/2025:
The Nevada Board of Regents, swayed by input from faculty leaders, rejected the proposal to modify the Title 2 policies. The existing policy, which requires the final appeal of Chapter 6 proceedings that may result in faculty termination to be submitted to the full Board for final resolution.

ORIGINAL POST 2/6/2025:
A proposal to modify Title 2 policies in the Board of Regents Handbook, which alarmed many NSHE faculty members when it was introduced last December, will have its second reading and possible approval at the March 6-7 Board of Regents meeting at Nevada State University in Henderson. Chapter 6, and Chapter 8 for DRI professionals, outline faculty discipline policies, including termination for cause. The changes would grant the Chancellor final authority over faculty termination appeals, requiring consultation only with the Board's chair, excluding other Regents from the process.

Most faculty who responded to NFA's request for input last November were concerned that the change will make the process for faculty appeals even more opaque and tilt the balance in favor of the administration. Although appeals under the existing policy are heard in a closed hearing of Regents during one of their meetings, Nevada's open meeting laws require the agenda to list the appeal and the hearing. The new policy will likely bypass this, placing the decision in the hands of the Chancellor instead of 13 Regents.

The NFA issued a letter to the Board of Regents opposing the proposal and asserting that the changes would violate the long-standing doctrines from AAUP's 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. The principles, and recent interpretations of them, establish that the governing board is responsible to review appeals and take the final action. By removing the Board from the process, the proposal diminishes due process and removes what little transparency exists because proceedings will no longer appear on Board agendas. Giving the authority exclusively to the Chancellor curtails the diversity of perspectives from the full Board and tips the balance in favor of the administration. At the December Board meeting, members asked about an alternative that would give faculty members the option to direct their appeals either directly to the Chancellor or to an Appeals Board consisting of the Chancellor and selected members of the Board.

The NFA urges all faculty members to contact their Regent and tell them to reject the current proposal to modify Title 2, Chapters 6 and 8 in the Handbook and consider other options. All avenues of due process must be exhausted in proceedings where an individual's career or an institution's reputation are at stake.

NSU Faculty Senate Chair David Cooper speaks in support of collective bargaining at the university

The Nevada Board of Regents, on Friday, March 7th, approved a petition from the Nevada State University chapter of the Nevada Faculty Alliance for recognition as an official bargaining agent for university faculty, paving the way for an organizing vote in April. 

Despite Regents voicing concerns about the "antiquated language" in the policy governing collective bargaining - a concern that NFA shares - the vote was nearly unanimous with only Regent Goodman abstaining.

More than 70% of NSU faculty signed cards affirming their desire to move forward with a vote to organize a bargaining unit and 67% of the faculty body are already members of NFA. The vote in April will very likely be in favor of the bargaining unit.

If successful, NSU-NFA will be the fourth institution, and the first university, in the Nevada System of Higher Education with established collective bargaining rights for faculty.  Once established, the chapter will have the right to notify the administration of their intent to enter negotiations in accordance with Board policy. 

For a second year in a row, Kevin Osorio-Hernandez, a student leader at Nevada State University, has brought the raw emotions of his fellow students across the state into stark relief in his comments to the Nevada Board of Regents during their meeting on March 6th. Speaking as chair of the Nevada Student Alliance, he described the anxiety and confusion confronting students in the changing political landscape and pleaded with the Board to fight for the state's most vulnerable students while celebrating the richness that multiple cultures bring to the educational experience. He sets a standard that all individuals in the Nevada System of Higher Education should aspire to. No description will adequately capture his eloquence and courage, so we provide this link to video of his powerful and moving comments.

Osorio-Hernandez's remarks follow comments he made just over one year ago during the March 1, 2024, meeting of the Board of Regents where he called out a member of the Board for insensitive transphobic comments and asked him to "change his paradigm."

The Nevada Faculty Alliance salutes Mr. Osorio-Hernandez for demonstrating true leadership and speaking truth to power. 

The start of Spring Semester 2025 in Nevada will be remembered by faculty primarily for the confusion and anxiety caused by the disruptive executive orders targeting higher education from the newly installed presidential administration in Washington, DC.

Although the barrage of orders has now slowed, and our national affiliates, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), have succeeded in temporarily derailing some of the attacks in the court, irreversible damage has already been done to academic programs and the students enrolled in them.

AFT recently released statistics on how proposed cuts to the Department of Education - if not the Department's outright elimination - may cost Nevadans. For NSHE and its students, those cuts could impact programs and services that add up to a staggering $13.2 billion in Nevada alone. Yes, that's billion, with a b.

• $13 billion in federal student loans, supporting over 363,000 Nevadans pursuing education beyond a high school diploma, including first-generation college students.
• $264 million in Pell grants, ensuring over 57,000 students can pursue a college degree regardless of income status.
• $1.7 million to support students enrolled in Nevada’s five minority-serving institutions, such as a historically Black college or university, a Hispanic-serving institution, a tribal college or university, or an Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institution.
• $20 million to help underrepresented students succeed—including those who are the first in their families to attend college, are from lower-income households or have disabilities.

These are just the higher education benefits received from the Department of Education. AFT calculates that K-12 is exposed for $320 million and workforce development programs offered at both K-12 and post-secondary levels add another $47 million and another $2 million for community programs that bolster education.

Those are just the numbers of what's at risk from the Department of Education. UNR estimates that proposed cuts in programs funded through the National Institutes of Health would eliminate more than $4 million per year in research infrastructure, while UNLV pegs its number at $2.5 million. DRI's impact may be as much as $1 million. 

The list goes on and the damage will be real, especially for so many of our students who have invested time and money in pursuit of their chosen fields of study only to watch their aspirations shattered by malicious ideologues.

The NFA encourage all faculty members to actively resist these unprecedented ideological intrusions. We urge you join us in advocating to Congress and NSHE administrators for protections. Here are some suggestions:

• Push Congress to overturn the executive orders by passing laws that will preserve vital programs and protect a student's right to learn without ideological disruptions.
• Insist that campus and NSHE leaders avoid anticipatory obedience and refrain from implementing stricter policies than what is mandated.
• Demand unambiguous guidance from campus administrations regarding the rights and responsibilities of faculty and students on immigration actions.
• Share stories of how these actions have directly impacted your program and students in the NFA members' forum (log-in required).

Assembly Bill 191, which would establish collective bargaining for NSHE professionals in state law, is making steady progress through the 83rd session of the Nevada Legislature. Following the first hearing in the Assembly's Government Affairs Committee on Tuesday, March 4th, the bill will advance through a series of hearings before reaching the full Assembly.

With only slight updates, this measure is similar to AB224, the bill that passed with bipartisan support during the previous legislative session but was vetoed by the Governor at the end of the session in 2023. As with the previous session, this bill would codify the right of NSHE faculty (and graduate students) to collectively bargain, as well as provide us with access to resources like the Employee-Management Relations Board (EMRB) that other public employees, including classified staff at NSHE, enjoy.

NFA representatives, working with the bill sponsor, Assemblymember Natha Anderson, see this as a necessary step to ensure that NSHE faculty have a shared foundation and guarantee for what we can start to negotiate in collective bargaining. For institutions that already have collective bargaining agreements, passing this bill means that the next time they negotiate a new contract, they’ll be able to include a step to resolve grievance appeals through arbitration. The EMRB will also be available to resolve contract disputes. Faculty at institutions that don't already engage in collective bargaining will have a well-defined process if they choose to organize into a bargaining unit in the future.

In advocating for this bill again this session, NFA officers emphasize that faculty working conditions are student learning conditions, and that faculty, administrators, and students all benefit when faculty have an effective say in the policies and processes that guide our important educational work:

• Having mutually agreed upon rules and expectations between faculty and management means better faculty retention;
• Retention contributes to higher quality of education and focus on our students;
• Faculty ability to speak for and advocate for ourselves and students without fear of retaliation;
• Clear and consistent policies mean conflicts can be addressed efficiently and fairly–letting us focus our resources on education and research and not on navigating workplace grievances.

The Nevada Graduate Student Workers/UAW, who have organized graduate student assistants at UNR, UNLV, and DRI, have joined NFA's efforts. They’ve been part of updates to the bill, ensuring that graduate students employed by NSHE can form communities of interests for the sake of collective bargaining. Currently, the Board of Regents policy that allows collective bargaining–not substantially updated since 1990–does not include graduate students at all.

NFA's AB 191 Fact Sheet describes the provisions of the bill.

We encourage NFA members to reach out to their Assemblymember or Senator to let them know you are in support of AB 191.

Collective Bargaining may be new to you, but it's not new to higher education, or the NFA. Below are the questions we get asked most frequently. If you have more questions, please direct them to your NFA Chapter!

What’s collective bargaining?

Collective bargaining is the process of workers coming together to negotiate a contract with their employers. A collectively bargained contract sets the terms of employment within the confines of the law. It can address issues like health and safety, pay, benefits, leave time, and how problems will be dealt with when they inevitably come up.

Collective bargaining isn’t something that happens to you…it’s something that happens WITH you, where your issues and concerns are brought together with those of your peers to address problems. To learn more, you can read here: https://aflcio.org/what-unions-do/empower-workers/collective-bargaining

Do I have a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)?

If you’re an academic or (non-managerial) administrative faculty member at TMCC, or academic faculty member at WNC or CSN, you are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. You’re represented by your campus NFA chapter. You can find current CBAs here: https://www.nevadafacultyalliance.org/page-1464388

Who is NFA?

NFA is the Nevada Faculty Alliance, it’s been the independent association of faculty since 1983. We are an organization AT the universities and colleges of the NSHE system but not OF them. That means NFA answers to no one but our members: not the Deans, not the Presidents, not the Regents, not the Governor. We advocate for faculty at all chapters, and bargain collectively for them at TMCC, WNC, and CSN.  The NFA is the Nevada affiliate of the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers. 

Ok, I’m on board, how do we get a collective bargaining agreement?

If you’re at TMCC, WNC, and CSN, you have a CBA. Get involved by attending an NFA meeting and volunteering!

If you’re at Nevada State University, there is a push for a CBA right now! Contact your NFA chapter to get involved and learn about next steps.

If you’re at GBC, UNLV, or UNR, you don’t currently have a CBA. We know from our internal polling that more than 75% of faculty are interested in pursuing a CBA on these campuses. Regardless of whether we pursue a CBA at present, the NFA is fighting for faculty on every campus, and we need you. One of the things we are working on is making it EASIER to form a CBA, and have that CBA be respected, if a majority of faculty want it. More details on that below.

Is it worth joining NFA if my campus doesn’t have a CBA yet?

Absolutely! NFA fights for faculty regardless of CBA status. We maintain an active presence at the legislature and give public comment at the Board of Regents. We fight for COLAs, higher ed budgets, better working conditions, protecting PERS and PEBP, and academic freedom across the state. Our legal defense services help faculty facing issues related to their jobs.

Perhaps most importantly at this moment is our affiliation to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). AAUP is at the forefront of fighting overreach from the current federal administration (and any future administration that wants to hamstring academic freedom). From the courts to the streets, AAUP is organized to stop the assault on academic research, with successes to show for it.

I'm at a campus without a CBA. How are my worker's rights protected?

That depends, on a lot. Different institutions have their own practices and places where policies live. Some academic units have bylaws with some policies, while other policies live in administrative manuals or other rule books (names of these things vary by campus). Depending on the structure of the institution, you might have department bylaws, college bylaws, university bylaws, AND all of the NSHE Board of Regents Code and Policy rules and regulations on top of other policies and requirements from your institution's administration. Depending on how frequently any of these are updated, they might conflict or need extra interpretation (typically by the President, Chancellor, or their (legal) designee).

We know that these processes can have varying impacts. We know that some grievance processes have failed faculty at some institutions. NFA works with faculty at EVERY campus, but without the protections of a contract, we can’t guarantee that we can be by your side (for instance in a disciplinary meeting). That would require a CBA to enforce what are called Weingarten Rights.

What’s the difference between forming a union and getting a collective bargaining agreement?

Forming a union is a right, protected by the US constitution, as well as domestic and international law. Unions are a vehicle for speech, peaceful assembly, and petition, all First Amendment rights. Public sector unions are recognized in Nevada law, and many public sector employees in Nevada enjoy collective bargaining rights (including teachers and law enforcement).

Forming a union is NOT the same as having a collective bargaining agreement, or contract, however. That requires both the workers and the employers to agree to terms. Currently, faculty in the NSHE system have a limited right to collectively bargain. It’s given to us by our employers, and has been in NSHE Policy since the 1970s (although the first bargaining unit to form was in the early 1990s at TMCC). This is the basis on which our three collective bargaining chapters have their contracts.

Most public sector workers in Nevada (most city, county, and state workers like firefighters and law enforcement and our Classified staff colleagues at NSHE) have their rights in statute (law). Not only is that a higher level of protection (management can’t pull the rug out from under them) but it also authorizes things that NSHE policy cannot. These workers can take issues to the Government Employee-Management Relations Board for final decisions. Under our current system, the final decision is with the Regents. Public sector workers can also use tools like arbitration if they reach an impasse with management. If faculty reach an impasse the decision goes to…you guessed it, our bosses!

That’s why the NFA is working to enshrine a right to collectively bargain in Nevada statute. Right now, our Collective Bargaining Bill is going before committees in the Nevada Legislature. If it passes and is signed by the Governor (big if, he vetoed it last time) professional, unclassified workers (basically, faculty, LOAs, and graduate assistants) would gain the right to collectively bargain in statute. Our rights would be more secure, with better outcomes both for chapters that already collectively bargain, and those who might want to in the future. 

What about ‘Right to Work’ I thought that meant there are no unions in Nevada?

Not only does Nevada have unions, it has had a higher percentage of unionized workers than the US average for over 30 years! Nevada is a union state in many ways. Right to Work is a fairly narrow law. It states that workers can’t be compelled to pay union dues, or make union membership a requirement of employment. Often times, this means unions have to protect workers whether they pay their dues or not. Of course, we’d always rather workers see the value of their union and pay their dues willingly. Right to work laws have no impact on your right to gather together with your colleagues to make improvements in your workplace.

The NFA will continue its decades-long advocacy at the Legislature in the 2025 session that began on February 3rd, as the independent voice for faculty and other professional employees of Nevada's public colleges and universities.  

Here are our highest priorities as approved by the NFA State Board, first the legislative bills we are supporting followed by budget priorities:

Legislation

For Better Higher Education Management: Collective Bargaining Rights! (AB 191)

• Provide collective bargaining rights for NSHE professionals. The 7,200 NSHE rank-and-file faculty are the largest group of public employees in Nevada without collective bargaining regulations in state law.
• Three community colleges have organized to collectively bargain and graduate student workers have rallied support for unionizing.
• Under the current system, management at NSHE dictates the terms of bargaining. NSHE employee associations should have the right to use the Employee-Management Board like other public employees in Nevada.
• The ability to have a say in working conditions leads to better teaching, better student outcomes, and more effective shared governance. Faculty working conditions are student learning conditions!

For Better Higher Education Governance: Mandatory Board of Regents Training!

• Require training for Regents on policy, budgets, open-meeting laws, nondiscrimination, student life, and shared governance to improve Regent knowledge and decision-making.
• While voters retained the Board of Regents as the constitutional higher education governing body, training will promote effective governing and oversight.
• Nevada requires training for K-12 Trustees. NSHE Regents should be equally responsible and accountable to citizens.

Benefits for State Employees Now AND When They Retire: Restoring Retiree Health Benefits! (AB 188)

• Restore retiree health benefits for state employees hired after 2011 and make benefits for Medicare and non-Medicare retirees equitable.
• Nevada state employees who were hired after the Great Recession deserve the same benefits as those hired in good economic years.
• Retiree health benefits for state employees are needed to compete with other Nevada public employers. Reward state public service with retiree benefits.

Budget Priorities

Invest in Campus Safety

• NFA supports NSHE’s ask for both one-time and ongoing funding for critical security to keep our campuses open and serving the public. We must update safety and security so that senseless violence may never again shatter our community. GovRec funding is 72% below what NSHE estimates is necessary.

New Funding Formula

• NFA welcomes changes to the funding formula to support wrap-around services to students, with phased-in implementation to ensure no institution takes a budget cut in the transition.

Full Funding of Cost-of-Living Adjustments for State-Supported NSHE Budgets

• Prior to 2019, NSHE COLAs were funded at 80% (as most other state agencies), but were funded at about 64% since then.
• The cost that isn’t covered by the state is largely covered by student fees--lower state funding means shifting the burden to students or having fewer faculty and course sections to support their education.

5% + 3% Cost-of-Living Adjustments for State Employees

• To maintain current take-home pay after the retirement contribution increase (1.75% on 7/1/2025) and inflation running over 2.5%, COLAs for state employees of 5% FY2026 and 3% in FY2027 are required.
• The purchasing power of salaries for NSHE faculty continues to fall, which means losing top-quality faculty to other states that invest in higher education professionals.

Contact: Kent Ervin, NFA Director of Government Relations, Kent.Ervin@NevadaFacultyAlliance.org