Popular Posts

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Governor Brian Sandoval wants to end collective bargaining

On February 24, 2011 Governor Sandoval told Anjeanette Damon of the Las Vegas Sun:
“In regard to collective bargaining, there may be a bill,” Sandoval said. “I’ve not seen that bill. I’m watching the progress of such bills and waiting to see if they arrive here at the Capitol.”

On February 27, 2011 Laura Myers of the Review Journal, in one of her infamous rambling opuses declared Governor Sandoval and the Nevada republican party are not going after public employees or unions.

And today, Jon Ralston published a missive and he too fell into line claiming Governor Sandoval had no intentions (no stomach?) to mess with collective bargaining rights.

But over in Humbolt County, our friend Desert Beacon finds this:
In case citizens of Nevada were thinking that what happens in Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin would stay in Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin -- please see SB 41 (pdf), introduced into the Nevada State Legislature by the Legislative Committee on Operations and Elections at the request of the Governor.

What does it do?
In other words, if the local government doesn't "deem" collective bargaining "desirable" then all bets are off and there will be no collective bargaining. Period.

But surely it was introduced AFTER all those media reports claiming Governor Sandoval had no interesting in collective bargaining, right?
The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Operations and Elections on February 7, 2011.

You have to wonder why our press corps intentionally led the public to believe our governor was staying away from the collective bargaining fight while at the same time that same governor had requested a bill that would essentially do away with with those bargaining rights.

Maybe if SB41 included something about prostitutes they would have noticed

Desert Beacon provides a SB41 timeline

These questions still stand: if Brian Sandoval was not interested in a collective bargaining bill and wanted it ignored, why was the bill still drafted? Why is it in a senate committee? Why waste valuable legislative time to work on a bill the governor has indicated he has no intentions of passing (and there is not enough legislative support to override a veto)? Who brought Governor Gibbons bill back to life? Sure, the bill will not go anywhere, but why did everyone just roll over and accept Governor Sandoval's word? Especially since he was caught twice praising union-busting Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker. Sandoval may think a bill would never go anywhere, but either he and/or the Nevada republican party may think they have a chance to win an ideological fight in the process.

Check our Desert Beacon (here and here) and Nevada State Employee Focus for more analysis



  1. You two are idiots! Get your facts straight before you start pointing fingers.

  2. Thanks for stopping by the Sausage Factory Jon!

  3. Hmm...snotty comment on twitter and a snotty comment pops up on TSF shortly after.

    Gee, I wonder who could have left that snotty comment. Such a familiar rude and condescending tone.

    I wonder who could have left the comment...hmm...

    And I'm sure this anonymous commentor's professionalism will lead he or she to write a viciously mean blog, email or DM to follow up, as it seems to be their legacy

  4. No, Laura, Desert Beacon has this one wrong. SB41 WAS requested by a governor, but it was the previous governor, Jim Gibbons, not Gov. Sandoval!

    If you look at this link (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Reports/history.cfm?ID=84) you'll see the bill was actually introduced on Dec. 14, 2010, under Gibbons's tenure. Gov. Sandoval was not inaugurated until Jan. 3, 2010.

    The bill was sent to the LCB, which drafted it, and it was referred to the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections on Feb. 7, the first day of the session. But Sandoval has asked the Legislature NOT to consider it. It's definitely not his bill.

  5. Obviously you two missed the Memo and you owe the media that you slandered an apology.

    It's easy to call Republicans liars but when you don't have your facts straight - How are you supposed to be taken seriously?

  6. Steve, thank you so much for your comments and clarification. Constructive criticism is always more useful than belligerent bullying and "anonymous" comments and threats. Especially from people who consider themselves professionals.

  7. Nevada Employees Focus asks a particularly pertinent question. http://bit.ly/hAnhAN If BDR 23-412 came from the Gibbons Administration, and was pre-filed. Then WHY didn't the Sandoval Administration withdraw the bill before it was assigned to the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee?

    Many bill drafts die on the bill drafter's desk, and many measures from previous Administrations are withdrawn before a new session?

    So, the question remains: Why did SB 41 get a committee assignment? Did Sandoval's staff fumble this one? Was Sandoval waiting to see if the bill might just get as far as his desk without too much controversy? There are more questions surrounding this bill than there seem to be answers.

  8. You still are missing the point (and this is not an anonymous, I just don't have a blog roll screename)

    The point being, you slandered media and you will not admit you were wrong...No, mea culpa! No, we retract our original posting.

    Rather, you want to argue a way into saying, "Well, Governor Sandoval should have pulled the bill" - NO..WRONG! You messed up, admit it.

  9. The answer to the question about pulling the bill may be found in NRS218D.585 which provides for the introduction of pre-filed bills? The Governor has, by many accounts, told staff to let committee chairs know that the bill should be deep sixed. There is absolutely no 'slandered' media. If there was confusion about the status of the bill, that's not due to media reporting, but on the inferences that could be drawn from the Governor's "I'll see what comes to my desk," comments.

  10. http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Apr-05-Tue-2005/news/26218688.html


The Grind