Jon Ralston, Las Vegas Sun, reported today that Governor Jim Gibbons vetoed two labor bills.
The first is Assembly Bill 121 you can read here.
AN ACT relating to health care facilities; requiring certain hospitals in larger counties to establish a staffing committee; requiring certain health care facilities to make available to the Health Division of the Department of Health and Human Services a documented staffing plan; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
The Governor vetoes the Act for the following reasons.
This bill mandates that each hospital in larger counties form a staffing committee to establish a staffing plan that addresses certain items such as nurse staffing ratios. A hospital’s license to operate is conditioned on the submission of such a staffing plan.
Although Assembly Bill 121 purports to address hospital staffing needs to ensure adequate patient care, the bill instead unnecessarily legislates in an area that should be addressed by medical professionals and health care management. Assembly Bill 121 could dramatically increase the costs of health care without a corresponding increase in levels and quality of service.
The second is Assembly Bill 410 located here.
AN ACT relating to industrial insurance; allowing the provisions of certain collective bargaining agreements to supersede various statutory provisions relating to industrial insurance; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
The Governor vetoes the Act for the following reasons.
This bill would allow collective bargaining agreements to supersede state laws pertaining to industrial insurance. Nevada’s industrial insurance laws have been developed and refined over the course of many decades and many legislative sessions.
To allow collective bargaining agreements to usurp existing laws would lead to a plethora of unintended consequences, as those agreements are often written by and agreed to by individuals who are not experts in the field of industrial insurance. This bill could result in the preclusion of worker’s compensation benefits for workers who are currently entitled to those benefits pursuant to state law. Additionally, this bill could cause confusion and delay in the provision of benefits due to difficulties interpreting the language of varying collective bargaining agreements. Existing law allows workers entitled to benefits to choose physicians outside an approved provider list under certain circumstances. This bill could severely curtail if not eliminate the ability currently afforded to workers to choose a different physician. These are examples of only some of the unintended and harmful consequences to Nevadans that would result if this bill were to unwind years of legislative efforts and become law.
Ralston points out both bills passed with veto proof majorities.
Related posts:
