ERIC’s Letter to Nevada Assembly on Paid Sick Leave Bill

April 20, 2017

Share

Assemblyman Jason Frierson
Speaker of the Nevada State Assembly
7925 West Russell Road, No. 400187
Las Vegas, NV 89140

Assemblyman Paul Anderson
Minority Floor Leader of the Nevada State Assembly
7322 South Rainbow Boulevard, No. 51
Las Vegas, NV 89139

Assemblywoman Irene Bustamante Adams
Chair of Nevada State Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor
3800 Reflection Way
Las Vegas, NV 89147

Assemblywoman Maggie Carlton
Vice Chair of Nevada State Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor
5540 East Cartwright Avenue
Las Vegas, NC 89110

RE:     NEVADA PAID SICK LEAVE — SENATE BILL 196

Dear Speaker Frierson, Assemblyman Anderson, Assemblywoman Adams, Assemblywoman Carlton:

The ERISA Industry Committee (“ERIC”) recognizes the importance of paid sick leave for Nevada workers, as well as the states’ desire to ensure the care and well-being of its workers. ERIC supports increasing access to paid sick leave, but believe it should be accomplished in a manner that does not hinder employers who already provide quality paid sick leave policies.

As the only national association that advocates exclusively for large employers on health, retirement, and compensation public policies at the federal, state, and local levels, ERIC speaks in one voice for our members on their benefit and compensation interests.  We seek to enhance our members’ ability to provide flexible paid sick leave plans by advocating in favor of public policies that enable an employer to provide a consistent experience for all employees.  

Nevada Senate Bill 196 (“SB 196”), which has passed the Senate and been received in the Assembly, requires every employer to provide paid sick leave to each employee. In doing so, SB 196 works against large employers in several ways. The version that has been received by the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor infringes on large employers by: (i) requiring the carryover of accrued sick leave, (ii) the absence of sufficient guidance on employee eligibility for leave; and (iii) providing no clear definition of who a family member is for purposes of care. SB 196 does provide an exemption from the bill’s requirements for employers who have equivalent, existing policies but ERIC believes it can be improved for clarity.

Our concerns with the original measure are outlined in greater detail in the attached written testimony we sent to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy on March 29, 2017. Also, below is a set of amendments sent to Senate Majority Leader Aaron Ford that would help alleviate any burden on large employers that already provide sufficient paid sick leave policies:

  1. Amend subsection 6 of Section 1 of the bill to prohibit application of the section to employees whose primary place of employment is not within the state of Nevada:

“This section does not apply to (b) An employee who (5) Is deemed to be in service of an employer and works within the state but whose primary place of employment is not within the state, as determined by where: (A) a substantial amount of duties are regularly performed; (B) the work flow is centered; and (C) the employee’s base of operations is located or where the work is directed and controlled.”

  1. Amend subsection 1 of Section 1 to remove “must carry over” and replace with either “may carry over” or to read as follows:

“(b) At the beginning of each year, an employer may award to an employee the full amount of earned paid sick leave that an employee would earn over the course of the year rather than awarding the leave as it accrues during the year, and—at the employer’s discretion—allow for carry over of any accrued but unused paid sick leave.”

  1. Amend subsection 5 of Section 1 to read as follows:

“The provisions of this section do not (c) require an employer to provide additional paid sick leave if the employer has a paid leave policy that makes available an amount of paid sick leave sufficient to meet the accrual requirements of this chapter and that may be used for the same purposes and under the same conditions as provided under this section.”

ERIC welcomes the opportunity to serve as a resource to both the Nevada Assembly and the Committee on Commerce and Labor as it considers this legislation and its impact on large employers and their employees. If you have any questions concerning our written testimony, or if we can be of further assistance, please contact us at bhum@eric.org or 202-789-1400.

Sincerely,

Bryan Hum
Associate, Retirement & Compensation Policy