It is the view of NPRI that unchecked union control over labor relations in Nevada is a threat both to liberty and to the state's business environment. The freedoms to employ and to be employed absent coercion are indispensable to sound labor policy. The Institute's mission on labor policy is to educate Nevada's citizens and its policy makers on the importance of safeguarding freedom in employer-employee relationships.

Last month marked the 206th anniversary of the first presidential cabinet meeting. It was on February 25, 1793 that President Washington summoned to his home the department heads of his government for a meeting. What has happened to colonial dreams of independence and democracy can be measured by how much of government today is beyond reach, even beyond the control of elected officials. While there are 66 words in the Lord’s Prayer, 286 words in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and 1,322 words in the Declaration of Independence, there are 26,911 words in the current federal regulation governing the sale of cabbage. This is what inevitably happens when the "hired hands" are given the keys to power. While most citizens have little difficulty understanding the Lord's Prayer or the Gettysburg Address, only a reckless fool would risk going into the wholesale cabbage business without a small army of lawyers and accountants at his side.

Several weeks ago the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released its report on union membership in 1998. The news wasn't good for Big Labor. Last year unions represented an even smaller share of the nation's workforce than they did in 1997. This news has implications for Nevada, a state which has been the target of an aggressive union organizing campaign for several years. But while labor bosses can crow about high-profile victories, particularly in Southern Nevada, their organizing efforts are unlikely to halt workers’ growing disdain for unions. The consequences of Big Labor’s excesses, as well as long-term economic trends, do not bode well for unions in Nevada or the nation.

Last month "Project Censored," an annual public relations stunt by the far left, revealed its list of the top censored stories of 1997. The list is comprised of trendy liberal topics that are largely overlooked by the mainstream press. The list’s name is disingenuous—the stories are not "censored" at all, but regularly see print in ultra-leftist publications such as The Nation and Mother Jones. The Reno News & Review compiled its own list covering subjects within the state, including "overpopulation" in Washoe Valley and Nevada’s "rule by the rich." NPRI has a somewhat different take on the types of stories to which Nevada’s media turns a blind eye. Herewith, NPRI’s list of the most-overlooked stories of the last 12 months.

The AFL-CIO is approaching this year’s mid-term election with a different strategy than employed in the half billion dollar failure to unseat congressional conservatives in 1996. Big Labor promises to use less in-your-face tactics and more carefully crafted messages aimed at specific groups, such as women. Beginning in April, union representatives will stage at least 1,000 rallies for working women nationwide—700 more than last year.

In what is becoming a rite of spring, a compulsory public sector bargaining bill is once again on the table of the Assembly Government Affairs Committee this session. Versions of Assembly Bill 310 have been proposed for the past six years, with varying degrees of success. A.B. 310 would authorize collective bargaining for "persons employed by the State of Nevada, its boards, commissions, agencies and departments, the public employees’ retirement system, the University and Community College System of Nevada and any other employer that receives money from the state." (A.B. 310) Part-time employees and several positions in the state printing and micrographics division of the department of administration are excluded. The bill also creates a labor relations board specifically designed to deal with state employment disputes.

Campaign finance reform has been needed in Nevada for a long time. Instead of waiting to see if legislators would kill reform measures again this session, voters mandated, for the second time, that current campaign finance laws be changed by passing ballot question Number 10. This amends the Nevada Constitution and requires legislators to change current statutes. The reporting threshold will be lowered. (How low remains to be seen). Party caucuses and political action committees (PACs) will be limited in the amounts they can contribute and also will have to disclose who donated money and how much. Reporting dates will be moved closer to election day and contributions made in the name of another person will be made illegal. Various bills have been introduced, named and renamed, in hopes of putting an end to this longstanding debate. The proposed reform is fairly comprehensive, covering the areas where abuses run rampant. However, some loopholes will still exist, especially in labor union political activity. Some unions spend over 90 percent of total dues on political activities and union members should have the right to know which candidates they are supporting.

As our legislature looks forward to the changing of a decade it’s time reevaluate where we are and where we want to be in the year 2000. Despite considerable attention paid to balancing budgets in the midst of more and more responsibility assumed at the state and local levels, we have paid little attention to the disparities in compensation and benefits between the public and private employee. The following statistics will examine the decade between 1980 and 1990. 1990 to 1996 will be examined in a future Issue Brief.

Look out: big labor is back!

But then they never really went away! This year as in years passed, labor (the AFL-CIO affiliates in Nevada, teacher’s unions affiliated with the National Education and state and local public employee unions) has flexed their political muscles with millions of dollars in political contributions. Money has flowed from the pockets of union members through union headquarters directly into the pockets of Democratic candidates at Federal, State and local levels. Did the union members have a say in who got these campaign donations? No!