EDITORIAL: Union bill compromises privacy

Lawmakers in Carson City have thinned the docket of late, as deadlines have led to the demise of numerous legislative proposals. But dozens of bills remain, many of which deserve a humane execution.

One such example is Assembly Bill 172, a downright awful proposal that would allow government unions to compromise the privacy of nonmembers. Democrats passed it out of the lower chamber along a 28-14 party line vote, and the measure is now in a Senate committee.

Current Nevada law requires public-sector unions to file annual reports with a state board containing “certain information, including, without limitation, the total number of persons in each bargaining unit represented by the employee organization.” The requirement allows the state to compile data on government union representation.

AB172 would force government agencies to provide detailed and expansive information on workers to the public-sector unions they recognize as a bargaining units. That information includes the “name, address, email address, telephone number, work contact information and work location of each employee” at least twice a year.

“This bill,” Justin Norton, president of the Washoe County Employees Association, wrote in favor of the proposal, “will allow for easier communication between employees and their labor representatives and is in the interest of all parties.”

That’s wonderful spin, but it’s poppycock. Unions already have contact information on their own members. The obvious purpose of AB172 is to make it easier for unions to contact nonunion workers during recruitment efforts.

This bill would open the door to the harassment of government employees who have, for whatever reason, exercised their right to free association and opted not to join a labor organization. It’s a backdoor effort to undermine Nevada’s right-to-work protections by giving labor bosses more tools to pressure workers who won’t sign up.

AB172 doesn’t even include an opt-out provision. Even if individual workers notify their employer that they don’t want the union to have their name and contact data, the employer would be obligated to provide it anyway, although no more than twice a year.

This legislation might be salvageable if it were amended to allow public employees to sign off on providing their information to the union while respecting the privacy of those who feel otherwise. Absent that, Gov. Joe Lombardo should break out his veto pen if AB172 emerges from the Senate and lands on his desk.