Small businesses oppose SB 198 for unrealistic labor penalty mandates

The Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor convened on March 14, 2025, to discuss Senate Bill 198, which proposes significant changes to labor laws affecting various industries, particularly the cannabis sector. The meeting featured a range of testimonies from stakeholders, primarily expressing opposition to the bill.

The session began with Trey Abney, representing the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), who emphasized that the bill's requirements could impose undue burdens on small businesses. He argued that the proposed three-day payment requirement after termination is already challenging for small employers, who often lack the resources to comply with such demands.

Chelsea Capuro from the Nevada Cannabis Association followed, voicing concerns about the bill's harsh penalties specifically targeting the cannabis industry. She highlighted existing regulations that already address labor issues within the sector and argued that the bill would undermine these established processes. Capuro noted that the proposed amendments do not adequately resolve the concerns raised by the cannabis community.

Thomas Hammond, representing multiple associations, echoed the opposition, stating that the bill's language regarding fringe benefits was unclear and could create confusion for employers. Andrew McCabe from the Nevada Franchise Auto Dealers Association also expressed concerns about the bill's implications for small businesses, particularly regarding compliance and the logistics of payroll processing.

Several representatives from the cannabis industry, including Brett Scolari and D'imatulac, reiterated that the bill unfairly targets their sector, which is already heavily regulated. They argued that existing laws provide sufficient mechanisms for addressing labor violations without the need for additional penalties specific to cannabis businesses.

The committee heard from various chambers of commerce, including the Reno Sparks Chamber and the Henderson Chamber, both of which emphasized that the bill's requirements could be particularly burdensome for small employers lacking dedicated HR resources. They advocated for maintaining the current three-day grace period for wage payments.

As the meeting progressed, Senator Daley, the bill's sponsor, acknowledged the concerns raised and indicated a willingness to engage in further discussions to address the issues. He clarified that the bill's intent was not to create undue hardship for small businesses but to ensure timely wage payments for employees.

The session concluded without a vote, as the committee plans to reconvene on March 17 for further discussions on the bill. Stakeholders remain hopeful for amendments that could alleviate the burdens identified while still addressing the bill's objectives.