Senate Bill 172, presented Wednesday to the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee, would create an "agricultural workers' bill of rights" that sets minimum standards for meal breaks, housing access and certain worker protections for agricultural employees in Nevada.

Sen. Edgar Flores, the bill sponsor, said he and stakeholders collected testimony during the interim showing problems in some worker housing and work arrangements. Flores told the committee he heard reports that employers held workers' visas, required employees to do nonagricultural work, or provided overcrowded, unheated or uncooled housing. Flores said negotiators removed an overtime provision from the bill and narrowed language after outreach to farms.

The proposal would require a meal break of at least 30 minutes after five continuous hours of work and would remove exemptions that allow employers to value lodging and meals above statutory caps when calculating wages. The bill would grant agricultural workers the right to receive visitors at employer-provided housing, access to key service providers (including health care providers during work hours in some circumstances), visible posting of rights at housing and workplaces, and a civil right of action for workers, whistleblowers and service providers. Sections of the bill reference definitions modeled on federal law (the Fair Labor Standards Act) and make conforming changes to enforcement statutes (testimony referenced NRS 608.007 and similar provisions).

Supporters included labor, environmental justice and worker-advocacy organizations: Make the Road Nevada, Nevada AFL-CIO, AFSCME, PLUM (Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada), Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter, SEIU and others. Noe Orozco of Make the Road Nevada read a first-person account from a farmworker who described overcrowded trailer housing, lack of heat or air conditioning and loss of employment after complaining. Susie Martinez of the Nevada State AFL-CIO framed the bill as honoring "the people who feed us."

Opponents — including representatives of family farms, the Nevada State Board of Agriculture and the Vegas Chamber — argued the state already has enforcement mechanisms through the U.S. Department of Labor and state agencies, warned the measure could add regulatory and cost burdens that would reduce agricultural production and said some provisions (notably a private right of action and a collective-bargaining expansion) were objectionable. Several livestock and range operations told the committee that a requirement to transport range workers to town every three weeks (as drafted) would be impractical and impose significant time and cost burdens on remote ranching operations.

Senator Flores said the bill does not mandate collective bargaining; it would allow agricultural workers the right to organize and bargain if they chose to. He also said negotiators removed the overtime requirement during drafting. The sponsor set an effective date of Oct. 1, 2025.

Committee members asked whether the Labor Commissioner already had authority to investigate mistreatment; Flores said that while enforcement exists, workers often lack awareness of protections and remote seasonal work can make complaints difficult to pursue before employees leave. The committee took no vote at the hearing; testimony will be part of the legislative record.