Atkinson's AB175

WOW! Way too much time away. With the new session in progress I will do my best to stay on top of the action in Carson City. With that said, let's look at AB175, presented by Assemblyman Atkinson.

While no one wants the economy in Nevada to get worse, should not the state still conduct business in a business manner? By forcing companies that bid on state contracts to provide certain benefits AB175 dictates the profit a company can earn on a given project. Requiring these benefits also excludes some companies from being able to bid on these projects. Proper business practice dictates that a given project go to the lowest bidder, thus saving the state much needed funds for other spending. The winning bidder would of course have to meet the requirements of the project itself, but so long as the winning company does not participate in any fraudulent activity, they should get the contract.

Let's examine a few points as spelled out in the article in today's Sun. What exactly is a 'living wage'? Who actually determines that wage? The wage should be determined by the market, as current law dictates. "Employer-paid health insurance"? Really? You would require this? Basic economics show that a company that does not provide what employees want/need, will not be able to obtain/keep employees. With no employees they will not have the staffing to accomplish even the most minimal of tax-payer funded projects. If the company wants to stay in business and stay competitive, they are forced by the market to provide what employees want. Why not force all companies to provide a pension plan for all employees? Oh wait, wasn't the intention of Social Security to provide some sort of pension for all of us? It is not really a good plan to force any entity to provide for someone else's retirement. Again, if an employer does not provide what an employee (pension, health plan, reasonable wage & other benefits) they will not have employees. State-approved training? Shouldn't the employees and/or the company itself already have the experience to complete the project at hand? This idea basically tells me that experience is not required because we will pay for you to gain experience on the job; thus increasing the cost of said project. All of these requirementswould force those companies bidding on a project to raise their minimum bid, thus forcing the state to pay more than is necessary. I may be wrong, but one of the most basic tenets of conducting good business is to reduce costs. It seems to me this is a sure-fire way to increase costs.

The bottom line is this: the winning bid should go to the most qualified company with the lowest cost to taxpayers.