PREVENT EMPLOYERS FROM SEIZING TIPS
Mar. 12, 2008
Summary: Would make state law unswervingly clear --
employers could not take tips from employees or
establish "tip pooling" programs such as the one at
Wynn Las Vegas.
Sponsor: Prevent Employers from Seizing Tips (PEST)
Committee
Likelihood of making ballot: Mixed. The measure will
certainly be popular with workers who earn tips, but
it will be contested not just by casinos but by
restaurants and other tip-heavy businesses.
Likelihood of voters passing it: High. Most people
think when they tip a waiter or a dealer, that
person gets to keep the money. When they learn rich
casinos are sharing the wealth from the tip jar, a
sense of outrage may ensue.
What will happen if it becomes law: The Wynn Las
Vegas tip pool will be abolished, and Steve Wynn
will learn he's not the most powerful person in
Nevada after all, as he once allegedly claimed.
Our take: State law seems to clearly ban tip pooling
now, but at least one judge and the state's labor
commissioner disagree. Thus, a clarifying initiative
is necessary.
SAVE OUR RIGHT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION (REFERENDUM)
Summary: Would
repeal the single-subject rule that's vexed so many
petitions in the last few years.
Sponsor: Kermitt Waters
Likelihood of making ballot: Mixed. The issue is
difficult to explain to voters and has to do with
process, always the most boring part of the
political system. But the impact would be huge,
since several high-profile petitions have been
altered or thrown out entirely because of this rule.
Likelihood of voters passing it: Medium. It's a
wonky issue, so that argues against keeping people's
attention. But if proponents can frame this as a
little guy versus special interests issue, it may
have a chance.
What will happen if it becomes law: Petitions would
more easily pass early scrutiny and could embrace
multiple topics. Some petitions could appear to do
one thing, but contain hidden effects on totally
unrelated subjects.
Our take: Voters figured out two deceptive petitions
in 2004 were con jobs. They can do that again. This
one should pass.
STOP SPECIAL INTERESTS FROM DESTROYING THE
INITIATIVE PROCESS (REFERENDUM)
Summary: Would not only repeal the single-subject
rule, but also a portion of state law that allows
anybody to sue over the legally required 200-word
description that must accompany every initiative
petition.
Sponsor: Kermitt Waters
Likelihood of making ballot: Mixed. Those special
interests who want to destroy the initiative process
(i.e. keep it to themselves) aren't liable to allow
this to go forward without a fight.
Likelihood of voters passing it: See above.
What will happen if it becomes law: The
single-subject rule will go away. In addition, a
provision that allows anybody to sue in court to
challenge the accuracy of the 200-word description
would be nixed, too. This would eliminate a critical
tool used by some to delay an initiative before
signatures can be gathered. Deceptive descriptions
could result, however.
Our take: Again, voters aren't morons. Neither are
(most) reporters, who are pretty good at figuring
out what a petition (or its description) really
means and letting people know.