CARSON CITY, Nev. – Senate Bill 241 is getting a lot of good press in Nevada.

That’s because it’s a collective bargaining reform bill that’s actually drawing the support of some public sector labor unions.

As one published story put it, “union lobbyists and business representatives made for strange bedfellows on Monday while testifying on a Republican-sponsored bill overhauling collective bargaining law.”

MORE NEWS: From Classroom to Consulate Chef: Culinary Student Lands Dream Job at U.S. Embassy in Paris

But there’s a reason why some union leaders find SB 241 palatable, according to Victor Joecks, executive vice president of the Nevada Policy Research Institute.

Both chambers of the Nevada state legislature are controlled by Republicans this year for the first time in many decades, and the governor is also a Republican.

Labor leaders realized the new Republican majorities would be eager to pass what they consider long overdue public sector collective bargaining reform.

So some of them have latched on to SB 241, mostly because it’s a half-hearted, compromise measure that addresses some problems, but doesn’t go far enough in several key areas, Joecks said.

There is a much more thorough and meaningful proposal – Assembly Bill 182 – that the unions adamantly oppose, because it would take more definitive steps to curb the traditional abuses of public sector collective bargaining, according to Joecks.

“(SB 241) is just a compromise bill,” Joecks said. “It’s not a bad bill, but it’s just an incremental step forward.”

Both bills are gaining traction in the legislature. SB 241 was approved by the full Senate and is currently awaiting a hearing in the Assembly’s Commerce and Labor Committee.

MORE NEWS: Know These Before Moving From Cyprus To The UK

AB 182 was approved by the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee and is currently in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee.

To the naked eye, the two bills may appear to be redundant efforts to accomplish the same goals. But Joecks insists the differences between the bill are substantive and crucial.

For example, both bills would address the problem of union leave time, a traditional practice that allows some teachers and other public employees to continue to collect their regular government salaries, even when they are excused from their duties to perform work for the union.

In some school districts, the elected local union president is excused from duties on a full-time basis, while still drawing full salary and benefits.

AB 182 would ban the practice altogether, so taxpayers are not forced to compensate people working for their unions. SB 241 would allow the practice if the local government employer receives something of relative equal value in return, Joecks said.

But that’s the way the system currently works, Joecks said. Union leave time remains in many union collective bargaining agreements, year after year, due to tradeoffs during contract negotiations. Union officials may claim they gave up something on their wish list to keep union leave time, and that would still be allowed under SB 241, according to Joecks.

“Everyone knows (the supposed tradeoffs) are a sham,” Joecks said.

Another example is a provision in SB 241 that would ban school administrators who make more than $120,000 per year from joining labor unions, Joecks said. AB 182 would ban all school administrators from joining unions, period.

“It ends up affecting maybe a couple dozen people across the state,” Joecks said about the $120,000 rule in SB 241.

“The whole idea behind unions is the common worker fighting management, and now management is bargaining collectively. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s just a way to get more money out of taxpayers.”

AB 182 is also more effective because it would ban binding arbitration for public sector labor disputes.

Current state law requires binding arbitration after four negotiation sessions that don’t produce a new labor contract. That’s advantageous to unions because arbitrators often side with them and grant their expensive wish lists, Joecks said.

SB 241 would simply speed up the arbitration process, which has proven to be unfair and costly for local governments and schools.

“Under the current law arbitrators are allowed to look at (municipality of school district’s) ability to pay for the raise the union wants,” Joecks said. “Because of that local governments have not been able to maintain reserve accounts, because arbitrators say if that money is there, you can afford the raises.”

AB 182 also addresses the issue of municipalities and school districts automatically deducting union dues from member paychecks, while SB 241 does not address the issue.

Under AB 182, if unions want employers to continue to collect dues, they must allow their members to resign their union membership at any time they wish.

Most public sector unions only allow members to quit during a short period of time each year.

Both bills would do away with “evergreen clauses” in public sector contracts, which guarantee that the provisions of expired contracts – including scheduled raises – continue to be honored until a new contract is approved.

The two bills would ban any type of raise for employees until a new contract is negotiated.

“Employees can keep moving up the pay scale (with evergreen laws), so there’s not much incentive for the unions to compromise during negotiations,” Joecks said.

While the softer SB 241 has been getting more media attention, AB 182 may stand a better chance of becoming law, Joecks said.

That’s because Gov. Brian Sandoval is seeking the renewal of about $750 million in taxes that are set to expire, plus another $450 million in new taxes to fund new programs.

Many legislative Republicans are naturally hesitant to support the tax proposals from the governor, according to Joecks. But they also feel strongly about public sector collective bargaining reform, and may be willing to compromise with Sandoval in the end, he said,

But a compromise would be more likely with the genuine reforms in AB 182, Joecks said.

“I don’t think the assembly supports the governor’s full tax hike,” Joecks said. “I think he has a chance of getting the sunset (expiring) taxes through if he backs labor reform with some teeth in it.

“There is some willingness to compromise if there are substantive reforms, and SB 241 is not a substantive reform.”