Nevada’s House Divided: Why Unions Are Split Over the Film Tax Credit Expansion

As Nevada lawmakers prepare to revisit the proposed expansion of the state’s film tax credit (FTC), a rare public divide has opened within the labor movement. The debate has pitted unions that see the policy as a generator of thousands of new, unionized jobs against unions that view it as a threat to education and public services funding.

The result: a labor-versus-labor conflict, with both sides claiming to defend Nevada’s long-term economic future.

The Pro-FTC Bloc: Building Trades, IATSE, and Culinary Union

For the building trades, stagecraft workers, and the hospitality sector, the film tax credit is not abstract fiscal policy — it is years of steady work.

1. Construction & Building Trades

The proposal’s anchor is a large-scale studio complex in Southern Nevada. For the construction trades, this means:

• Multi-year construction cycles
• High-wage union jobs
• Apprenticeship expansion
• A diversified pipeline beyond casino and road projects

In a state whose construction labor market whipsaws with every tourism downturn, unions see this as a rare chance for stability and year-round employment.

2. IATSE (Stagecraft, Film Crews, Studio Workers)

IATSE views the FTC as existential. Nevada currently loses film production work to states with strong incentives — Georgia, New Mexico, Louisiana, and even Oklahoma.

A major credit would mean:

• Permanent soundstages
• Locally staffed crews instead of imported labor
• More negotiating power for local IATSE chapters
• Pathways for young Nevadans to enter creative careers without leaving the state

To them, the credit isn’t a subsidy — it’s what allows Nevada to compete in a national labor market.

3. Culinary Union (UNITE HERE Local 226)

Culinary’s support reflects broader economic strategy:

• More production = more hospitality demand
• Longer hotel stays from crews, actors, and vendors
• Expanded convention activity
• Job spillover into food service and logistics

For Culinary, this is another way to diversify the tourism economy while keeping hospitality jobs strong and unionized.

Together, these unions frame the FTC as a job engine that broadens Nevada’s narrow, tourism-centric economy.

The Anti-FTC Bloc: NSEA (Teachers) and AFSCME (Public Sector Workers)

On the other side are the unions representing Nevada’s chronically underfunded public sector, especially education and local government services.

1. NSEA (Nevada State Education Association)

Teachers see the FTC as yet another instance of Nevada subsidizing private development while the school system remains:

• Last in the nation for per-pupil funding
• Short thousands of educators
• Dependent on temporary fixes and federal relief funds

To NSEA, the issue is simple: If Nevada can afford hundreds of millions for Hollywood, it can afford textbooks, counselors, and bus drivers.

The union argues that:

• Tax credits erode future revenue
• Promised economic benefits are speculative
• Public dollars should go to public needs, not private studios

From their perspective, the credits shift the budget conversation away from commitments to K-12.

2. AFSCME (Public Workers)

AFSCME’s opposition stems from concern that tax expenditures reduce the state’s long-term revenue base, which supports:

• State workers
• Social services
• Public health
• Public safety
• Local government programs

Nevada recovered slowly from the pandemic hiring crisis. AFSCME members fear that tying up revenue in industry-specific incentives will hamstring the state’s ability to recruit and retain public workers, whose wages already lag behind regional averages.

AFSCME frames the issue as public money vs. private megaprojects — and warns that Nevada risks repeating subsidy models (stadiums, Tesla, data centers) that have had mixed returns for residents.

A Bigger Philosophical Divide: What Should Nevada Prioritize?

Beneath the immediate conflict sits a deeper divide about economic identity.

The Pro-FTC Argument

• Diversification requires bold investment.
• Film infrastructure creates permanent industries.
• Unionized creative and construction jobs will pay off long-term.

The Anti-FTC Argument

• Nevada has not fulfilled its obligations to schools and public services.
• Tax credits reduce future revenue that the state cannot afford to lose.
• Public funds should strengthen foundations, not subsidize private risk.

For the first time in years, Nevada’s labor movement is not speaking with one voice. Instead, it is debating a fundamental question:

Should Nevada spend its limited dollars building new industries, or repairing the public systems that are already strained?

What Happens Next?

As lawmakers negotiate, both sides are mobilizing:

• Building trades and IATSE are engaging in public rallies and direct lobbying.
• NSEA has launched statewide messaging focusing on classroom needs and Nevada’s bottom-ranked funding levels.
• AFSCME is warning of long-term fiscal tradeoffs.

The outcome will signal how Nevada defines “economic development” — and whether job creation or public-sector stability takes precedence.

One thing is clear: This debate is not simply about film tax credits. It’s about what kind of future Nevada wants to build — and who that future is for.

By Voice in Between