[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6379796,"mediaKeyId","2135174-c390c605005f26715768f98bffc1ff57","parentId",2135174,"title","Department of Labor briefs committee on wage, workers' compensation and safety enforcement","audioSeconds",9250,"startMs",3902000,"endMs",13152000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2135174-c390c605005f26715768f98bffc1ff57&start=3902&end=13152","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2135174-c390c605005f26715768f98bffc1ff57/thumbnail_3902000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6379796/New-Hampshire/Department-of-Labor-briefs-committee-on-wage-workers-compensation-and-safety-enforcement","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6379796-df4e6eae355d617664f3c430c4095906/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159666&Signature=It2jknp4S4viGyhWjAKzOInybalruuM~wXsdc72sBsnDgzkB1EVoCU2DKBw1jgxQ1rFmjqw6t8ul7C~WOO8dPohdf31XkZbe6PATtQGbj28e7-fVQoK0J41IBbn5au9V~8TXh68lT-AyLN2Lxxd6yOetDgYBiMbxwZxShsciia~qnPHIu4nBol0X4~sCRdozDRxVuGeYSRi~hK6ph20SJmhhXfYwF3qbEKPBqiFcBYcFFFl254ysty5iXfFr5XttseKolOO7gnSSTnodSD8s6X9R1iEnZZsqjlXqyWeBglw9LIzmuFcLBZPU6y~FwBjYFU39-~upVduEm6FBmDh4Dw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","NH House of Representatives Committee","date","2025-01-21T00:00:00Z","article","The New Hampshire Department of Labor told the House Committee on Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services on an organizational day that the agency enforces wage-and-hour rules, oversees workers' compensation and inspects public-employee safety, and operates a hearings bureau for administrative dispute resolution.

\"The Department of Labor is primarily involved in sort of 4 regulatory areas,\" Deputy Commissioner Danielle Albert told the committee, listing wage-and-hour oversight, workers' compensation, public-employee safety inspections and boiler/elevator certification among the department's core responsibilities.

Albert and General Counsel John Garrigan described how those functions work in practice. The department enforces minimum-wage and youth-labor rules, conducts labor inspections that include confidential employee interviews and payroll review, and operates a hearings bureau where adjudicators take evidence and issue decisions in disputed wage or workers' compensation cases. \"If there are disputes or issues related to the payment of workers' compensation benefits to injured workers, that's something that the Department of Labor would be directly involved in regulating, assisting with, and or overseeing,\" Albert said.

The department also described an in-house pro se dispute‑resolution coordinator who helps unrepresented injured workers understand workers' compensation procedures and attempt informal resolution with carriers. \"That position is solely dedicated to working with those individuals to help them really understand how workers' compensation works and how to navigate the system,\" Albert said.

On safety, Garrigan pointed to the agency's existing administrative rule that governs occupational noise exposure in the public sector and to the department's authority to inspect public‑employer workplaces. \"We have a rule on this, an administrative rule. It's 140341, that has an acceptable chart of acceptable noise exposure,\" Garrigan told the committee, noting the rule's time‑and‑level chart is similar to OSHA standards but differs in some technical details from NIOSH recommendations.

Members asked how the department interacts with the committee on legislation; Albert said the department provides technical guidance, including fiscal impacts and implementation concerns, and will follow up when it does not have immediate answers in public hearings.

Ending — The department volunteered to be a technical resource during the session and to assist the committee with follow-up material and clarifications when bills raise regulatory or implementation questions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services (01/21/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","The New Hampshire Department of Labor told the House Committee on Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services that it enforces wage-and-hour laws, oversees workers' compensation, inspects public-employee safety and issues boiler and elevator certifications.","taxTitle","Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17756,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6379781,"Hearing protection for venue workers draws mixed response; DOL points to existing public‑sector rule",783,13717000,14500000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2135174-c390c605005f26715768f98bffc1ff57&start=13717&end=14500","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2135174-c390c605005f26715768f98bffc1ff57/thumbnail_13717000.jpg","/articles/6379781/New-Hampshire/Hearing-protection-for-venue-workers-draws-mixed-response-DOL-points-to-existing-publicsector-rule","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6379781-70c43634d36270b59ce16a1f990eee42/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159666&Signature=Z9IPsmTAkpJGlyCjHuGKXJpJTJtFfH6KdFye9D81sBqRF3-UlRUzio75eKsdywfb1-STmeL~-SPX51lfNZVZhTCTkKJrdezDXBHyD8bawlCPNfdW-DEk9BXnLfRXD5kgJXoowkvD9Q7ePY2s5viP9tWucVFynesKx-ZWC-PC2opMv0b9etXdMg2Y5qbjDrDNElWPO3rSH9Z1Et2r5QtvNYxfxqyQkEpPvzJEHyiYOdKRcECEc3rN~P-jxHq1xDn87ZN3UQrgyhdTgx2Oyd~Hhv~6nHjlVgcqHHG0cl3qQZ4o0vk~T3fX3s3Q9yxqJ1AYstF2JKa0TqCDWdZfq7ewKA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Mark McKenzie introduced HB 353, a proposal framed by the sponsor as an effort to reduce work‑related hearing loss among people who work in loud venues, such as music venues or nightclubs. McKenzie said the bill's intent is to protect workers who cannot leave loud workplaces and to prompt a review of the state's public‑sector noise protections.

\"Anything over 85 decibels you have to begin the process of backing down the amount of time that you actually can be exposed to it,\" McKenzie told the committee and urged members to try the NIOSH sound‑measurement app to see venue levels.

Business advocates, led by Mike Summers of the New Hampshire Lodging & Restaurant Association, testified that a statutory mandate would be hard for hospitality businesses to implement and enforce. Summers said the bill's undefined terms (\"music venues\") risk sweeping in ordinary restaurants and event facilities, and that continuous one‑hour averaging or mandatory ear protection would disrupt service and worker‑customer communication. \"Either way, it ends up being a burden on the businesses,\" Summers told the committee.

Caroline Drury, president of the New Hampshire Academy of Audiology, told members that accurate enforcement would require time‑weighted sound measurement, worker audiometric baseline testing, and often custom hearing protection — all costly and difficult to sustain in high‑turnover hospitality jobs. \"It's a very dynamic environment ... a very difficult thing to enforce,\" she said.

The department's general counsel, John Garrigan, confirmed the agency already enforces a public‑employer noise rule (Lab rule 140341) with an exposure chart that ranges from 90 dBA for an eight‑hour workday up to higher levels for shorter exposures. Garrigan said the department is reviewing its rules and is willing to work with the sponsor on technical changes. \"That rule ... has an acceptable chart of acceptable noise exposure,\" he told the committee.

Members sought clarifying details about public‑sector versus private‑sector jurisdiction (OSHA covers much of the private sector) and about how any standard could be enforced against transient venue workforces such as musicians or short‑term servers. No committee action was taken; the sponsor said he would work with the department on rule revisions and indicated the bill could be retained for further work rather than advanced immediately.","A bill to strengthen noise protections for venue and hospitality workers prompted business and audiology groups to warn enforcement would be costly and impractical, while the Department of Labor pointed to an existing public‑sector noise rule it enforces.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6379786,"Committee hears competing testimony on bill to require statewide use of E‑Verify",232,11046000,11278000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2135174-c390c605005f26715768f98bffc1ff57&start=11046&end=11278","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2135174-c390c605005f26715768f98bffc1ff57/thumbnail_11046000.jpg","/articles/6379786/New-Hampshire/Committee-hears-competing-testimony-on-bill-to-require-statewide-use-of-EVerify","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6379786-54b84e7896b5b41fce52040c078d3359/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159666&Signature=IMGL-Cx4VJahtU5NI9DVweKhVNNrb6uE5diyIjVrUT8T46dwPm4MEdkA7kGfvN4Mn878ioVyGz8Y~f0aYc2pCo0vE85hGxssPIwzX3lhTWl2cyax48qbfituDuadOELVkjVtNfEx1Ez-TTOcc5cfLss3lTpFerGKKuCi3pM6f35ApWNizaYSqV3qLzpY5VPLuIuWKt~9P4X4WLuSukXSb8OuQZjHHc2KaPqR3VkPtCDtKo81tRVi0ZWTpR-VFlUmBSUoZHXs0QIfjFpL4jiwyg69oW1x7rSV2xXf8YALfa216A-JhfUdabFT6FOdGyMIx4hR7rZA1ns~OPepXFyDvg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 69, which would require New Hampshire employers to use the federal E‑Verify system to confirm work authorization, drew mixed testimony at a Labor Committee hearing.

Representative Saborin DeChuanier introduced the bill as a pro‑worker measure meant to formalize use of the free federal E‑Verify system. \"This is a pro worker bill,\" he said during the introduction.

Opponents, including Christine Wellington (testifying as an individual and on behalf of the New Hampshire Immigrants Rights Network) told the committee that E‑Verify is widely underused, produces false positives and can impose costs and legal risks on small employers. Wellington provided enrollment figures and said a small share of U.S. businesses use the federal system: she cited about 1.3 million enrolled employers nationwide and approximately 26,100 enrolled in New Hampshire, while estimating roughly 40,000 businesses in the state overall. \"It doesn't seem to be something that's business friendly much less employer friendly,\" Wellington said.

Nach Grama of the Business and Industry Association opposed a mandate for all employers, saying existing law already requires documentation of eligibility (the I‑9 process) and voluntary E‑Verify use preserves employer flexibility. \"We do not believe that this legislation is necessary at this time,\" Grama said.

The Department of Labor reviewed the draft language and urged clarity on recordkeeping: DOL Deputy Commissioner Danielle Albert asked the committee to specify whether the employer must retain the I‑9 documents, an E‑Verify response printout, or both. \"As phrased and in conjunction with the added language, it's not all that clear what documentation is being referred to,\" Albert said.

Proponents and opponents also debated practical issues such as small‑employer capacity to use E‑Verify, federal responses to mismatches, the required notice and re‑verification steps when a person receives a Tentative Nonconfirmation, and whether enforcement penalties should apply. No committee action was taken at the hearing; departments and stakeholders are expected to supply follow‑up material if the bill advances.","Representative Saborin DeChuanier introduced HB 69 to require employers to use USCIS E‑Verify. Supporters called it pro‑worker; opponents and business groups warned about false positives, cost and misuse. The Department of Labor suggested technical clarifications about recordkeeping.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6379791,"Employment Security briefs committee on unemployment trust fund, rates and labor market trends",14401,3243000,17644000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2135174-c390c605005f26715768f98bffc1ff57&start=3243&end=17644","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2135174-c390c605005f26715768f98bffc1ff57/thumbnail_3243000.jpg","/articles/6379791/New-Hampshire/Employment-Security-briefs-committee-on-unemployment-trust-fund-rates-and-labor-market-trends","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6379791-24d2cab64af03e46e11b319341765aa5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159666&Signature=nW73tngbZg4jEclqIi5S3XJxxQYeqNjaFqQaMqU7hHfePln3a5zKmV3qSe2Hw-eD6kh2GGZo-az~vsGnSTm82v8Jh40ZpogMs9Xr3y0SDeexuzWRN~DvU3PAFgRlO-i0oYVfpMsRSdA7kFgXfeZkrfxX1hUIDDktQ9voarDB8MObJyay2VTX1p-ZtYliTGysqOTxeIpTPe-C3g359tS6ErIUBuTfCeUPqw-1q4vSUoK4SN4igHZHaS2kp2yX5eyIMuJH2--lllGwnyzz0V1NDMdr62OcPqJWNWz4m6PhO3T1N1GPpLEqobp2ULJrTd74~JUBPputKys5ldzFoGcEuw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","New Hampshire Employment Security told the House Labor Committee the state's unemployment insurance program is fully employer funded, the trust fund balance is at historically high levels and the taxable-rate structure currently yields low employer tax burdens.

\"The unemployment system is a 100% employer funded,\" Deputy Commissioner Richard Labors told the committee as he summarized the agency's three bureaus: unemployment compensation, reemployment services and labor market information. He said taxes are collected on employers' first $14,000 in annual wages and explained experience‑rated tables that raise rates for chronically negative employers.

Labors described the trust fund as \"about $390,000,000,\" said the average employer is paying about 0.6% (roughly $85 per employee per year), and that a new employer starts at 2.7% before current solvency reductions (a 1.0% reduction reduced a new employer's rate to about 1.7% in testimony). He noted that New Hampshire's maximum weekly benefit is $427 and that average claim duration is running about 12.5 weeks. \"Those funds sit with the U.S. Treasury,\" he said when explaining how state tax receipts and benefit disbursements operate.

Richard Lavers, deputy commissioner with Employment Security, said the department routinely sends proposed statutory changes to the U.S. Department of Labor for conformity review and emphasized the federal link to private‑sector options. Lavers summarized a US DOL response to a bill concept that warned a private alternative could jeopardize employers' FUTA credit and federal grants: \"If employers were not participating in the state unemployment compensation program and weren't paying their contributions to support that program, that would disqualify them from being able to take their discount against their federal unemployment tax liability,\" he told the committee.

Messages to the committee included that New Hampshire's unemployment rate is low compared with the region, job demand remains elevated in sectors such as professional, technical and scientific services and healthcare faces staffing pressures, and that Employment Security operates 12 New Hampshire Works offices for reemployment services. The department offered to provide additional statistics and data on topics members raised, including minimum-wage earners and remote‑work tracking.","Richard Labors of New Hampshire Employment Security summarized how the state's unemployment program is funded, recent trust-fund solvency, current tax rates and labor market indicators including low unemployment and strong job demand.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6379776,"Committee considers bill to require employers to hold jobs for spouses of deployed service members",939,19081000,20020000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2135174-c390c605005f26715768f98bffc1ff57&start=19081&end=20020","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2135174-c390c605005f26715768f98bffc1ff57/thumbnail_19081000.jpg","/articles/6379776/New-Hampshire/Committee-considers-bill-to-require-employers-to-hold-jobs-for-spouses-of-deployed-service-members","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6379776-b116e68920ca5c1a632f928a9e998397/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159666&Signature=d7hpwjz2Ng3FgcjKgwcFe2zb9j0FpCaOzbu5FO~He6auOJ5a2kpu-fEcivZSLpmxxmp-BWQa2VAUhHiweOInGnyvCbtmkScI27D9kH0EtwVf2m1zVVCaBkPw9vhHmPH~LaJByJp7BEeyk3Z0Dy9Zyq0LOeLNt-BcRZirrBKHP5ij4kKqPfRAAjJz2S4lGUKI9TfM14NicQDWKN7aALFSaoRcGBMQw8MYEmg5EYu4~kQvsSrLWVTVM3TbLLpIxjP3Y~v1HwUjVgbOeHyUcZXXzutPZte1lbDvLX46Keuw1iSUtWhDIeXRbYCwBKIzjc8X8jIUS8NJYoeXpLt3kyptRw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Creighton (chair) introduced HB 225, which would require employers of 50 or more employees to hold a position open for a service member's spouse during involuntary mobilization under federal activation (Title 10). The sponsor described the bill as a way to preserve civilian employment for families while the service member is activated.

\"If yours your employee's spouse deploys, I just want you to hold that position open,\" the sponsor said, describing families that face childcare and household strains when a member is deployed and urging a modest accommodation from employers.

Testimony from veterans' representatives and the National Guard leadership urged support. Kevin Grady of the State Veterans Advisory Committee said the group \"support[s] this legislation\" and noted that deployments can create substantial financial and childcare burdens for families. Deputy Adjutant General Nicole Desilets Bixler described a local case in which a spouse who requested a leave because of family exigencies after a deployment was denied and urged the committee to consider protections that help families stay afloat.

The Department of Labor said it could administer the bill's enforcement provisions but noted a drafting issue on attorney's fees and the administrative process: DOL's fiscal note recommended clarifying whether remedies and fee awards would proceed through the department's administrative hearing process or through superior court. \"There's no other reference to a court procedure within the bill as written,\" General Counsel John Garrigan said, recommending a technical fix around section language awarding costs and fees.

Members asked whether the provision's application should include unmarried long‑term partners, whether there should be a time cap on reemployment obligations, and whether the employer would be liable when the job is no longer available because of sale or reorganization. The sponsor indicated willingness to work on drafting changes and the bill drew support from veterans' affiliates; committee action was not taken at the hearing.","HB 225 would require employers with 50+ employees to hold a position open for a service member's spouse during involuntary mobilization. Veterans groups and the Adjutant General's office supported the proposal; DOL said it can administer enforcement but suggested technical language clarifications for remedies and fee awards.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Department of Labor briefs committee on wage, workers' compensation and safety enforcement

Hearing protection for venue workers draws mixed response; DOL points to existing public‑sector rule

Committee hears competing testimony on bill to require statewide use of E‑Verify

Employment Security briefs committee on unemployment trust fund, rates and labor market trends

Committee considers bill to require employers to hold jobs for spouses of deployed service members