House committee hears hours of testimony on HB 238, bill to bar required union membership; executive session set for Jan. 28

The New Hampshire House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services Committee heard testimony for more than eight hours on House Bill 238 FN, a proposal that would prohibit collective bargaining agreements from requiring employees to join or contribute to a labor union.

Representative Richard Glasson introduced the measure on behalf of its sponsor, saying HB 238 “would end forced union membership as a condition of employment.” The committee heard more than 50 people in favor and opposed during the public hearing, and the chair announced the panel will hold executive session on the bill on Jan. 28 to consider next steps.

Why it matters: Supporters say the bill would give employees a legal choice about whether to pay or belong to a union and make the state more attractive to employers. Opponents say the measure would weaken unions that negotiate wages, retirement and training programs that supporters say raise living standards and workplace safety.

What supporters told the committee - Proponents included industry groups and small-business advocates. John Reynolds, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business in New Hampshire, told the committee that “right to work is about allowing small business owners and their employees to determine their own future,” and cited studies and surveys he said showed business and job growth tied to right-to-work policies. - Greg Moore of Americans for Prosperity argued the bill would protect employees who object to an employer or union’s positions: “I had 1 of my employees come in tears about the fact that money was being withheld from her paycheck despite the fact that she didn't agree with the direction the union was bargaining on her behalf,” he said, urging committee members to back the measure. - Witnesses who identified as supporters also included representatives of the National Right to Work Committee and individual residents who described the bill as a measure of personal liberty.

What opponents told the committee - Public-sector and private-sector labor leaders, local union members and allied groups ran through personal stories and data they say show unions increase pay, benefits and on-the-job safety. Richard Gullah, president of the State Employees Association in New Hampshire, said states with right-to-work laws typically have lower wages and standards of living and urged the committee to reject HB 238. - Several labor witnesses gave first-person accounts about benefits secured through union contracts. Keith Judge, a business agent for Teamsters Local 633, testified that his union-negotiated health insurance preserved his life during treatment for stage 4 cancer and that negotiated short-term disability and job protection allowed him to return to work. - Trade contractors and building-trades training representatives told the committee that unions support extensive apprenticeship and journeyman training programs funded by employer-union arrangements. Mark Antarian, lead instructor at the North Atlantic States Carpenters Training Fund, told the committee the training center in Manchester provides free, continuing skills training used by dozens of employers and apprentices.

Cross-cutting themes and evidence - Economic claims: Supporters cited studies they said link right-to-work laws to job growth and greater private investment. Opponents pointed to peer-reviewed academic work and federal analyses that they said show wage declines or other harms after similar laws were adopted. Witnesses and lawmakers repeatedly noted different studies reach divergent conclusions depending on methodology and controls. - Worker choice vs collective bargaining: Backers framed the bill as restoring individual choice; opponents said the bill would create “free riders” who receive contract benefits without contributing to representation and that would erode the funding base for training, safety enforcement and representation. - Local context: Several witnesses said New Hampshire’s labor market and workforce needs — including construction and manufacturing trades, apprenticeship pipelines and public-sector staffing — shaped how the state would experience any change to bargaining rules.

Quotes from the hearing - “This bill would end forced union membership as a condition of employment,” Representative Richard Glasson, prime sponsor, told the committee when he opened the bill. - “I had one of my employees come in in tears about money being withheld from her paycheck despite the fact that she didn't agree with the direction the union was bargaining on her behalf,” testified Greg Moore of Americans for Prosperity. - “If it were not for my union…during those treatments my union negotiated health insurance that saved my life,” Teamsters business agent Keith Judge said, describing his cancer care and subsequent job protections. - “We are called to uphold the dignity of work, the value of solidarity, and the pursuit of justice for all,” Lisa Beaudoin, executive director of the New Hampshire Council of Churches, said in opposition.

Committee action - The committee did not take a final vote at the hearing. The chair announced the panel will hold executive session on HB 238 on 2025-01-28 to consider next steps.

What’s next - The committee will meet again to consider the bill in executive session. If members vote to advance the measure, it would move to further legislative steps for the full House and potentially the Senate. If the committee votes against moving it forward, the bill would effectively stall for the session.

Context note: The hearing drew many witnesses representing unions, business groups and advocacy organizations; speakers included rank-and-file workers, trade training leaders, religious and civic groups, national advocates and former legislators. The record submitted to the committee included written testimony and a range of research cited by both sides. The committee said it would allow time for members to review recent submissions before the scheduled executive session.

Ending - The committee’s Jan. 28 executive session will be the next formal moment for decisions on HB 238. Until then, testimony and written records remain part of the legislative file and the public record.