Committee hears broad opposition and agency concerns to bill letting employers and employees set pay method

Members of the Senate Commerce Committee held a lengthy hearing on House Bill 280 on the measure that would strip existing language in RSA 275:43 requiring wages be paid in legal tender and instead provide that “the manner in which payment is made shall be determined by the employer and employee.”

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Greg Hill, who spoke for the absent prime sponsor, said the intention is to reduce regulatory burden and let employers and employees negotiate payment methods without a separate statutory list of acceptable options.

The New Hampshire Department of Labor said it is neutral on the bill but raised several practical concerns. “Our understanding is that the proposed language is ... requiring the employer to give at least 90 days written notification if the employer intends to change the method of wage payment,” Deputy Commissioner Danielle Albert told the committee. Albert said the department is “somewhat uncertain how we would be going in and making determinations in a reasonable manner to resolve” disputes if wages could be paid in unconventional forms, and warned the change could increase wage complaints and prolong investigations.

John Garrigan, general counsel for the department, told senators that the bill would remove existing statutory protections tied to pay cards, checks and direct deposit — such as notice requirements about fees — and that change could leave employees exposed to unexpected charges.

Labor advocates and unions opposed the bill in testimony. Alan Raff of the New Hampshire AFL-CIO said the proposal would “create uncertainty regarding compliance and enforcement of wage payments and likely result in unintended consequences across the entire New Hampshire.” Raff and other opponents also noted there is currently no prohibition on private agreements to be paid in nonstandard forms, and argued the statutory removal is unnecessary.

Several senators asked for specific clarifications on practical scenarios raised in testimony: whether the statute would permit payment in cryptocurrency, gold or other nonconvertible forms; what protections employees would retain if an employer provided 90 days’ notice to change to a less-convertible payment method; and how workers’ compensation carriers would calculate indemnity benefits if wages were paid in nonstandard forms. Danielle Albert said she was not aware of any New Hampshire employers currently paying in Bitcoin or gold, and said federal wage law would remain relevant for covered employers, but that the department would have enforcement challenges under the wider language.

Business and employer witnesses echoed parts of the sponsor’s argument that the bill would increase flexibility; but other business representatives raised concerns about scams involving payroll debit cards and urged the committee to ensure protections remain in place.

The committee closed the hearing on House Bill 280 after multiple public witnesses spoke in opposition or asked for stronger guardrails. The committee did not take final action on the bill during the meeting and left it for further consideration.

Ending: Committee members asked staff to follow up with the prime sponsor and the Department of Labor to answer outstanding technical questions about enforcement, timing of notice and how pay-card fees would be handled if the statute changes.