Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Remote Work Pay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to clarify pay rules for remote work; business groups back change, Department of Labor neutral
Summary
Senate Bill 171 would clarify that employees working remotely are exempt from certain reporting‑time pay requirements. Supporters including HR consultants and restaurant groups said the bill reflects modern work; the Department of Labor said it is neutral and cautioned that 'physical location' should be defined for enforcement.
Senate Bill 171 would amend RSA 275:43‑a to clarify how New Hampshire's required-pay and reporting-time rules apply to remote work, sponsors and witnesses told the Senate Commerce Committee.
Sponsor Sen. Denise Ricciardi said the measure would modernize labor law by exempting remote work from certain reporting-time pay requirements that were written with in-person work in mind. She and business witnesses said the change would reduce uncertainty and prevent unintended two‑hour minimum-pay obligations for brief remote tasks such as answering an email from home.
Allison Milioto, cofounder of Blue Lion, an HR consulting firm, testified in support and described repeated shifts in Department of Labor interpretation that have made compliance difficult for employers. She said employers and HR professionals need consistent, documented guidance so remote, hybrid, and brief off‑hours tasks are treated predictably. Mike Summers, representing the New Hampshire Lodging & Restaurant Association, said the original two‑hour rule historically protected employees who had incurred travel or other costs to report in person; the bill would preserve that protection for in‑person situations while exempting true remote work that does not involve such travel costs.
The Department of Labor testified as neutral. General Counsel John Gerrigan and Deputy Commissioner Danielle Albert told the committee they are neutral but recommended clarifying the bill's language on “physical location.” Gerrigan explained that current state and federal laws generally treat the place where work is performed as the worker's location and that confusion could arise where employees perform work at client sites, in the field, or other off‑site locations. The Department said clearer statutory language about what counts as an employer's physical location would help both enforcement and employer compliance.
Blue Lion and other employer witnesses also raised administrative concerns: even if E‑Verify or similar systems are free, they require extra administrative steps; similarly, Milioto argued employers who intend to hire unauthorized workers are unlikely to be deterred by technology. (Witnesses made this point in a separate bill discussion about E‑Verify; it was raised here in the broader discussion of wage administration.)
Committee members asked questions about real‑world effects. Senator McHugh asked whether the rule would affect employees who briefly check email from home; witnesses said that brief work should be paid for the actual time worked, but the bill would prevent applying a two‑hour minimum when no travel or commute was involved. There was no committee action or vote recorded during the hearing; the Department of Labor offered to help clarify language if the committee moves the bill forward.
Supporters asked the committee to adopt the modernization to reflect post‑pandemic work patterns; the Department urged specific statutory definitions to avoid enforcement confusion.
