Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Employee Labor topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated testimony as committee hears sweeping proposal to let public employees bargain individually
Summary
House Bill 1704 would let public employees (except law enforcement, firefighters, EMTs and corrections) negotiate individually with public employers instead of only through certified bargaining units. Unions, municipal associations and mayors warned it would fragment bargaining, increase administrative costs, risk pay inequities and raise taxes; proponents said it restores choice and could aid recruitment.
Representative Brian Lebree introduced House Bill 1704, the "Public Employee Choice Act," giving public employees the option to bargain individually with a public employer rather than being bound only by an exclusive collective bargaining unit. The bill contains a carve‑out exempting police, firefighters, EMTs and correctional officers.
Proponents argued the change would expand employee choice and help public employers recruit in a tight labor market. "This bill keeps unions 100% intact for any employee who wishes to remain under a collective bargaining agreement," the sponsor said, adding it would allow individuals to seek performance‑based pay or tailored benefits if they opt out.
Opponents — including union leaders, the New Hampshire Municipal Association, city mayors, municipal staff and numerous public employees — urged the committee to find the bill inexpedient to legislate. Common themes were administrative complexity (hundreds of individual agreements to track), legal exposure for municipalities, the potential for pay inequity and discrimination claims, and the risk of destabilizing essential public services. Richard Gulla (representing many public employees) said: "Individual bargaining creates inconsistency and legal risk... it would increase bureaucracy instead of reducing it." Municipal representatives said the retroactive language and criminal penalties in the current draft raise constitutional and operational concerns. Several mayors sent letters cautioning about unpredictable budget impacts.
Labor groups also flagged that HB1704 would create a free‑rider dynamic whereby employees could obtain union‑negotiated wages and protections while bypassing union membership, eroding collective bargaining over time. Testimony from multiple union leaders urged the committee to preserve exclusive representation as the most administrable and equitable framework for public employers and employees.
What happens next: The committee paused the hearing after extensive testimony and scheduled follow‑up work; significant opposition from public employers and labor makes the bill's passage uncertain without major revisions.
