Pay‑transparency bill stirs debate: sponsors say fairness; business groups warn of costs and application surges

Representative Emily Schultz presented House Bill 1123 to the Labor Committee, asking the panel to require employers with 50 or more New Hampshire employees to post a good‑faith salary range and a general description of benefits on public job listings.

Schultz said the proposal, modeled on laws in Minnesota and other states, aims to prevent job seekers from spending weeks on interviews for positions they cannot afford and to reduce wasted time for employers. “Nobody should go through the interview process only to find the salary won’t cover rent,” she told the committee.

Business groups urged caution. The New Hampshire BIA/State Chamber witness said mandatory ranges will encourage applicants to always demand the top of a published range, swell application pools with unqualified candidates for high‑pay jobs, and create administrative burdens for hiring managers. The chamber representative said employers can voluntarily post ranges and urged leaving the choice to businesses.

Department of Labor counsel John Garrian said the agency takes no formal position but described likely enforcement as complaint‑driven and noted state government postings already include pay information for many public jobs. Garrian also explained the bill’s reported civil‑penalty structure: a written warning first, then potential fines up to $2,500 for subsequent violations under RSA 273:11‑A as drafted.

Committee members asked how the threshold would treat remote work and franchises, whether small satellite offices would be counted toward the 50‑employee threshold, and how the bill would apply to multi‑state employers. Sponsors said they would work with stakeholders to clarify language.

The committee did not vote on the bill. Lawmakers asked the sponsor to consult with business and enforcement officials and to return with clarified language addressing remote work, franchising, and enforcement mechanics.