New Hampshire House Bill HB1569

New Hampshire 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/14/21
• Refer: 12/14/21
• Report DNP: 3/3/22

Caption

Relative to the status of "totally unemployed" for purposes of unemployment compensation.

Impact

If enacted, HB 1569 would amend RSA 282-A:14 to specify that individuals prohibited from entering their workplace would be considered totally unemployed, even if they are engaged in tasks such as working remotely. Additionally, the bill seeks to clarify that certain types of military pay, such as inactive duty or drill pay, would not be considered wages when determining unemployment status. This could considerably widen the scope of those able to claim unemployment benefits, thereby increasing state expenditures related to unemployment compensation.

Summary

House Bill 1569 aims to redefine what constitutes 'totally unemployed' within the framework of unemployment compensation by introducing stipulations that impact individuals who have not been officially terminated from their jobs but are restricted from entering their workplace. This adjustment is poised to affect how claims for unemployment benefits are processed, expanding the criteria under which individuals may qualify as totally unemployed and thus eligible for benefits.

Sentiment

The reception of HB 1569 has been mixed among stakeholders. Proponents are likely to advocate for the bill as a necessary update reflecting modern work arrangements, particularly in light of the rising trend of remote work due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They argue that it will provide essential support to workers who are unable to access their workplaces through no fault of their own. Conversely, some critics express concern over potential misuse of the extended unemployment benefits, which may lead to higher costs for the unemployment insurance system.

Contention

One notable area of contention involves whether the provisions to classify remote workers—as those who are totally unemployed—could lead to complications in the existing unemployment compensation system. There are fears that broadening the definition could result in individuals receiving benefits despite earning income through alternate means, undermining the intent of unemployment assistance. Furthermore, the combination of new language on military pay being exempted from wage calculations has been flagged as potentially unnecessary, given similar existing provisions already within the statute.