SB 171 amends New Hampshire’s required pay law, RSA 275:43-a, to clarify when an employee must receive at least two hours of pay for reporting to work at an employer’s request. Under current law, that reporting-time pay applies when an employee reports in person to the employer’s physical location. The bill keeps that rule in place for in-person reporting, but expressly excludes employees who work remotely outside of the employer’s physical location from this reporting-time payment requirement.
The bill also preserves existing exceptions for county and municipal employees and for ski and snowboard instructional employees at ski resorts, while making clear that remote workers remain entitled to any wages otherwise due under RSA 275:43. It would take effect 60 days after passage.
Impact
If enacted, SB 171 would narrow the scope of RSA 275:43-a by limiting reporting-time pay to employees who physically report to an employer’s location at the employer’s request. Remote employees would no longer be covered by the two-hour minimum reporting pay provision, though employers would still have to pay all earned wages under the state’s general wage-payment law. The bill would therefore reduce potential wage obligations for employers with remote workforces and create a clearer statutory distinction between in-person and remote reporting requirements.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill has not generated overwhelming consensus, with a close 168-174 vote on a motion to remove it from the table. That narrow margin indicates mixed sentiment and a contested legislative environment rather than broad support or broad opposition. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed public arguments, but the vote pattern suggests the bill is politically active and divisive.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether remote employees should be treated the same as employees who physically report to work for purposes of reporting-time pay. Supporters are likely to view the bill as a modernization of wage law that aligns the statute with remote work arrangements and limits unintended employer costs. Opponents are likely to argue that remote workers should retain the same wage protections when they are required to make themselves available or report at the employer’s request. The bill also preserves existing carve-outs for public employers and ski instruction staff, but the remote-work exclusion is the central issue.