CI Header
Sponsors
SPB+G 2013 logo



Cap Group

Editorial Board

Brad Cook
Sheehan Phinney
Bass + Green
  
Bruce Berke
Sheehan Phinney 
Capitol Group
 
Sheehan Phinney 
Capitol Group

 

Sheehan Phinney 
Capitol Group

 

Sheehan Phinney 
Capitol Group
  
Will Stewart 
Greater Manchester
Chamber of Commerce

Join Our Mailing List
Limitations on how Employers Pay Employees

Bruce Berke, Sheehan Phinney Capitol Group

 

Did you know that employees have the final say in how they are paid? It's true and is written into state statute (NH RSA 275:43). There are five different methods that the employer may choose from but if one employee decides at the end of the day that he or she wishes to paid by a paper check, then the employer must make special arrangements for that employee even if the employee is the only one out of the other 500 or 1000 employees who choose to be paid in an electronic format.

 

Wouldn't you think that an employer operating their own business should have the latitude to determine how they wish to pay their employees so that it may be done in the most efficient manner?
Well, Senate Bill 100 would do exactly that. After passing the State Senate with a strong bi-partisan vote of 20-4, the House Labor Committee has recommended killing the bill by a 13-7 margin. Opponents (unions and other progressive organizations funded by unions) of the bill argued that the employee would lose a right if the bill passed allowing employers to determine his or her method of pay. Last time I checked the constitution, method of pay was not in the constitution.
Senate Bill 100 would allow the employer to determine how that business shall pay their employees. In doing so, the employer would be mandated to ensure that the employee would bear no cost in accessing his or her wages. This is true if the employer pays the employee in cash, by check or by electronic means. Passing this bill allows the employer to develop the most cost effective means of pay to their employees without having to be concerned with providing multiple, more costly options of pay to employees.
Recently, the Concord Monitor editorialized on March 28th in support of enabling employers to have the option of eliminating the paper paycheck. In the Monitor's editorial, they wrote, "Only 400 of the state government's 11,000 or so employees, for example, still get paper checks. By one estimate, it costs as much as $10 per check to issue each one. That's a waste of taxpayer money." (emphasis added) This example demonstrates the inefficiency of a dual payment system.
Should the employer eventually be permitted to decide whether to use an electronic method of payment with their employees, the employee will still have considerable choice and receive innumerable benefits, including:
* Selecting direct deposit to their account or having their wages deposited onto a payroll card;
* If the employee utilizes a payroll card, the employee can deposit their wages on the card into their account; cash the card out, or; use the card like a bank account to store funds, make purchases, and pay bills.
* And the employee has these options each time they are paid.
* Branded (i.e. VISA) payroll cards offer the employee more options for where the card may be cashed out or used as opposed to a paper check.
Studies have shown that there is some resistance to change but once accustomed to the change, the favorability for this methodology sky rockets with recipients of electronic payment of payroll. As of March 1st of this year, all federal benefits are delivered by direct deposit or on a prepaid card. And in New Hampshire, benefits such as food stamps, child support payments and other state assistance programs are delivered to our residents using direct deposit or prepaid cards. We urge the Legislature to allow businesses in New Hampshire to be able to take advantage of the same efficiencies and savings that our state government accrues as it administers its state aid programs.
The fact that some employees are resistant to change should not come as a surprise. It is often human nature to resist change, especially from organized labor that bargains for anything involving employees. Interestingly, in the early 1920s, employees responded negatively to the idea of being paid by check rather than in cash. An article published by Time Magazine in 1924 reported that employees opposed the use of paper paychecks claiming that they were inconvenient and did not protect their privacy.
Amazing, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Let's hope the full membership of the House of Representatives sees the benefits of allowing the employer, at no cost to the employee, to determine how best to pay their workers. The Legislature has said they support small business and business in general. The Senate demonstrated that support with their bi-partisan vote for this bill that gives the employee and employer more choice and convenience. Now it is the House's turn to do the same.

  

  
State/local permitting overlaps to be studied

Will Stewart, Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce 

 

Currently awaiting the signature of Gov. Maggie Hassan is House Bill 516, a bill establishing a committee to study the overlap of federal, state and local regulations as they relate to environmental issues.

 

Sponsored by Reps. John Cebrowski and David Danielson, both Bedford Republicans, the bill was one of the recommendations of the Commission to Study Business Regulations in New Hampshire, a body created by the legislature in 2011 to, well, study state business regulations. The Commission, on which Rep. Cebrowski and this writer served, issued its final report last fall.

 

Among other issues, the report noted how the Commission heard testimony from those in the development community about what they believe to be an inefficient manner of issuing environmental permits in New Hampshire.

 

Those who testified said that while the Department of Environmental Services provides oversight for all development in the state, that much of the engineering reviews required by the state must be repeated at the local level, often leading to overlap and redundancy. And in some cases, the guidelines for the these two levels of oversight can be at odds. The result, the report found, is that it is not uncommon for applicants to be forced to make the case for environmental protection before two bodies that are not coordinated and that do not necessarily have the same goals in mind.

 

Here's hoping the new study committee can help resolve some of these types of issues.

 

Your transportation input needed 

 

The New Hampshire Department of Transportation and the consultants conducting the New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Transit Alternatives Study - aka the rail study - are interested in hearing from the local business community with regard to the direction and scope of the 18-month study.

 

The study has been approved by the Governor and Council to study transportation alternatives (rail, bus, rickshaw, etc.) on Route 3 between Nashua and Concord. The DOT and the consultants are looking for input from the business community on what, specifically, the study should take into account (potential economic development opportunities, operating costs, traffic impacts, etc.).

 

If you would like to share your two cents, representatives from the DOT and the consulting firm will be at the Chamber's 54 Hanover St. office at 3 p.m., this coming Thursday, May 16. Please join us!