Federal and New Hampshire State

¶ … federal and New Hampshire state systems of government may or may not differ in their application of employment laws. Federal employment laws set the standard for most state laws. They provide guidelines for employers on just about any workplace situation, and ensure both employees and employers enjoy certain rights and protection. The laws are complicated, and states can make their own laws, as long as they meet or exceed Federal standards, as some of the laws in New Hampshire indicate. Federal employment laws are lengthy and sometimes complicated.

For example, the federal employment laws cover everything from acceptable minimum wages to equal opportunity and employer guidelines for providing services and products under federal contract. Thus, the laws can be difficult to comprehend and put in place for many small businesses. Specific federal laws help ensure employees receive basic rights in the workplace, while protecting employers from certain activities. There are stiff penalties for employers who do not follow their specific federal and state guidelines. Many specific examples of federal laws indicate how closely the government monitors employment practices.

One of the most well-known federal laws is the minimum wage law, which has set the minimum hourly wage at $5.15 per hour since 1997, and regulates overtime pay, too. However, it is interesting to note that there are many exclusions to the act, including employees of many businesses that gross less that $500,000 per year, and many areas of overtime pay. There are penalties for not adhering to the law, but exemptions for employees in many low-wage areas, such as restaurant workers who receive tips, and others.

The law also notes, "State laws also apply to employment subject to this Act. When both this Act and a state law apply, the law setting the higher standards must be observed" (Editors, 2005). Thus, a state cannot set a lower standard than the federal government's laws, but they can set a higher standard. New Hampshire's minimum wage laws are a good example of this. In New Hampshire, the minimum wages for tipped employees are higher than the federal standard.

For employees who regularly receive more than $20 a month in tips, the minimum wage is $2.38 in New Hampshire. The federal guideline is employees who receive over $30 per month in tips, but the rate is only $2.13 per hour.

New Hampshire's law also states, "If an employee shows to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the actual amount of wages received at the end of each pay period did not equal the minimum wage for all hours worked, the employer shall pay the employee the difference to guarantee the applicable minimum wage" (Legislature, 1997). This is an excellent example of a difference between the federal and state system, with the state offering more protection or compensation for the worker.

Both the federal and state laws offer "whistleblower" protection to those employees who discover wrongdoing of some sort by their employer, and turn the employer in for violations, especially in health or safety issues. These statutes were created to protect workers from arbitrary dismissal if they do the right thing and note infractions that might harm other workers or the public. This makes it easier for employees to make accusations without fear of reprisal or dismissal.

There are other protective laws such as this to help ensure employees are treated fairly, equitably, and with dignity in the workplace. New Hampshire has a very interesting law that protects union members, and does not exist in the federal system. It has been a New Hampshire state law since 1965, and concerns union workers during a strike.

It reads, person, partnership, firm, or corporation, or officer or agent thereof, involved in a strike or lock-out, shall not knowingly employ in the place of an employee involved in a strike or lock-out, any person who customarily and repeatedly offers himself for employment in the place of employees involved in a labor strike, lock-out, or labor dispute (Legislature, 1965). Thus, striking workers are protected from losing their jobs to "scabs," workers who cross picket lines to work without a union contract or representation.

It is interesting to note that federal law does not protect union workers this closely, and neither do many other states. Another interesting New Hampshire law is the Crime Victim Employment Leave Act, which just took effect on January 1, 2006. The law stipulates that employers must allow employees who are victims of crimes time off work to attend court proceedings and other legal or investigative proceedings. However, the employer does not need to pay the employee for this time off.

Employers cannot discriminate or fire employees who ask to use this provision, and employees cannot lose their seniority while they are absent from work. This is an interesting law in that it addresses a concern for many employees that is not addressed by the federal government or in many other states. Since legal proceedings only occur during normal work hours, it is difficult for many workers to leave work to attend these proceedings, and this statute recognizes this problem and attends to it.

New Hampshire also has a statute regarding "displaced homemakers" that covers older women who may have been absent from the workforce for many years, and are suddenly displaced due to death, divorce, or other occurrences. The state offers assistance to these women, training for new jobs, and employment assistance. This is also a statute that is not represented in the federal employment laws. It is clear this must be a problem in New Hampshire because lawmakers felt it needed to be addressed.

This statue originally took effect in 1979, so it seems New Hampshire is more forward thinking than many other states who do not yet address this issue. It is quite clear when comparing federal and state employment laws that the federal laws exist as guidelines and minimum requirements. The New Hampshire state laws go into greater detail on a variety of issues that the federal laws do not address, from displaced homemakers to victims of crimes.

This points out the separation between state and federal governments, and the underlying purpose of federal laws. The laws are meant to be the minimum requirements for states to adhere to, but they are free to address issues and problems.