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...

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 that might be more prevalent in their states than in others. The New Hampshire laws indicate that legislators have recognized certain deficiencies or missing coverage in the federal laws, and added their own legislation when they see fit. Comparing state and federal laws is a good exercise to help understand not only business law, but the principles the American government was founded on and still adheres to today.
In conclusion, clearly, the federal government creates employment laws as standards for states to follow, and states have the freedom to create their own laws if that is applicable. States must adhere to basic federal principles, but they can alter the laws as long as they do not supercede the federal standards. This allows states to regulate state-specific industries and employers more closely than federal regulations might allow. The case of New Hampshire is a good example of a state with different laws in certain areas that ensure state employers have fair and equitable laws that apply to their own unique circumstances. The state has created many laws and regulations that further protect employees in certain circumstances, and that is the purpose of allowing states the freedom to "pump up" their laws as long as they adhere to the federal guidelines.