N.H. House Bills Flying Under the Radar

timing (0.00 / 0)

It is unclear when we are going to vote on these bills.  They were all "retained" bills which normally would be voted on first thing during the second-year session.

There are also a few dozen "tabled" bills which could theoretically be taken off the table.  The ostensible purpose of the November 30 session day is to take a proposed Constitutional Amendment, CACR 14, off the table so it can be amended to serve as a vehicle for the governor's recent education-funding proposal.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:55:49 AM CST

Is it also (0.00 / 0)

an opportunity for a vote on the governor's veto of the RTW for Less bill? Assuming O'Brien would have the votes, the result of low attendance?

---

by: mevansnh @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:36:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

With this Speaker (0.00 / 0)

Yes.

"We start working to beat these guys right now." -Jed Bartlet

---

by: cblodg @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:09:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

it could be... (0.00 / 0)

It definitely could be: O'Brien is unwilling to lose an RTW4L bill. I am sure he is hoping for low attendance, but ironically the Democrats have been showing up much more consistently than the Republicans.  (We even had one vote where every Democrat showed up and every Democrat- even the very conservative John Gimas- voted against the Speaker.)

My understanding is that the Retained bills can't be taken up till January 4th, according to the rules.  However, O'Brien has little knowledge of (and even less respect for) the rules- and in any case, most likely he could still get enough votes to suspend the rules (even after alienating many in his own caucus.)  But, he may want to leave those bills alone till January.

One of the Retained bills is David Bates's marriage repeal bill.  Denying gays the right to marry is one of O'Brien's top priorities, right up there with denying workers the right to unionize.  If O'Brien rushed that bill through now, however, he would be taking away an opportunity for Bates to craft an even more absurd amendment than what is in the calendar now.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:25:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You have to wonder (0.00 / 0)

what it is with these types who are so afraid of their lgbt brothers and sisters and neighbors.  What are they hiding from?  Not one has yet explained how their marriage is affected, or what rational reason the state has to do this.  I think they basically are fighting either an internal insecurity of their own, and that they just don't understand the difference between civil and religious.  They are on the losing end of this battle and their views will eventually be part of the dustbin of history.

---

by: mevansnh @ Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 03:42:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

There's a lot of money (4.00 / 1)

to be had from outside groups who make lots of money by being anti-LGBT.  Follow the money.  They gin up lots of fear among folks about an issue, collect money to "fight it," spend the money (what they don't pay themselves in exorbitant salaries) to buy candidates, who then go to legislatures and vote to give our tax money to the people who started the whole nasty process.  

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:55:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Someone should school NH legislators about the fact that (0.00 / 0)

there's a good reason why Constitutions are framed in terms of what agents of government may and must do. Direct orders are much more difficult to violate, while prohibitions are even an invitation to circumvention.  
Law, as it applies to individual persons is prohibitive because the vast majority of what people do is presumed to be good and evil is the exception.  Governmental entities, on the other hand, have to be strictly limited by defined duties and obligations because they have been given the authority to use force, when absolutely necessary.
Telling agents of government what they can't do implies that, when conditions are different, they can.  

---

by: hannah @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:07:12 AM CST

HB-248 (0.00 / 0)

The Commission established through HB 248 has recommended to the full House to pass legislation(under some dummie placekeeper Bill already filed)to do away with requirements for Safety Committees(Joint Loss Committees) and written safety plans. The idea is that insurance companies will keep people safe, and rates for Co.s with written safety plans should reflect a lower rate than those w/o.
Yeah. Right.

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 13:45:10 PM CST

is anybody here effected by worker safety laws ? (0.00 / 0)

assuming nobody here who reads and posts works in a factory...

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 13:46:20 PM CST

or do you work in a restaurant or construction ? n/t (0.00 / 0)

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 13:47:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Believe it or not, (4.00 / 1)

one can get hurt by unsafe conditions in any work place, even an office.  Faulty electrical connections can shock, file cabinets can fall over, poorly vented heaters can suffocate, etc.  I worked for an investment firm for a number of years and we had to have a safety plan or the insurance wouldn't cover us.  Period.

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 14:11:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

true true (0.00 / 0)

The most dangerous jobs, which under these proposed changes will no longer be required by SONH to do anything safety wise, were on the top my mind, but it is good you commented because it would apply to all.

Another of the recommendations is to no longer require Worker's Comp for small co.s,with five or fewer employees, or those working at a residence as their place of work.

This is especially problematic in construction where there might be a general contractor who subs out work, and the subs may sub...and the intermediary sub could be small enough, under proposed new laws, to not be required to carry insurance for Worker's Comp. Injuries to those workers happen but would fall in a gray area, where the authorities, and insurers would look to recover from anybody nearby connected who has to carry insurance...etc and on down the line.

Lucy, in another diary on the Pledge you asked rhetorically where these impecunious and mean spirited ideas come from, with old dead white guys taking the blame. Well, there have been crazy laws on the books here from long before I became a resident, that'a all I know, and it was traditionally always more conservative than the other New England States.. It used to known be a rock ribbed Republican state. We blued it up some over the last 20 years, but at heart it still lives up to its cheap reputation. Nobody wants to pay for the other guy, or his injuries. They want Insurance co.s to protect us. Bah Humbug

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 14:40:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]