By any measure, New Hampshire is facing a serious public workforce challenge. Vacancies are high. Turnover is real. Competition with the private sector is intense. On that much, everyone agrees.
Where the debate breaks down is in the assumption that House Bill 1704, the so-called “Public Employee Choice Act,” addresses those problems. It does not. In fact, it risks making them worse by weakening the very systems that keep public employment fair, stable, and fiscally predictable.
Across New Hampshire state government, vacancy rates routinely exceed 15–20 percent, with some frontline agencies experiencing 25–30 percent vacancies for extended periods. These shortages are well-documented and deeply concerning.
At the New Hampshire Department of Corrections, correctional officer vacancies have exceeded 30 percent in recent budget cycles. Chronic understaffing has led to mandatory overtime, burnout, and accelerated attrition. Officers are not leaving because they cannot negotiate individual benefit packages—they are leaving for higher pay and safer staffing levels elsewhere.
In New Hampshire Probation and Parole, vacancy rates of 20–25 percent have persisted across multiple districts. Caseloads regularly exceed best-practice standards, creating safety risks and unsustainable workloads. The state invests heavily to train officers, only to lose them within a few years due to pay gaps and workload stress—none of which HB 1704 addresses.
At the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth, and Families, chronic vacancies exceeding 20 percent disrupt continuity for vulnerable children and families, driving up long-term costs through retraining and service delays. Social workers consistently cite unsustainable caseloads and noncompetitive pay as the reasons they leave.
At the New Hampshire Department of Transportation, winter-critical maintenance and plow driver positions experience double-digit vacancy rates, while private construction and engineering firms routinely offer 20–40 percent higher wages for comparable skills.
The pattern is unmistakable:
Employees are leaving because of compensation, workload, and staffing — not because of collective bargaining.
Supporters of HB 1704 argue that it would give public employees the freedom to negotiate like private-sector professionals. That framing ignores a basic reality: the State of New Hampshire is not a private employer.
Public employment is governed by:
● Statutory pay scales
● Appropriated budgets
● Classification systems
● Equal pay and anti-discrimination laws
● Transparency and public accountability requirements
Individual negotiations cannot override those constraints. What HB 1704 would actually produce is inconsistency, inequity, morale problems, and increased legal risk, with employees doing the same work potentially receiving different compensation based on negotiating leverage rather than merit.
That is not flexibility. It is instability.
Critics of collective bargaining often claim it locks employees into rigid, outdated arrangements. In reality, New Hampshire contracts already allow:
● Market and recruitment adjustments
● Step systems that reward experience and performance
● Differential and longevity pay
● Flexible scheduling and alternative work arrangements
What they do not allow—by design—is arbitrary or unequal treatment. Uniform standards are not bureaucracy for its own sake; they are guardrails that protect employees, managers, and taxpayers alike.
The “Free Rider” Argument Misses the Point
The requirement that unions represent all employees in a bargaining unit is not a flaw. It is a statutory safeguard that promotes:
● Labor peace
● Predictable personnel costs
● Consistent enforcement of workplace rules
Allowing individuals to opt out of representation while benefiting from negotiated conditions weakens that system and invites fragmentation—without offering any replacement framework to manage disputes or control costs.
Public employment exists to deliver essential services reliably, fairly, and lawfully. That requires:
● Predictable compensation systems
● Equal treatment for equal work
● Workforce cohesion
● Retention of institutional knowledge
HB 1704 undermines each of these while failing to address the actual drivers of workforce loss.
“Live Free or Die” Requires Strong Institutions
New Hampshire’s motto has never meant fragmentation or favoritism⁸. It reflects liberty anchored by responsibility and structure.
Collective bargaining is not an obstacle to modernization. It is the mechanism that:
● Protects workers from arbitrary treatment
● Protects managers from inconsistent demands
● Protects taxpayers from unpredictable labor costs
If we want to recruit and retain the best people, the solution is straightforward—but not easy: pay competitively, staff adequately, and support frontline workers.
HB 1704 does none of those things.
It does not modernize public employment. It destabilizes it.
New Hampshire can and should do better.