HB 1123
requiring certain companies to post expected salary ranges on public job listings.
Official record at gencourt.state.nh.us ↗Open this bill in the searchable view → · Follow this bill by RSS
On the record
Quoted from the General Court bill status page, not worked out from the docket.
| Status | HOUSE |
|---|---|
| In the House | INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE |
| Introduced | 1/7/2026 |
| Floor date | 2/5/2026 |
| LSR number | 2608 |
| Local government impact | no |
| Committee code | H11 |
Where it stands
House: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Every floor vote on this bill was a voice or division vote, so there is no record of how individual legislators voted.
Sponsors
Wade, Alice(D) Straf 15, Butler, Billie(D) Straf 12, Howard, Heath(D) Straf 4, McDonnell, Valerie(R) Rock 25, Watters, David(D) Straf 4
Prime sponsor in bold. From the General Court sponsor file.
What happened
Every action recorded in the official docket, in order. Each line ends with the journal or calendar that recorded it; where we have the document, that citation links to it.
- January 7, 2026Introduced 01/07/2026 and referred to Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services
- January 13, 2026Public Hearing: 01/13/2026 11:00 am GP 159
- January 20, 2026Executive Session: 01/20/2026 10:00 am GP 159
- January 28, 2026Majority Committee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate 01/20/2026 (Vote 10-9; RC)
- January 28, 2026Minority Committee Report: Ought to Pass
- February 5, 2026Inexpedient to Legislate: MA DV 193-149 02/05/2026
Votes
Roll call tallies and individual votes from the General Court roll call files. Presiding, excused and absent are shown separately: one member presides over each House roll call and does not vote except to break a tie.
Inexpedient to Legislate
Decided on a division vote. Only the outcome was recorded — there is no count of how any member voted.
Committee reports
Reproduced from the House Calendar in the committee’s own words.
Majority — INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
This bill is intended to solve a nuisance where job-seekers are not presented with the expected salary in public job postings. While the majority of the committee can certainly see how this can be obnoxious, legislating this practice out of existence leads to many problems. First off, it leads to scenarios where employers are significantly disadvantaged in negotiations. Free markets require government to not tip the scale in one way or the other. It would also be bad to require the resumes and job applications of potential employees to list the salary requirement. After all, if the state can mandate employers to show their salaries to job-seekers, why shouldn’t it mandate job-seekers to show their salary expectations to employers? This leads to the second major objection: The issue of compelled speech. Both the NH and US Constitutions protect freedom of speech. While this is usually understood to mean that people can say things that people would not like them to say, it also protects the right of people to not say that which they do not wish to say. We also recognize this right in reference to self-incrimination; and by that it is not meant that posting salary ranges against one’s will is criminal, but to say that the underlying principle is that people should not be forced to speak against their will. Therefore, while the majority of the committee respects the intent of the sponsors, we must recommend this bill as Inexpedient to Legislate. Vote 10-9.
Minority — OUGHT TO PASS
This bill requires employers to disclose a good-faith salary range, one they are genuinely willing to negotiate within, when posting job openings. It applies only to employers with more than 50 employees in New Hampshire, which exempts small businesses. Covered employers would list a salary range and a general description of benefits and other compensation. The proposal is modeled on Minnesota’s pay transparency law, and 16 states have enacted similar laws without issue. The job market has changed significantly and is far more complicated than ever before. Online postings attract large applicant pools, and candidates often endure multiple interview rounds before learning pay at the final stage. New Hampshire law currently does not require upfront disclosure, leading to wasted time for both applicants and employers. This bill improves transparency and efficiency, helps applicants determine whether a job is worth pursuing, and allows employers to focus on candidates aligned with the actual compensation, while preserving flexibility to offer more for exceptional candidates.
Hearings and recordings
Recordings are the General Court’s own, on YouTube. Start times are estimates unless stated otherwise, and the player opens early.
- January 13, 2026 at 11:00Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services public hearing recording 1:08:31–1:43:31, about 35 min (estimated)
- January 20, 2026 at 10:00Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services executive session recording 0:22:02–0:25:02, about 3 min (estimated)
- February 5, 2026House floor debate recording (start time not identified)
Page generated 2026-09-03 from data published by the New Hampshire General Court. Granite Record is an independent project, not affiliated with the General Court. The official record always takes precedence. Corrections: [email protected]