HB1767

Opposition Testimony on HB 1767: Unemployment Benefit Eligibility I stand in firm opposition to HB 1767, a bill that presents a troubling restructuring of unemployment compensation in New Hampshire. This legislation threatens to undermine the economic security of our most vulnerable populations, particularly during times of localized economic downturns. The proposed default maximum benefit duration of 20 weeks—with an extension to 26 weeks only under very limited circumstances—reflects a fiscally conservative approach that prioritizes cost-cutting measures over the stability and dignity of working people. Deepening Vulnerabilities As unemployment claims often spike due to unforeseen economic shifts, this bill effectively cuts off vital safety nets for those facing hardships. By limiting the duration of benefits and establishing stringent conditions for extensions, HB 1767 jeopardizes the livelihoods of individuals and families already grappling with economic instability. Many who rely on unemployment compensation are in precarious positions, and this bill presents a significant risk of exacerbating their hardships. Insufficient Attention to Intersectionality From a trauma-informed and intersectional perspective, HB 1767 exhibits a concerning lack of sensitivity toward the diverse experiences and challenges faced by different communities. Groups such as racial minorities, single-parent households, and those with disabilities often rely more heavily on unemployment benefits during economic downturns. This bill fails to account for the systemic inequities that exist and disproportionately impact these populations. Rather than addressing the urgent needs of marginalized communities, it reduces assistance and places the burden of economic resilience squarely on their shoulders. Inefficiency Masquerading as Efficiency Framed as a means of administrative efficiency, the bill ultimately prioritizes a cold, calculating approach to workforce support over human dignity. The requirement for the Department of Employment Security (DES) to publicly monitor and announce eligibility changes does not mitigate the risks presented by limited benefits; instead, it effectively externalizes the costs of unemployment onto communities without providing them with the necessary resources or support to weather these transitions. Lack of Safeguards and Oversight There are insufficient safeguards built into HB 1767 to prevent predictable and preventable harms. When economic conditions fluctuate, so too should the response from our state. By failing to include provisions that account for economic realities, the bill sets a dangerous precedent where vulnerable populations are left to fend for themselves in difficult times. This approach violates the very principles of compassion and community support that we should be striving for. Conclusion In conclusion, I strongly urge you to oppose HB 1767. We must advocate for a system that truly supports working individuals and families, rather than one that prioritizes fiscal limitations over human dignity. Our state has an obligation to protect its most vulnerable citizens and to create an economic safety net that promotes resilience, equity, and stability for all. Thank you for your consideration of this critical issue..