What are state lawmakers doing that actually affects your daily life? Lots! Find out with Front Door Politics: jargon-free non-advocacy state house news at www.frontdoorpolitics.com.

right to work in NH: What does it mean to be a Right-to-Work state? Depending on one’s political perspective, it could mean more employee freedom and a better business climate, or it could mean lower pay for workers.

The New Hampshire Senate gave its answer to that question on April 20 when it approved House Bill 474, one of the most controversial bills of the legislative session.

For some context, federal law prohibits private sector workers from being forced to join unions. But, unions are required to bargain on their behalf if all workers fall under a negotiated contract—and unions are allowed to collect fees for that service.

Under HB 474, New Hampshire’s public employees also would have the choice of whether or not to join a union—and unions would not be allowed to collect fees for negotiating contracts of non-union workers. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Will Smith (R-New Castle).

Two successful House amendments clarify that bargaining agreements negotiated by unions will only apply to their members, and not the workers who decline to join.

The Senate, however, stripped out that provision—meaning unions would still bargain on behalf of non-union employees.

Supporters of the Right to Work Act, as it’s named in the legislation, say it gives both workers and employers more freedom of choice and would spur economic development by creating a more business friendly environment.

Opponents say HB 474 is a solution in search of a problem since it is being pushed by out-of-state special interest groups and not by businesses in New Hampshire, which has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation.

Opponents also say it will depress wages for all workers, while potentially creating different pay scales for workers doing the same jobs. In February, Department of Labor commissioner George Copadis testified that in his six years on the job, not one business had asked him about right-to-work.

The Right to Work Act passed the House in February by a 221-131 vote. The Senate approved its revised version by a 16-8 vote. Gov. John Lynch has promised to veto the measure if it reaches his desk, but Republicans have super majorities in the House and Senate and could override a veto.

If it becomes law, New Hampshire would join almost two dozen other states with right-to-work laws. It would be the first state north of Virginia to adopt such a law. —Michael McCord

closing the JUA cookie jar: A new proposal has emerged to settle much (but far from all) of the legal and political controversy over New Hampshire’s unique medical malpractice insurance fund. 

A House committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 170 on April 19. Primarily, it would settle the matter of who has a right to the extra money in the fund.

SB 170 first forbids the state from claiming any surplus funds from the Joint Underwriting Association—either through legislation or taxation. It also orders that any “excess surplus” funds be distributed to policyholders. That excess measures at least $110 million, according to the bill. And that $110 million is at the core of the two-year controversy.

The JUA (officially known as the New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association) is an otherwise unknown structure. Founded in 1981 by the N.H. Legislature, it was designed to help doctors, hospitals and other medical providers find affordable medical malpractice insurance through a state-administered not-for-profit agency.

Over the years, plenty of money has built up at the JUA from premium payments made by policyholders. The fund goes beyond a prudent reserve, some say, to the point of having “excess” surplus funds.

The JUA became a political flashpoint in 2009, when Gov. John Lynch and Democratic budget writers tried to transfer $110 million in surplus JUA money into the state’s general fund to help balance the budget for 2010 and 2011.

JUA shareholders were joined by Republicans in fighting the transfer, saying lawmakers had no right to the money. The Lynch administration countered that the people had a right to benefit from the surplus JUA funds because the state had established the entity in the first place.

Eventually, the JUA won a lawsuit that reached the N.H. Supreme Court. In its ruling, the Court said the tax-exempt JUA is a private agency, even though the IRS allows it to function within state government.

Senate Bill 170, sponsored by Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry), codifies the court’s ruling and goes a step further by prohibiting any possible taxation on the funds. It also orders that the current excess be distributed among shareholders, effectively emptying the cookie jar.

In a full Senate vote, even Democratic members who had formerly supported the Lynch administration’s stance on JUA supported SB 170 as it passed by a 23-1 vote. Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester) was the sole objector. —Michael McCord