Relative to extending hiring preferences for military members and their spouses to the state and private businesses, and establishing purchase preferences for disabled veterans and military spouses regarding state supply purchases.
Impact
If enacted, HB 64 will alter state employment policies by mandating that veterans, their spouses, and disabled veterans receive hiring preferences in employment practices. This extension could significantly increase job opportunities for veterans and their families while promoting veteran-owned businesses in state procurement processes. The inclusion of military spouses reinforces the idea that families of service members are integral to the support network for those who have served, thus fostering a culture of inclusivity.
Summary
House Bill 64 aims to extend hiring preferences not only to military veterans but also to their spouses and active duty service members. By expanding the definition of veteran to include the spouses of active duty members, the bill seeks to create more equitable employment opportunities within both state and private sectors. Moreover, the bill establishes purchasing preferences for products and services provided by disabled veterans and military spouses to enhance their involvement in state supply purchases.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB 64 is generally positive among veteran advocacy groups, who view it as an essential step in recognizing the contributions of military families. Supporters argue that extending benefits to spouses not only aids military families but also recognizes the sacrifices they make. However, there may also be some concerns about the implications for employment equity, as critics argue that such job preferences might limit opportunities for non-veteran applicants.
Contention
Notable points of contention around HB 64 involve the potential impact on local employment markets and the fairness of hiring preferences. Opponents may fear that prioritizing veterans and their spouses could inadvertently disadvantage other qualified candidates in a competitive job environment. The debate highlights the balance between honoring service members and ensuring equitable job opportunities across the board.
Relative to tenant and contract manufacturers of beer, wine, and liquor; allowing pharmacists to administer influenza, COVID-19, and other FDA licensed vaccines without explicit approval from the general court; and, restricting the purchase of real property on or around military installations.
Requiring rules regarding criteria for military occupational specialties and relative to the penalty for false reports of suspected abuse and neglect made to the division for children, youth, and families.
Relative to educational and employment opportunities and protections for military families and their dependents and relative to temporary licenses for emergency and advanced emergency care providers.
Relative to positions within the department of military affairs and veterans services, making an appropriation to the state regenerative manufacturing workforce development fund, and adjusting and making an appropriation relative to the medicaid reimbursement rates for ambulance services.
Requiring rules regarding criteria for military occupational specialties and relative to the penalty for false reports of suspected abuse and neglect made to the division for children, youth, and families.
Making 17 the age of consent for marriage if either party is active duty military and removing language regarding age waivers for marriage registration records, since age waivers are no longer issued in New Hampshire.