For once, Connecticut can emulate California in a positive way — and Gov. Ned Lamont can veto a bill to prove our state is becoming a growth economy that’s no longer reflexively hostile to business.
At the stroke of midnight on the last day of the legislative session, the Connecticut General Assembly passed a bill to subsidize striking workers with our tax dollars. The bill is similar to one that California’s Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed last year as too extreme.
It’s not complicated. State government shouldn’t use our tax dollars to pay striking workers. This misguided policy means government is effectively taking sides in private labor negotiations, incentivizing labor unrest and prolonging strikes — which will raise the price of everything from food to construction projects.
In a legislative sleight of hand, members of the Connecticut General Assembly moved proposed HB 5164 “An Act Concerning Unemployment Benefits” into a new vehicle, Substitute HB 5431 “An Act Establishing the Stabilization Support and ARPA Replacement Fund.”
The new benefit is hidden by an unassuming name designed to deter public scrutiny, and even the official bill analysis leaves policy experts uncertain about what the bill entails. Its summary reads, “The bill establishes an account known as the ‘Connecticut families and workers account.’ Monies deposited into the fund shall be used by the Comptroller for the purposes of assisting low-income workers.” This vague, ambiguous language isn’t just an affront to good government and democracy — it doesn’t even accurately portray the fund’s actual purpose.
[RELATED: Lamont to veto bill providing state aid to strikers]
Rather than unions using their own funds to assist workers during a strike — a prime justification for their existence and the collection of dues — the AFL-CIO and other big labor organizations have shoved this bill through the legislature to force taxpayers to pick up the tab.
When a similar bill was introduced in 2022, one Stop & Shop worker testified in 2022 that this policy was designed for the precise purpose of increasing employee “leverage.” He admitted, “Had we had unemployment benefits to rely on during the 2019 strike, we might’ve been able to stay out longer.”
It’s worth noting that the legislation places no restriction on union strike funds, so striking workers can collect funds from their unions as well. The result? Workers could be paid more to go and stay on strike than they would have earned working. This is a recipe for ongoing labor unrest.
As flawed as the law’s substance is, the process by which legislators are trying to sneak it over the finish line is no better. Politicians need to pass clear bills in the light of day, where voters can evaluate their actions. As for the union leaders, they’re seeking to circumvent the bargaining table altogether, and instead rely on political horse trading, where politics trumps common sense policy.
Politicians let them get away with it in exchange for endorsements and free campaign workers — at the expense of consumers and the taxpayers. There is a reason that unions are generally considered to be Connecticut’s dominant special interest group.
Government is supposed to remain neutral in disputes between its citizens — this includes private sector management and labor. This legislation weaponizes the safety net funded by taxpayer dollars and puts government’s might behind a powerful special interest…yet again.
Our government should be trying to minimize labor unrest, not incentivize it by mandating that taxpayers pay unemployment for the workers striking against them. This policy will simply drive up costs for all of us and make running a business in the Constitution State even more difficult.
Frank Ricci is a Labor Fellow at Yankee Institute and a former firefighter union president.
Related Stories:
Lamont to veto bill providing state aid to strikers
At deadline, CT Senate passes bill benefiting strikers
Lamont ‘skeptical’ about jobless benefits for strikers