‘Labor committee votes to advance 2 striking worker bills’ | CT Inside Investigator

January 15, 2025

As published by CT Inside Investigator:

 

Sampson objected to the bill, objecting to the bill’s title, which frames it as protecting and advancing worker’s rights. He argued that there are already systems to address worker safety and argued the bill was really a “way to interfere with a private, contractual, voluntary agreement to put one side at a disadvantage over another in what should be purely a voluntary determination of whether to participate for all parties involved.” He argued the bill was dangerous to Connecticut’s fiscal future and would tell companies not to do business in the state. 

 

The legislature’s Labor and Public Employees Committee voted during its January 14 to advance two bills on allowing striking workers to receive unemployment benefits.

The first vote was to advance a concept involving providing unemployment benefits to striking workers.

Similar legislation, to introduce a $3 million non-lapsing account in the General Fund to assist low-income workers, was also introduced during the 2024 session and made striking workers eligible to receive unemployment benefits after they were on strike for 14 consecutive days.

The bill was opposed by Republicans, who argued it was “trickery” because it made no mention of striking workers.

Gov. Ned Lamont called it “too cute by half” during a press conference recapping the session and called on the legislature to hold an up or down vote on taxpayer dollars being used to support striking workers during the next legislative session. The bill passed during the final hours of the 2024 session.

Rep. Gale Mastrofrancesco, R-Wolcott, questioned whether the bill should be raised as a draft because it had been raised the previous year. She questioned whether language from the 2024 session would be used again. Committee co-chair Julie Kushner, D-Danbury, said she was not sure whether the language would differ and suggested someone might raise a point the committee wanted to consider during a public hearing.

Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, had similar concerns, saying he was sympathetic to Mastrofrancesco’s questions. He added that he had “fundamental, philosophical problems” with the bill.

Sampson stated unemployment benefits, according to the state department of labor, are designed for a specific purpose and to qualify workers need to be unemployed through circumstances that are no fault of their own, are able to work, and are looking for work. Workers who are voluntarily striking, Sampson stated, are in violation of all three.

Rep. Joe Canino, R-Torrington, also expressed concerns with the bill. Canino said he was concerned the bill was tipping the scale to one side in disputes between private entities.

A vote to advance the concept fell on party lines, with votes being held open for members who were not present.

The committee also voted to draft a committee bill that would protect warehouse workers and give striking workers unemployment benefits. Kushner underscored that the bill is a priority bill for Senate Democrats and a priority of Senate President Martin Looney, D-New Haven.

She said she strongly believed it was critical to pass a bill protecting warehouse workers and cited evidence of workplace injuries at companies, like Amazon, that use work quotas. The committee also voted to advance another concept draft that would protect workers from quotas.

Kushner added that she believes the piece of the bill that applies to unemployment benefits for striking workers is critically important to “leveling the playing field” and allowing workers to exercise their rights under federal law instead of being “hamstrung” or “starved out.”

Sampson objected to the bill, objecting to the bill’s title, which frames it as protecting and advancing worker’s rights. He argued that there are already systems to address worker safety and argued the bill was really a “way to interfere with a private, contractual, voluntary agreement to put one side at a disadvantage over another in what should be purely a voluntary determination of whether to participate for all parties involved.” He argued the bill was dangerous to Connecticut’s fiscal future and would tell companies not to do business in the state. Rep. Steve Weir, R-Hebron, also made similar statements.

Rep. Nick Gauthier, D-Waterford, said he was proud to support the bill and glad it was a priority.

The committee held a roll call vote on the bill, which fell on party lines, and votes were held open for members who were not present.