The universal chorus of campaign promises and Governor Malloy’s round of well-received speeches to the business community suggest that job creation will somehow move from rhetoric to action before the Legislature decamps this session.
What’s not as clear is whether those piloting the ship of state have learned a thing about the perception that Connecticut remains unfriendly to business. The two policy pieces are linked and trying to create jobs without improving the business climate is folly.
It’s still early in the legislative session but a classic battle is shaping up over a pair of bills — one mandating sick time for employees and the other placing restrictions on what employers can say to employees in staff meetings. Each has been through the legislative mill before and came up short. But the very fact they’re back in 2011 suggests the magnitude of the problem.
If the Democrats in charge — from Malloy to the rookie backbencher — want business to think the majority party now “gets it,” something has got to change and these two bills seem a great place to start.
Despite the overheated language of the CBIA, neither bill is likely a massive job killer. That’s not to say either is trivial. The sick-pay issue hits the smallest of small businesses and can impose a crippling burden on the kinds of ventures that produce new jobs. And the gag rule is aimed at larger employers with unionized or potentially organizeable workforces.
The larger import though is the message that the bills send: Labor is in charge in Connecticut. Each bill backs business against the wall and imposes an uncertain cost.
The business community certainly is under no delusion that the playing field is level. But it would like a simple signal that the Legislature isn’t going to salute every new idea labor runs up the flagpole.
What ties these two legislative measures together is the fact they are brought forward by labor interests and both expand Connecticut’s reputation as a nanny state. Certainly the history of the state and the DNA of its people tilts left, toward social activism. In many ways, that’s who we are. And that’s not irreconcilable with a tolerable business climate.
The key is moderation, a word that should be familiar in the Land of Steady Habits. But the fact is in the area of regulation, our steady habit has been to behave like the right coast cousin of California, which prides itself on being on the bleeding edge of every new expansion of regulatory control. It’s that urge to be out front that is at the heart of this state’s reputation as a poor place to do business.
Let’s start by adjusting the target.
Take mandatory sick time as an example. The idea is in its infancy. It bubbled to the surface in 2006 and so far a handful of deeply blue cities — San Francisco, Washington D.C. etc — have adopted it. No state has joined in, although today a dozen, plus the federal government, are looking at legislation. Do we really need to be No. 1? Can we retain our liberal credential if we’re, say, No. 15? Let others take the risk. Let others build the record. Then we can take up the issue and have a reasonable discussion.
The gag rule, which would give unions a communications edge never envisioned by the National Labor Relations Act, is a similar cutting-edge fight. Let’s sit out this one and let others take the lead.
Give the business community here a chance to not be on the frontline of every new issue, every new fight, and maybe, just maybe, the perception of a business-unfriendly climate will soften a bit.
A little moderation seems a small price to pay for improving the business climate.
