Despite being one of just three bills vetoed by Gov. Ned Lamont following last year’s legislative session, legislation that would allow certain striking workers to receive unemployment benefits is again under consideration by the General Assembly.
Senate Bill 440 was introduced by the Labor and Public Employees Committee and is among 18 bills scheduled for a public hearing on Tuesday.
SB 440 would allow workers on strike during a labor dispute that begins on or after Dec. 14, 2027, to receive unemployment benefits as long as the strike has been “continuous for 14 days.”
Last year, a similar bill passed both the House and Senate, predominantly along party lines.
Lamont, however, vetoed the bill after repeatedly stating during the session that he did not support it.
In issuing his veto, the governor said that while he supports “doing everything we can to protect our unions, … paying striking workers is a bridge too far and doesn’t help our cause.”
Asked for an update of the governor’s position on the bill, spokesman Rob Blanchard said it has not changed but that Lamont is “always willing to work with legislators and labor unions on how to make sure workers have the ability to exercise their rights to organize.”
Sen. Rob Sampson (R-Wolcott), a ranking GOP member of the Labor Committee, said he again strongly opposes the bill.
By resurrecting this bill year after year, he said, Democrats send a negative message to businesses in the state by interfering in private labor agreements to give labor an advantage in negotiations over businesses.
The bill “is dangerous to Connecticut’s fiscal future,” Sampson added. “It tells companies not to do business in the state.”
Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney (D-New Haven), did not respond to a request for comment on the bill.
In testimony submitted in advance of Tuesday’s hearing, Paul Amarone, senior policy director for job growth and manufacturing with the Connecticut Business & Industry Association, said his organization opposes the bill for several reasons.
“The federal and state unemployment insurance system was created to provide temporary wage replacement to individuals who are unemployed through no fault of their own,” he said. “Striking workers do not meet that standard.”
Amarone also noted that the U.S. Department of Labor has stated that unemployment benefits for striking workers may conflict with federal program requirements, if claimants are not genuinely available for work and seeking employment and could “place a state out of conformity with federal unemployment insurance rules.”
He noted that adding benefits for striking workers also could strain the solvency of the state’s unemployment fund.
In addition to the striking workers bill, the Labor Committee also will hear testimony on SB 5492, which would prohibit the use of noncompete agreements and exclusivity agreements unless they meet certain criteria.
Amarone also submitted testimony on that proposal, stating that it would effectively eliminate noncompete agreements for a significant portion of Connecticut’s workforce, “including many mid-level professionals who routinely have access to sensitive business information, client relationships, and proprietary strategies.”
He noted that the bill stipulates that a noncompete clause would be automatically void for employees earning less than two times the minimum wage and for independent contractors earning less than five times the minimum wage, and he added that the limits are “arbitrary and disconnected from the realities of the modern workforce.”
Amarone states that CBIA opposes the bill and asks the committee to take no action on it.
Testimony will also be accepted on SB 436, which would require employers in the retail, hospitality, food service and long-term care industries to provide employees with their work schedules at least 14 days in advance, and to pay additional
compensation when they make schedule changes after posting a schedule.
Tim Phelan, president of the Connecticut Retail Network, submitted testimony opposing the bill in advance of Tuesday’s hearing.
Phelan states that while the bill “may be well-intentioned, it would be counterproductive and do more harm than good.”
“At a time when retailers … are struggling to find workers in
sufficient numbers, legislation that would impose more hurdles and more obstacles is the wrong remedy at the wrong time,” he states. “It seeks to impose predictability in a very unpredictable time.”
The Labor and Public Employees Committee’s public hearing on Tuesday will begin at 10 a.m. in Room 1C of the Legislative Office Building.
