Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat sensitive to how Connecticut ranks on business friendliness, is giving a labor coalition greater space this year to make the case for extending jobless benefits to strikers.
Lamont’s coolness to a strikers’ benefits bill passed by the Senate two years ago, as well as its novelty at the time, were factors in the House refusing to debate the measure in 2022. Last year, his position came closer to outright opposition.
But the governor’s office confirmed Thursday what labor activists have been telling lawmakers: Lamont is neutral at this point and open to further discussions about labor’s insistence that the measure is relatively modest in its reach.
Only 7% of the private-sector workforce is unionized, and the bill only would apply to strikers out more than two weeks — longer than most strikes in the state, said Ed Hawthorne, the president of the Connecticut AFL-CIO.
Businesses remain vehemently opposed.
“This legislation would result in an unprecedented policy change that goes against one of the major tenets of the state’s unemployment benefits system — the availability and willingness of an employee to work in order to receive benefits,” said Andy Markowski of the National Federation of Independent Business.
That was the essence of Lamont’s opinion last year.
[RELATED: Jobless benefits for strikers in CT? Idea dividing labor committee]
Hawthorne said he was not surprised at the governor’s willingness to take another look. The governor has balked at tax increases on the wealthy sought by the political left, but he has been a reliable ally on laws sought by unions, even on issues that did not resonate at first with a wealthy Greenwich businessman.
“Time and time again, this governor has come down on the side of workers, whether it’s a $15 minimum wage, family and medical leave, paid sick days or captive audience,” Hawthorne said.
Hawthorne and other allies were at the Legislative Office Building on Thursday for a public hearing on the strikers’ bill and other measures high on labor’s agenda, most notably a bill expanding the state’s paid sick days law.
“This bill will encourage an employer to come to the bargaining table sooner and to remain at the bargaining table longer,” Hawthorne said.
In addition to the governor’s new openness to the strikers’ bill, House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, said after a study done last summer, he now is personally in favor of its passage.
“That’s huge,” said Rep. Manny Sanchez, D-New New Britain, co-chair of the Labor and Public Employees Committee.
Ritter’s personal support does not equate with a guarantee he would call the bill for a vote. He said he has told labor lobbyists the burden is on them to convince his caucus — and the governor — to support the bill.
“It will be important to the caucus to see where the governor ultimately stands,” Ritter said.
[RELATED: CT union leader seeks Senate seat, complicating leaders’ loyalties]
Ritter said the concept of jobless benefits for strikers gave him pause two years ago, smacking of government siding with labor on private contract disputes.
“Does it undo the balance of power?” Ritter said. “I don’t think it fundamentally changes things.”
Most strikes in Connecticut end within two weeks, and jobless benefits still mean a significant loss in income to workers, Ritter said.
The strike against Stop & Shop supermarkets in April 2019 was Connecticut’s last major strike. It lasted 10 days, and strikers would not have been eligible for benefits under the proposed bill.
“Our company had not been on strike in over 30 years. We went on strike because our employer wanted to eliminate health care benefits for spouses, reduce our pensions and not give wage increases for Sunday overtime,” said Lucille Sciaretto, one of the strikers.
She testified at the public hearing.
About 4,600 nursing home workers who walked out for 22 days in 2001 would have had benefits for one of their three weeks on the picket line.
Chris DiPentima, the president of the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, said legislators should listen to the unions when they argue that the reach of the bill would be limited.
The bill, he said, is a solution in search of a problem.
“Most of our members in Connecticut have very good relationships with their workers,” DiPentima said. “That’s why there isn’t the need for this kind of legislation.”
DiPentima said anything that could add to demands on the unemployment insurance trust fund, which became insolvent during the COVID-19 pandemic, should be carefully reviewed.
Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, said the bill still is worthwhile.
“This is not, as some people say, a windfall to workers who are looking to take time off or something that’s going to increase strikes or make the strikes of greater duration, because a strike is a hardship on the people who go on strike, and they know it from the very beginning,” he said.
The measure is a House bill this year, the chamber that was the obstacle to passage two years ago.