(UPDATED 4:15 p.m.) HARTFORD, CT – Connecticut workers shouldn’t have to choose between better working conditions or putting food on the table, union advocates and legislators said at a news conference Thursday.
Sen. Julie Kushner, D-Danbury, and Senate President Martin Looney were joined by Connecticut AFL-CIO President Ed Hawthorne, as well as workers and fellow legislators, in advocating for a new bill that would provide unemployment benefits for workers on strike.
The legislation – Raised Bill 5164 – which Kushner said she is hopeful will get across the line this session, would give striking workers access to benefits from the Unemployment Insurance trust fund after being on strike for two weeks. The unemployment trust fund – which is paid for by employers across the state at a range of 1.1% to 11% per employee – is a pool of money that funds unemployment benefits for workers across the state. Benefits are paid during an unemployed person’s first 26 weeks of unemployment.
Going on strike, Hawthorne said, is a “last resort” that no one prefers.
“This bill will encourage employers to come to the bargaining table sooner, and stay at the bargaining table longer,” Hawthorne said.
Kushner said that the legislation about preventing employers from starving out workers, adding that protecting 401Ks, pensions, and wages with strikes, is workers standing up for themselves.
“This is not a handout,” she said.
Currently, unemployed workers – not including those on strike – are compensated up to a maximum of $721 per week, according to the Department of Labor. The sum represents an increase from a previous maximum of $703.
Hawthorne said striking workers also do not currently qualify for food assistance.
According to Hawthorne, roughly 7% of private sector employees in the state are covered by unions. He and Kushner, who serves as co-chair of the Labor and Public Employees Committee, said that small businesses will not be exempt.
Hawthorne referenced recent strikes, including the Hollywood writers’ strike, as a means of indicating how brutal the conditions can be in some job actions. He said putting more power and control in the hands of workers is the purpose behind the bill.
Ashley Zane, a senior public policy associate with the Connecticut Business & Industry Association, said in a phone interview that the organization is opposed to the legislation, and that it creates issues of equity between companies. What it becomes, Zane said, is small businesses subsidizing larger companies in times of strikes or unemployment.
Sen. Rob Sampson, who is a ranking member on the Labor and Public Employees Committee, said that he does not expect the legislation to pass, and that it is a “bridge too far” in the minds of many residents.
Sampson added that unions “extort” companies, whether large or small, into paying more and providing more benefits for employees. He said that people in Connecticut don’t believe that those who voluntarily leave their jobs should receive benefits.
Rep. Steve Weir, R-Hebron, said the legislation is a “gross overreach” by the state, and that he is cautious of the “unintended consequences” of the bill. While Weir said he wants a high standard of living for the residents of the state, he stipulated that the government should not have a presence at the negotiating table.
“There is a wish and a want to do good,” he said, “but sometimes proposals do not look at the bigger picture.”
Looney said that while the bill will not result in a large windfall for workers because of the high percentage of strikes that end within two weeks, it will still offset some of the hardship of going on strike.
Similar legislation was introduced in the Senate last year. The bill received a favorable vote in the Senate, but did not come up for a vote in the House. Multiple workers shared their strike experiences at the event, and detailed how important they think the bill could be for striking employees.
Unionized state employees are prohibited from going on strike by state law and as such would not benefit from passage of the legislation.
