Processing Your Payment

Please do not leave this page until complete. This can take a few moments.

June 12, 2024

Lamont vetoes bill intended to give state aid to striking workers

STEVE LASCHEVER Gov. Ned Lamont in his office at the state Capitol.
By Mark Pazniokas, CT Mirror

Gov. Ned Lamont delivered his expected veto Tuesday of a vaguely written bill that was intended to provide up to $3 million in state aid to striking workers without explicitly saying so.

Lamont was also opposed to a more transparent effort to provide jobless benefits, but he made no mention in his veto message of the rejected bill’s intent and instead focused on its lack of statutory standards.

Without standards, Lamont wrote, “there is a risk of inefficiency, mismanagement and lack of transparency in their intended allocation.”

The veto prompted an immediate backlash from labor leaders, including Ed Hawthorne, the president of the Connecticut AFL-CIO, which had made jobless benefits for strikers its top legislative priority.

“Gov. Lamont has failed to hear the voices of thousands of working people who urged him to stand with striking workers,” Hawthorne said. “The governor had a choice — stand with corporate CEOs or stand with working people. Unfortunately, he chose corporate CEOs.”

Lamont has sided with labor over business on several high-profile bills since taking office in 2019. He signed laws that rapidly increased the minimum wage from $10.10 in 2019 to $15.69 this year, created a nearly universal mandate for private employers to offer paid sick days and established a paid family and medical leave program.

In 2022, the Democratic governor also signed a labor bill banning “captive audience” meetings that unions say are used to thwart organizing. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Connecticut Business and Industry Association are challenging the constitutionality of the law as a preemption of federal labor law.

The bill vetoed Tuesday would have shifted unexpended funds held by the state comptroller’s office to a new “Connecticut families and workers account” and directed the comptroller to use it “for the purposes of assisting low-income workers.”

It was passed with little debate in either chamber. In the House, Republicans voted against it without challenging Democrats to publicly identify its intended beneficiaries.

Only in the Senate was its purpose acknowledged during the debate.

Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, said, “It is good. It is humane. It is something that recognizes that workers who are undertaking a strike because negotiations have failed, often because stonewalling has occurred by employers.”

The veto was applauded by Carol Platt Liebau, the president of the conservative think tank, Yankee Institute.

“Gov. Lamont’s objections to the process are well founded, as citizens have a right to be heard on legislation prior to its passage,” she said. “Not only is this bill wrong on process — it is bad policy, as well. Government should not be tipping the scales in labor negotiations between its citizens, and taxpayers should not be forced to pay striking workers.” 

One of the union leaders criticizing the veto was Rocco Calo of Teamsters Local 1150, which staged a six-week strike against Sikorsky Aircraft in 2006.

“I know first-hand from our experience in 2006 how important it would have been to have access to unemployment insurance assistance,” Call said in a written statement.  “Then, like now, employers use the threat of financial stability as a bargaining chip and strategy against the workers at the bargaining table, causing imbalance in negotiations.” 

Patrick Buzzee, president of the Connecticut State Council of Machinists, issued a similar critique.

“Just like they do at the bargaining table, corporations made threats and leveraged their resources to try to get their way,” Buzzee said. “As a union who has seen this playbook before, we know how to stand up for working people facing off with a multibillion-dollar company.”

Lamont wrote he was open to talks about how the state might assist low-income workers — if the bill had clear goals and standards:

“I remain committed to working with [the] legislature to develop sound policies that ensures the effective use of public funds, maintains transparency and accountability in government operations and continues to prioritize the needs of our our low-income workers and families.”

Sign up for Enews

Most Recent

Most Recent

0 Comments

Order a PDF